D&D General If you had to choose between quality of story or combat

[Gorgon Zee]

What I (and the people on my side here) object to is the DM deciding 'your character has to act in an idiotic and out of character way'

I'll assume that when the rules specifically say that this is the case, you follow them -- for example when hit by a feeblemind spell (or confusion, to a lesser extent) when you are required by the rules of the game to act in an "out of character way"

This is what seems so arbitrary about your position -- it seems to say that you are fine to role-play:

• Physical affects on your character, no matter if caused by spells, attacks or skills.
• Mental effects caused by spells (feeblemind, confusion, etc)
• Mental effects caused by attacks (actually not sure if there are any in 5E)

But the combination of a skill causing a mental effect is something that should NOT be roleplayed.

It just seems weird that out of the six combinations of {spell, attack, skill} x {physical effect, mental effect} there is exactly one that you won't role-play.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

If you don't find a cat either (1) you didn't search well enough, or (2) it's not there.

That's a False Dichotomy. There's also (3) you searched very well, but failed and just didn't see the cat that was there.

You may have searched very well, but by definition you did not search well enough, because you failed. If you are going to use logical arguments, you need to read more carefully before correcting people.

 

[Remathilis]

D&D still has paladin oaths, and it used to have a lot more behavioral restrictions in the form of alignment constraints based on class and behavioral expectations of deities on clerics IIRC. It's not completely unconstrained.

A paladin oath is something a character chooses willingly when they pick the class and then their subclass. It's not imposed on them by the DM, and thankfully no longer can be uses by DMs to micromanage said character. (That's a whole different rant).

The setting also generally imposes some expectations, obviously; like a character native to the Forgotten Realms really should believe that magic and deities are quite real and that they have noticeable effects on the world; and will likely have their thinking heavily influenced by whatever culture(s) they grew up in.

But you can still play an atheist in Faerun. There is a whole wall built out of them when they die!

I mean, how would you enforce it? Make them roll a religion check and if they succeed declare "your character believes in the Gods"?

 

[AlViking]

A paladin oath is something a character chooses willingly when they pick the class and then their subclass. It's not imposed on them by the DM, and thankfully no longer can be uses by DMs to micromanage said character. (That's a whole different rant).it.

The paladin is the exception to the general rule and even then still only has very high level ideals to live by with a great deal of latitude on how they act and what they believe.

But you can still play an atheist in Faerun. There is a whole wall built out of them when they die!

I mean, how would you enforce it? Make them roll a religion check and if they succeed declare "your character believes in the Gods"?

I had an atheist wizard long ago. He believed that gods were advanced constructs created by the worshipers whose prayers were effectively communal ritual spells. That or they were just human once and got people to worship them. But the heavens or whatever eternal life that was promised? Just an elaborate illusion.

When you died you just ended - if someone was raised from the dead they were a clone with the person's memories. Needless to say that meant he didn't believe in the wall of the faithless either.

 

[tombowings]

This thread has reminded me exactly much of love Pendragon. I've decided to add Pendragon passions to my D&D game as an optional subsystem for players to engage with at their own risk.

Thank you everyone!

 

[Dessert Nomad]

So having dice rolls determine when a PC falls down dead, rather than the player deciding what makes the most sense to them, is not roleplaying?

Nope! In this particular case, there's a character who believes that a door is likely trapped then looks to see if he can find a trap on the door and plans to be cautious opening the door later. If the DM says 'you rolled a 1 when looking for traps, therefore you because a dumb and decided to use your hand to open the door even though you would have used a more cautious approach if you hadn't rolled at all or rolled and not gotten a 1'.

I'll assume that when the rules specifically say that this is the case, you follow them -- for example when hit by a feeblemind spell (or confusion, to a lesser extent) when you are required by the rules of the game to act in an "out of character way"

This is what seems so arbitrary about your position -- it seems to say that you are fine to role-play:

• Physical affects on your character, no matter if caused by spells, attacks or skills.
• Mental effects caused by spells (feeblemind, confusion, etc)
• Mental effects caused by attacks (actually not sure if there are any in 5E)

But the combination of a skill causing a mental effect is something that should NOT be roleplayed.

It just seems weird that out of the six combinations of {spell, attack, skill} x {physical effect, mental effect} there is exactly one that you won't role-play.

