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

[pemerton]

I just want to challenge some assumptions. If we think of attributes as measuring not innate capacity but instead measuring effectiveness at related tasks, which really is what the rules do, it opens up narrative possibility.

As I've said, I don't think the game (5e D&D) supports it very robustly. There are too many points at which the fiction in question is meant to be adjudicated.

4e D&D does a better job, precisely because it makes more use of checks and of keywords rather than simple adjudication from the fiction. Hence it does more to make stats measure effectiveness at related tasks; and is less likely to give rise to the why did the cure-all potion not relieve so-and-so of their <curse, shyness, thought-leeches, whatever>.

And there are non-D&D RPGs that also do a better job.

 

[HammerMan]

For example, “The NPC rolled 23 on Intimidate, so you wouldn’t do what you just did.”

remind me again what table or example you are pulling this straw man out of?

 

[iserith]

What is this 5 Int Sherlock Holmes thing?

A boogeyman that strikes fear in the hearts of people who think that you're getting away with something by having an Int 5 and still coming up with passable ideas.

 

[pemerton]

I do not penalize them for that nor do I reward them for "extra" language.

<snip>

Not all players are comfortable with 1st person but that doesn't make them less effective at the game of 5e D&D.

<snip>

Interesting. So you are saying that @Oofta and @clearstream favor... Magic Words?!?

I find the whole "magic words" thing a bit of a distraction.

But I do think that if the action declaration is I give a rousing speech, and if the table is one that tends to resolve the outcome of that via a check, then it makes sense to adjust the check (either DC or bonus/advantage, depending on the conventions at use at that table) if an actual speech is given that everyone can see is actually rousing.

This makes it advantageous, if playing (say) a paladin, to be capable of expressing oneself. I don't see that as any different from it being advantageous, if playing a rogue, of being able to think of cunning stratagems (see @AbdulAlhazred not too far upthread):

I think its just a fact of gaming that player skill exists.

<snip>

I personally am not super fond of the idea of adding bonuses to checks based on these sorts of specific declarations. I don't think it can ever be discounted, because of the factors touched on above (good tactics has to get some sort of reward, if a player says "My PC takes cover" the game pretty much requires the character gets a benefit). OTOH I'm not fond of the acting out a speech sort of thing.

In Burning Wheel, the action declaration for I speak a prayer has to include intent and task, like anything else. The intent is chosen from a list of possible effects (Bless, Boon, Minor Miracle, Purification, etc - standard fantasy cleric stuff). The task is the player speaking the prayer. We work out how long the prayer takes, in the fiction, by considering how many words are in the player's prayer.

Another example: there is a trait, most easily acquired via the Courtier lifepath, called Rapier Wit: In a Duel of Wits, if you (the player) inject a searing bon mot as your opponent speaks, you gain +2D to your next verbal action.

This reminds us that, in a Duel of Wits, while the intent is again chosen from a menu (Dismiss, Rebut, Incite, Obfuscate, etc) the task is the player speaking the part of their PC.

It also reminds us of the advantage rules: anyone in BW can get a +1D advantage die by (i) calling for it and (ii) explaining why they deserve it. So for the trait to be valuable, it has to give +2D advantage.

Now of course the player might speak the part of their PC in 3rd person, or via more abstract description. But that player won't be getting the benefit of Rapier Wit, or other advantage die for the impassioned, witty, cutting, or otherwise significant effect of what it is that their PC actually said: because we don't know what their PC actually said!

I'm not 100% sure about the last sentence though. I mean, 5e DOES use the sort of criteria you all are discussing, checks are meant to model the statistical probability of character success given the situation at hand. In something like BW or DW that is definitely not the case, or at least not entirely the case.

In BW, a stat or skill bonus definitely tells us something about the character - the notion of being highly muscled yet having a low Power is right off the table!

But it also tells us how likely the character is to succeed in endeavours where the descriptor in question is put to the test. And when narrating failure, there is no obligation to narrate the failure as a result of the descriptor not being up to the job - eg a failed Power test needn't be narrated as the PC was too weak on this occasion but could be done in other terms (all the standard stuff you're familiar with).

