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

[HammerMan]

Mostly just establishing we're haggling over price. It's not a principle of play that's different you're espousing, but rather a difference in threshold.

dude I have seen players walking around with millions of platnum/gems worth of gold and only mid tto okay Cha untrained in any Cha skills try to haggle down 50gp Healing potions... I have no idea how to decide weather they can get then for 40 or not other then roll... even though they are buying how ever many i say they have no matter the price, and will never run out of money.

 

[HammerMan]

Well of course the players are going to agree nothing's at stake whenever they can as it's in their better interests to do so!

the funny part is that in these kinds of discussions I see more PLAYERs asking for rolls on these boards... I think there is a certain amount of mental gymnastics where some people (Player or DM) that want only tests of ingame skill...

 

[pemerton]

No. I am using narrate to mean introduce, by way of stating it, some fiction.

Thus you have chosen not to play 5e*. [Or perhaps I mistake your meaning. Can you expand on what you mean by stating some fiction?]

The 5e Basic rules tell me things like this:

The DM describes the environment. (p 3)

Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats. However, a character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM’s permission. (p 65)

A character’s interaction with objects in an environment is often simple to resolve in the game. The player tells the DM that his or her character is doing something, such as moving a lever, and the DM describes what, if anything, happens. (p 66)

[Y]ou describe your character’s words and actions to the DM and the other players. Drawing on your mental image of your character, you tell everyone what your character does and how he or she does it. (p 66)

[Y]ou speak with your character’s voice, like an actor taking on a role. You might even echo your character’s movements and body language. This approach is more immersive than descriptive roleplaying, though you still need to describe things that can’t be reasonably acted out. (p 67)​

The first of these tell us that, at certain points in play, the GM states some fiction - ie an account of the imagined environment in which the PCs find themselves. Sometimes, despite what the rules say, this actually becomes a player function. For instance, p 6 says "You also invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of your character." When a player tells the table "My character is five-and-a-half feet tall and wears a saffron yellow cape", ie when they share their PC's appearance with the table, they are stating some fiction, although in this case not as part of an action declaration but rather temporarily taking over the GM's role of describing the environment.

The second tell us that, at certain points in play, the players state some fiction - ie an account of what their PCs are doing, other than watching for danger, while travelling.

The third tells us that, at certain points in play, the player states some fiction - namely, what it is that their PC is doing in or to the imagined environment, such as moving a lever - and then the GM states some fiction in response - eg what happens when the lever is moved.

The fourth and fifth describe different techniques - the rules call them respectively "descriptive roleplaying" and "active roleplaying" - for stating or, in the second case, performatively conveying, what the PC is doing or saying (which obviously is a component of the shared fiction).

I've read most of your exchange with @Ovinomancer about the cliffs, and am not really sure I've followed it properly, and hence I probably don't grasp the nuances of 5e* D&D. But taking the published Basic rules at face value, they seem to call for narration - that is, for stating fiction - at many points.

Some of this narration generates rightward arrows (eg the second and third instances I've quoted). Some of it does not (eg the fourth or fifth examples may or may not - typically, for instance, calling out an insult to a foe in combat does not generate rightward arrows).

To be playing 5e* a DM must ensure that "narrate" means "say something meaningful".

Do you mean that the GM must ensure that no one ever states any fiction that is not meaningful? So eg they must dissuade or forbid players from narrating aspects of their PC's behaviour which does not generate gameplay consequences, like (typically) the colour of their cloaks, the height of their PCs (at least where that is unremarkable) or the calling out of insults to their foes in combat?

Or are you talking only about the GM's narration?

If the latter, are you saying that the GM must never state fiction that is mere colour without rightward arrows (eg perhaps describing constellations in the sky, or the colour of a NPC's eyes)? Or are you talking about the narration of consequences? Or are you saying that each framed scene must include at least one meaningful - as in, gameplay-relevant - element?

I mean, there is so much narration in the typical back-and-forth of RPG play that I'm not sure how it could be required that it all be meaningful. The most tightly-focused RPG I know is Burning Wheel, and even it recognises that sometimes there will be narration that is not meaningful but is mere colour - hence why it deploys the principle of "say 'yes' or roll the dice", as opposed to "never allow anything to be said that won't demand that the dice be rolled".

