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

[pemerton]

I'm very reluctant to assign different DCs for different PCs attempting the same thing, as mich for ease around the table as anything else.

I was responding to a post by @Swarmkeeper which was about automatic success in lieu of assigning a DC.

 

[HammerMan]

I suppose we could always just start referring to the dice-rolling approach as “like a board game.” We would all save a lot of typing if we could just scream “magic pixel!” and “board game!” back and forth.

I mean it is a table top game, so yeah D&D is at least a cousin to board games...

there is no board (I mean sometimes when we use minis there is a battle matt so even that is kinda a game board)

The only real difference I would say between a complex board game and a simple RPG is that you are supposed to not take out of game skill into account in game.

 

[Oofta]

Is there a case where what the player says indicates they are doing something more (maybe with extra cost) and that changes the difficulty and possible ramifications?

I sneak down the hall vs. I take off my boots and stuff a shirt in my quiver and sneak down the hall, or I intimidate the guard vs. I use what my character learned about the guards family last time and try to intimidate them by threatening the family.

Edit: Related a bit to swarmkeepers ladder example above.

I assume the PCs know what they are doing. If trying to get past a guard, they can of course use distractions, spells, whatever they want. Taking off your shoes? Nah. No need to add extraneous fluff.

What I was talking about was this post:

Sure - but, as a player, wouldn't you rather wait for the DM to ask you to roll? I mean, the DM could just declare you hidden. Done.

There's zero indication of the PC doing anything different, just that the player says something and waits for a response before making a check. It's the difference between "DM may I sneak past the guard" and waiting for permission and stating "I rolled a stealth of X to get past the guard."

The premise is, as I understand it, that the former would be auto success with no roll, the latter would depend on the roll.

If the DM changes their mind about the difficulty of the scenario in that specific situation, they are being a jerk.

Maybe the post wasn't clear. Maybe I misunderstood. Can we just discuss what was stated? Instead of moving the goalposts, can we address that specific, narrow scenario first?

 

[prabe]

I was responding to a post by @Swarmkeeper which was about automatic success in lieu of assigning a DC.

Yeah, I saw that. The fact different characters will have different thresholds for autosuccess seems to imply different characters might have different DCs, but A) that's a different question B) it's harder to run around the table and C) I'm not sure it's correct or more realistic. I think "harder to run around the table" is reason enough not to do it.

 

[HammerMan]

So, I'm not trying or claiming to speak for @Swarmkeeper here (he can speak for himself well enough) but I certainly do consider who's attempting a thing before deciding whether a roll is required for that thing. I'm very reluctant to assign different DCs for different PCs attempting the same thing, as mich for ease around the table as anything else.

I 100% agree. a DC 19 for the rogue should be a DC 19 for the wizard should be a DC 19 for the paliden...

now if the rouge has +12, the wizard has +5 and the paliden has -1 with disadvantage I wouldn't bet on the pally making it.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

they are the in game ability of the character

It seems to me that you presume that ability scores and proficiencies define how a player must play their character or how a DM must treat a character.
Sure, if a player wants to invoke the fact that they have special training when describing what their PC is doing, it might earn them auto-success or it might allow them to use that proficiency for any roll that might be called. But I'm not setting DCs or declaring auto success/failure based on the character sheet. I'm doing that based on the approach the PC is taking to solving the challenge I've set before them.

so again, just to make sure we are clear you think if 1 player has a character that is not good at X and a 2nd player has one that is good at X that player 1 can describe a better way to do it and have an auto success or easier DC then player 2?

If the approach is one that is better, then yes. There are plenty of ways to describe approaches that do not require special expertise. I would caution that first player, though, that if they are not good at X they might not want to be the one to volunteer to do X as they will be worse off than the player that is good at X if a roll is called for.

I think it is also worth mentioning that, in game, the PCs can communicate to each other (most of the time). If the PC who is bad at X has a good idea, they could share it with the PC who is good at X. That way, the good X PC could give it a go. Seems like a good strategy, in some circumstances anyway.

use of a tool makes this a bit diffrent, but it still comes down to one is good at this and one is bad at this...

maybe in your example (the tool of the ladder does make it MORE reasonable) but in any example without a tool yes it is VERY problematic... it allows smart charismatic fast talking players to dump stat Int and Cha but 'roleplay around the penalties" while slower less charismatic players can not compete at all...

"Fast talking", "magic words", "flowery language". No, just no. Can we avoid that language to have a productive discussion?
Does it need to be said, just because a player described a great approach to a challenge (in 4 words or 40) does not mean that it will be granted auto-success.

Again, the players can roleplay their PCs however they like. Just better hope that the adjudication doesn't call for a roll because there really is no such thing as "roleplaying around the penalties" once the dice come out.

It's a style I call "playing the DM instead of the game" but it can be summed up as 'out right cheating' or not playing your character....

Is that really how you envision our table?

I have had players who are puzzle masters, I could not run a puzzle that out of game they could not solve in a snap... but just because the player can solve it out of game doesn't mean the character they are supposed to be playing the role of can.

If that truly bothers you, another approach is not to introduce puzzles that the players can solve "out of game".

 

[HammerMan]

Yeah, I saw that. The fact different characters will have different thresholds for autosuccess seems to imply different characters might have different DCs, but A) that's a different question B) it's harder to run around the table and C) I'm not sure it's correct or more realistic. I think "harder to run around the table" is reason enough not to do it.

the closest I come to that (and I say my DCs out loud more often then not and always when they are low) is if you are trained/untrained a trained character never needs to roll a DC 10 or lower in my game (yeah, level 1 wizard trained in arcana with a +2 int has a +4 but auto succseeds on DC 10 or less... but a rouge with an int 8 trained in arcana +1 still does too) and a PC can always "take a 1" and no need to roll if there bonuse +1 makes it..

if you have +17 perception you don't need to roll for a DC 15.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So, I'm not trying or claiming to speak for @Swarmkeeper here (he can speak for himself well enough) but I certainly do consider who's attempting a thing before deciding whether a roll is required for that thing. I'm very reluctant to assign different DCs for different PCs attempting the same thing, as mich for ease around the table as anything else.

I 100% agree. a DC 19 for the rogue should be a DC 19 for the wizard should be a DC 19 for the paliden...

now if the rouge has +12, the wizard has +5 and the paliden has -1 with disadvantage I wouldn't bet on the pally making it.

Yes!

If the approach to a particular challenge is exactly the same for different PCs then, if an ability check is called for, the DC would be exactly the same for each of them.

 

[Maxperson]

100% of those encountered, that can amount to

There are a ton of monsters I've never used!

It would be a very boring game if those were all that were ever encountered.

DM: "You see more intimidating orcs. One is riding a persuasive dragon."
Players:

 

[Cadence]

Maybe the post wasn't clear. Maybe I misunderstood. Can we just discuss what was stated? Instead of moving the goalposts, can we address that specific, narrow scenario first?

Sorry, wasn't trying to change the goal post -- was trying to ask something tangential. I had been separately wondering about what "magic words" were and when narrating an action was different from actually describing a different more in depth action... and your post looked like it had a part it would fit naturally with.