D&D 5E A case where the 'can try everything' dogma could be a problem

[delericho]

Without the back and forth, though, the player just says, "Okay, I'm going to roll my History to see if I know anything about the cult, and if that doesn't work, I'll take it to a sage and roll Persuasion." That doesn't make for much of a story, in my mind.

Indeed not. But I wouldn't be telling the story of how the Cleric learned about the icon; I'd be telling the story about how the Cleric defeated the evil cult (or whatever) - finding out about the icon is only a tiny part of that. And, again, the process of finding that information is less interesting (to me at least) than the question of what the PCs do with it if/when they have it.

(Ultimately, of course, this all boils down to a matter of taste, and there's no one true answer on this. So, as always, YMMV.)

 

[delericho]

By making players aware that I'm not going to adjudicate their actions until I fully understand their characters' goal and approach to an action (which needn't be "flowery" or overlong, just clear), these are the kinds of offers I typically get. Little by little, action after action, adjudication after adjudication, these small details add up to characters with a lot of established detail and depth.

Yep, and that's certainly worthwhile. I do wonder how much pressures of time come into this - we're restricted to 3 hours of play every 2 weeks in "campaign mode", so we necessarily try to cut to the chase as far as possible. We're doing "the film of the book" if you will - lots of stuff has to get cut to make the running time.

(For obvious reasons, that doesn't apply if the film is "The Hobbit". )

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I know that every adjudication I make for a player's described action is made with the goals of play in mind - my rulings have to be fun for everyone and lead to an exciting, memorable story. When I'm a player, I also choose to do things that serve the goals of play without a single thought about the objectivity of the setting or the rules as physics.

You are confusing the method of play with the measure of success. Again.

The method of play is as follows: 1) The DM describes the environment, 2) The players describe what they want to do, 3) The DM narrates the results. If you follow this procedure, you will have a fun and memorable story.

Note, in particular, that it is not the player's place to describe the environment. That is entirely the role of the DM. The player does not offer feedback on what the environment may or may not contain. If the DM accepts such feedback, then he or she is deviating from the method of play. By violating the procedure, the integrity of the story is ruined, and it is no longer fun or memorable.

And I mean, go ahead and break any rules you feel like - it's your game - but don't try to claim that you're still playing D&D at that point. Whatever radical ideas you present here are entirely a reflection of your changes, and not at all representative of the D&D experience.

 

[Ristamar]

Without the back and forth, though, the player just says, "Okay, I'm going to roll my History to see if I know anything about the cult, and if that doesn't work, I'll take it to a sage and roll Persuasion." That doesn't make for much of a story, in my mind.

On the other hand, I suppose if the goal is to get through the info dump quickly and back to the action, this style has merit.

The initial back forth for a general knowledge check is largely superfluous. Rolling to see if a character knows something about a religous symbol, for instance, isn't really a choice, nor is it particularly exciting. Unless the DM is caught off guard by a question is incredibly random and/or the information hasn't yet been determined by the DM, it's easier and smoother for the DM to decide ahead of time whether the player knows something.

 

[Agamon]

The initial back forth for a general knowledge check is largely superfluous. Rolling to see if a character knows something about a religous symbol, for instance, isn't really a choice, nor is it particularly exciting. Unless the DM is caught off guard by a question is incredibly random and/or the information hasn't yet been determined by the DM, it's easier and smoother for the DM to decide ahead of time whether the player knows something.

That was my initial point. If it's not important or interesting, why bother rolling? But if it is important or interesting enough for a roll, then there I take time to discuss it with the players.

 

[Agamon]

Indeed not. But I wouldn't be telling the story of how the Cleric learned about the icon; I'd be telling the story about how the Cleric defeated the evil cult (or whatever) - finding out about the icon is only a tiny part of that. And, again, the process of finding that information is less interesting (to me at least) than the question of what the PCs do with it if/when they have it.

(Ultimately, of course, this all boils down to a matter of taste, and there's no one true answer on this. So, as always, YMMV.)

Right, like I wrote, skipping the boring parts for the fun stuff is the way to go, in my opinion. And what's fun is definitely down to taste.

 

[delericho]

Unless the DM is caught off guard by a question is incredibly random and/or the information hasn't yet been determined by the DM, it's easier and smoother for the DM to decide ahead of time whether the player knows something.

Sometimes, indeed quite often, it's more fun for the DM if he doesn't know everything. You get a good and perfectly valid story if the PCs know that the icon belongs to the lost cult of Gygax. But you also get a good and perfectly valid story if the PCs don't know that particular piece of information. Further, you get a different story in each case.

One of the great joys of DMing a role-playing game is that the DM doesn't write that story alone, and so quite often it's rather fun to let the dice fall where they may and see what story results. (And bear in mind, of course, that the DM shouldn't be assuming the PCs will find or investigate the icon at all, since they could have failed in the previous encounter. So he really should have some idea how things play out if they don't have that info anyway.)

 

[Ristamar]

Sometimes, indeed quite often, it's more fun for the DM if he doesn't know everything. You get a good and perfectly valid story if the PCs know that the icon belongs to the lost cult of Gygax. But you also get a good and perfectly valid story if the PCs don't know that particular piece of information. Further, you get a different story in each case.
One of the great joys of DMing a role-playing game is that the DM doesn't write that story alone, and so quite often it's rather fun to let the dice fall where they may and see what story results. (And bear in mind, of course, that the DM shouldn't be assuming the PCs will find or investigate the icon at all, since they could have failed in the previous encounter. So he really should have some idea how things play out if they don't have that info anyway.)

Players write the story through choices and their respective consequences. Randomization may be fun for some DMs, but it has nothing to do with choices or consequences. If a DM incorporates a lot of those elements into a game -- allowing the random roll of the die to determine the direction of the story without any impetus -- he's basically redressing the story as a (semi)randomized dungeon.

Granted, it's not a problem as long as both the players and the DM are aware and accepting of that style of play.

 

[iserith]

You are confusing the method of play with the measure of success. Again.

The method of play is as follows: 1) The DM describes the environment, 2) The players describe what they want to do, 3) The DM narrates the results. If you follow this procedure, you will have a fun and memorable story.

Not necessarily. A DM that presents a forgettable environment, players that do boring things, and a DM that serves up terrible adjudications and punitive results can fail to achieve the goals of play. I've seen these sorts of games in action - I'm sure we all have at one time or another. The basic conversation of the game doesn't automatically create a a fun time and exciting, memorable story.

Note, in particular, that it is not the player's place to describe the environment. That is entirely the role of the DM. The player does not offer feedback on what the environment may or may not contain. If the DM accepts such feedback, then he or she is deviating from the method of play. By violating the procedure, the integrity of the story is ruined, and it is no longer fun or memorable.

I'm not advocating the player describe what is in the environment. "I look around for boxes in the alleyway" is the player saying what he or she wants to do. Then I can narrate the results as "Yes, you see three wooden boxes in the alleyway about 20 feet distant. What do you do?"

And I mean, go ahead and break any rules you feel like - it's your game - but don't try to claim that you're still playing D&D at that point. Whatever radical ideas you present here are entirely a reflection of your changes, and not at all representative of the D&D experience.

I don't think I'm presenting any radical ideas here. I'm completely in line with the Basic Rules.

 

[Uchawi]

As your players become more experienced the chances are greater they will game the system, or use the rule to the fullest extent. As a DM you can counter this by keeping the story interesting, knowing how to pace it, and hand out information when it is needed. If the players get stumped, burned, or bored, all they have left are the rules.