 

[Maxperson]

where that is an answer maybe even the most common answer, I can't believe there has never in the last 10ish years been a time in your game where you couldn't make a quick call on success/fail even with low or no stakes...

I could call for rolls on everything they declare if I want to.

Player: "My character sneezes."
DM: "Roll to see if your character is ready to sneeze right now."
Player: "4!"
DM: "Sorry, but your character fails to sneeze."

It's not a matter of whether I can or can't make such a call, but rather that I see no point in it. If you want your PC to sneeze, he sneezes.

and I don't want real life consequences when I just want to play a game

That's fine. It's just not the kind of game that I'd be into. I've tried poker like that and it bored me to tears.

I (try) to avoid any group activity that can (and in cases like this will) kick some of the group out.

I don't mind temporary pauses in playing.

I can't beleive you would make up a consequence like being arrested when nothing was going on...

Go out and act like a crook in front of some off duty police officers and see what happens. You're probably going to at least be detained until they can be sure you aren't wanted for something or engaged in criminal activity and at worst arrested. PCs trying the same in front of guards will result in the same. There's a very small chance they don't care, because they're off duty, but...

 

[Ovinomancer]

dude I have seen players walking around with millions of platnum/gems worth of gold and only mid tto okay Cha untrained in any Cha skills try to haggle down 50gp Healing potions... I have no idea how to decide weather they can get then for 40 or not other then roll... even though they are buying how ever many i say they have no matter the price, and will never run out of money.

I... you do know that phrase isn't actually about price, but rather one that says that the premise is accepted, we're now just finding where breakpoints exist, right? IE, if you're okay accepting that there's no roll needed to walk across an empty room, then you cannot be claiming that you always roll to because failure is always important. Rather, there's an unstated assumption at play. And, since we agree that not everything needs checks, then it's a matter of where you decide it changes and why. IE, we've established that you'll buy that not everything needs a roll, now we're just haggling over the price.

Personally, I've never had any problem in 5e putting pressure on PC wealth.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Something that clearly violates the physics of the setting e.g. "I jump to the moon", sure. I get that.

That is one case, yes. Pretty much the only one that I would invoke, though it could also be 'genre logic', like "no you cannot make Dynamite in this D&D game, even if you can describe the necessary steps to do so, and carry them out in character." That can usually be colored as 'physically impossible in this world' too of course.

But it's also within a DM's purview (or should be!) to just say no to an attempt to climb a wall that's simply beyond the ability of the character, even if the character thinks she can do it. (though if it came down to it I'd have the player roll anyway, and hope she rolled a 20 so I could get the point across that nope, you ain't climbing this one)

I honestly am not disputing this, in the sense that from a certain kind of play, this is true. I mean, its really the point @Ovinomancer often makes when he talks about how 5e is generally run. In the kind of play that I prefer, there simply isn't such a thing as an 'unclimbable wall' that will probably come up in play. It is quite possible that nobody CAN actually climb a given wall, but that supposition should be tested and could be found untrue. Different story games actually have various approaches to this, and they certainly don't all use a 'say yes or roll' approach either. A game might, for example, demand certain resources be expended, or that a PC display certain traits before they can act in a given way. I mean, fictional position is a thing in most games. However, a 'wall' in the terms I play represents some sort of fiction that could be overcome to move towards a character goal, and it exists not to channel play in a designated direction, but to be an obstacle of some sort. Canonically in some games, like DW, an 'unclimable wall' could exist, but only so as to provoke the players into making moves that assert how they face that obstacle. Its like the canonical dragon who cannot be hurt by Hack and Slash (its scales are invulnerable to mere swords and such). The PC maneuvers himself into provoking a bite from the creature and then stabs it in the mouth! This is clearly quite dangerous and says something about this character. Likewise the wall might be unclimable until the character accepts help from his rival, or expends something precious, etc.

Correct, it's not important most of the time; but as you're the one who brought the example up you're stuck with it now.

The bigger play here wouldn't be the specifics of getting the robe for free, it'd be the general idea of putting one over on the game.

