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

[pemerton]

At my table, those people will quickly find that they really can’t “RP their way out” of having to make ability checks.

But I thought ability checks were only called for if the declared action doesn't eliminate uncertainty of success relative to the fictional situation?

 

[iserith]

I dunno, I quite like the idea of an escape-the-dungeon adventure with the poison gas creating time pressure. The long featureless halls are terrible, and the DM needs to do some extra work to insure the traps are properly telegraphed, but in concept it’s solid and in execution it’s fixable.

I had to do a lot of fixing to make it passable in play. I would have been better off designing from scratch.

 

[Charlaquin]

But I thought ability checks were only called for if the declared action doesn't eliminate uncertainty of success relative to the fictional situation?

That’s correct. It’s also easier said than done.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So, you know how people who talk about "magic words" don't understand the play at your tables?

When you say "voice acting" you reveal that you don't understand the play at my table. I even posted an actual play report, and voice acting had nothing to do with it. Here it is again:


EDIT: Here is another example:

The players don't just say "I goad Paldemar/Golthar". Or even "I goad Paldemar/Golthar by playing on his dual identity". They actually speak the goading words.

This establishes the fiction that underpins the resolution of the declared actions.

If you don't understand how your preferred style and array of RPGs stacks the deck of success in favor of voice actors, linguists, and extroverts (or whatever you'd like to call them that you feel is non-pejorative), I'm not sure we're going to get far in our discussion.

Perhaps if you played 5e, you'd understand what truly matters to actual gameplay vs. making judgements based on what appears to be your effort to overlay your vast knowledge of other RPGs on top of the 5e chassis.

 

[Bill Zebub]

We aren't talking a difference between an 8 and 10 int. It's the difference between a 5 and 20 which is roughly the span of normal human intelligence. Being more or less intelligent does not make a person any more or less worthy but to say that they are the same is illogical.

So there’s no discernible difference between 8 and 10 but there is between 5 and 20?

And where do you get that 5 to 20 is the span of “normal human intelligence”? So 20 is the upper end of “normal”? And if 5 is the lower end of normal, but still normal, I’d say that it’s pretty hard to notice a 6, 7, or 8 as being noticeably non-intelligent.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, I do understand your preference. I wonder if there are any rules in the 1e PHB or DMG to support that way. I just have a different interpretation of what it means to “respect what’s on the character sheet”, especially in the context of the version we play, 5e.

To me this one's edition-agnostic. A low stat has much the same effects on role-play in any edition, though the mechanics may differ.

No person at our table is a jerk and the DM (and the rules) support the players in playing their character however they like.

This is the very definition of good faith play: participating in a way that is fun for everyone at the table.

Now, I do get that it is not fun for you to see someone play a 5 STR character as musclebound. I do hope you iron that out in session 0 and don’t just assume everyone likes to play the way you do.

There's enough mechanical checks and balances on the three physical stats (Str, Dex, Con) that an attempt to play against your stats will become fairly obvious fairly quickly; though granted it's more obvious if playing a low stat as high than if underplaying a high stat which, if careful, one might get away with for some time.

With the mental stats (Int, Wis) - particularly if one largely eschews social mechanics - the only checks and balances are self-provided by the players in how they portray their PCs, and thus it's the responsibility of the players to self-provide (and self-enforce) these. Again, underplaying a high stat is very possible and can fool the table for a long time if done right. Overplaying a low stat - in other words, failing to self-regulate - can and does very quickly cross the line into bad-faith play.

Charisma is an odd one, in that it's comprised both of physical (the character's attractiveness) and mental (power of personality) elements. That said, given as it's made up of two very discrete elements it's also easy to say that unless your Cha is extremely high or extremely low improvements to one of these elements must by default adversely affect the other. Which means that with an average-ish Cha you can play a handsome debonair a-hole or a plain-looking charmer. The other mental stats don't have such a convenient trade-off.

 

[Lanefan]

That said, I feel unsure about what might draw one toward an adversarial relationship with the game rules and guidelines?

That one's simple.

In any sport with subjective rules enforcement (usually done by a referee) it's the player's job to see what they can get away with and the referee's job to stop them.

D&D is a game with subjective rules enforcement, and the same attitude applies: rules are there to be broken, which is what keeps referees in a paycheque.

