Action resolution (as per April 24 Rule of Three)

[Zireael]

On the RAW versus RAI versus RAP

What is RAP?

As for the player who says 'I roll Diplomacy' - just force him to role-play instead of rolling. Ban on rolling social skills...

 

[Sunseeker]

According to Rodney Thompson, D&Dnext will use the following basic approach to action resolution:

As an example, let's say that the heroes are in a tavern trying to get information out of a member of the Thieves' Guild. The smooth-talking rogue says that he wants to deceive the thief into thinking that she is a member of the same guild to earn his confidence. Alternatively, the brawny fighter wants to crush a pewter mug in his hand to intimidate the thief into talking. If we have done a good job of educating the DM, then the DM simply sets an appropriate DC for success and calls for a Charisma check (from the rogue) or a Strength check (from the fighter). Rather than call on some kind of subsystem, we simply educate the DM on the best way to set a DC, and the best way to choose which ability to use for an ability check. That also has the advantage of allowing the player to simply say what his or her character does, then having the DM respond with the kind of check to be made, meaning that players are always talking about their actions in terms of what their characters do.​

Now maybe I'm missing something, but I don't entirely see how this is going to produce results radically different from 4e. To be more precise: I can see how reducing the skill list to a stat list simplifies things. But I don't see how it is meant to work wonders for fictional positioning.

In this system, a player cannot have his PC make an action resolution role without explaining what it is that s/he is doing: crushing the mug, lying about guild membership, etc. The same thing is true in 4e - a player must explain what his/her PC is doing, and a skill check or (less often) an ability check is then made.

In 4e, players typically attempt to have their PCs engage the situation in ways which maximise their chances of success (eg by looking for ways to use their best skill bonuses). In the D&Dnext system, presumably the same will be true - the player of the high CHA, low STR rogue, for example, is going to avoid describing his/her PC trying to crush too many mugs, for fear of looking like an idiot.

What am I missing?

I'm confused, are you suggesting that players shouldn't have to express what they want to do? I may be misreading, but I think the only way to play D&D is by vocalizing your actions.

Or are you suggesting the system should just allow players to "do what they want" without a roll? While that may be aesthetically pleasing, it really can't be done in a D&D without bypassing D&D. I mean, whats the point of rules and structures if you want a system that doesn't need them?

In every game I've ever played in, even non-D&D systems, the player generally has to tell the DM what they want to do, and attempt it. "I threaten the guy by crushing a mug in my hands." "I woo the guy by showing off my breasts." "I trick the guy with my silver tongue." And then make some sort of roll using a d20 and a stat or skill score related to that action.

 

[Scribble]

I have to say I like this... It feels a lot like what we (we meaning my group) used to do in 2e and before with stat checks. I'm trying to do X- "Ok make a STR check."

I'm personally much more of a fan of the rules being a lot less "specific" and more covering overall categories with room for the DM to mess with on the fly. This fits in perfectly.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm confused, are you suggesting that players shouldn't have to express what they want to do? I may be misreading, but I think the only way to play D&D is by vocalizing your actions.

Except it's not. Unless you qualify "I use diplomacy" and "I walk up to the guard, and strike up a conversation about the weird events at the mayor's house." as being an equal level of vocalization.

Many people feel that as long as your ability to drive a session can be done using purely mechanical terms, the game loses a lot of its narrative ability, and player buy-in of the story. I believe Pemerton's point is that there's little qualitiative difference between "I use diplomacy" and "I make a Charisma check," at least in terms of making the game play experience radically different.

 

[Sunseeker]

Except it's not. Unless you qualify "I use diplomacy" and "I walk up to the guard, and strike up a conversation about the weird events at the mayor's house." as being an equal level of vocalization.

This depends on the game, some games are full of theater majors who act out all the funny voices and silly dialog. Some games are not. I think both methods of "making a diplomacy check" are valid in their setting. I ask my players to tell me what they do, it doesn't have to be specific, but I don't accept "I make a diplomacy check." as a valid way to well, make a diplomacy check.

They are equal, in their own given contexts.

Many people feel that as long as your ability to drive a session can be done using purely mechanical terms, the game loses a lot of its narrative ability, and player buy-in of the story. I believe Pemerton's point is that there's little qualitiative difference between "I use diplomacy" and "I make a Charisma check," at least in terms of making the game play experience radically different.

To an extent I agree, as I pointed out, I feel this is subjective to the game. I've been in a few games with REALLY good Role-players, and it can get a little awkward when you're not as good, I don't feel players should be under the gun to well, be professional actors.

As for skills vs stat-checks, I'm iffy on this matter, I like skills for certain purposes, but I understand the value of a stat check, and I use those too. I like the "training" side of skills as opposed to a raw strength check, I do see Diplomacy as something more of a skill rather than a raw charisma check. Even uncharismatic folk can often learn how to be diplomatic, they may not be quite as good, but that doesn't mean they can't ever be.

And that's really what concerns me with raw stat-checks replacing skill checks, some things in life are really skills. Some things in life are just raw ability, and it's important to draw a line between those two things. EX: I almost always take stealth on any character I make, even paladins, I may never be as good at it as the rogue, but it's something I can work on. My dexterity does not work like that.

