D&D 5E "My Character Is Always..." and related topics.

[Sunseeker]

So what you're saying, in essence, is that the non-physical character stats are meaningless when it comes to roleplay. I could drop a 6 into each of intelligence wisdom and charisma and still roleplay as if I've put 15's in there.

The stats are supposed to be a guide as to what the character can or can't do - and, by extension, what limits you have or don't have when roleplaying it. Otherwise, why have them at all?

Thank you! That was exactly what I was saying.

 

[Lanefan]

In the Basic Rules, under the steps for character creation, it tells players to take their characters' race and ability scores into consideration when determining how the character looks and what his or her personality might be. It gives a number of suggestions for "higher" or "lower" scores about how a character "might" be. It does not say how they "must" be, nor does it say what a specific score forces a player to do.

Yes it tells the player to take their character's race and ability scores into consideration when determining how the character looks and what his or her personality might be, and what a high or low score might lead to in play. Every edition has had variants on this same theme, put better in some cases than others.

But you're in effect telling players they don't need to take these things into consideration if they don't want to, which goes directly against said rules.

It very clearly does not! Every edition is its own separate game. Drag your assumptions about one game into another one at your own peril.

The discussion of how to play a character with one or more very low non-physical stats is germaine to every edition of D&D; and further, to every RPG that uses non-physical base stats.

(And more fool me that I would assume someone is discussing D&D 5e in a D&D 5e forum. Wow.)

I discuss D&D in a D&D forum. The underlying issues at hand are relevant to all editions a rather surprising amount of the time.

Lanefan

 

[iserith]

Yes it tells the player to take their character's race and ability scores into consideration when determining how the character looks and what his or her personality might be, and what a high or low score might lead to in play. Every edition has had variants on this same theme, put better in some cases than others.

But you're in effect telling players they don't need to take these things into consideration if they don't want to, which goes directly against said rules.

Not at all. I'm telling players that nobody is to sit in judgment, including the DM, of what considerations they do ultimately make or how they manifest in play since there is no settled rule for how a given ability score should or must be portrayed. Now, given the absence of such a rule, one could establish a table rule for that and ask the players to buy in, but I do not. The reason I do not is because how a character is portrayed is handled by way of personal characteristics in D&D 5e (trait, ideal, bond, flaw) which are spelled out, as opposed to some nebulous idea of what, for example, a Charisma 8 means exactly.

The discussion of how to play a character with one or more very low non-physical stats is germaine to every edition of D&D; and further, to every RPG that uses non-physical base stats.

If the basis of your preference comes from some other game where there is a specific prescription for portraying a particular ability score, it is not germaine to this game which has no such prescription. The Basic Rules are free and available in PDF form online. I welcome you to look for yourself.

I discuss D&D in a D&D forum. The underlying issues at hand are relevant to all editions a rather surprising amount of the time.

Lanefan

Not in this case, friend.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I see this a player agency issue and it comes down to 4 things to me.

1. Character stats have to matter or your take away player agency when creating a character and make their choices meaningless. -- So if your auto-failing players for players a abilities instead of character attempts using characters states your removing the role from role play and the character design choices. Basically using passive tests as a default instead of auto fail fixes this.

2. Players actions after character creation should be passive unless stated then active so that player agency is important and engaging on a round to round basics. If the player is on auto-pilot give them the passive check to notice or interact with things (mostly passive perception) but if they are interacting give them an active search. A scout says he is always look for an ambush gets passive perception and as per #1 that will be better for a scout based off of his choices as a player during character creation and/or leveling however if they fail to see something with passive which is default 10 + skill then they are basically settling for 50% + skill and if that is working then fine, support that as a result of their plan and building, however if they speak up and say hay I didn't see anything in that last room but I feel like I might of missed something, give them an active check for a chance of up to 10 higher to spot something they missed. This means when players are engaged on their "job" they get more involved and interesting things CAN happen even if they don't at least the option is there.

