D&D 5E At Your 5E Table, How Is It Agreed upon That the PCs Do Stuff Other than Attack?

[MarkB]

You tell the NPC a lie via active roleplaying. (Though there's nothing wrong with descriptive roleplaying either.)

What if it's not obvious to you that it's a lie (i.e. a statement of intent)? Do players have to commit to every statement they make being truthful if they hadn't declared their intention to lie?

 

[CleverNickName]

What if it's not obvious to you that it's a lie (i.e. a statement of intent)? Do players have to commit to every statement they make being truthful if they hadn't declared their intention to lie?

"A lie is an attempt to deceive."
People might not always know what they are saying is correct or not, but they always know when they are attempting to deceive someone.

 

[MarkB]

"A lie is an attempt to deceive."
People might not always know what they are saying is correct or not, but they always know when they are attempting to deceive someone.

I meant "you as the DM" not the player who was speaking.

 

[iserith]

What if it's not obvious to you that it's a lie (i.e. a statement of intent)? Do players have to commit to every statement they make being truthful if they hadn't declared their intention to lie?

If I'm not sure, I ask.

 

[Hriston]

I don't slap a padlock and lockpicking tools down on the table every time someone wants to open a lock. I don't break out the foam swords and start LARPing every time combat breaks out. I don't hide something in my kitchen and expect the player to find it without setting off that mouse trap. The player does not need to have the skills of the PC in order to have that PC be effective in my game. The character is searching, not the player. The mechanic used to resolve an in-world action when there is uncertainty is a roll of the dice.

That sounds like the same way I play 5E. Do you think there is anyone whose gameplay includes players actually casting spells or actually searching the walls of the room in which they’re playing for secret doors (and hoping to find one)? Even if such people existed, what relevance do you think that would have to the differences between things actual D&D players might say and do at actual D&D tables? For example, the difference between saying (and imagining) their character casts a spell and marking an expended spell slot on their character sheet, or the difference between saying (and imagining) their character searches a dungeon wall for secret doors and rolling a Search check.

There's no hill here other than potentially a hill of strawmen. The character exist and interacts with a fictional world, the player is not searching any more than they are picking that Master Lock.

I agree with this, but then you say this:

I am just expressing my preference, there's no difference in my game between a skill check and swinging a sword. We may add fluff, there may be complications, but ultimately if there is uncertainty on outcome dice will be rolled.

But you didn’t “just” express a preference. You claimed there’s "not really" a difference between a fictional action undertaken by a fictional character (e.g. casting a spell) and an actual action undertaken by an actual person (e.g. making a check). If true, that claim would effectively deny any basis for having a preference for players to describe their character’s actions rather than to state they’re engaging directly with the game’s mechanical resolution process, because the difference between those two things is somehow “not real”. That posters on this thread who’ve expressed a preference are somehow deluded. Are you now walking back that claim to only apply to your game? Because that wasn’t how you initially framed it. I’m also not sure what it means for something that’s otherwise real to be not real only in your games. Do you mean the difference isn’t real in your gaming group, or do you mean it isn’t real in your game world? The latter seems obvious considering the players and things they say and do at the table aren’t real from the perspective of the fiction. Is that what you mean?

NOTE: There are exceptions and edge cases to every rule. If someone doesn't realize they're fighting an illusionary monster they still need to roll to hit even though they can never do damage. Roll low enough and the illusion just dodges out of the way. A persuasion check can be modified by what the character says.

Don’t you mean by what the player says? I mean, how do we know what the character says unless the player says something?

EDIT: or maybe I'm just missing the whole point - that it's not my character rolling the dice to resolve the uncertainty. Which ... is a really weird thing to even point out or make a big deal out of. It has nothing to do with how I handle checks in the game.

So now other people’s preferences are “weird”. I guess that’s an improvement from completely denying they have any reason to exist. If the difference makes no difference to you, then you would choose multiple (maybe all) options on the poll.

 

[Oofta]

That sounds like the same way I play 5E. Do you think there is anyone whose gameplay includes players actually casting spells or actually searching the walls of the room in which they’re playing for secret doors (and hoping to find one)? Even if such people existed, what relevance do you think that would have to the differences between things actual D&D players might say and do at actual D&D tables? For example, the difference between saying (and imagining) their character casts a spell and marking an expended spell slot on their character sheet, or the difference between saying (and imagining) their character searches a dungeon wall for secret doors and rolling a Search check.