Sure, for the Bard whose charisma is through the roof, a diplomacy check and a charisma check aren't too far off, especially at lower levels and when we assume a character has only a few points in any skill. But for a fighter, the difference between a Diplomacy check(which that fighter could have just dumped points into), and a Charisma check is a big deal! What it comes down to is that raw stat-checks end up demanding probability-denying levels of MAD. Skill checks only require player choice.

Or am I misunderstanding?

 

[P1NBACK]

Can I make a melee attack with my Charisma then?

"I swing my sword, using my handsome features and a sly wink to distract her."

 

[Morrus]

To an extent I agree, as I pointed out, I feel this is subjective to the game. I've been in a few games with REALLY good Role-players, and it can get a little awkward when you're not as good, I don't feel players should be under the gun to well, be professional actors.

Do you have to be a professional actor to say "I crush a mug" rather than "I use Intimidate"?

As an aside, I think there is a subtle difference between "I use Intimidate" and "I make a Charisma check". Most of the skills are presented as actual verbs - they sound like actions. "Intimidate" sounds like an action; "Charisma" does not.

It's a subtle difference, but I feel it can tie into how a player sees and interacts with the rules structure. I'm not saying it magically overrides a particular group's playstyle; just that it has a net average little nudge towards descriptions rather than skill names.

But - and here's the kicker. None of that matters; it won't come up, because players can't declare when ability checks are needed. This ties in to the other clever part - not every action needs a check: some of it you can do automatically with a good ability score, and therefore the player himself doesn't know whether a check is required unless the DM tells him so. This is a change from 3E/4E, where easy actions just had a low DC - technically a check was still needed, so the player knew he could declare he was making a Climb check and that the DC was (probably) 5. In 5E, the check is dispensed with for certain actions, but the player doesn't know.

This means we have a player not being able to say "I make a Strength check". If ability checks are only called for by the DM in response to appropriate input from the player, the player has no choice but to say "I crush a mug."

He can't say "I make a Strength check" because the DM replies "I'll decide when you need to make a Strength check, thank you very much; now what are you doing?"

Player: "Oh, I'm crushing a mug."

DM: [after simply referring to the character's 17 strength] "You're a strong guy; the mug crushes easily."

In the latter case, no check was even needed. In some cases, a check might be needed. But the player is no position to determine whether or not an ability check is required, so can't declare he's making one. All he can do is describe his action and wait for the DM to either tell him what happens or ask for an ability check.

 

[Sunseeker]

Do you have to be a professional actor to say "I crush a mug" rather than "I use Intimidate"?

No, but the one professional actor I played with certainly pulled out all the stops in his RPing....and while it doesn't take much to say what you're doing instead of what you're rolling, I do feel this can lead to a very unfriendly environment when you are at a loss for words.

As an aside, I think there is a subtle difference between "I use Intimidate" and "I make a Charisma check". Most of the skills are presented as actual verbs - they sound like actions. "Intimidate" sounds like an action; "Charisma" does not.

It's a subtle difference, but I feel it can tie into how a player sees and interacts with the rules structure. I'm not saying it magically overrides a particular group's playstyle; just that it has a net average little nudge towards descriptions rather than skill names.

That's a good point, and I do agree that skills that sound like actions make players more inclined to take actions rather than roll checks.

But - and here's the kicker. None of that matters; it won't come up, because players can't decalre when ability checks are needed. The biggest effect comes from a player not being able to say "I make a Strength check". If ability checks are only called for by the DM in response to appropriate input from the player, the player has no choice but to say "I crush a mug."

He can't say "I make a Strength check" because the DM replies "I'll decide when you need to make a Strength check, thank you very much; now what are you doing?"

Player: "Oh, I'm crushing a mug."

DM: [after simply referring to the character's 17 strength] "You're a strong guy; the mug crushes easily."

In the latter case, no check was even needed. In some cases, a check might be needed. But the player is no position to determine whether or not an ability check is required, so can't declare he's making one. All he can do is describe his action and wait for the DM to either tell him what happens or ask for an ability check.

Yes...and no, again I think this is variable depending on the table. I don't think all tables should come down to the proverbial "mother may I", but sometimes a DM just doesn't think of a specific action as open when something comes up. So when a player says to me/the party "Hey, I could probably bash this door down instead of unlocking it." Given that I probably didn't make an indestructible door, but might have been hoping for the party to take a more subtle route, I may not have considered that.

So, while I may go "okay, you can make that check", it was really the player who decided that that check was available to them.

 

[the Jester]

Yes...and no, again I think this is variable depending on the table. I don't think all tables should come down to the proverbial "mother may I", but sometimes a DM just doesn't think of a specific action as open when something comes up. So when a player says to me/the party "Hey, I could probably bash this door down instead of unlocking it." Given that I probably didn't make an indestructible door, but might have been hoping for the party to take a more subtle route, I may not have considered that.

So, while I may go "okay, you can make that check", it was really the player who decided that that check was available to them.

But the player still isn't saying, "I can get through that door with a strength check," he's saying "I'm going to try to bash the door down."

 

[Sunseeker]

But the player still isn't saying, "I can get through that door with a strength check," he's saying "I'm going to try to bash the door down."

Alright, but in this case it comes down to the same thing. He's just speaking Roleish instead of Rollese.