For the 456574930568th time, actual mind control magic and mechanical effects like damage are radically different from what is being discussed. And no, I never said anything like 'a skill causing a mental effect is something that should not be roleplayed. What I've objected to, and repeated over and over, is a scenario where I say "I'm suspicious that THING is dangerous in some way. I look for dangers on THING." followed by the DM saying "you failed your roll to find dangers on THING, now you are convinced THING is safe, and are guilty of cheating via metagaming if you do something sensible like continue to suspect THING even though you were suspicious of it before the roll to acquire information".

 

[Maxperson]

D&D still has paladin oaths, and it used to have a lot more behavioral restrictions in the form of alignment constraints based on class and behavioral expectations of deities on clerics IIRC. It's not completely unconstrained.

Except that it is. I always have the option to break that oath and be an oathbreaker or have to atone for it. Same with clerics and their behavioral expectations. I opt to adhere to them, or I opt to break them. It's my decision, not the game's.

The setting also generally imposes some expectations, obviously; like a character native to the Forgotten Realms really should believe that magic and deities are quite real and that they have noticeable effects on the world; and will likely have their thinking heavily influenced by whatever culture(s) they grew up in.

I could be one of the Athar and not believe that they are gods. Nothing is forced on me.

 

[Coroc]

I'll assume that when the rules specifically say that this is the case, you follow them -- for example when hit by a feeblemind spell (or confusion, to a lesser extent) when you are required by the rules of the game to act in an "out of character way"

This is what seems so arbitrary about your position -- it seems to say that you are fine to role-play:

• Physical affects on your character, no matter if caused by spells, attacks or skills.
• Mental effects caused by spells (feeblemind, confusion, etc)
• Mental effects caused by attacks (actually not sure if there are any in 5E)

But the combination of a skill causing a mental effect is something that should NOT be roleplayed.

It just seems weird that out of the six combinations of {spell, attack, skill} x {physical effect, mental effect} there is exactly one that you won't role-play.

you get it!

finally someone who gets it!

Thing is i said above if you purely roleplay the situation, at least up to a point, then it is totally fine even without rolls, to examine the suspicious door from all sides and still not be convinced you found all there is about. Heck, even if you push it with a pole to see if it opens, no roll required if it doesn't. same goes for mage hand or whatever.

If you instead decide to examine up close and the handle does got a poison needle, then three things can happen, depending on what you're doing in detail and depending on the outcome of your perception roll.
You find the needle and may now try to disarm it. You are very clumsy in your perception roll and trigger the thing while examining it! Yes that is absolutely a possibility at my table. Some traps require you to be up close to check for them and even if you do not try to actively disarm it, it might go off. that would be a possibility if the perception roll critically fails.
For the books: if it succeeded critically, no disarm check might be needed because you thoroughly did understand how the mechanism worked.
And third, you find nothing.
you might now turn back and hire a serf to open the door for you, or stand around and start to ponder. but it would be highly irrational and could have all sorts of consequences.
So no one does it, at least on my table. the dm will at least raise an eyebrow and ask for an explanation why the player won't go through the door and tell the player that by all means he is convinced that it is safe. Our players accept reason at the table. A botched roll does is sometimes so much more fun than a perfect execution.

 

[Maxperson]

You may have searched very well, but by definition you did not search well enough, because you failed. If you are going to use logical arguments, you need to read more carefully before correcting people.

It can be both dude. Not well enough indicates you didn't do a very good job. Searching well can be a good job, but not just good enough. Those are two different things.

 

[Coroc]

I'll assume that when the rules specifically say that this is the case, you follow them -- for example when hit by a feeblemind spell (or confusion, to a lesser extent) when you are required by the rules of the game to act in an "out of character way"

This is what seems so arbitrary about your position -- it seems to say that you are fine to role-play:

• Physical affects on your character, no matter if caused by spells, attacks or skills.
• Mental effects caused by spells (feeblemind, confusion, etc)
• Mental effects caused by attacks (actually not sure if there are any in 5E)

But the combination of a skill causing a mental effect is something that should NOT be roleplayed.

It just seems weird that out of the six combinations of {spell, attack, skill} x {physical effect, mental effect} there is exactly one that you won't role-play.

Little addition: Roleplaying imho is you got your char, you roleplay their personality, but their limits are described by their stats and skills.
Some people confuse that with playing an avatar of themselves, or idealized selves.

With our disputed example for me that means, Just because you OOC think the DM has hidden a trap although my char failed the roll, it doesn't mean that your char reasonably thinks the same.