3. NPCs and players should have the same rules but since GM is running the world and the NPCs from the same mind the GM has to make a choice to find something or not find something on auto-fail/auto-success environments so if a player has to check a specific drawer and make a role to find a key when the NPC gets to find things with passive skill and the GM knowledge of where the key is the NPCs become inherently better than players since they unable to have below 10. Objects hidden in a room are basically, contested rolls against the NPC that hid it, so having players need to open the drawer or auto fail is like having a player search for an ambush by requiring the player to name all the bushes he looks behind and role for each vs NPC passive stealth of at least 9 and letting NPCs find players hiding anywhere with a minimum of a 10 to spot while players get a single pass or fail role for stealth 1-20 at possible -1 with disadvantage with heavy armor and no auto success. This largely means the players with high stealth are rarely if ever found since they can have a minimum stealth of role with a +9 and the rest are always found, but the chance of players finding NPCs is completely random base on the words they use not this skills they choose or the roles they make. Instead I would make allow players and NPCs passive perception -5 (disadvantage) to spot a random ambush or see some one they are not looking for in a crowd, a role to look for one if they expect it for some reason, a role to actively hide from someone approaching, and I allow a passive stealth -5 (disadvantage) when players or NPC are trying to go unnoticed but are not hiding from anyone they are aware of. An example of passive stealth might be "we try to blend into the crowd and not draw attention" or "we travel quietly along the side of the road not hiding but staying to the bushes so we can hide if someone comes by". Generally give disadvantage (-5) on passive stealth because you would be hiding from without a direction to hide from and without delaying your travel. Using these basic guidelines I treat NPCs and players the same giving more meaning to player choices and not requiring players to role for being stealth for "my character is always..." sure they are always passively aware with their eyes open and by habit try not to draw attention and stick to the shadows because they are used to being in enemy territory. That doesn't mean I give them the full benefit of a stealth or perception role but at the same time I am going to do the same thing to the NPCs so it is 100% fair.


4. Standard difficulties - As a side note I also have become a believer in standard or random difficulties for tests so that even physical skill tests can be opposed tests. For example if the group comes to a river, the river can be set to a DC 12 to cross set on a table by season and location so that the rivers difficult is constant and players have gain benefit of choosing to be better at skill that help them across the river but being the same for NPCs in which case I as a GM might give a group with bad athletics the opportunity to buy a folding boat. Alternatively, I might roll a d20 with a minimum re-roll number (so if I say the river never goes below 5, I don't add 5 to the roll I just re-roll until I roll above 5 so that the river is capped at 20) and let the be river flow DC be a product of regional rain fall and run off. As such, it would still impact NPCs the same way but on different days they might have different successes. This also makes some standard difficulties opposed roles instead of static and after I role I make a statement regarding the power of the river so players get an idea of if they should fight a surge or if they can easily wade the low tide.



That's my 2 cents anyway.

 

[5ekyu]

@pming said he gives out XP for "roleplaying" to whatever standard he sets at the table. However much his post implies it's a stick, it's really a carrot - XP as an incentive to play in a particular way. You can choose to play otherwise and apply your skill to overcome the character's perceived shortcomings, but you may not receive as much XP as others who do play to the standard he expects. But of course you'd rather call it a stick because you already made your mind up about XP 15 years ago when you decided it led to undesirable level disparity or you dislike integers or whatever other grievances you may have. To the extent that your posts can be called clear at all, that much was clear. Above, you double down on the level disparity objection despite obviously having no experience with it in D&D 5e. I do, quite a lot of it actually, and I know that claim is bogus. In D&D 3e and 4e, you'd have the shadow of a point. But not in THIS game.

That said, the lack of a problem with level disparity doesn't detract from the efficacy of incentives. People tend to do what they are incentivized to do. To the extent that players want their character to advance in skill and power and the means for achieving that is gated behind performing particular tasks, it is reasonable to expect they will do those tasks.



My "somewhat limited view" of milestone XP is taken directly from the DMG.

ok last first, my posts about milestone were taken from two other 5e wotc products so... yay for us both.

EDIT TO ADD: BTW the DMG reference to rewarding Xp for milestones is not the same as the "milestone" system referenced in some Ap or the milestone-like "checkpoint system in XGtE. those other two (which were what i was referring to) do not use Xp as a go between. But i can see where they could be confused easily enough.

as for my not having experience with the utility of xp as reward in 5e, you are right i do not have experience there bit i also do not have experience in 5e with say adding in a rule for killing pcs by having a jiggling contest in my home - that does not mean there is anything unique to 5e that makes that a good idea.

There is nothing in the 5e xp and advancement system that says Xp incentives will be less of a group issue than a single player issue than it would be in other games. if the disparity is less, then also the incentive is less. if gaining a level or losing a level is so trivial as to not affect things, then the gaining is not that much of a draw. it cannot be both not a drawback to not get and a meaningful lure to get in a rational sense. One goes with the other. (assumes rational actors.)

There is nothing i have seen in the level gains and difference in 5e that tells me there is anything that somehow makes it somehow more appealing to gain a level and simultaneously not less appealing to not gain a level.

So, is there some mystical magical macguffin about 5e you would like to share to show how it is not as big to be a lower level as it is to gain a higher level? i am sure we would all love to see that.

