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

[Lanefan]

By "direct input into the fiction" I meant the power to author shared fiction through your PC's action declarations with no other requirement than the table's consensus that the declaration is valid. You seem to indicate (in the part of your post I've bolded) that at your table this is true of the PCs' words but not of their actions. What prevents the DM from responding to a player that has given a speech in their character's voice with, "That's what you try to say, but what actually comes out of your mouth is..."

Round here if you're speaking in character* then what you say is what your character says. It's on the other player(s) and-or DM to determine how well those words are received, however, based on the personality etc. of the PC(s)/NPC(s) being spoken to.

So the DM doesn't say "What actually comes out of your mouth is...", but has the right to determine what the NPC heard and-or how it came across.

* - and, if-when table chatter gets out of control, to shut it down I'll sometimes rule that anything you say is considered to have been said in character; and yes this sometimes leads to characters talking about some adventuring group they've never otherwise heard of called the Vancouver Canucks...

 

[Hriston]

Didn't we just agree that limits imposed by game rules are limits on roleplay?

Game rules are a limit on how a player can actuate their character. The suggestion spell is one example, and there are a plethora of others.

Why aren't we forced to conclude that each table working within the rules as they grasp them is limiting roleplay only in the way the game expects and requires?

I agree with that conclusion, but because different tables grasp the rules differently, they limit roleplaying to a greater or lesser extent.

 

[clearstream]

I agree with that conclusion, but because different tables grasp the rules differently, they limit roleplaying to a greater or lesser extent.

Agreed, that is a corollary.

I might put it that game rules necessarily limit roleplay, which we accept in order to gain something. Exactly what that comprises, and how we prioritise it, differs per group. Albeit clustered around discernible norms.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Determined on the fly by the DM as the situation demands. Sometimes zero, often not zero but still a very small number.

Why? Why not based on some sort of objective process? I mean, AT LEAST one that establishes the relative effectiveness of one PC vs another!

Hard numbers for every class for every skill would get unwieldy pretty fast; and - as you touch on below - 3e's skill system was its own type of mess in part because it a) tried to divorce skill from class and b) tried to have a skill for everything rather than just a few key thief-y things.

I have no idea why divorcing skill from class was problematic, I don't agree with you on that one. But as I say, in that sense 4e 'cured' the problem, there are canonically a closed list of 19 skills, no more, no less. They cover pretty much every situation that would come up in a D&D game, certainly with a level of granularity which is sufficient for establishing the standard modus of each PC (along with the rest of the PC build, but skills are a fairly good baseline to build from). 5e has, IMHO, made some mistakes with skills, but the fundamental conception is intact, they are basically 'knacks'. They represent ways in which a given PC approaches problem solving; one character lies, another convinces, a third threatens.

I really see no reason why this would be in any way inferior to AD&D's "Oh just make something up and toss some random type of dice" which was, IMHO abhorrent. I mean, maybe in 1979 it was just not quite cutting edge, but it got old fast. I mean Bunnies and Burrows had a serviceable skill system in 1975...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is a good post and gives me a lot to think about, but I'm wondering what the role of established fiction is in all this. I mean, the DM doesn't usually just describe <generic bad guy(s)>. I guess the assumption is that if the PCs are going into combat with some enemy, then it's just about a match for them, but encounters can vary on either side of that, and especially if there's a threat of TPK, the DM is probably going to want to telegraph to the players just what they might be getting their PCs into. If the DM describes a regular orc guardsman, for example, I think at a certain level (of D&D) a player could just declare, "I kill the orc," and expect that to be adjudicated with a simple "yes".

Well, there are of course different valid approaches. Dungeon World for instance doesn't really say. There are tougher and less tough monsters, but the GM is a 'fan of the PCs', and whatever he trots out is a hard move at whatever moment it is, basically. So wiping out the characters being not on his agenda, presumably he introduces some appropriate opposition. Still, you don't know what WILL happen. This is not really very different from 5e CR either, nor 4e encounter budget for that matter.

In terms of telegraphing, yeah, I think it is somewhat of a GM obligation to explicate the fictional situation. If the dragon is simply not killable, then clearly a different narrative can emerge (IE the PCs surrender, bargain, run, hide, whatever). Agreed on 'trivial combat' too, there's no reason to play that out. 4e lets you make things minions, but if you run into one minion orc, you obviously won't set up a combat. Maybe the rogue rolls to see if he gets the jump on it, and if not then it darts off and its decision time...