I think it is everyone's game, there's nobody to put one over on. If the wizard wants to have a free robe, chances are the other participants in the game are going to see that dimly. At best there's a very pissed merchant who's likely to denounce him at an inopportune moment and claim he was 'bewitched' or something. Mostly I just don't see that kind of toxic behavior much from players.

Their characters ARE their interests. As players, they have one job. One. Count 'em. And that one job is this: advocate for your character.

I'm not so sure about that. I think the players are interested in the quality of the game. I found this to be very true when running my 4e games. The players had a lot of ways to influence the game, and I never saw any of them take advantage of that. At most they might advocate for leniency, perhaps, but then there would be a discussion "well, you did run out far in front of the party, that was bold, but it got you ganked." or something like that.

And like it or not, advocating for one's character includes trying to squeeze out whatever advantages, be they in-game or mechanical, one can for it (and a player not doing this is abrogating the responsibility of advocating for the character to the fullest means possible); and it's the DM's job in turn to keep this in check.

Well, we just play differently I don't keep anyone 'in check'. That certainly isn't my personal goal or method.

Thing is, "being the players' ally" is the sort of thinking that very quickly leads to fudged rolls and other non-neutral refereeing.

I don't have this problem either. We are all playing the game and the point of it being a game is to 'play to see what happens', there's no logic that would lead to fudged rolls or any sort of bad faith. OTOH I would rather produce an interesting outcome in the end than just be hard and fast with "the way things are." We fought a combat in my last HoML game, and the PCs got crushed. The player's dice were abysmal, and on top of that the base DCs probably need to be tweaked a bit. I think they SHOULD have been able to win, but I'm not wiping out the party because I had some monster jump them and their dice were cold. Call it what you like, but now they have a fun mystery to solve, why are they still alive? I don't think that's the greatest most perfect way for the game to go, maybe it even undermines playing to see what happens a little bit, but the point is to have fun in the end. This becomes especially clear when you're running a game you wrote, its like "everything I did was because I wanted to do it, there's no arbitrary game rules here to blame it all on!"

And that right there is part of the campaign's interest: self-sustainability. The DM has to run with an eye to keeping the game going, one week to the next and one year to the next; while the players can happily ignore any such considerations if they want to.

Meh, in my experience the logistics of play rarely lead to a specific game continuing for more than a few years. Nor does anything I do seem to undermine my campaigns particularly. I am just going to have fun now, and if the story that comes out of it was interesting to play, people DO keep playing. Nor IMHO is it my job to tell the players what the content of the game needs to be, or know what is 'best' for anyone.

Which is, in a broad sense, one place where I run aground on the story-game concept: it's hard to have a mystery, or secrets in/about the setting, if there's little or no hidden fiction; and a large part of play often revolves around discovering secrets and-or solving mysteries.

Well, in my HoML game that I'm running now, there is at least one BIG mystery, which is pretty nebulously drawn at this point, but will presumably occupy one of the PC's minds over time "what happened to the Bear Knights of old?" I have ideas which I think will play out fairly well, but technically I am not holding back some secret fictional explanation. There's also a more immediate mystery about why the PCs are alive. That totally arose randomly out of play, I sure didn't set it up! I don't even know what the answer to that question is, frankly (though I think it will probably tie in with the other mystery. OTOH it could be related to the other PC perhaps? Maybe he's got some kind of a guardian or something. If so there will no doubt be some sort of cost to that in the future...).

Everything.

Time, and the careful management thereof by the DM, is perhaps the single most important element in making a game world believable and inhabitable.

Well, so Gary said. I never paid too much attention to that, frankly. I mean, I guess in 1979 I pretty much accepted it at face value, though even then I recall being rather dubious about it. I mean, yes, you can run a game like that, time could be a resource of that sort. OTOH even Gygax didn't necessarily run all these games in strict linear time order. I'd even bet that there was a retcon or a flashback or two in there. Regardless, I don't have to run Gary's campaign, mine is a bit different and it can handle a flashback here or there. I don't really do it very often anyway.

Well, in my mind a DM who has to retcon to that extent just shouldn't be a DM. Retcons are bad bad bad bad bad.