 

[5ekyu]

I see this a player agency issue and it comes down to 4 things to me.

1. Character stats have to matter or your take away player agency when creating a character and make their choices meaningless. -- So if your auto-failing players for players a abilities instead of character attempts using characters states your removing the role from role play and the character design choices. Basically using passive tests as a default instead of auto fail fixes this.

2. Players actions after character creation should be passive unless stated then active so that player agency is important and engaging on a round to round basics. If the player is on auto-pilot give them the passive check to notice or interact with things (mostly passive perception) but if they are interacting give them an active search. A scout says he is always look for an ambush gets passive perception and as per #1 that will be better for a scout based off of his choices as a player during character creation and/or leveling however if they fail to see something with passive which is default 10 + skill then they are basically settling for 50% + skill and if that is working then fine, support that as a result of their plan and building, however if they speak up and say hay I didn't see anything in that last room but I feel like I might of missed something, give them an active check for a chance of up to 10 higher to spot something they missed. This means when players are engaged on their "job" they get more involved and interesting things CAN happen even if they don't at least the option is there.

3. NPCs and players should have the same rules but since GM is running the world and the NPCs from the same mind the GM has to make a choice to find something or not find something on auto-fail/auto-success environments so if a player has to check a specific drawer and make a role to find a key when the NPC gets to find things with passive skill and the GM knowledge of where the key is the NPCs become inherently better than players since they unable to have below 10. Objects hidden in a room are basically, contested rolls against the NPC that hid it, so having players need to open the drawer or auto fail is like having a player search for an ambush by requiring the player to name all the bushes he looks behind and role for each vs NPC passive stealth of at least 9 and letting NPCs find players hiding anywhere with a minimum of a 10 to spot while players get a single pass or fail role for stealth 1-20 at possible -1 with disadvantage with heavy armor and no auto success. This largely means the players with high stealth are rarely if ever found since they can have a minimum stealth of role with a +9 and the rest are always found, but the chance of players finding NPCs is completely random base on the words they use not this skills they choose or the roles they make. Instead I would make allow players and NPCs passive perception -5 (disadvantage) to spot a random ambush or see some one they are not looking for in a crowd, a role to look for one if they expect it for some reason, a role to actively hide from someone approaching, and I allow a passive stealth -5 (disadvantage) when players or NPC are trying to go unnoticed but are not hiding from anyone they are aware of. An example of passive stealth might be "we try to blend into the crowd and not draw attention" or "we travel quietly along the side of the road not hiding but staying to the bushes so we can hide if someone comes by". Generally give disadvantage (-5) on passive stealth because you would be hiding from without a direction to hide from and without delaying your travel. Using these basic guidelines I treat NPCs and players the same giving more meaning to player choices and not requiring players to role for being stealth for "my character is always..." sure they are always passively aware with their eyes open and by habit try not to draw attention and stick to the shadows because they are used to being in enemy territory. That doesn't mean I give them the full benefit of a stealth or perception role but at the same time I am going to do the same thing to the NPCs so it is 100% fair.


4. Standard difficulties - As a side note I also have become a believer in standard or random difficulties for tests so that even physical skill tests can be opposed tests. For example if the group comes to a river, the river can be set to a DC 12 to cross set on a table by season and location so that the rivers difficult is constant and players have gain benefit of choosing to be better at skill that help them across the river but being the same for NPCs in which case I as a GM might give a group with bad athletics the opportunity to buy a folding boat. Alternatively, I might roll a d20 with a minimum re-roll number (so if I say the river never goes below 5, I don't add 5 to the roll I just re-roll until I roll above 5 so that the river is capped at 20) and let the be river flow DC be a product of regional rain fall and run off. As such, it would still impact NPCs the same way but on different days they might have different successes. This also makes some standard difficulties opposed roles instead of static and after I role I make a statement regarding the power of the river so players get an idea of if they should fight a surge or if they can easily wade the low tide.



That's my 2 cents anyway.

i agree with much of this including the part about determining difficulties as if it was someone else setting it against them and who they were and how they did it.

In my game i use a derivative of the difficulty advice from IIRC the DMG - untrained and unexceptional ability = easy 10, oen of those gets you a medium 15. both of those gets you a 20. add in some other aspect of resource like lotsa os time and or money going into it 9or the reverse) and go up or down more.

