D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game

[pemerton]

Yeah, I mean, it IS possible for DW GM to say "fictionally that isn't possible", the canonical example being a fighter trying to hack a virtually invulnerable dragon with his sword.

My feeling in relation to that one is that it is a golden opportunity on a platter, and so the correct response from the GM is your sword breaks!

If that's too hard, then a soft move - you sword bounces harmlessly of its hide, and it turns to breath flame on you - what do you do?

4e clearly doesn't allow for that in COMBAT, but it seems like it is at least possible in other situations, as the canonical example is the unintimidatable duke (though that example has long been panned).

I think that the unintimidatable duke is like an invisible foe in combat - it's at the borderline between fair and unfair in terms of the players understanding what they are up against and what actions are feasible/optimal.

I think each table has to develop its own sense of where that borderline sits. I found that, over time, I was more prepared to push limits as the players got a better sense of what their PCs could do under pressure.

 

[pemerton]

I do my best to avoid the types of situations you've described here, especially the examples you've given of telling the players (or revising) what their PCs really do. If some information is hidden, I telegraph its presence, and I try to follow "say yes or roll the dice" and adjudicate without reference to secret backstory.

<snip>

Why do the players aspire (for their PCs) to doing something they can't? I think this is nearly always because they lack a complete understanding of the fictional positioning. Since my preference is to say "yes" or roll the dice, there's a possibility that the PCs can succeed at any action declaration that's at least valid.

A question of clarification: suppose a player declares (speaking as their PC) I climb the wall and then you call for a STR (Athletics) check and the player fails the check, do you allow that it may turn out not to be true (in the fiction) that the PC actually climbed the wall? My feeling is that the answer is yes, but I want to check we're on the same page.

And then a question about your method as GM: are you saying that you approach 5e D&D as a "no myth" game - ie there is no unrevealed backstory that is drawn on as a factor in action resolution? At the risk of stirring the pot, I'm going to mention @Ovinomancer who has strong views on the feasibility of that - I'm not trying to set up any sort of cage match, but am interested in hearing thoughtful posters talk about the range of feasible approaches with the world's most popular RPG.

 

[pemerton]

But the key point is that in a game like BW, or DW for that matter, UNREVEALED BACKSTORY CANNOT EXIST. I mean, I'm not 100% sure of BW, maybe there are some ways it could arise?

Burning Wheel has the concept of the GM's "big picture" - and in the Adventure Burner the possibility is floated that some knowledge-oriented action declaration might collide with the GM's big picture.

The GM is expected to tell a player, plainly, if a proposed intent for a Wises check would contradict the big picture, or some related aspect of situation or setting. I would regard this as being in the same general domain of GM authority as the GM's authority to tell a player a rewriting of a Belief or Instinct must be postponed until the current situation - intended to challenge it - is resolved.

Obviously this requires judgement - there's no mechanical process here, or "best practice" for a RPGA GM at a table of strangers!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My feeling in relation to that one is that it is a golden opportunity on a platter, and so the correct response from the GM is your sword breaks!

If that's too hard, then a soft move - you sword bounces harmlessly of its hide, and it turns to breath flame on you - what do you do?

Which I believe is basically the canonical response, lol. I'd say the 'sword breaks' is a bit on the harsh side, though it may depend on the situation. I mean, is there some reason to believe the PC is not now in a hopeless situation? If that's the case, then lead on, but the 'fan of the characters' (GM) probably should be willing to give them some sort of, perhaps costly, 'out'.

I think that the unintimidatable duke is like an invisible foe in combat - it's at the borderline between fair and unfair in terms of the players understanding what they are up against and what actions are feasible/optimal.

Yeah, I mean it really isn't hugely different from, say, putting the heroic tier PCs in the presence of an ancient huge red dragon. Clearly fighting isn't an option in that case! As I said above, there needs to be an 'out', and in the case of the Duke there is, you have to use diplomacy. My objection to the Duke scenario was that it was like a linear plot, it can only go one way and the 'walls' feel more like rails than obstacles to overcome. So I judge things often by INTENT.

I think each table has to develop its own sense of where that borderline sits. I found that, over time, I was more prepared to push limits as the players got a better sense of what their PCs could do under pressure.

Right, so in relation to 5e, what I see is that its a game where the shape of process that the game lays out is vulnerable to the erection of these sorts of 'walls'. Put in classical terms, the DM has a very nasty sweet trap over in corridor C. Every time the PCs venture in any other direction the adjudication of whatever obstacle appears discourages further progress in that direction. Now, in a really pure incarnation, it comes out as pretty acceptable, that's simply the path which the evil mastermind intended to draw the foolish PCs into taking. The DM might have drawn this up, but overall its just a challenge, albeit one that showcases a particular trap. However, in more complex scenarios this does often verge into what I would label as 'force', and we start to lose player autonomy. As you say, each table has to sort this out in its own way, and not surprisingly they often choose to employ different sets of rules as a consequence.