Of course things like SCs give you some additional structure, and you can always provide additional structure around what exactly is an encounter ABOUT. If all you need to do is get the McGuffin, then you don't have to BEAT the dragon, you just have to be quick, maybe a bit lucky, and perhaps use some clever teamwork.

 

[pemerton]

Unless the fiction already had me/us looking for something in particular, my answer to this would nearly always be "Nothing in particular, just seeing if there's anything that might be of interest".

And by that what I'm really saying as a player is "On a closer look is there anything noteworthy here that your initial narration didn't hit, or that was forgotten*, or that isn't obvious on a quick glance but becomes so on a longer look?"

* - and yes, forgetting to narrate something important happens to all of us now and then - don't deny it!

This is consistent with what I posted earlier: those "open-ended" knowledge/perception checks are really request for more prompting/content-injection from the GM. That's why I'm generally not a big fan.

In my games I'll usually give people options, some potentially gated behind an appropriate check. I don't want to get into a guessing game with the player trying to find the right thing to look for. The player can also follow up with other things.

<snip>

I want to be flexible but I don't even try to explain every single detail, I don't know how you could. At the same time the player can't create something I don't think should be there. For me the key is that my world feels real and consistent

To me at least, this suggests an approach similar to Lanefan's, where the GM's conception of the fiction is a focus-point for player action declarations, at least some of which have the purpose of eliciting more of that conception from the GM.

On the whole that is an approach that I try to avoid.

I think there is an inescapable place for fictional positioning as well, since clearly these are games where some degree of cleverness seems to matter. I mean, its theoretically possible for the fiction to be nothing more than a fig leaf, but I doubt even you will find that terribly satisfying in the long run, nor that you really play that way.

In some of the systems I play (eg Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, to an extent Classic Traveller) fictional positioning factors in as a bonus die (or perhaps bonus dice) on a check. It doesn't factor into the "say 'yes'" decision, which is based on narrative considerations.

In MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, fictional positioning only matters to resolution if it has been "mechanised" in some fashion, whether as a Scene Distinction or by someone creating an Asset. This can have the effect of turning some of the fiction into nothing more than a fig leaf. It certainly dials down the grittiness!

In a 4e skill challenge, fictional positioning can effect difficulties, but it's bigger influence is on how checks are framed and consequences narrated. This is a little bit like its role in AW or DW.

In any system genuinely asinine and blind-to-game-world declarations are trivially "say 'no', and don't roll". The line becomes blurrier and broader in systems designed for generic rather than specific narratives.

<snip>

Having by whatever means reached "say 'yes', or roll" a DM can then again consider advantageous positioning in the following ways. Positioning can raise or lower stakes, pointing to "yes". Positioning can be an input to parameterising "roll", pointing to better or worse odds.

Your first category of action declarations - genuine asinine and blind-to-game-world - typically are not a big issue for me. I see that more as something that comes up in club-style games with players who don't take the game or the medium very seriously.

If a declaration is based on genuine confusion, among sincerely engaged participants, as to what the fiction of the game is, then that can be worked out via conversation. The GM's voice will obviously be important in that discussion, maybe even the most important contribution, but I don't think a conversation like that is going to be resolved simply by a GM's exercise of authority.

Your second paragraph raises different sorts of possibilities that seem apposite in various different RPGs. Although the stakes you have in mind look like they might be "procedural" rather than "dramatic"/"narrative" stakes - eg like the chance of falling that @Lanefan has posited as inherent stakes in climbing a wall. My preferred approach to "say 'yes' or roll the dice" is the BW approach (itself derived from DitV), where the focus is on narrative stakes and not procedural ones.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is consistent with what I posted earlier: those "open-ended" knowledge/perception checks are really request for more prompting/content-injection from the GM. That's why I'm generally not a big fan.

Another of the long list of reasons why HoML eschews any sort of check that doesn't represent movement towards an overall goal, lol.

In some of the systems I play (eg Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, to an extent Classic Traveller) fictional positioning factors in as a bonus die (or perhaps bonus dice) on a check. It doesn't factor into the "say 'yes'" decision, which is based on narrative considerations.