I agree with this, but then you say this:

But you didn’t “just” express a preference. You claimed there’s "not really" a difference between a fictional action undertaken by a fictional character (e.g. casting a spell) and an actual action undertaken by an actual person (e.g. making a check). If true, that claim would effectively deny any basis for having a preference for players to describe their character’s actions rather than to state they’re engaging directly with the game’s mechanical resolution process, because the difference between those two things is somehow “not real”. That posters on this thread who’ve expressed a preference are somehow deluded. Are you now walking back that claim to only apply to your game? Because that wasn’t how you initially framed it. I’m also not sure what it means for something that’s otherwise real to be not real only in your games. Do you mean the difference isn’t real in your gaming group, or do you mean it isn’t real in your game world? The latter seems obvious considering the players and things they say and do at the table aren’t real from the perspective of the fiction. Is that what you mean?


Don’t you mean by what the player says? I mean, how do we know what the character says unless the player says something?


So now other people’s preferences are “weird”. I guess that’s an improvement from completely denying they have any reason to exist. If the difference makes no difference to you, then you would choose multiple (maybe all) options on the poll.

Since if I type too much in trying to explain my thoughts you will likely find something to nitpick or I'll say something that can be misinterpreted. So I'll keep this short.

I prefer games where player descriptive skills do not replace character skills. As one example, finding traps is a character skill so nothing the player does other than letting the DM know that their character is attempting to find a trap will influence the outcome. We'll frequently narrate the scene, throw in some descriptive flair, but it's all just fluff and the only thing that matters will be the skill check result.

It's not the only way. There's nothing wrong with other styles of play. The different styles of play are nothing new, I remember having a similar discussion in the AD&D 1E days. It just is, and always has been, my personal preference.

 

[Mannahnin]

edit: ignore

 

[GMMichael]

Other: PC describes action or intention. If it could go poorly for the PC, DM asks for ability check. Also, PCs describe both successes and failures.

 

[Hriston]

Other: PC describes action or intention. If it could go poorly for the PC, DM asks for ability check. Also, PCs describe both successes and failures.

Wait, by “PC”, do you mean “player”? Or is this one of those RPGs about PCs playing an RPG?

 

[Hriston]

Since if I type too much in trying to explain my thoughts you will likely find something to nitpick or I'll say something that can be misinterpreted. So I'll keep this short.

Please don’t tell me what I’m likely to do. If you think I’ve been overly critical or misinterpreted (or misrepresented) something you said, feel free to point out the particular instance or instances.

I prefer games where player descriptive skills do not replace character skills.

I could be wrong, but this seems to posit a set of games in which players are rewarded with success for describing things well: doing things like using precise language, correct grammar, and descriptive adjectives and adverbs, and including sensory information in their descriptions. Such games might exist, but I don’t believe I’ve ever played in one, and I think whether or not a game rewards a high level of descriptive language skill is mostly orthogonal to the topic of this thread and poll except insofar as players and DMs describing things allows them to utilize such skill. The poll doesn’t touch upon whether quality of description plays any part in the adjudication of what is described. The poll is only concerned with the actual matter being described, not how it’s described beyond what information about the character’s action the description contains. For a player with a low level of descriptive language skill, a clear expectation to describe both the character’s action and intention may in fact be helpful in providing a template of sorts which the player can use to ensure they are giving a complete description, focusing on the two important elements, without needing to add unnecessary details. I realize, given what you’ve written below, that what I’m calling “descriptive language skill” is probably not what you mean here, but I wanted to address this because I believe statements like this are one of the reasons discussions of this topic tend to go around in circles with people talking past each other.

As one example, finding traps is a character skill so nothing the player does other than letting the DM know that their character is attempting to find a trap will influence the outcome. We'll frequently narrate the scene, throw in some descriptive flair, but it's all just fluff and the only thing that matters will be the skill check result.

This, on the other hand, sounds like a preference about what is being described rather than how it’s described. If I understand, your preference is for players to describe only their character’s intentions (e.g. to find traps) and not what the character does to realize their desired outcome. This would be consistent with the fifth and sixth options on the poll. This has the effect of minimizing what’s commonly called “player skill” because it doesn’t allow the player to describe their character doing things that would affect whether or not they achieve their goal.

It's not the only way. There's nothing wrong with other styles of play. The different styles of play are nothing new, I remember having a similar discussion in the AD&D 1E days. It just is, and always has been, my personal preference.

Got it, and, for the record, I didn’t think you were making a statement about “one true way” to play the game. The issue I had with your statement was that it seemed to imply that other posters had an impaired ability to discern reality. I think if I’m understanding you correctly, there’s functionally no difference between a player making a “descriptive action declaration” and announcing an intention to roll an ability check at your table because of the way you choose to adjudicate outcomes.