To drift 5e in this direction I think you'd need to adopt various BW-isms, like Say 'yes' or roll the dice (ie no GM adjudication of uncertainty or automatic success based on fictional positioning as the first input into a check) and intent and task, and probably also the Inspiration rules to try and mitigate the swinginess of the d20.

Actually, I'm a bit puzzled by this whole statement. It is quite apparent to me, given 5e's structure at least, that a PC going through a whole campaign without ROLLING a stealth check, while doing things that have the color of 'stealthiness' is technically perfectly feasible. They player will simply have to accept the limitations of each situation. The Crystal Skull is held in the Library, which has a squeeky wooden floor. You can either NOT GO THERE or you can make a Stealth check!

There is a third option being flagged in this thread: describe their stratagem for stealing the skull in such detail (eg they oil the creaky hinges, they use a net to reach the skull, etc) that the attempt succeeds with no need for a check.

To me, that part of the discussion in this thread is the 5e version of the original debate over the effect, on adjudication-by-way-of-fictional-positioning, of the introduction of thieves and thief skills into the game.

And the way it's being developed - which is different from that original debate as best I can tell - is to reduce the in-fiction meaning of ability scores, skill proficiency etc. While still very much hanging onto that, as best I can tell, for spell casting ability and at least some aspects of combat ability. To me, at least, it doesn't seem very appealling.

 

[Oofta]

...
There is a third option being flagged in this thread: describe their stratagem for stealing the skull in such detail (eg they oil the creaky hinges, they use a net to reach the skull, etc) that the attempt succeeds with no need for a check.

To me, that part of the discussion in this thread is the 5e version of the original debate over the effect, on adjudication-by-way-of-fictional-positioning, of the introduction of thieves and thief skills into the game.

And the way it's being developed - which is different from that original debate as best I can tell - is to reduce the in-fiction meaning of ability scores, skill proficiency etc. While still very much hanging onto that, as best I can tell, for spell casting ability and at least some aspects of combat ability. To me, at least, it doesn't seem very appealling.

If I understand what you're getting at, that's discussed in the DMG section Role of the Dice. Some people roll for everything, at the other extreme people never pick up a die outside of combat. My personal preference is to rely on the dice taking into consideration any other modifying factors. Those modifying factors do not include how persuasive the player is or out-of-game player knowledge to the best of my ability.

There's nothing wrong with different styles and preferences. I just prefer what I prefer. I like having to rely on abilities and proficiencies because I like having to make trade-offs and compromises. If I know that my ability and proficiency of my PC never matters, I have no reason to not go straight min/maxing of my PC. I like building well rounded PCs that can contribute in combat and out. Most of the time anyway.

 

[pemerton]

There's nothing wrong with different styles and preferences.

But there is utility in being able to describe those different styles and preferences.

A table in which adjudication of fictional positioning is more important, in non-combat non-spell resolution, than are checks, is a table where playing a rogue rather than a wizard or a bard is probably less attractive unless you really like sneak-attacking.

 

[Oofta]

But there is utility in being able to describe those different styles and preferences.

A table in which adjudication of fictional positioning is more important, in non-combat non-spell resolution, than are checks, is a table where playing a rogue rather than a wizard or a bard is probably less attractive unless you really like sneak-attacking.

Trying to understand what you're getting at unless it's just that DMs should be clear up front what type of game they run.

 

[Voadam]

This thread has also had me thinking about B/X, but differently: for example, the B/X INT chart tells you what your linguistic ability is based on INT, including literacy. And its fairly relentless correlation of various stats with class and race tends to drive home the correlation of stats to fiction.

Eg given that Hercules is given as an example of a fighter (at least if memory serves correctly), and fighters benefit from high STR, it would never occur to me in playing B/X to assert that my 6-STR character is as muscled as Hercules.

It does use Hercules as an example of a fighter.