Hmmm, I think Traveller could potentially be played a lot of ways. In some respects it codes similar to 5e in the sense that not a lot is really nailed down. OTOH there's a strong sense of seeking out and 'making your own adventure' with the whole Patron thing, free trading, TAS, etc. geared towards putting you in the middle of it. I actually don't think we ever used a module or that I even ever 'wrote an adventure' for Traveller, even back in the day. It was all just "play to see what happens" with the GM at most curating the dice a bit. Well, there was that one adventure where everyone was fated to unavoidably die from the very start, lol...

In MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, fictional positioning only matters to resolution if it has been "mechanised" in some fashion, whether as a Scene Distinction or by someone creating an Asset. This can have the effect of turning some of the fiction into nothing more than a fig leaf. It certainly dials down the grittiness!

In a 4e skill challenge, fictional positioning can effect difficulties, but it's bigger influence is on how checks are framed and consequences narrated. This is a little bit like its role in AW or DW.

Yeah, I'd say fictional positioning in 4e SC can affect the structure of the challenge at the detailed level, like DCs and such, and which skill is checked, but narrative pretty much governs the rationale for the overall structure. I am pretty much certain this is what got people upset about it, or saying it was 'unusable', because it is, if you structure your play like 1e would like you to.

Your first category of action declarations - genuine asinine and blind-to-game-world - typically are not a big issue for me. I see that more as something that comes up in club-style games with players who don't take the game or the medium very seriously.

Right, or back when we were playing with other kids as teens. That was a LONG time ago! lol.

If a declaration is based on genuine confusion, among sincerely engaged participants, as to what the fiction of the game is, then that can be worked out via conversation. The GM's voice will obviously be important in that discussion, maybe even the most important contribution, but I don't think a conversation like that is going to be resolved simply by a GM's exercise of authority.

Maybe, maybe not. It surely is going to sound a lot like "well, what if we..."

Your second paragraph raises different sorts of possibilities that seem apposite in various different RPGs. Although the stakes you have in mind look like they might be "procedural" rather than "dramatic"/"narrative" stakes - eg like the chance of falling that @Lanefan has posited as inherent stakes in climbing a wall. My preferred approach to "say 'yes' or roll the dice" is the BW approach (itself derived from DitV), where the focus is on narrative stakes and not procedural ones.

Right, the real question is what did you 'pony up', or what are the consequences to YOU AS A CHARACTER if this intent isn't met. Like, if you're risking your associate's lives on a gamble, how does that go down when it fails? THOSE are stakes, hit points of damage is fictional position. There's always some further challenge that makes sense if your hit points are X, or if they are Y. The details might change from 'orc' to 'kobold', that's all.

 

[clearstream]

Your first category of action declarations - genuine asinine and blind-to-game-world - typically are not a big issue for me. I see that more as something that comes up in club-style games with players who don't take the game or the medium very seriously.

I had hoped it would be obvious I mentioned this in order to exclude it.

If a declaration is based on genuine confusion, among sincerely engaged participants, as to what the fiction of the game is, then that can be worked out via conversation. The GM's voice will obviously be important in that discussion, maybe even the most important contribution, but I don't think a conversation like that is going to be resolved simply by a GM's exercise of authority.

Confusion isn't right. I am thinking of ambiguity, mystery, and open-endedness. Broader rather than narrower themes. Think of Dogs in the Vineyard versus D&D. (Broader doesn’t mean better.)

What should be at stake, possible next phrases, what is being addressed, is less defined or constrained. What the characters are about is less determined. The world may be less like our own, it may contain genuine mysteries. How do fey behave? That may differ markedly group to group.

Where there may be marked differences, and abundances of novel situations, "'no', and don't roll" is an essential tool. "Say 'yes' or roll" relies on their being no genuinely ambiguous or mysterious situations.

Your second paragraph raises different sorts of possibilities that seem apposite in various different RPGs. Although the stakes you have in mind look like they might be "procedural" rather than "dramatic"/"narrative" stakes - eg like the chance of falling that @Lanefan has posited as inherent stakes in climbing a wall. My preferred approach to "say 'yes' or roll the dice" is the BW approach (itself derived from DitV), where the focus is on narrative stakes and not procedural ones.

Right, the real question is what did you 'pony up', or what are the consequences to YOU AS A CHARACTER if this intent isn't met. Like, if you're risking your associate's lives on a gamble, how does that go down when it fails? THOSE are stakes, hit points of damage is fictional position. There's always some further challenge that makes sense if your hit points are X, or if they are Y. The details might change from 'orc' to 'kobold', that's all.

