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

[Swarmkeeper]

I haven't used the word require.

As per my post just upthread in reply to @Cadence, if the fiction makes it clear how things are running the PC's way, I like the resolution to reflect that. It's not about rewarding anyone. It's about resolution reflecting concrete elements of the fiction. If a player is better at introducing those concrete elements into the fiction then they will get the benefit of that - to me, that seems to be part of playing a RPG.

Understood. Call it what you will, you prefer voice acting at your table and it is rewarded mechanically in your non-5e game accordingly. There is no such mechanical reward for IRL theatrical skill at our 5e table.

EDIT: I revisited one of the old "INT 5 genuis" threads and found this:

Player: My character does something brilliant and genius-like.
DM: Okay, but what exactly is he doing?
Player: I don't know, but it's awesome.
DM: * Pretends to roll dice * Okay. You succeed. Something astonishing happens.
Player: Cool. Er .. what?
DM: I don't know either. But what you did was so brilliant, I'm giving you Inspiration.
Other Player: Huh?

Obviously it's intended to be mocking exaggeration. But it's the sort of thing that I prefer to avoid if possible in my RPGing.

Great example of an action declaration from a player that is not reasonably specific and would require more detail in order to adjudicate.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Thing is: given as the main purpose of playing the game is entertainment (both given and received), even if both approaches yield the same result I'd rather hear the rousing speech or the intricate details of how a character is staying silent as those are far more entertaining than just a basic action declaration.

Oh, I'll concur that the rousing speech is great fun to witness at the table. I just don't see any reason to give it any more weight when making an adjudication than the third person description that gets the point across just the same.

We welcome anyone at our 5e table who is willing to play in good faith, have fun, and contribute to a fun, memorable story.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

"PHB 173: "A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average, but adventurers and many monsters are a cut above average in most abilities. A score of 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches."

10-11 is the average and average equates to middling score. That automatically makes 9 low and 12 high. In any case, the specifics that I quoted are much more specific than the general stuff on page 14, and specific beats general.

So, for you, ability scores override the PHB roleplaying rules on page 185? For you, the player does not fully determine how their PC thinks/talks/acts, it's their character sheet that has the final say on the allowable range of PC thinking/talking/acting. Is that a reasonable assessment of your table's expectations?

 

[Cadence]

So, for you, ability scores override the PHB roleplaying rules on page 185? For you, the player does not fully determine how their PC thinks/talks/acts, it's their character sheet that has the final say on the allowable range of PC thinking/talking/acting. Is that a reasonable assessment of your table's expectations?

I would say that at some point the dissonance between the sheet and and the RPing makes the player someone I wouldn't want at my table. In my 40 years of playing I've never played with such a person, have reports from a few real people who have, and have read of lots of hypotheticals. I also wouldn't want a DM who was nitpicky about it.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I would say that at some point the dissonance between the sheet and and the RPing makes the player someone I wouldn't want at my table. In my 40 years of playing I've never played with such a person, have reports from a few real people who have, and have read of lots of hypotheticals. I also wouldn't want a DM who was nitpicky about it.

I think that's a reasonable assessment.

Meaningful stakes tend to take that dissonance out of the realm of roleplay, though, and put them to the test with game-world mechanical implications. Acting like a know-it-all with INT 5 but suffers the consequences of failing their INT(Investigation) ability checks regularly. Consistently describing their buffness with STR 5 but suffers the consequences of not being able to jump across 10' pits and failing STR(Athletics) ability checks. Etc.

 

[Maxperson]

So, for you, ability scores override the PHB roleplaying rules on page 185?

The failure to roleplay stats is a social contract violation. When you agree to play the game, you agree to abide by the rules unless they are changed. The player gets to decide how his PC thinks and acts, but only within the parameters the game sets up. The game sets it up so that social skills cannot be forced on the player, so the player gets to decide. The game also sets up that stats mean certain things.

Page 185 is not being overridden. It simply doesn't apply to social contract violations. No rule can enable such a violation.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The failure to roleplay stats is a social contract violation.

Very much disagree. But we can leave it there and move on to more fruitful discussion topics.

 

[iserith]

The failure to roleplay stats is a social contract violation. When you agree to play the game, you agree to abide by the rules unless they are changed. The player gets to decide how his PC thinks and acts, but only within the parameters the game sets up. The game sets it up so that social skills cannot be forced on the player, so the player gets to decide. The game also sets up that stats mean certain things.

Page 185 is not being overridden. It simply doesn't apply to social contract violations. No rule can enable such a violation.

The game sets it up for the player to be advised to consider the meaning of these things, but to ultimately decide for themselves how it informs their character's appearance and personality. For a particular portrayal to violate the social contract, as you say here, it must exist as an agreement at the level of table rules. People should be held to their agreements, but the game rules don't actually say what the player must do here other than take what it says into account when deciding. A group that lacks this table rule has no issue with a social contract violation when a player decides to portray the character as Sherlock Holmes while having an Int 5, for example.

Now, if we want to talk about personal characteristics (personality traits, ideals, bonds, flaws), this is where the game actually does say something about how the player might receive a benefit for portraying the character in certain pre-established ways via Inspiration. A character with an Int 5 might, if a player decides, have a trait or flaw that says "I'm as dumb as a Heward's handy haversack full of light hammers." Portraying the character as such during play may then earn that player Inspiration.

As has been mentioned already, it's not particularly smart play to try to have an Int 5 character attempt to make deductions or recall lore as Sherlock Holmes might, since it may result in a lot of failure. But that's the player's choice to make.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The failure to roleplay stats is a social contract violation. When you agree to play the game, you agree to abide by the rules unless they are changed. The player gets to decide how his PC thinks and acts, but only within the parameters the game sets up. The game sets it up so that social skills cannot be forced on the player, so the player gets to decide. The game also sets up that stats mean certain things.

Page 185 is not being overridden. It simply doesn't apply to social contract violations. No rule can enable such a violation.

Ok, but are you acknowledging that your interpretation of those “rules” and thus the social contract you have with your group is subjective?

There is flavor text (“guidelines”) around the meaning of the attributes, but it’s notable that 5e makes absolutely zero attempt to quantify them. No military press, no IQ, nothing.

So one player’s interpretation is as valid as another….unless you agree as a table otherwise. It is completely reasonable to read the rules and conclude that 6 Intelligence means that you are 10% worse than average at cognitive tasks. Which is a difference that might not even be observable.

 

[Oofta]

Ok, but are you acknowledging that your interpretation of those “rules” and thus the social contract you have with your group is subjective?

There is flavor text (“guidelines”) around the meaning of the attributes, but it’s notable that 5e makes absolutely zero attempt to quantify them. No military press, no IQ, nothing.

So one player’s interpretation is as valid as another….unless you agree as a table otherwise. It is completely reasonable to read the rules and conclude that 6 Intelligence means that you are 10% worse than average at cognitive tasks. Which is a difference that might not even be observable.

We know that a 5 intelligence is significantly lower than a 10. We know that Sherlock Holmes is supposed to be one of the most brilliant people ever which likely puts them at a 20. To say there is no difference between a 5 int and a 20 to me is not a matter of interpretation, it's ignoring simple logic.

Ability scores are either A) a completely abstract concept that does nothing to describe your PC and is only a game mechanic that gives you pluses and minuses or B) it describes your character and also affects game mechanics.

It's been pointed out that Option A is not the intent of the books, nor is it how anyone I've ever actually played the game with views it.