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

[Swarmkeeper]

i think there's many ways of roleplaying so to each his own as long as there's fun!

Agreed!

 

[Lanefan]

To which I would be very tempted to reply, “Okay. You see nothing in particular. Now would you like to engage with what I have described?”

[out of character] The answer to that would depend entirely on what you had just described and whether it held any interest for my PC.

 

[Lanefan]

In my games I'll usually give people options, some potentially gated behind an appropriate check. I don't want to get into a guessing game with the player trying to find the right thing to look for. The player can also follow up with other things.

So if I describe a wagon with horses already hitched and laden with goods, I may be thinking they'll attempt to hide in the wagon. They may think it's a good opportunity to cause a distraction. Or they may look around for something I didn't think of and I'll consider whether it would be there depending on my vision of the scene; sometimes the answer will be yes, sometimes no, sometimes "give me a ___ check".

On a description like that, absent any prior info, my first questions would be "Is there any sign of a driver, or of any guards, or that anyone might already be inside the wagon?"

 

[Oofta]

On a description like that, absent any prior info, my first questions would be "Is there any sign of a driver, or of any guards, or that anyone might already be inside the wagon?"

Good questions, some of the times it's going to be obvious. Other times there may be a perception check to notice what looks like the driver over doing some last minute haggling.

My point is that I want the scene to fit the established fiction while still giving the player option.

 

[Maxperson]

It might surprise some, but Dungeons and Dragons is a roleplaying game since it's debut in 1974!

It has always been throughout all its iterations and no edition was exception, even 4E, contrary to popular conspirations!

My name is Plague and i'm a D&Daholic.

Hiiiiiiii Plague!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I haven't looked at Holmes. Greyhawk doesn't really say, though its language is clearly a precursor to the 1e text in that it does use the term 'nearly sheer'. The 1e DMG also has more elaborate climbing rules, under which a thief is perfectly capable of climbing a 'smooth or nearly smooth' surface! In fact if you take it at face value they can climb said surface even if it is overhanging slightly, though their chance of falling will double. In either case their movement rate is reduced, and Gygax admonishes the DM to roll a new check every melee round!

So, there is a class of climbs that are manifestly impossible in the real world (sheer surface at more than 90 degrees without equipment) which a 1e thief CAN manage. As I said before, the main question all this raised was how the heck to adjudicate ANYONE ELSE climbing anything at all. Pre Greyhawk the assumption would have been that characters were generally competent in anything the player could describe, and thus could, perhaps with various limitations, perform any 'possible' climb. The interpretation of players at the time of the release of Greyhawk was thus, IME, that it was an ADDITIONAL ability granted to thieves, above and beyond the standard "yeah, with the right gear and/or taking enough time and care, you can make most any feasible climb." I mean, why would a thief need an ability to do something that already existed as a known capability of any random character?

So, yes, it is VERY TRUE that, probably abetted by EGG to a degree, most people entering into the game in the 1e period would have interpreted thief abilities as the problematic "this is the subsystem for doing X, Y, and Z, nobody else can even attempt these things." which you find is quite common, but IMHO wrong.

Also, if we think about 5e and climbing walls, we now have a system for everyone to do it, and thieves simply have a privileged access to better bonuses, probably a good DEX, and thus are likely to be some of the best climbers. OTOH 5e liberally sprinkles in stuff that kind of breaks niches. For example my 5e Tabaxi Battlemaster, due to racial traits, make a mockery of any thief when it comes to climbing. Our group didn't actually HAVE a rogue in it in that campaign, so it was not an issue, but I can see how a player who spent resources on his thief being a really good climber might find that a bit annoying!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Yes, and here you have hit the nail on the head as to what I found completely lacking in 5e as a system. It barely measures up to systems that were released in the mid-90's in this regard, which is kind of sad if you think about it.

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 think there is an inescapable place for fictional positioning as well, since clearly these are games where some degree of cleverness seems to matter. I mean, its theoretically possible for the fiction to be nothing more than a fig leaf, but I doubt even you will find that terribly satisfying in the long run, nor that you really play that way.

I take that last question to be intended rhetorically. But treating it as literal, my answer would be it depends on what narrative significance - if any - it carries. It's a while since I remember something like that happening in a RPG session that I ran, but there were genuine stakes - ie could or couldn't the PC establish an advantageous vantage point for surveying the giant steading - and so a check was required. Failure wouldn't necessarily mean the climb failed, but it would mean that the advantageous vantage point was not established. Because the check succeeded, the details of any such failure (eg is the climbing PC spotted by giant guards) didn't need to be worked out.

Although the system in question was not 5e D&D, I don't see any particular reason why 5e couldn't be run in a similar fashion.

This does bring up how players can scotch any attempt to play a more narrative focused game, simply by keeping their intentions to themselves. If you really, as GM, don't KNOW why the character is avoiding the steps, its not really possible to run a BW-style resolution loop! I mean, the game demands that the player answer, but they can stubbornly answer in only the most narrow sense "I am climbing to get to the top" basically. Clearly this would be a rather dysfunctional game... I have had some PACE sessions go a lot like this though!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I went with the DMG interpretation (which you referenced in a different post), that different walls have different degrees of difficulty. Advantage of not starting DMing until 1984, I suppose - a few of these things had been ironed out by then.

That said, anyone can try these things; only if you're untrained in how to do it your odds of success are much slimmer than for someone who is.

But what are these untrained possibilities? At least 5e answers that, so it has advanced slightly over 1989's 2e rules, which still leave this unanswered. Of course 3e already got here, though its skill system has other deep issues that 5e did bypass, so I guess if we are being generous we can say that 5e is a slight improvement on 3e in this respect, and that brings it up to the 21st Century at least

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think those who prefer "telegraphing" are not doing it because the logic of the fiction demands it. They're interested in the logic of game play.

One point here is, I'm not really interested in playing to find out if the wall is slippery or not. I am interested in what choice the PC makes when climbing the wall is the only way to avoid certain death, and it is so slippery that someone has to boost the other PCs up, will anyone make that sacrifice? Is someone going to think of a way out of this spot without someone dying? If so will the dice grant their intent, or is the character going to have to live with failure? Can she? What impact will this have on her personality?

So, 'telegraphing' the slipperiness is simply "revealing an unpleasant truth" to use DW speak (DW does say that DM moves are "just what you have always been doing"). It would be perfectly kosher for the GM (and I have been known to do this) to ASK how slippery the wall is! I mean, this might come close to a Czege Principle violation I guess... OTOH I think every rule is made to break

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Now, see, to me, this describes 'No Myth' play quite effectively. DW says "draw maps, leave holes" and what that really means is "don't nail everything down before you know where the story is going to go." It may be done at different scales (IE the slipperiness of walls vs what is to the north of the Keep) but the idea is the same. It seems vital, IMHO, to a more RP-focused play. I think just 'wilderness play' and 'town play' in the early days were also examples, things are 'loose' and 'anything can happen'. You can go into the high stakes dungeon and its all nailed down to a key, but out here in the 'town'.