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

[clearstream]

Yes, remove players agency and you cannot call it roleplay anymore, no matter how you twist it.

You see the distinction I am making, right? Constraining a player-character's actions - what they do - can be differentiated from constraining a player-character's choice of what they want to do.

 

[clearstream]

this is a weird way to agree with me

We are not permitted to agree by agreeing, in social interaction and roleplay threads. You know this.

 

[HammerMan]

You see the distinction I am making, right? Constraining a player-character's actions - what they do - can be differentiated from constraining a player-character's choice of what they want to do.

by the logic I keep hearing if I declair "I climb the tree to find the cow" there is no way to separate the climb that is uncertain from the find the cow that is certain (not up there) it is all or nothing

 

[Nefermandias]

You see the distinction I am making, right? Constraining a player-character's actions - what they do - can be differentiated from constraining a player-character's choice of what they want to do.

Yes, the distinction is very clear and supported by the rules themselves.

 

[clearstream]

by the logic I keep hearing if I declair "I climb the tree to find the cow" there is no way to separate the climb that is uncertain from the find the cow that is certain (not up there) it is all or nothing

It becomes an important distinction in connection with social interactions and roleplay. Contrast -

DM: Here is a tree.
PC: I want to climb the tree.
DM: You are tied up, so you cannot climb the tree.
PC: I want to wriggle free of my bonds.

DM: Here is a tree.
PC: I want to climb the tree.
DM: No, you do not want to climb the tree.
PC: ...

What can the PC attempt in the second case? What is their approach? We could consider -

PC: I focus my will on wanting to climb the tree.
DM: I'll call that a contest of your CHA versus CHA of NPC who persuaded you to not want to climb the tree. You can both add Persuasion.

I think there are a couple of reasons not to go that route. One is that we've never had good rules for social interaction. Compare it with Athletics which is used in several detailed mechanics. Grappling for example, which falls in the scope of ability checks (unlike Attacks.) Or jumping. So ones first objection might be that the rules are not robust enough to support it well.

Why are they not robust enough? If we want to know a reasonable distance to jump, we have measurable real-world examples to help us. But what is a measure for battles of will? In our world, the psychological or cognitive is much less well understood than the physical. It's hard to find a normal that everyone can agree on, and for many players it's just not that much fun to be told what they want to do! Given that's pretty much their only power in the game. (It's in fact a tremendous power, but obviously much less tremendous if you can easily take it away.)

For me that is a useful insight one can take from the OP. If your only power is choice over what you can do, then you reasonably enough feel strongly about protecting it.

 

[Charlaquin]

um, since when do we need rules to expressly allow it?

You don’t. But, you know. There are things the rules support and things they don’t, and both are perfectly valid to do.

 

[Maxperson]

We are not permitted to agree by agreeing, in social interaction and roleplay threads. You know this.

There is no uncertainty.

 

[Maxperson]

What can the PC attempt in the second case? What is their approach? We could consider -

PC: I focus my will on wanting to climb the tree.
DM: I'll call that a contest of your CHA versus CHA of NPC who persuaded you to not want to climb the tree. You can both add Persuasion.

At that point persuasion becomes mind control. I can force you to do my will as long as I win the CHA contest. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that it's not intended to be mind control.

 

[HammerMan]

One is that we've never had good rules for social interaction.

I will give you that one

Compare it with Athletics which is used in several detailed mechanics. Grappling for example, which falls in the scope of ability checks (unlike Attacks.) Or jumping. So ones first objection might be that the rules are not robust enough to support it well.

yeah, I wish "what happens in universe of the game when I use X" was better molded.

Why are they not robust enough? If we want to know a reasonable distance to jump, we have measurable real-world examples to help us. But what is a measure for battles of will?

yeah and even that isn't so good... a fighter with a 20 str and training in athletics and a magic item giving +5 athletics can't beat the long jump record in the real world...

In our world, the psychological or cognitive is much less well understood than the physical.

this is why simple checks can be easier for some then finding the short hand for what in the other thread was likened to 'pixle hunting'/

For me that is a useful insight one can take from the OP. If your only power is choice over what you can do, then you reasonably enough feel strongly about protecting it.

yet another great reason why charm/suggestion/dominate is evil, and should be labeled as at least a warning to players...

 

[HammerMan]

You don’t. But, you know. There are things the rules support and things they don’t, and both are perfectly valid to do.

okay, and when the rules are 100% silent on things, it is not supporting or not supporting.