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

[pemerton]

The nice thing about combat is that it has built-in dramatic conflict, and every action has a built-in cost.

I get that this is the case for 5e D&D. But it's pretty straightforward RPG design to generalise this across non-combat resolution. 4e shows one way this can be done using D&D-style PC build and action resolution infrastructure.

So it must tell us something pretty particular about 5e D&D that it doesn't generalise as 4e does.

 

[Cadence]

I suspect you're never going to get a straight answer. Seems like a simple question to me.

For me? I may ask for clarification if player intent is not clear, but I don't require anything other than the player communicating what they are doing. Doesn't matter if they do it with 4 words or 40. How they say what they're doing is never going to affect the DC.

As far as engaging in the fiction different players have different preferences. A lot of times I'm perfectly okay with shortcuts because I just want to get to the interesting stuff.

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.

 

[HammerMan]

You are already presuming a roll here when you invoke "-1 and disadvantage". Those things do not come into play until the DM decides that a roll is necessary.

they are the in game ability of the character

Ignoring that part. What does it mean to "describe better"? If you mean the player with the mechanically weaker character has a better approach to solving a particular situation then, sure, their DC might be lower to accomplish said task.

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?

For example: Let's say the party sees a 20' wall and wants to get over it. The player with the weaker character describes wanting to use the rickety extension ladder that is lying on the ground while the player with the stronger character describes wanting just to climb the very smooth wall. Let's say both require checks. Yes, the one using the ladder might have a lower DC than the one climbing the smooth wall. Using the ladder was a better approach in this situation. And maybe the character climbing the smooth wall has a personality trait that says they prefer to do things the hard way (earning them inspiration). Or maybe not. What their PCs choose to do is up to them.

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...

Is any of this problematic?

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...

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....


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.

 

[Bill Zebub]

My group doesn't always aim for smart play. Our tradition is one of valuing stochastic outcomes. Surprises. A notion that not all details in the game-world can be known by players.

And a simple binary success/failure outcome provides that?

 

[HammerMan]

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?

yeah... I mean taking off the armor takes away disadvantage...

I sneak down the hall vs. I take off my boots and stuff a shirt in my quiver and sneak down the hall,

this is a great example... if a stealth -1 character being played by a smart player said I take off my boots and stuff a shirt in my quiver and sneak down the hall, I might once or twice give them a bonus (a +1 or advantage, it depends) but if they regulary do this for stealth checks I would just say "Play a character that knows more about stealth" and "I sneak down the hall" might give a +9 stealth rogue an auto succsess in my game where the other characters would still roll...

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.

this is cut and dry roll. I may give a +1 for the 'learned about the guards family' but more likely I would have them make an Int or Wis or Insight check to use it right then give advantage on the intimidate...

 

[pemerton]

What does a PC's ability modifier have to do with whether or not the DM grants auto-success in a situation?

I can only speak for myself here.

But p 58 of the Basic PDF says that "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

So here's an example, beginning with some autobiography, to show what I have in mind.

On a particular walk that I do often with my partner, there is a place where I do some jumping - a standing jump from the ground up to a higher surface - just to try and keep that part of my leg strength up. I have to warm up a bit to do the jump - normally it is the third or fourth try where I can land on the high surface rather than just land back down on the lower ground.

If I were a competitive sprinter or jumper or volleyballer or similar, then the jump would be utterly trivial.

In 5e D&D, the difference between my ability to jump and the ability of a competitive athlete for whom the jump is trivial is expressed in differences of STR score and differences of Athletics proficiency/expertise.

Thus, to me at least, it stands to reason that a decision about what can be automatically achieved might depend on the PC's ability modifier.

Mutatis mutandis, the same would apply to attempting to find or recover water in the desert, or attempting to sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge, or any of the other various actions that a player might declare for their PC.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Good lord. Here we go with "magic words" again.

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.

 

[prabe]

Thus, to me at least, it stands to reason that a decision about what can be automatically achieved might depend on the PC's ability modifier.

Mutatis mutandis, the same would apply to attempting to find or recover water in the desert, or attempting to sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge, or any of the other various actions that a player might declare for their PC.

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.

 

[clearstream]

And a simple binary success/failure outcome provides that?

The origin of our d20 checks lies in that. The idea is that in the real world outcomes are somewhat unpredictable. We can't know every factor bearing on them. Perhaps a slight humidity made this lock stiff - harder to open. Rather than trying exhaustively, and futilely, to list every factor, we roll for it.

The simple answer? Yes, works for us.

 

[pemerton]

Honestly I have no idea what you mean.

What I mean is that the likelihood that doing X will achieve Y often depends on who it is that doing X.

Eg the likelihood that running fast will catch the animal depends on who is doing the running (many people run more quickly than I do, for instance).

The likelihood that proposing to the king that I would be a suitable spouse for his daughter will have the king agree is going to depend, in part, on who makes the proposal (eg I was recently at a house auction and the auctioneer was very good at his job and I think as a result probably got an extra few thousand at least for the vendors; conversely one time when I successfully bid at an auction I was helped by the fact that the auctioneer was not very good at drumming up bids).

I'm describing using roleplaying to resolve interactions, not just relying on dice rolls. I can't think of a better way to support the kinds of things you are describing.

Do you mean better way within the context of 5e D&D's PC build and resolution framework? Or better way in general for RPGing?

If the former, you're probably right. The absence of a better way is one reason I don't play 5e D&D.

If the latter, then I think you're obviously wrong. It's trivial to design a RPG that, for instance, will give weight to the fact that it is Kirk who is trying to persuade the king, that doesn't depend simply on the GM forming a view as to whether or not the player's words or deeds are persuasive enough.