D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Micah Sweet]

All of this is an argument not to have Fortune in the Middle type effects in your game. This is a perfectly valid preference. There aren't a huge amount of them in 5e, and I imagine they can all be removed or altered fairly easily.

However, as printed, 2014 5e (and I assume 2024 5e) does include them. They are there. If you keep them in and use them, a Fortune in the Middle approach allows them to be used without doing the fiction-bending shenanigans you describe.

I'm not aware that 5e really addresses this one way or another, so I don't believe your comments about 'once a roll is made, that's it' are supported by the text. Given feats like Lucky, the strong implication is in fact that 'once a dice roll is made, that's not necessarily it'.

Worth noting: @Lanefan does not play WotC D&D 5e.

 

[Oofta]

And why is spending the point not a representation of how impassioned and moving your character's plea is?

It has no relation to the character’s capabilities. An impassioned speech? How well they can get their point across is dependent (in D&D's simplified model) on charisma. The content of the speech is up to the player.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Quite the opposite: it's placing importance on the fiction and how the mechanics reflect it in sequential time.

No. It’s making the fiction beholden to the events at the table in a way that they need not be.

Put another way, ideally the player never says "I'm trying to persuade the Duke" before or during the process of doing so, unless it's an in-character whispered aside to someone (be it PC or NPC) not sure what's going on. Instead, the player just launches into whatever persuasive arguments come to mind and things develop organically from there as the DM responds in-character as the Duke (and-or any other NPCs who might be involved).

But the player is trying to persuade the duke. Why is it bad that the player say that?

If there's mechanics in place to resolve social scenes then declaring "I try to persuade the Duke to finance our mission" is, technically, all that's required to invoke those mechanics. Yes the DM can ask what you're saying and try to insist on more detail, but all the mechanics demand is that basic action declaration.

So how do you resolve this in your game? Without any dice rolls at all?

Nope. Once a roll is made, that's it. If you want to try to modify that roll, you gotta do it before the roll occurs. This also allows roll-modifying abilities to sometimes be used when in hindsight they weren't needed, which seems far more fiction-realistic to me.

What does “fiction-realistic” mean? Why do you care about events at the table being in some way realistic? I don’t understand this at all.

They're also retroactively changing what happened at the table, which IMO is even worse

No they’re not. At the table, a player made a move, and then another player made a move that cancelled their move. That’s the sequence of events at the table.

In the fiction, a wizard cast a spell at his enemies m, but their sorcerer used a counterspell to cancel his spell before it did any harm.

It seems to me like you’re confusing these two different sequences at times.

 

[Oofta]

So your objection is based on a thing that you didn't do? And it's a thing that I didn't do. How seriously, then, should I take the objection!
...

I tend to not use rules I don't care for. Doesn't mean I didn't experience the application of the rules.

 

[soviet]

Worth noting: @Lanefan does not play WotC D&D 5e.

OK, noted, although the example they used was a (hypothetical) dodge effect that mirrored the way that Lucky etc work in 5e.

 

[pemerton]

It has no relation to the character’s capabilities. An impassioned speech? How well they can get their point across is dependent (in D&D's simplified model) on charisma. The content of the speech is up to the player.

In the imagined rule, the impassioned speech comes from the player.

Which is not inconsistent with D&D's model: as I already noted upthread, which square a PC moves to during combat is determined by the player's choices, not by the INT or DEX score on the PC sheet; which spells a PC memorises is determined by the player's choices, not by the INT or WIS score on the PC sheet; etc.

 

[Lanefan]

No. It’s making the fiction beholden to the events at the table in a way that they need not be.

Wrong way round: it makes events at the table beholden to the fiction.

But the player is trying to persuade the duke. Why is it bad that the player say that?

The character is trying to persuade the Duke, and...

So how do you resolve this in your game? Without any dice rolls at all?

What does “fiction-realistic” mean? Why do you care about events at the table being in some way realistic? I don’t understand this at all.

...in situations like this, ideally what you say at the table word-for-word mirrors what your character says in the fiction.

No they’re not. At the table, a player made a move, and then another player made a move that cancelled their move. That’s the sequence of events at the table.

In the fiction, a wizard cast a spell at his enemies m, but their sorcerer used a counterspell to cancel his spell before it did any harm.

No, a sorcerer used a counterspell to interrupt the wizard's spell before he finished casting it. (and Crawford's SA ruling that a counterspell can itself be countered is the height of stupid in terms of sequentiality in time)

It seems to me like you’re confusing these two different sequences at times.

I don't think so.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't believe "total immersion" exists, so I'm obviously not looking for it. What I believe in--what I've seen--is something like a flow state, which can involve processes just fine: I've lost time to co-op board games at least as much as to TRPGs, and the board games aren't even making a pretense at immersion or even really narrative.

Yeah, I prefer game immersion to any notion of immersion into any singular aspect of the game. It's the total game over just the roleplaying part. As you say, I have felt immersed while playing board games or video games that have nothing to do with play-acting style roleplay. When my partner said at the end of playing six hours of Fabula Ultima as the GM, "I was having so much that I didn't realize how long it had been," that is the sort of game immersion that I value.

 

[TwoSix]

Broke this bit out as it's a separate issue...

If there's mechanics in place to resolve social scenes then declaring "I try to persuade the Duke to finance our mission" is, technically, all that's required to invoke those mechanics. Yes the DM can ask what you're saying and try to insist on more detail, but all the mechanics demand is that basic action declaration.

And I've known (and played with) players* whose approach, because it was allowed by the rules, would default to the basic action declaration and nothing more; and when asked for more detail by the DM would simply repeat the declaration in full knowledge that it was all the game required. Taking away that option by removing those mechanics forces those players to at least try to roleplay the scene.

* - and one DM, who despite running a supposedly-roleplaying game had no patience or tolerance for roleplay or anything else that didn't involve high-action combat; perhaps not surprisingly, that campaign didn't last very long.

I mean, if a bunch of players want high-action low-thespianism play, maybe that’s what the game should evolve into?

“Can we stop talking and get to the point” is a pretty common play style preference!

 

[TwoSix]

RPGs with miniatures and floorplans don't work and are a health hazard. Every time I try to play in them, I eat all the lead figures and have to go to hospital. Checkmate, atheists!

Consuming lead is really just a play style preference and I support you on your RPG journey.