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

[Fenris-77]

Well, the notion of describing declared actions in such a fashion as to achieve success, given the fiction, without a check being required is something that was talked about upthread. For some of the participants in this thread, it is an express goal of play (for the players in their games).

That would satisfy your OSR inclinations, I think. Though in itself it still doesn't tell me how augmenting works! - maybe some of the information that will help come up with a no-check-required action declaration might be accessible only if a successful check (on eg WIS (Perception) or WIS (Survival) or INT (Investigation) ) is made.

Because I'm a "say 'yes' or roll the dice"-oriented RPG, where the trigger for saying "yes" is not fictional positioning but narrative heft, I prefer approaches that allow augments to be factored in as modifiers to checks.

I might not have been clear enough about what I was getting at. I wasn't specifically indexing success without a check, but rather problem solving that escapes the gravity of the basic game mechanics. Let's assume for a moment that there is an obstacle that the characters need to overcome that looks like it might involve climbing (just to keep the example the same). 5E has skill checks and systems that handle wall climbing, specifically the Athletics skill and sliding DCs. I was indexing the nature of 5E play as play that doesn't really step past those mechanics (obviously I'm generalizing here).

The idea that a successful perception check and a close examination of the wall might make it easier to climb isn't something 5E really works toward, by design anyway. Let's add some further detail to our example now, just to give ourselves some narrative handles. A character is in the outer keep of an enemy fortress and needs to climb the wall to escape, and just for giggles lets say this character isn't one with a high Athletics modifier, so they go looking for options. They find some sticky pitch in a barrel and give the wall a close examination to find the best place to climb (Perception or Investigation or whatever, with a good success). How do we adjudicate this?

For my part, I probably wouldn't even ask for an Athletics test, they'd just climb the wall. My contention is that many people probably would, and more importantly that it wouldn't occur to them not to ask for the check. The notion I'm driving at here is the idea that playing the mechanics and systems can be a problem when it gets substituted for playing the fictional position, on both sides of the screen.

I still feel like I'm struggling to make my point. I'll circle back in a bit and see where the above gets us.

 

[Oofta]

I might not have been clear enough about what I was getting at. I wasn't specifically indexing success without a check, but rather problem solving that escapes the gravity of the basic game mechanics. Let's assume for a moment that there is an obstacle that the characters need to overcome that looks like it might involve climbing (just to keep the example the same). 5E has skill checks and systems that handle wall climbing, specifically the Athletics skill and sliding DCs. I was indexing the nature of 5E play as play that doesn't really step past those mechanics (obviously I'm generalizing here).

The idea that a successful perception check and a close examination of the wall might make it easier to climb isn't something 5E really works toward, by design anyway. Let's add some further detail to our example now, just to give ourselves some narrative handles. A character is in the outer keep of an enemy fortress and needs to climb the wall to escape, and just for giggles lets say this character isn't one with a high Athletics modifier, so they go looking for options. They find some sticky pitch in a barrel and give the wall a close examination to find the best place to climb (Perception or Investigation or whatever, with a good success). How do we adjudicate this?

For my part, I probably wouldn't even ask for an Athletics test, they'd just climb the wall. My contention is that many people probably would, and more importantly that it wouldn't occur to them not to ask for the check. The notion I'm driving at here is the idea that playing the mechanics and systems can be a problem when it gets substituted for playing the fictional position, on both sides of the screen.

I still feel like I'm struggling to make my point. I'll circle back in a bit and see where the above gets us.

Doesn't it depend on approach to the game? There are several variables

• The DM has decided that in order to move the story forward, there will be some reasonable option to get over the wall.
• The DM sets up the environment and has a vision of the scene. If the PC can't get over the wall, they get captured or killed as appropriate.
• The player can add to the narrative and decide that there's a ladder or a rope to climb.
• The player can't add to the narrative but can look around to see if there's an option such as stacking crates or making an improvised ladder. The DM decides if there are possible options, perhaps asking for some kind of check.
• An appropriate check can lower the DC of the climb significantly, perhaps down to automatic as the PC notices a rope hanging down from the wall, a crack in the wall or similar.
• The PC can't climb the wall, but with an appropriate check can notice that there's a cargo filled wagon with horses attached. Perhaps they can hide in the cargo?

So this simple scenario still has options, I'm sure there's many more. I'm not going to say any option is better or worse than any other, it's going to vary by group. For me, the player can't add to the narrative but I also don't like putting players into no win situation. There will generally be some option to get away; even in scenarios where I expect the group to be captured there will always be a chance to get away.

Just another example of doing what makes sense for the group.

 

[Fenris-77]

Doesn't it depend on approach to the game? There are several variables

• The DM has decided that in order to move the story forward, there will be some reasonable option to get over the wall.
• The DM sets up the environment and has a vision of the scene. If the PC can't get over the wall, they get captured or killed as appropriate.
• The player can add to the narrative and decide that there's a ladder or a rope to climb.
• The player can't add to the narrative but can look around to see if there's an option such as stacking crates or making an improvised ladder. The DM decides if there are possible options, perhaps asking for some kind of check.
• An appropriate check can lower the DC of the climb significantly, perhaps down to automatic as the PC notices a rope hanging down from the wall, a crack in the wall or similar.
• The PC can't climb the wall, but with an appropriate check can notice that there's a cargo filled wagon with horses attached. Perhaps they can hide in the cargo?