Perhaps their greatest value is to inform the fiction, and if one will not allow that then one is taking less advantage of them than one could.

Perhaps, though there's also many instances (usually involving spell outcomes) where using the RAW to inform the fiction leads to some pretty odd-looking fiction; and Firecubes, I'm staring right at you as I type this.

 

[Lanefan]

So there’s no discernible difference between 8 and 10 but there is between 5 and 20?

That similar to saying that when driving a car there's often little discernable difference between driving 50 kmh and 60 kmh but there's always a discernable difference between driving 15 kmh and 110 kmh.

And where do you get that 5 to 20 is the span of “normal human intelligence”?

I was wondering that too, as it seems skewed high by two on both ends.

So 20 is the upper end of “normal”? And if 5 is the lower end of normal, but still normal, I’d say that it’s pretty hard to notice a 6, 7, or 8 as being noticeably non-intelligent.

5 is a long way below normal.
6 is signficantly below normal.
7 is noticeably below normal but also noticeably more with it than a 6 or a 5.
8-9 is marginally below normal, probably not even noticeable much of the time.

At the other end, 18 is the extreme end of the general-population human bell curve; 19 and 20 are unachievable by most people and I'd posit would be unachieveable at all were there not magic in the world.

 

[Oofta]

So there’s no discernible difference between 8 and 10 but there is between 5 and 20?

And where do you get that 5 to 20 is the span of “normal human intelligence”? So 20 is the upper end of “normal”? And if 5 is the lower end of normal, but still normal, I’d say that it’s pretty hard to notice a 6, 7, or 8 as being noticeably non-intelligent.

Is there a difference between someone that is 5'8" and 5'9"? Sure. If they're standing side by side you'll notice. On the other hand, just looking at someone like my friend from college that was 4'8" (maybe) and someone who is close to 7' tall do you notice a difference immediately? I think most people will.

Intelligence scores, like IQ scores are just a measure of relative intelligence. An ogre has an intelligence of 5 with limited vocabulary but still functional. That to me, sets the bottom bar for normal human intelligence. A 20 is as high as a mortal can go in D&D without magic. The "difference between a 9 and 10 intelligence" is a strawman, that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm done with this conversation. If you refuse to accept that a 5 intelligence is significantly different than a 20 then your view relative intelligence is so alien to me I don't even know where to start.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

To me this one's edition-agnostic. A low stat has much the same effects on role-play in any edition, though the mechanics may differ.

I beg to differ. Being the topic of this thread, 5e as written has no prescriptive rules around how one must portray stats. Lots of suggestions but no definitive way one must portray the difference in ability score between 6 or 7 or 10 or 13. Does 1e? I still have my books and didn't see any. But you still actively play it and would perhaps know better.

There's enough mechanical checks and balances on the three physical stats (Str, Dex, Con) that an attempt to play against your stats will become fairly obvious fairly quickly; though granted it's more obvious if playing a low stat as high than if underplaying a high stat which, if careful, one might get away with for some time.

With the mental stats (Int, Wis) - particularly if one largely eschews social mechanics - the only checks and balances are self-provided by the players in how they portray their PCs, and thus it's the responsibility of the players to self-provide (and self-enforce) these. Again, underplaying a high stat is very possible and can fool the table for a long time if done right. Overplaying a low stat - in other words, failing to self-regulate - can and does very quickly cross the line into bad-faith play.

Not so in 5e. Indeed, most ability checks in the game are based on Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Now, if a particular campaign doesn't feature many of these checks with meaningful stakes, well, the scores won't matter as much mechanically.

I'm also confused why one would want to "fool the table for a long time" by playing a high stat low. That is quite a different style of play than I'm used to in 5e.

Charisma is an odd one, in that it's comprised both of physical (the character's attractiveness) and mental (power of personality) elements. That said, given as it's made up of two very discrete elements it's also easy to say that unless your Cha is extremely high or extremely low improvements to one of these elements must by default adversely affect the other. Which means that with an average-ish Cha you can play a handsome debonair a-hole or a plain-looking charmer. The other mental stats don't have such a convenient trade-off.

An old-school D&D definition of Charisma, to be sure. In 5e, Charisma measures "confidence, eloquence, leadership". It says nothing about physical attractiveness.