"Fighters are humans who train for battle. It is their job to fight monsters and to protect the weaker members of a party. Great heroes such as Hercules were fighters.

The prime requisite for a fighter is Strength. Strong fighters can kill monsters more easily with their powerful blows. A Strength score of 13 or greater will give the fighter a bonus on earned experience points."

The link between Hercules as an example of a fighter to narrative strength portrayal seems fairly attenuated though to me.

B/X says almost nothing about narrative descriptions of your character or portraying them. It provides stats, they give some narrative descriptions and some mechanics.

It also gives a pretty inspiring picture of conceiving of your character.

The advice seems focused on the mechanics of maximizing bonus xp for class prime requisites when you pick a class.

"Strength: "Strength" is a measure of muscle power and the
ability to use that power. Any character with a Strength score of
13 or above should consider one of the following four classes:
fighter, dwarf, elf, or halfling. Strength is the prime requisite for
the classes of fighter and dwarf, and one of the two prime requisites
for the classes of elf and halfling.

Intelligence: "Intelligence" is the ability to learn and remember
knowledge, and the ability to solve problems. Characters with an
intelligence score of 13 or above should consider the classes of
magic-user or elf. Intelligence is the prime requisite for magic-users,
and one of the prime requisites for elves.

Wisdom: The word "Wisdom" refers to inspiration, intuition,
common sense, and shrewdness. Wisdom aids in solving problems
when Intelligence is not enough. A character with a Wisdom
score of 13 or greater should consider the class of cleric,
since Wisdom is the prime requisite of that class.

Dexterity: "Dexterity" is a measure of speed and agility. A character
with a high Dexterity score is "good with his hands" and
has a good sense of balance. A character with a Dexterity score
of 13 or greater should consider the classes of thief and halfling.
Dexterity is the prime requisite of thieves and one of the prime
requisites of halflings.

Constitution: "Constitution" is a combination of health and endurance
(the ability to hold up under pressure). It directly influences
every class, possibly changing the number of hit points a
character has. Constitution is never a prime requisite.

Charisma: "Charisma" is a combination of appearance, personal
charm, and leadership ability. It helps the DM decide exactly
how a monster will react to a player character. If also affects the
number of retainers a character can hire (see page B21), and
the morale (attitude; see page B27) of these hirelings. Charisma
is never a prime requisite."

 

[Swarmkeeper]

But I do think that if the action declaration is I give a rousing speech, and if the table is one that tends to resolve the outcome of that via a check, then it makes sense to adjust the check (either DC or bonus/advantage, depending on the conventions at use at that table) if an actual speech is given that everyone can see is actually rousing.

No. Just no. An actual rousing speech given in the lead up to a Charisma check or a Thieves Tools check or, indeed, any other check should not influence the game mechanics in 5e. Period. If some table wants to house rule that they do, fine. But that will severely limit their player pool, methinks. Not everyone playing this game is an extravert and this is not The Toastmasters RPG (TTRPG(tm)). You get that, right?

 

[Voadam]

What is this 5 Int Sherlock Holmes thing?

Take my playstyle preference of separating roleplay portrayal from ability stats.

Take a player who has seen the movie with smart charismatic bare knuckle boxing Robert Downey Junior Sherlock Holmes. That player thinks RDJ punching Sherlock Holmes sounds like a fun D&D concept so they go monk for punching. Monk is MAD for pretty much everything but int and charisma. They do the stats for a regular monk and the low stats end up being int and charisma.

The PC takes a custom background as an investigator so they get the skill narratively and proficiency bonus mechanically when rolls come up but they are still not great at investigation rolls at low levels.

They roleplay being a charismatic investigator monk looking for clues, making deductions, going for witty quips on the player roleplay/non-mechanics end and effectively punching out bad guys as a member of a D&D party. The roleplay of a smart charismatic investigator is how they approach playing their character as a role.

Two views on this.

1 sounds like fun, cool.

2 That is cheating/bad roleplay, should have played an int class for that roleplay concept or been a monk with lower than normal monk stats to bump up the roleplay stats.