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

[pemerton]

I’m talking about D&D 5e, specifically the point where the DM considers the character performing the action and all the surrounding circumstances when considering how to resolve it.

It seems to me that, in this very thread, not everyone agrees with the bolded bit.

 

[HammerMan]

Easily.

Page 11 "Your character is a combination of game statistics, roleplaying hooks, and your imagination. You choose a race (such as human or halfling) and a class (such as fighter or wizard). You also invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of your character."

The stats are mechanics. They apply when mechanics are called for.

except if you role play a swave charismatic leader with an 8 cha, you are not playing the character you mechanically created...

There is a lot of talk about the character concept you come up with for your character, for instance page 13-14 "Your DM might offer additional backgrounds beyond the ones included in chapter 4, and might be willing to work with you to craft a background that's a more precise fit for your character concept."

yup but it doesn't say I can roleplay a str 8 or less (if rolling) wizard into carring extra weight... so it also stands to reason an 8(or less if rolling) cha character isn't a charasmatic character no matter how he is played

Alignment is a description, not a proscription.

after game 1 of 4e we threw out alingment... I hate it. I write funny things like "Chaotic goodish" "Goodish Punisher" "Nice guy with a short fuse" now

 

[HammerMan]

It seems to me that, in this very thread, not everyone agrees with the bolded bit.

yup character doesn't matter to some

 

[Maxperson]

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.

There is precedent for it.

"Tastes great!"
"Less filling!"

"You got your chocolate in my peanut butter!"
"You got your peanut butter on my chocolate!"

 

[pemerton]

Great creativity. Everyone at the table can learn from that. I'm not understanding how that is a problem.

Well obviously it's not a problem for you!

But if someone thinks that the PC's skill at being sneaky should correlate to some representation of that skill on their PC sheet (say, their DEX (Stealth) bonus) then there will be a problem for them.

As I've posted already, with quotes from the 5e Basic PDF, there is textual support in the 5e rules for the second person's thought as much as there is for your approach. I think the tension in the text is not only obvious but deliberate - the resolution of the tension by different groups in different ways enables the text to support a wider range of RPGing approaches than it otherwise might. Which is an obvious commercial goal for WotC.

That's why we don't make people give speeches. If a player wants to describe something in first person because that's going to be fun, great. If a player wants to just give a short 3rd person description of how they gave a speech, that works, too. Both achieve the same thing: describing what the character is doing. Both will be adjudicated the same way. There are no in-game bonus points for being a real life linguist.

Why use the word make? The issue is do you permit them to do so? At my table, if someone wants to speak as their PC, and it is a powerful thing that they say or do, that is part of the fiction that is relevant to adjudication.

And why are there in game bonus points for knowing about tank traps, but not for knowing the collected works of Shakespeare and/or Churchill? I'm not trying to "gotcha" you here, just pointing out that the line you seem to see as obvious is not self-evident at all, but is a line that you have constructed.

Just as you think I build tank traps like <goes on to describe the tank traps in general terms, and how they can be build using rope and timber> is a better action declaration than simply I erect fortifications to defend the homestead, so I think that a powerful oration is a better action declaration than simply I orate powerfully, pointing out the many sacrifices that have already been made in pursuit of the cause.

That still leaves open how the better action declaration feeds into resolution. There are different ways of doing that; I've posted how I handled it in 4e. I don't think it's as straightforward in 5e.

Bottom line is that we all come to the game with different real life strengths and weaknesses. Creative ideas will vary from person to person based at least partially on their prior life experience and prior gaming experience. When someone comes up with a creative idea that helps the group, that should be celebrated. Seeing those things as something that amounts to "gaining an unfair advantage" is a... strange way to look at it in a cooperative game.

I just think this varies from RPG to RPG. And can vary even within the confines of 5e D&D.

I mean, suppose my 18 INT wizard PC is playing a chess game against the 8 INT barbarian PC to determine <some wacky but high stakes thing that has come to pass in the campaign>. There are any number of ways to resolve this, from straight the 18 INT beats the 8 INT to make opposed INT checks to OK, you two players play a chess game here-and-now. And of course other possibilities too.

I don't think any of these ways is self-evidently correct, even within the confines of 5e D&D. But I can easily see individual 5e players having a pretty strong preference that it should be done this way rather than this other way.

 

[clearstream]

No, that’s not what I mean. I get that.