Luckily there isn't a licensing authority for GMs. People keep coming back. Nor frankly do I remember the last time I did any sort of retcon myself. The most I've done is provide a bit of a post-hoc explanation for something in combat, like when the Warlord pushed the orcs. When the fighter reacted to that my description was that the Warlord gave him some advice or an order that provoked the orcs to change direction. So even though their minis technically occupied a certain square at a given time in the turn order, FICTIONALLY what the Warlord did on his turn, which came next, modifed that, they actually moved to a different place, one he chose.

Why?

Because a retcon invalidates whatever aspects of previous play that are being retconned and-or overwritten, meaning that going through said play in the first place was a complete waste of time for everyone involved.

I am still asking why? If they had fun, and if it lead to a determination that there should be some other different fiction it doesn't seem pointless at all. Certainly these sorts of categorical qualifications of things don't work well for me.

Put another way, the existence of retcons means that even once fiction has been established, well, it still hasn't really been established because it can always be retconned later. Bleah.

I mean, OK, I'm certainly not telling you to have different preferences. As I said before, I have not found a retcon to actually be necessary, not in long enough that I cannot really recall when it was.

Sigh...

It's nothing to do with children and everything to do with advocating for the character to the fullest of your ability and squeezing whatever advantages you can, which includes pushing the rules envelope until it pushes back.

Well, I think that players DO identify with their characters. However, when the action in the game is dramatic and interesting, and leads to fun outcomes, what more can people ask for? Yep, the Dragonborn Sorcerer was slimed by bullywugs and he kicked the bucket. Everyone thought that was pretty amusing, as he was played as being super picky about his appearance. Maybe the player would, in theory, keep the character around. OTOH she got to play a Pixie Wizard instead, and that character was a lot of fun.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

see this seems weird to me... in the last campaign becky ran we had beaten the 3 groups of orcs in a dungeon (we did not know that those 7ish orcs were all that where in there) we ran into 3 locked doors that had things behind them...but no monsters no traps (2 had treasure 1 had the prisnor we were there to rescue) and we rolled for each. I can't imagine her just saying "oh the monsters are all dead so no roll needed"

I guess I don't understand. If all the monsters are gone and dead, then what's the point? The players are going to simply have their PCs work on those doors until they get through them, right? I mean, if it comes down to it no door can stand up to endless no-holds-barred attempts to destroy it (or if it can it must be some really serious stuff). So, at some point, the PCs are getting through these doors. Should we really literally roll 100's of times for that? I mean, "OK, I pick the lock. OK, I tap out the lock with a hammer and chisel. OK I remove the hinges. OK, I pry the door out of its frame. OK, I burn the door. OK, the dwarf hacks the door apart with his battle axe until it gives way...." I am not going to play this out! And sure, there's uncertainty in the player's minds as to what will be found, etc. but that uncertainty must eventually be dissipated, right? Why not end it BEFORE 100 empty dice rolls? That's all anyone is saying here.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm becoming increasingly interested in the PbtA structure of alternating between GM soft moves (when everyone looks at the GM to see what happens next, including many player action declarations), player moves (which occur when but only when a particular sort of fictional trigger occurs, which ought to be thematically salient if the game has been properly designed), and GM hard moves (which occur on failed player-side moves, or when everyone looks at the GM to see what happens next having handed a golden opportunity on a silver platter).

I don't think this is the only possible approach; but it really foregrounds the process of pushing things toward some sort of crunch point.

In non-PbtA, scene-framed play, something is definitely wrong if the GM is saying 'yes' too much of the time. Just as the PbtA GM's soft moves should be channelling things towards player move-invoking action declarations, so a scene-framing GM's scene should be channelling things towards player action declarations that put something at stake and hence generate a demand that the dice be rolled.

Hanging around in the zone of inconsequential action declarations is really a sign of degeneracy of some sort, at least in the context of "story now" play (maybe in some highly performative neotrad play it makes sense, as that zone creates a safe space for players to show off their character conceptions).