As for your vier, in my game i have each player deal me a card face down at the start of each session. Clubs = fights, spades = environmental challenge, diamonds equal loot/greed/resources hearts = help, assistance, mercy healing etc. When it comes to things like encounter flavor or ciccumstances, i use those cards and their magnitudes to help me decide some of the flavor and challenge bits. So if a high spade had appeared, the river would be flooding from up-river or even current rains, the crossing rope or bridge would be broken, etc. No clubs would mean no problem with a ford, other results in between. Add in a clubs of note - maybe am ambush during the crossing. Add in a hearts of note, someone else struggling and needing help. Add in a diamonds, an overturned cart or goods that may be difficult to get out of the river - possibly something valuable or not. Any or all, in combination. keeps me on my toes and adds an element of spontaneity to most every session.

more to the point, it pushes me to build my setups differently, thinking along each of these lines for options for each set-piece, which helps keep me from just building to "the story" and seeing everything as "challenges along a path" by needing to add in a bit of each to each session - after all - things need to be foreshadowed when possible.

It works for me and mine and i like the extra prod to my improv a bit.

But the "why" behind the difficulty is IMo a key point.

 

[iserith]

ok last first, my posts about milestone were taken from two other 5e wotc products so... yay for us both.

Would you provide citations so I can look them up? You mentioned XGtE, but I didn't see anything about experience points in the Table of Contents unless I missed it.

as for my not having experience with the utility of xp as reward in 5e, you are right i do not have experience there bit i also do not have experience in 5e with say adding in a rule for killing pcs by having a jiggling contest in my home - that does not mean there is anything unique to 5e that makes that a good idea.

That misses the point. You objected to the system based on an unfounded claim about level disparity in D&D 5e. I disputed the claim. You may have other reasons you don't like experience points. Those are preferences I cannot dispute unless you voice them in the context of another unfounded claim. Tell me you don't like doing math or writing things down. To that I can only shrug and move on.

There is nothing in the 5e xp and advancement system that says Xp incentives will be less of a group issue than a single player issue than it would be in other games. if the disparity is less, then also the incentive is less. if gaining a level or losing a level is so trivial as to not affect things, then the gaining is not that much of a draw. it cannot be both not a drawback to not get and a meaningful lure to get in a rational sense. One goes with the other. (assumes rational actors.)

There is nothing i have seen in the level gains and difference in 5e that tells me there is anything that somehow makes it somehow more appealing to gain a level and simultaneously not less appealing to not gain a level.

So, is there some mystical magical macguffin about 5e you would like to share to show how it is not as big to be a lower level as it is to gain a higher level? i am sure we would all love to see that.

It seems nonsensical to posit that XP is somehow less of an incentive because the level disparity isn't as much an issue in D&D 5e than it is in other games. If players are interested in character advancement (and the game reasonably assumes they are) and earning XP by performing particular tasks is the means by which they can do it, then they'll tend to do those tasks to earn the XP. Such is the nature of incentives.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

@pming said he gives out XP for "roleplaying" to whatever standard he sets at the table. However much his post implies it's a stick, it's really a carrot - XP as an incentive to play in a particular way. You can choose to play otherwise and apply your skill to overcome the character's perceived shortcomings, but you may not receive as much XP as others who do play to the standard he expects. But of course you'd rather call it a stick because you already made your mind up about XP 15 years ago when you decided it led to undesirable level disparity or you dislike integers or whatever other grievances you may have. To the extent that your posts can be called clear at all, that much was clear. Above, you double down on the level disparity objection despite obviously having no experience with it in D&D 5e. I do, quite a lot of it actually, and I know that claim is bogus. In D&D 3e and 4e, you'd have the shadow of a point. But not in THIS game.

That said, the lack of a problem with level disparity doesn't detract from the efficacy of incentives. People tend to do what they are incentivized to do. To the extent that players want their character to advance in skill and power and the means for achieving that is gated behind performing particular tasks, it is reasonable to expect they will do those tasks.

My "somewhat limited view" of milestone XP is taken directly from the DMG.

I'd just like to add another 2¢ to the pot here. First, when I "give XP for good RP'ing", it's closer to a...hmmm..."level percentage bonus". If someone does a "bad job" of RP'ing their character, they don't get one. If someone does a "normal" amount of RP'ing, then they get a "+X%" that is based on their PC's level. If someone does a real "good" representation of his PC, he gets more.

Now, my bonus is also used for things like succeeding in some particular "goal"; in the last session I ran the PC's cleared out the upper levels of the dungeon, specifically the bandits and their leader(*). These bandits were a problem for the locals, and becoming a bigger and bigger problem as time went on. So, when they got back to town and rested up, the PC's got a flat "10% of Next Level". As we are playing BECMI, that meant that the Thief got +120xp, the Fighter got +200xp, the Magic-User got +250xp and the Elf got +400xp. That's what I mean when I say "+X% of level".

