D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[pemerton]

The character/player dichotomy has long been a problem for exactly the reasons presented above. In-game things should be sorted out with in-game skills and abilities, ie: if your wizard is smart he solves the thinky puzzles, not the idiot playing him. It's a great reason to use "secret" information through passing notes, that way when Bob the Wizard figures out the puzzle, even if his player doesn't, you pass him a note explaining what exactly it is he figured out.

<snip>

There are times when player action is necessary of course, but these things should be kept to a minimum. If you're trying to make what is essentially a skill challenge last an hour or more....it should either be very very complicated and difficult to roll. Simple as that. The challenge should be structured and ordered to basically only let one person go at a time, and it should be skill-limited in order to limit who can do anything at all. Honestly it's going to need to be something really darn tootin special to last upwards of an hour, especially if it is something in game that is taking under a few minutes. To great of a time differential breaks immersion, generates boredom and on the whole is confusing. None of which promote creative thinking or even slightly encourage the players to become involved.

I think it is very difficult to give generally applicable advice. That is why I think a good DMG would recognise the well-known range of approaches to the came, and identify the equally well-known range of techniques suited to those various approaches.

For instance, I don't think I would ever follow the advice that you give here. Working out what actions to declare - be that in combat, in a skill challenge, in trying to solve a puzzle, etc - is the essence of play. I might kibbitz about it with the players if I feel like it, because talking with my friends about game play is fun. So, for instance, if a player is trying to work out which pathway to take for his/her PC's move action in combat, I might talk about the merits of various combinations of avoiding difficult terrain, sucking OAs, etc. But I wouldn't ever modulate such talk to reflect the mental stats or ingame features of the PC. It's table-talk, not part of action resolution or scene-framing.

It's true that clever people are less likely to make unforced errors in game play, are more likely to remember the full suite of resources available to them, etc. At my table, when someone forgets to declare some action that would have been clever to do, we call them a "bad Magic player". (Eg the player misses by 3 on an important attack, and then forgets to use Insightful Riposte to get +3 to hit as an interrupt.) If see bad Magic play in the offing, I may or may not table-talk as GM, depending on anything ranging from pacing considerations to my mood at that moment, but again I wouldn't modulate that in reference to any ingame considerations. It's table-talk.

The same thing is true in skill challenges. Is it better to suck up to the NPC, or try and bully him? That's a decision the players have to make. Do they make an Insight check to try and work out how he might respond to one or the other tactic? That's a decision for the players to make too.

The fact that clever people are likely to do better at RPGing, whereas being really good at running doesn't help even if the PC you're playing is a long-distance runner, is something that I see as an inevitable consequence of the game being an intellectual pastime - it involves words, and maths, and authorship - rather than a physical one.

 

[Hussar]

If you're playing football and you're not running during the game because you're "having fun" that way, you'll be expelled from the team pretty quickly. Players making at least a minimal effort to play their characters is not only what RPGs are about, it also makes the game more fun for everyone.

So we're back to fun police? Play the way you like or GTFO? I have to meet your standards in order to play?

Yeah, no thanks.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

So we're back to fun police? Play the way you like or GTFO? I have to meet your standards in order to play?

Yeah, no thanks.

Hey, cool. Here's the bench.

It's not fun police: you can't play role playing games by yourself, so there has to be some measure of consensus among players and DM on what they want to play and how they want to play it. If there's no common ground, you're not really playing together, you're just sharing a table.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

last night I was playing a 2e retroclone (myth and magic) one PC is playing a Psion using the 2e book. He has 52 power points at full. He just got disintegrate (very early from the wizard he is 4th level) and it costs 40 power points... he was really excited about showing it off... and they came to a locked door. He declaired "I disintegrate it"

I then said "wait... umm, your really smart and wise character is really going to do that?!? are you sure?"

He said "Yea, I really want to use the power..."

so my answer was "You do know being mid dungeon, odds of a monster in the next room or two are high right?!!?"

His answer was "So?"

So I said to the player next to him "I will hate myself in a moment..." then sigh and say "You might want to use say, boot, or a handle to open the door, and save your big bad ass attack for a monster..."

The player didn't even think and just said "I could use X power for that" (I really don't remember I think his pyrokinessis)

my answer was "How many times can you do that after spending 40pts?"

"Oh, none, I only have 2pts left then..."

"So what are you doing??"

"letting kurt open the door..."

does anyone think that was wrong of me to remind him that it isn't a game to his smart character and he should think before he does something?

 

[KarinsDad]

Why is the reverse not also true? If Larry is having fun relying on his character's stats to see him through, why do you care? Why be a character knowlege police officer as a DM?

I don't care. I'm just not going to go straight to the dice instantly in every circumstance.

If someone HAS to roll the dice first get a bunch of knowledge from the DM before he will even start roleplaying, then it's probably not the type of person who fits well with me as a DM.

Roleplay over rollplay. Just my preference.

 

[KarinsDad]

last night I was playing a 2e retroclone (myth and magic) one PC is playing a Psion using the 2e book. He has 52 power points at full. He just got disintegrate (very early from the wizard he is 4th level) and it costs 40 power points... he was really excited about showing it off... and they came to a locked door. He declaired "I disintegrate it"

I then said "wait... umm, your really smart and wise character is really going to do that?!? are you sure?"

He said "Yea, I really want to use the power..."

so my answer was "You do know being mid dungeon, odds of a monster in the next room or two are high right?!!?"

