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

[Hriston]

I would. Or more to the point: I don't care. These distinctions always feel quite arbitrary and meaningless to me, a lot of people blur the lines one way or the other between who is in control of the PC or the setting narrative. Are people enjoying time with friends in a collaborative setting? I see little reason to say whether or not they are "actually playing the game".

Okay. I'm not sure why you're bringing up control over "the setting narrative." When I run a game, I care whether the players have an opportunity to play via their characters. It's why I'm running the game.

Listening to the DM tell you a story may be quite entertaining and an enjoyable way to spend time with friends, but it's also an example of the players not roleplaying and not playing the game.

 

[Lanefan]

How can they be said to be playing the game when their character's thoughts and actions are being determined by Kim? It seems that in those instances of play, Kim is doing all the roleplaying, and the other players are merely actors following Kim's directions.

By the same token, when the PCs successfully use persuasion etc. on Kim's NPCs then Kim becomes merely an actor following the players' directions - right?

And this is my whole point: if mechanics like this are going to exist then to preserve internal setting consistency and have the PCs be part of the setting those mechanics have to work both ways equally. And if you-as-DM don't like the result of having them work both ways because player agency is impacted, the answer is to get rid of them - both ways.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

By the same token, when the PCs successfully use persuasion etc. on Kim's NPCs then Kim becomes merely an actor following the players' directions - right?

And this is my whole point: if mechanics like this are going to exist then to preserve internal setting consistency and have the PCs be part of the setting those mechanics have to work both ways equally. And if you-as-DM don't like the result of having them work both ways because player agency is impacted, the answer is to get rid of them - both ways.

Or we just accept that GM and players have different roles and it is fine for GM 'to become just an actor.'

 

[Lanefan]

It's as designed, no doubt. Two variations that I think could find support from different posters in this thread are:

1. The players describe what their characters want to do, and​

2. The players describe what their characters do.​

My preference is for the second, and I actually find it kind of annoying when players state their character's actions only as proposed additions to the fiction because it kind of leaves it up to me as the DM to play their character and I can't be sure what it is they're actually doing. Tell me what your character does, and I'll tell you what happens as a result.

The problem with 2. above is that there's no implied chance of failure.

Even if a player flat-out states what her character does there's always an implied try to in there somewhere. For example a player saying "I climb the wall" is really saying "I try to climb the wall".

 

[Lanefan]

Or we just accept that GM and players have different roles and it is fine for GM 'to become just an actor.'

This puts one at the top of a short, steep and very slippery slope leading down to a situation where inhabitants of the game setting walk around with little stickers on their foreheads saying "PC" or "NPC" and are treated differently because of it.

As both player and DM: no thanks.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This puts one at the top of a short, steep and very slippery slope leading down to a situation where inhabitants of the game setting walk around with little stickers on their foreheads saying "PC" or "NPC" and are treated differently because of it.

As both player and DM: no thanks.

I don't think so, as whether the dice are rolled to achieve an outcome or whether that outcome is just decided is not something that is knowable to the people in the setting.

 

[Oofta]

Okay. I'm not sure why you're bringing up control over "the setting narrative." When I run a game, I care whether the players have an opportunity to play via their characters. It's why I'm running the game.

Because you stated it in the OP, that the narrative is the DM's job if I understood..

Listening to the DM tell you a story may be quite entertaining and an enjoyable way to spend time with friends, but it's also an example of the players not roleplaying and not playing the game.

Yeah, I just don't care about labels.

 

[Bill Zebub]

By the same token, when the PCs successfully use persuasion etc. on Kim's NPCs then Kim becomes merely an actor following the players' directions - right?

Um, no, not right.

First, if by “use persuasion” you mean the skill on the character sheet, then no that’s not how it works. There is no “I use my Persuasion button and if I roll high enough it’s a poor man’s Dominate spell.”

But if you are using the word in the more generic sense, similar to “use clever arguments” or “appeal to his sense of vanity” then we are on the right track.

The player states their goal and approach, and the DM role plays the NPCs reaction. The DM might decide the NPC would find the approach effective, but even then the NPC won’t necessarily “do what the PC wants.” They might be persuaded by the arguments, but then suggest an alternate resolution, for example.

So, again, no. What you are describing is not 5e.

 

[Hriston]

The results can include that they can’t do as they said. I believe players perforce follow 1. Although they can generally frame that as 2.

If the players declare an action that (by my estimation) they can't do, that's usually a sign that they're imagining their character's fictional positioning differently than I am and that we need to clarify what exactly that is and revise the declaration if needed.

 

[Hriston]

By the same token, when the PCs successfully use persuasion etc. on Kim's NPCs then Kim becomes merely an actor following the players' directions - right?

And this is my whole point: if mechanics like this are going to exist then to preserve internal setting consistency and have the PCs be part of the setting those mechanics have to work both ways equally. And if you-as-DM don't like the result of having them work both ways because player agency is impacted, the answer is to get rid of them - both ways.

As a DM, I'm happy to honor the players' success in social interactions. I'm there to adjudicate the game, not to be one player among many. It's a different job.