Honestly, I'd find 5e vastly more palatable if WotC would just publish a variation that was intended to play like a good Story Game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A question of clarification: suppose a player declares (speaking as their PC) I climb the wall and then you call for a STR (Athletics) check and the player fails the check, do you allow that it may turn out not to be true (in the fiction) that the PC actually climbed the wall? My feeling is that the answer is yes, but I want to check we're on the same page.

And then a question about your method as GM: are you saying that you approach 5e D&D as a "no myth" game - ie there is no unrevealed backstory that is drawn on as a factor in action resolution? At the risk of stirring the pot, I'm going to mention @Ovinomancer who has strong views on the feasibility of that - I'm not trying to set up any sort of cage match, but am interested in hearing thoughtful posters talk about the range of feasible approaches with the world's most popular RPG.

As I just mentioned, a Story Game version of 5e would be welcome. However I'm not sure what that would entail exactly. It seems like it would need stronger 'guardrails' around the value of player declared PC actions. Either the game would have to codify something similar to BW's approach where the INTENT and ACTION are both declared, and the dice bind both sides to generate a fictional outcome which honors that in the case of success, or maybe a stronger set of practices laid out in terms of something closer to DW-like moves where, again, both sides are bound more by the immediate fiction and intent, and where the 'give and take' is more precisely defined than in bog-standard 5e. Other things might also be implemented, like some sort of extension of the traits/inspiration concept, but you need the player and DM to be much more fundamentally equal in the fiction to make it work, IMHO, no matter how you cut it. All of this implies that DM secret backstory might take on a bit different role, though that doesn't mean it cannot exist.

 

[Hriston]

Or you have done your job just fine in describing an environment that the PC doesn't necessarily know everything about.

There's a wall, sure; but not until you try climbing it (and, by roll, fail) do you realize just how slippery it is.

So the example of gameplay we're imagining goes something like this:

1.<The DM has adequately described the environment which includes a wall.>
2. Player: Dave the Barbarian climbs the wall to see what's at the top.
3. DM: Not so fast Dave, make a DC 15 Strength (Athletics) check to find out just how slippery this wall really is!

If I was the player in this example, I might feel that (3.) calls (1.) into question.

They can state their actions any old way they like provided I can a) parse and-or interpret what it is they're trying (action) and b) in some cases figure out what it is they're hoping to achieve (goal).

But it's understood by all involved that the "try to" is always there, even if unspoken and even if unnecessary in the moment.

"I walk along the road." - the "try to" is unnecessary here 99.9+% of the time, but it's still implied regardless.
"I climb the wall." - the "try to" is often very necessary here, and is both implied and assumed even if left unsaid.

Okay, so your players have no direct input into the fiction. Is that correct?

 

[Oofta]

So the example of gameplay we're imagining goes something like this:

1.<The DM has adequately described the environment which includes a wall.>
2. Player: Dave the Barbarian climbs the wall to see what's at the top.
3. DM: Not so fast Dave, make a DC 15 Strength (Athletics) check to find out just how slippery this wall really is!

If I was the player in this example, I might feel that (3.) calls (1.) into question.

In my game it would be simple. "As you start climbing, you realize the cliff is far more slippery than it first appeared.". I don't see any conflict.

On a related note, can PCs say "I open the door" only to find it locked or jammed or do they have to try the door first?

I'm never going to describe every detail of the setting perfectly and don't try. Some things cannot be known or confirmed by a PC until an attempt is made.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So the example of gameplay we're imagining goes something like this:

1.<The DM has adequately described the environment which includes a wall.>
2. Player: Dave the Barbarian climbs the wall to see what's at the top.
3. DM: Not so fast Dave, make a DC 15 Strength (Athletics) check to find out just how slippery this wall really is!

If I was the player in this example, I might feel that (3.) calls (1.) into question.

100% this. Non-telegraphed hidden environmental details lead to player frustration, IME. I mean, give them something to gnaw on: “the wall glistens in places” or “there’s moss at the base of the wall” or “there’s moisture in the air here” or whatever. They still probably won’t connect the dots until they are asked to make a check to avoid slipping or, you know, actually touch the wall and realize it has slippery spots before they even start climbing.

 

[Hriston]

In order to be playing D&D a participant must accept at least the limits to their freedom to decide that their group understands the D&D rules to impose. To be playing a roleplaying game they must also accept at least the limits to their freedom implied by the fiction that their group has constructed and counts valid.

Choosing within the limits of a game is playing that game. @pemerton usefully illustrated some of the ways that can play out.

Perhaps your intuition can be reframed that in order to play the game of D&D I as player must accept limits on my freedom to roleplay. Gaining in this way a coherent experience that could not be enjoyed were I to insist on total freedom.

That's all fine, but this thread is about having the freedom to play the game within the limits of the game. It's not about having the freedom to not play or to disrupt the game. I wouldn't have thought that needed saying.

 

[Oofta]

That's all fine, but this thread is about having the freedom to play the game within the limits of the game. It's not about having the freedom to not play or to disrupt the game. I wouldn't have thought that needed saying.

What people are trying to say as far as I can tell is that the limits of the game are defined by the group. What those limits are, how they are expressed, will vary from table to table. I think that's pretty clearly baked into the rules of the game.