So this simple scenario still has options, I'm sure there's many more. I'm not going to say any option is better or worse than any other, it's going to vary by group. For me, the player can't add to the narrative but I also don't like putting players into no win situation. There will generally be some option to get away; even in scenarios where I expect the group to be captured there will always be a chance to get away.

Just another example of doing what makes sense for the group.

I find that no-win scenarios generally stem from sentences that begin with "the DM decides" so I try to avoid deciding things in advance. In my game, when the player gets to the courtyard, which would have happened based on player decision making and framing, not force, then the question "What do you do?" is an honest one on my part. I might have an idea about what my happen if X time passes (guards show up or whatever), but I don't have any preconceived ideas about what's supposed to happen in the courtyard in terms of what the player does (i.e. there's no script). I expect nothing in terms of outcomes. I find (and this just is me and my games) that expectations I hold about outcomes tend to interfere with fair and impartial adjudication on my part.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I might not have been clear enough about what I was getting at. I wasn't specifically indexing success without a check, but rather problem solving that escapes the gravity of the basic game mechanics. Let's assume for a moment that there is an obstacle that the characters need to overcome that looks like it might involve climbing (just to keep the example the same). 5E has skill checks and systems that handle wall climbing, specifically the Athletics skill and sliding DCs. I was indexing the nature of 5E play as play that doesn't really step past those mechanics (obviously I'm generalizing here).

The idea that a successful perception check and a close examination of the wall might make it easier to climb isn't something 5E really works toward, by design anyway. Let's add some further detail to our example now, just to give ourselves some narrative handles. A character is in the outer keep of an enemy fortress and needs to climb the wall to escape, and just for giggles lets say this character isn't one with a high Athletics modifier, so they go looking for options. They find some sticky pitch in a barrel and give the wall a close examination to find the best place to climb (Perception or Investigation or whatever, with a good success). How do we adjudicate this?

For my part, I probably wouldn't even ask for an Athletics test, they'd just climb the wall. My contention is that many people probably would, and more importantly that it wouldn't occur to them not to ask for the check. The notion I'm driving at here is the idea that playing the mechanics and systems can be a problem when it gets substituted for playing the fictional position, on both sides of the screen.

I still feel like I'm struggling to make my point. I'll circle back in a bit and see where the above gets us.

I think I get where you going here. For 5e, DMs would do well to shake free of the notion that "Wall" necessarily means a "climb" check. The same as "Merchant" does not necessarily equal a "bartering" check or "New environment" does not necessarily equal a "see what your PC notices" check or...

In other words, let the story flow. Give succinct but evocative detail to your environments so the players have something to work with. Be sure to listen to your players, rewarding their creativity at least some of the time with auto-successes. Bust out the dice not just based on what the characters are doing in the fiction but also only when there is meaningful consequence for failure. Creativity can still be rewarded when the dice do come out - DM: "Because you indicated X, roll this check with advantage."

 

[Fenris-77]

The above is a succinct and accurate depiction of my point.

 

[Oofta]

The above is a succinct and accurate depiction of my point.

There are many ways to run the game. The best way is to do what works best for the group, which includes the DM.

 

[Hriston]

@pemerton , I also wanted to add that the presence of the rakshasa on the dungeon level where the players decided their PCs would take a meal break was telegraphed before the actual encounter by large claw markings appearing on the floor, walls, and pillars of the dungeon, that I told the players looked like they belong to a large cat. This is an example of the technique I would use to telegraph the possibility of having a random encounter in this game.

To answer your question directly (which I forgot to do), I'm not sure if the techniques I used in this game could be said to qualify as "no myth". It's what I was aiming for, but I think it was only moderately successful. The volume of randomly generated content itself seemed to instill in some of the players, who may have been more familiar with play that more prominently features hidden backstory, enough of a sense of a "living, breathing world" outside of what was described in-game, that the majority of their action declarations seemed to be directed at getting me to reveal secrets that didn't exist, forcing me to make up more stuff, which I found a little frustrating. When the campaign resumes, I think I'll pull back from introducing this type of content and lean further into introducing content that directly responds to the personal characteristics of the PCs.

 

[Fenris-77]

There are many ways to run the game. The best way is to do what works best for the group, which includes the DM.

For sure! Thats why I tend to talk about my game and what works for me rather than "this is how to play".

 

[Maxperson]

Not quite. Here's the text from Gygax's PHB p 27:

Ascending and descending vertical surfaces is the ability of the thief to climb up and down walls. It assumes that the surface is coarse and offers ledges and cracks for toe and hand holds.​

I don't have a copy of the Greyhawk supplement, nor of Holmes Basic. In Moldvay, the text is as follows (pp B8, B10; the fluctuating adjectives and capitals are original, not my transcription error):

Climb sheer Surfaces . . . A thief's training includes learning how to . . . climb steep surfaces . . .​

So, because of the texts I have access to, I've never interpreted climb walls in the more "do impossible things" that you describe. I suspect that interpretation must be driven by Supplement 1 or Holmes characterisations of it that I don't have access to.

Yeah. I haven't played 1e in a very long time, but I very much remember that we played Climb Walls as Pemerton describes here and not as some sort of Spiderman ability.

 

[clearstream]

I find that no-win scenarios generally stem from sentences that begin with "the DM decides" so I try to avoid deciding things in advance.

DM decides to make it a no-win scenario? But why? What about DM decides generally segues into no-win scenarios for your group?