There is something semantic here getting in the way of communication. Is it right that you both use "fictional positioning" in connection only with things simulated in the game-world, and not connected with what is going on i.e. the narrative?

For clarity, I use fictional positioning to include narrative and simulated (in-world) stake setting. In general terms, I am thinking about where players go all in, or they hedge or hold back, or they become flummoxed and err, or they are sharp and cool and unerring, they are attentive and focused, or they are forgetful and lose sight of what's key, and so on.

Yes, that could be something procedural - such as how they scale the wrought iron fence - but I don't see it so narrowly. What price are they willing to pay to get inside Marlinspike Hall? Do they recall learning about the dobermanns likely roaming the grounds? Players choose and their choices inform what is at stake.

The height of a wall or a dobermann's hit points are I suppose part of the overall fictional position, but they are not what I am thinking of. I am thinking of the very large freedom players must enjoy to make things worse for themselves. To put more at stake, or dial things back a notch. To matter, those must be able to lead to a yes, or change the terms of a roll.

 

[pemerton]

I am thinking of ambiguity, mystery, and open-endedness. Broader rather than narrower themes. Think of Dogs in the Vineyard versus D&D. (Broader doesn’t mean better.)

What should be at stake, possible next phrases, what is being addressed, is less defined or constrained. What the characters are about is less determined. The world may be less like our own, it may contain genuine mysteries. How do fey behave? That may differ markedly group to group.

I don't think I'm following this.

There's nothing about D&D that precludes stakes being made clear. I suspect at many tables they are not, but those are probably not tables using stakes/narrative-based "say 'yes' or roll the dice".

In the context of 4e play, if it's not clear to me what a player thinks is at stake in a situation, I speak to them to clarify it.

Where there may be marked differences, and abundances of novel situations, "'no', and don't roll" is an essential tool. "Say 'yes' or roll" relies on their being no genuinely ambiguous or mysterious situations.

Marked differences between what, or whom?

If the player sees the situation one way - and hence declares such-and-such an action for their PC - and the GM sees the situation another way, I'm not sure why it is essential that the GM's conception should prevail.

I use fictional positioning to include narrative and simulated (in-world) stake setting. In general terms, I am thinking about where players go all in, or they hedge or hold back, or they become flummoxed and err, or they are sharp and cool and unerring, they are attentive and focused, or they are forgetful and lose sight of what's key, and so on.

Yes, that could be something procedural - such as how they scale the wrought iron fence - but I don't see it so narrowly. What price are they willing to pay to get inside Marlinspike Hall? Do they recall learning about the dobermanns likely roaming the grounds? Players choose and their choices inform what is at stake.

The height of a wall or a dobermann's hit points are I suppose part of the overall fictional position, but they are not what I am thinking of. I am thinking of the very large freedom players must enjoy to make things worse for themselves. To put more at stake, or dial things back a notch. To matter, those must be able to lead to a yes, or change the terms of a roll.

I take it that you're describing play that is more about learning the GM's conception of the fiction (eg the GM has already decided whether or not Marlinspike Hall is patrolled by dogs). So the fictional position of the PCs includes stuff that the players don't know about because it hasn't yet been revealed to them by the GM.

If I'm wrong, then I'm even less clear about what you're saying than I thought!

 

[Oofta]

My take on the recent tangent is that the DM creates the world, populates it, sets challenges, runs it. PCs may or may not know what risks are, although the players can always ask for clarification of what the PC knows or can perceive. Do they know if they can open a door? No, not until they try. How could they? Do they know the level of risk associated with trying to swim through that pool of greenish liquid? Not really, although that's a place where as a DM I will try to give them strong clues.

So yes, there is uncertainty about choices and outcomes. Some of that uncertainty can be mitigated with appropriate skill checks. Players can contribute to the world, but it's going to be off-line and I'll be the final editor. During the game session they can come up with different approaches to overcoming obstacles, that's part of the fun of the game. But they can't add something to the game world the DM didn't envision or is just a detail the DM hadn't called out or something that would reasonably be there.

It's a difference between collaborative story including world building* and inhabiting the role of a person immersed in a world. I prefer, both as a player and DM, that a PC is just a PC. A person inhabiting the world and doing their best to overcome the obstacles they encounter. Without always knowing the level of risk, all of the options, or being able to alter the universe to suit them.

*The players do help with world building in my games, but it's off line suggestions and ideas usually related to their PC's background. DM always has final say on what makes sense.