But when I hear “surprising” and “unpredictable” …which I totally agree with…I think of something richer and more interesting than just failing or succeeding when the other result is expected. I’m the first to admit that as a DM I struggle with “spontaneous creativity”, and even I can do better than stochastic pass/fail when it comes to improvising surprising outcomes.

I can empathise with that. I've noticed my players anticipate some kind of botch on a fail that rolled 1, so I typically indulge them. Likewise on a very high roll that succeeds I might narrate a ribbon.

I've considered extending that to a general rule using parity, but I’m not confident of the practicality or necessity.

 

[Bill Zebub]

except if you role play a swave charismatic leader with an 8 cha, you are not playing the character you mechanically created...

How many people do you know who believe they are suave and charismatic, but are actually *****nozzles? If your experience is like mine, it's lots.

So if the player wants to act like Smoov B Luvin that's fine. Presumably the DM will factor this into adjudications, and when a dice roll is called for the player will get a -1 penalty.

Working as intended.

Now, that said, I understand that a lot of people think an 8 Charisma should mean more than just a -5% penalty. And that somehow it's gaming the system to not play the 8 Charisma as much worse than that. I get that. And, well, too bad. That's not how the game works. You're free to roleplay that if you want, but I don't think you should expect others to share your (mis)interpretation of the actual rules.

 

[HammerMan]

Just as you think I build tank traps like <goes on to describe the tank traps in general terms, and how they can be build using rope and timber> is a better action declaration than simply I erect fortifications to defend the homestead, so I think that a powerful oration is a better action declaration than simply I orate powerfully, pointing out the many sacrifices that have already been made in pursuit of the cause.

yup we also made a 1time only rule...
if you have some great creative thing none of us ever thought of, and do it in game (like make an in game nuke, or an in game trap, or even just a mechanic exploiting trick) the character you use it on is it... You can't do the same thing in the next campaign. And since most of us agree tthis carries table to table DM to DM.

I mean, suppose my 18 INT wizard PC is playing a chess game against the 8 INT barbarian PC to determine <some wacky but high stakes thing that has come to pass in the campaign>. There are any number of ways to resolve this, from straight the 18 INT beats the 8 INT to make opposed INT checks to OK, you two players play a chess game here-and-now. And of course other possibilities too.

I don't think any of these ways is self-evidently correct, even within the confines of 5e D&D. But I can easily see individual 5e players having a pretty strong preference that it should be done this way rather than this other way.

I think there is a dragon chess tool set prof... I would think Int would go with it most times (maybe wis) so it would be an apposed tool kit check... and on a d20 a half orc with a -1 against a skilled wizard with+7 (4 int 3 prof) it still isn't going to be every game the wizard wins...

on the other hand the 11thlevel rogue with a 19 (headband) Int trained and expertise for +8 min roll of 10 is going to beat both most times

 

[Bill Zebub]

I can empathise with that. I've noticed my players anticipate some kind of botch on a fail that rolled 1, so I typically indulge them. Likewise on a very high roll that succeeds I might narrate a ribbon.

I've considered extending that to a general rule using parity, but I’m not confident of the practicality or necessity.

I have to admit one of my least favorite things about 5e (and D&D in general) is the absence of degrees of success.

 

[pemerton]

Page 11 "Your character is a combination of game statistics, roleplaying hooks, and your imagination. You choose a race (such as human or halfling) and a class (such as fighter or wizard). You also invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of your character."

The stats are mechanics. They apply when mechanics are called for.

From p 35 of the Basic PDF:

Give your character two personality traits. Personality traits are small, simple ways to help you set your character apart from every other character. . . . A useful place to start thinking about personality traits is to look at your highest and lowest ability scores and define one trait related to each. Either one could be positive or negative: you might work hard to overcome a low score, for example, or be cocky about your high score.​

This is the latest in a long line of such remarks in D&D rulebooks. The 2nd ed AD&D PHB suggests building a PC's personality/character out of the ability scores. And the 4e PHB says (pp 16) that "Six abilities provide a quick description of your character’s physical and mental characteristics. Are you muscle-bound and insightful? Brilliant and charming? Nimble and hardy? Your ability scores define these qualities - your strengths as well as your weaknesses." The stats are clearly intended to operate as a constraint on imagination.

If your PC has STR 8 and CON 10, it's not appropriate to imagine them as having the mighty thews and physical prowess of REH's Conan!