Right, I mean, truthfully, things like my rules on 'Interludes' is more meant to let there be a place in the game for some explication and 'scene setting' this a bit more in depth, and maybe naturally takes a bit more player input than the basic "and now you find yourselves at the mansion...", which is itself perfectly acceptable. I mean, PbtA games heavily emphasize GMs soliciting player input. So "ask questions" in some sense is somewhat analogous to "OK, you can describe how you got the map." That in fact is to say, this specific kind of input is often folded into 'Spout Lore' in DW specifically (and the attendant "you may be asked to describe how you know this").

In some ways PbtA's solution is very sophisticated. It isn't the only answer, for sure, but it is darned elegant.

 

[HammerMan]

I could call for rolls on everything they declare if I want to.

you can

Player: "My character sneezes."
DM: "Roll to see if your character is ready to sneeze right now."
Player: "4!"
DM: "Sorry, but your character fails to sneeze."

i don't see the point

It's not a matter of whether I can or can't make such a call, but rather that I see no point in it. If you want your PC to sneeze, he sneezes.

right but can he hide from town guard? can he climb a slippery surface? can he pick that lock?

I don't mind temporary pauses in playing.

it depends how temporary... back in 2e we used to (we were in HS/College) sit for hours sometimes with nothing to do... but I have much more important things now then sit and do nothing... if I am sitting out I might as well leave...

Go out and act like a crook in front of some off duty police officers and see what happens.

irl they wont care... heck irl half the time if your not the wrong ethnic you might be able to comit a crime infront of an off duty officer.

You're probably going to at least be detained until they can be sure you aren't wanted for something or engaged in criminal activity and at worst arrested.

I wish I lived in the world were cops cared that much...

PCs trying the same in front of guards will result in the same. There's a very small chance they don't care, because they're off duty, but...

except what are they going to do? start a fight without there armor and weapons?

I... you do know that phrase isn't actually about price, but rather one that says that the premise is accepted, we're now just finding where breakpoints exist, right? IE, if you're okay accepting that there's no roll needed to walk across an empty room, then you cannot be claiming that you always roll to because failure is always important.

right... there is no check needed to walk across a room becuse it isn't in quastion... if on the other hand you try to climb a slippery wall there IS a quastion on if you can or not.

Rather, there's an unstated assumption at play. And, since we agree that not everything needs checks, then it's a matter of where you decide it changes and why. IE, we've established that you'll buy that not everything needs a roll, now we're just haggling over the price.

except again... as per my joke (al be it real to play)example what about when the DM doesn't know if they sucuseed or not (not guaranteed but not impossible) but it really doesn't matter?

Personally, I've never had any problem in 5e putting pressure on PC wealth.

really? I mean this is way off topic but what do they spend money On?

 

[HammerMan]

I guess I don't understand. If all the monsters are gone and dead, then what's the point?

we the players didn't know there were not more orcs (TBH we really expected more and it weirded us out)

The players are going to simply have their PCs work on those doors until they get through them, right?

and how they get through it is a change of the narrative... "Lock picks are't working lets see if we can go around"

I mean, if it comes down to it no door can stand up to endless no-holds-barred attempts to destroy it (or if it can it must be some really serious stuff).

I have almost never in my 30ish years playing seen players bring that type of force against a door though.

So, at some point, the PCs are getting through these doors.

or give up and move to a different one

Should we really literally roll 100's of times for that?

should you be trying even 10's of times really? at what point do you give up in real life? if you can't pick a lock on your 3rd or 4th attempt do you really keep bashing into it in hopes or do you try something else, or maybe just go do something else?

I mean, "OK, I pick the lock. OK, I tap out the lock with a hammer and chisel. OK I remove the hinges. OK, I pry the door out of its frame. OK, I burn the door. OK, the dwarf hacks the door apart with his battle axe until it gives way...."

seems a weird way to play in enemy territory where your character thinks there are more enemies (even if there are not)

I am not going to play this out!

neither am I... but I would move on LONG before you

And sure, there's uncertainty in the player's minds as to what will be found, etc. but that uncertainty must eventually be dissipated, right? Why not end it BEFORE 100 empty dice rolls? That's all anyone is saying here.

why would ANYONE be for 100 die rolls? how often is it more then 2? In fact I would argue that if you REALLY think it will take 100 attempts you would be MORE likely to just declaim an auto fail (sorry it is out of reach)... because if not you may not be jumping to the moon but you are getting close.