* I'd like to point out that they were just adventuring with no goal other than "exploring and gettin' treasure". Nobody hired them to do anything. But, their actions still resulted in a boon to the surrounding area...so, bonus XP. I felt it was important enough to note that PC's can get these bonuses without knowing it. If a PC is afraid of water, and the PC's have to cross/travel an underground river and lake system...and the Player keeps RP'ing his fear/dislike of water...well, bonus XP to the PC. This is an incentive to give characters "potentially detrimental quirks/drawbacks/flaws".

Next, level disparity as never, ever, been a problem except for when we were playing 3.5e and Pathfinder. Any other version of "D&D"...never been a problem. I've had parties of 14th, couple of 10th, two 4th and one 1st level PC/NPC's (as an example) work perfectly fine in BECMI, 1e, 2e, and Hackmaster 4th. Where I *could* see the level disparity being a problem wouldn't be a "system mechanics" problem so much as a "player personality" problem. Where I could see a problem is if a PLAYER is one of those who's mindset is basically "If I'm not doing equally 'as well' as everyone else in the group, then I'm not having fun". Fair enough, but that has nothing to do with mechanics. Luckily for me, my group (if/when everyone gets back together...down to just 2 players ATM, from 6), everyone enjoys playing their character without any serious comparison to other PC's.

Bottom line...for me and my group, RP'ing, Goals, Fun, and many other things contribute to potential XP at the end of a session. Some PC's will eventually end up higher level than others...sometimes drastically so...but it doesn't matter because everyone is having fun playing their PC the way they want. Hell, one player made an actual torchbearer as a PC (not D&D; was Dominion Rules RPG...but still). He played that PC for about two months. His character could sort of do a lot of things, but not very well. But...the player RP'ed the character as mostly interested and driven to excel at being "the help". He held the torches, carried a lot of mundane equipment (rope, iron spikes, torches, tinderbox, lanterns, oil, rope, etc). He was a fun character and survived just fine.

In the end, it's not really about "how much XP you get" or "what level you are", but about how much enjoyment you are getting from the game being played. And I think we can all agree that having fun is kinda the goal of playing.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[iserith]

Hiya!

I'd just like to add another 2¢ to the pot here. First, when I "give XP for good RP'ing", it's closer to a...hmmm..."level percentage bonus". If someone does a "bad job" of RP'ing their character, they don't get one. If someone does a "normal" amount of RP'ing, then they get a "+X%" that is based on their PC's level. If someone does a real "good" representation of his PC, he gets more.

Now, my bonus is also used for things like succeeding in some particular "goal"; in the last session I ran the PC's cleared out the upper levels of the dungeon, specifically the bandits and their leader. These bandits were a problem for the locals, and becoming a bigger and bigger problem as time went on. So, when they got back to town and rested up, the PC's got a flat "10% of Next Level". As we are playing BECMI, that meant that the Thief got +120xp, the Fighter got +200xp, the Magic-User got +250xp and the Elf got +400xp. That's what I mean when I say "+X% of level".

Right, all carrots, not sticks. Play this way or accomplish that task and gain XP, as you say. I don't see how anyone can say that XP is in any way a stick.

Next, level disparity as never, ever, been a problem except for when we were playing 3.5e and Pathfinder. Any other version of "D&D"...never been a problem.

Yes, I don't quite remember D&D 1e or AD&D 2e when it came to level disparity (too long ago), but in D&D 3e and D&D 4e it definitely mattered. I recall D&D 4e even had a hack in the rulebook for increasing the attack and defense of a lower-level PC adventuring with a higher-level group. The game's math demanded it. That is not so in D&D 5e.

In the end, it's not really about "how much XP you get" or "what level you are", but about how much enjoyment you are getting from the game being played. And I think we can all agree that having fun is kinda the goal of playing.

Sure, every player has different priorities that make up how they derive their fun. I think it's reasonable to assume that character advancement, being a matter of tangible progress and an expression of the character's growth, plays into that.

 

[Charlaquin]

Would you provide citations so I can look them up? You mentioned XGtE, but I didn't see anything about experience points in the Table of Contents unless I missed it.

I could be wrong, but it sounded like they were referring to the Character Advancement section in Appendix A (Shared Campaigns). In short, for each session a player completes, they earn 1 “checkpoint” per hour that session was designed to take (regardless of the actual time it took to complete) and an additional checkpoint if they were under-leveled for that session’s content. 4 checkpoints to level up until you hit 5th level, then it goes up to 8 checkpoints to level up.

Its worth noting that the Appendix in question is specifically about how to run AL-style open table games. Which makes sense, because the system uses checkpoints as a carrot to incentivize coming to as many sessions as possible.