His answer was "So?"

So I said to the player next to him "I will hate myself in a moment..." then sigh and say "You might want to use say, boot, or a handle to open the door, and save your big bad ass attack for a monster..."

The player didn't even think and just said "I could use X power for that" (I really don't remember I think his pyrokinessis)

my answer was "How many times can you do that after spending 40pts?"

"Oh, none, I only have 2pts left then..."

"So what are you doing??"

"letting kurt open the door..."

does anyone think that was wrong of me to remind him that it isn't a game to his smart character and he should think before he does something?

I think that either way works.

I personally think that what you did was ok, but if a different DM would have let him blow through 40 PP and THEN he found out how much it cost, I suspect that he would have gotten the message more loud and clear by making the mistake. The best teacher is experience, not the big brother DM.

 

[smerwin29]

I talked to my players tonight and they brought up a problem with the mod I didn't think of... shouldn't everyone run away whent he first person dies? why is the woman with the flower still there? I mean maybe a second target... but if you saw someone randomly (and at least at first that is what it appears) get electrocuted why not scatter?

The girl with the flower is outside the inn.

 

[Hussar]

I don't care. I'm just not going to go straight to the dice instantly in every circumstance.

If someone HAS to roll the dice first get a bunch of knowledge from the DM before he will even start roleplaying, then it's probably not the type of person who fits well with me as a DM.

Roleplay over rollplay. Just my preference.

Oh, hey, neither am I going to go straight to the dice. Certainly not to my taste. But, conversely, I'm not terribly fussed if someone at the table plays differently than me. Someone needs the dice crutch because he hates talking in funny voices? Well, ok, fair enough. Here's your dice. Not terribly to my taste, but, AFAIC, as a DM, I'm not there to force my taste on someone else.

Again, this is presuming that this is someone I want at the table, of course. But, I've certainly had players over the years who have very little interest in the theatrical side of role playing. To each his own. I'm not going to police that. And I would suggest to the other players at the table that they not butt in either.

Heh, it's kinda funny. As a player, I'm really, really picky about my DM's. As I've gotten older, I've actually become much more choosy about whose game I want to join. To the point where I will drop out of games fairly quickly (but always with a polite thank you and notification to the DM - I HATE people who just fade away) if I'm not having a good enough time. But, OTOH, as a DM, I've become a lot less picky about players. I'll let anyone at the table so long as they're not disruptive or wasting people's time.

 

[KarinsDad]

Oh, hey, neither am I going to go straight to the dice. Certainly not to my taste. But, conversely, I'm not terribly fussed if someone at the table plays differently than me. Someone needs the dice crutch because he hates talking in funny voices? Well, ok, fair enough. Here's your dice. Not terribly to my taste, but, AFAIC, as a DM, I'm not there to force my taste on someone else.

Again, this is presuming that this is someone I want at the table, of course. But, I've certainly had players over the years who have very little interest in the theatrical side of role playing. To each his own. I'm not going to police that. And I would suggest to the other players at the table that they not butt in either.

Heh, it's kinda funny. As a player, I'm really, really picky about my DM's. As I've gotten older, I've actually become much more choosy about whose game I want to join. To the point where I will drop out of games fairly quickly (but always with a polite thank you and notification to the DM - I HATE people who just fade away) if I'm not having a good enough time. But, OTOH, as a DM, I've become a lot less picky about players. I'll let anyone at the table so long as they're not disruptive or wasting people's time.

The only person who makes funny voices at our table (with the exception of the DM on rare occasions) is my wife who is playing a female halfling. Once in a while, she starts talking in this super high pitched voice that is SOOOOOO irritating that people will start complaining about it (in a good natured way) if she keeps it up for too long.

When I talk about roleplaying with regard to problem solving, I'm not talking about being a thespian. The few true thespian players that I've ever gamed with were more annoying than entertaining (probably because they do not know when to turn it off, "enough with your drunken dwarf and his slurred speech", it's not funny or entertaining the 50th time). With the exception of a bit of in character conversation vs. out of character conversation (one not really being roleplaying, but that doesn't often bother me), I'm mostly talking about the people at the table brainstorming solutions to problems without having the desire or need to pick up dice when I discuss problem solving roleplaying. Sure, when appropriate (i.e. when the DM calls for a roll or when a player asks for a roll and the DM says ok), ability checks are fine. I'm just not a big fan of players who first impulse is to either roll dice, or ask the DM for a roll (shy of being in combat).

Door 1: "I want to check for traps at the door." (picks up dice)
Door 2: "I want to check for traps at the door." (picks up dice)
Door 3: "I want to check for traps at the door." (picks up dice)
Door 4: "I want to check for traps at the door." (picks up dice)
Door 5: "I want to check for traps at the door." (picks up dice)

DM: "Enough already. I'm assuming that you are checking for traps at all of the doors and I will tell you when I need or want a roll."

 

[mcbobbo]

If voices are to be used, I prefer them to be consistent. Otherwise just use narration. "She quickly explains the way and your character will easily remember."

As for dice every door, that player is looking to mitigate traps entirely. You shouldn't acquiesce so easily unless you don't want traps in your game. Just have them tell you the check result. "10 to find traps in this room." It's just as quick as anything else and keeps you from being responsible if you forget. "What did you roll for traps in this room?" You should ask that anyway from time to time just to keep them guessing...