D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game

[Bill Zebub]

...perhaps as intended.

Shocking, isn't it?

 

[Oofta]

If the DM hasn't already considered it and decided the DC is 0, and the player just bursts out, "I try to Stealth! I roll a...4, rats!" the DM might just say, "Yeah, you fail."

IMHO if a DM does that, they're being an a-hole. If it happened in my campaign, it would more likely be "As you try to sneak by the floor creaks loudly. Fortunately it's drowned out by the snoring of the guard and you get past."

I don't punish players for not playing the way I expect them to play.

Whereas if the player says, "I'm going to try to sneak past the guards. If I stay on the other side of the room and move from crate to crate* when they aren't looking, can I stay hidden?" then maybe the DM will consider that and say, "Yeah, they're distracted so you can do that easily."

It doesn't make sense, but it's very human.

*Because, as we all know, crates abound in any dungeon.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Correct me if I misunderstood but your scenario is as follows: the DM indicates that the PC needs to sneak past the guard, but hasn't called for a check. Player says "I make a stealth check <rolls dice> 10 to sneak past" or some variation. Yes? No?

If the check would have been automatic, then any number the PC gives you is going to be a success. Doesn't matter if it's 0 or 30, the player just rolled a dice that wasn't necessary for the scenario. Unless the DM changes the fiction because the player rolled it should not matter.

We were talking about the Hide action in combat but we can explore your scenario.

First, I don't think a DM would indicate that a PC "needs" to do anything. The DM would present the scenario of a guard and ask the players what they'd like to do.

If a player then declared their PC was going to sneak past said guard in some manner, the DM would adjudicate. If it seemed like the guard was distracted and/or the PC was sticking to some dark shadows and/or whatever beneficial things, the DM could then grant an auto-success to the sneaking. There would be no roll.

 

[Bill Zebub]

IMHO if a DM does that, they're being an a-hole. If it happened in my campaign, it would more likely be "As you try to sneak by the floor creaks loudly. Fortunately it's drowned out by the snoring of the guard and you get past."

I don't punish players for not playing the way I expect them to play.

I think you missed my point. I'm not describing a DM as being punitive, merely human. One who hasn't fully thought through how difficult it might be to stealth in that scenario, and so reacts to the low roll as a failed attempt. Whereas if the player proposed a course of action...especially a course of action that was more than just "I stealth" but described how they were taking advantage of terrain, the DM might, upon thinking about it rather than just reacting to the dice roll, grant auto-success.

 

[Lanefan]

For that to be true, the player would have to be persuading someone every time he does the following "The player proposes a course of action...a goal and an approach."

When said goal and-or approach involves persuading someone in-game, yes.

Except that there are many, many, MANY different goals and approaches the player will attempt, so persuasion is not a mechanic for that.

Obviously. Climbing has its own mechanic elsewhere on the character sheet. Ditto athletics. Etc.

It does have a functional purpose. It's there for the DM to call on if the player's goal and approach are an attempt to persuade someone AND the outcome is uncertain AND there is a meaningful consequence for failure.

If it's only there for the DM then it should be in the DM's tables. Why is it wasting space on my character sheet?

 

[Lanefan]

Ok, so let me re-state the argument(s) in bold, but please tell me if I'm making a mistake.

- The player might disregard the narrative, as determined by the DM's dice roll for the NPC
- DMs are neutral, so they can use their power to enforce rules to make sure that narrative is considered in the player's action declarations.

Is that accurate?

The problem I have with that is that it is saying that while we trust DMs with the rules authority with give them, we can't trust players with the roleplaying authority we give them. This seems to be @Lanefan's argument as well (and others I don't recall).

Not quite. I just want it to work equally in all directions (those being PC v PC, PC v NPC, NPC v PC, and NPC v NPC); and that means either a) scrapping the social mechanics entirely in favour of letting the players and DM play their characters as they will, or b) imposing some mechanical teeth onto those skills such that rolls can be called for by the instigator* and success forces boundaries onto the target's roleplay.

Perhaps needless to say, my prefernce is a) above.

* - be it player or DM.

I would much, much, much rather simply trust DMs to adjudicate rules and roleplay their NPCs, and trust players to roleplay their PCs.

Same here, which is why option a) above is better than option b).

 

[Bill Zebub]

.

If it's only there for the DM then it should be in the DM's tables. Why is it wasting space on my character sheet?

Uh….because the DM has enough to do without keeping track of which characters have which proficiencies?

Seriously, this is by far the weakest argument I’ve seen from you.

 

[Lanefan]

As with my response to @clearstream, maybe that's what YOU see (and maybe because you've played other games) but I'm not really going to give any weight to arguments based on claims of what the millions of people playing D&D "think".

If that is what they think...that there is a Persuade action similar to an Attack action...then they haven't actually read the rules very carefully.

So?

History shows that if the rules say one thing but much of the playing populace is doing another, eventually the rules will be amended to suit.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So?

History shows that if the rules say one thing but much of the playing populace is doing another, eventually the rules will be amended to suit.

Data, please.

 

[Lanefan]

Uh….because the DM has enough to do without keeping track of which characters have which proficiencies?

Seriously, this is by far the weakest argument I’ve seen from you.

Sorry if it seems weak; but as a player I prefer as many mechanics as possible be DM-side, and as DM I just assume it's my job to take care of all that stuff.