D&D General Skilled Play, or Role Play: How Do You Approach Playing D&D?

[Swarmkeeper]

The problem is that if you don't ask (or allow for, depending on how you run it) a roll, you effectively are telling someone that it's impossible. If someone suspects a shopkeeper is lying and there's no insight check, players will then know that the shopkeeper is telling the truth.

It doesn't come up often, and I would never allow/ask for a roll for something that is obviously impossible. No matter how good your athletics score is, you can't jump over the moon. Unless you're a female minotaur because the cow ... well nah. Not even then.

For D&D 5e, I disagree. If a DM doesn't ask for a roll, the implication is that there is no meaningful consequence of failure. Could be that the shopkeeper is obviously telling the truth OR that it is impossible to tell that the shopkeeper is lying. If players wish to metagame that into meaning that the shopkeeper is telling the truth well.... they might be right or they might be wrong. They proceed from there at their PC's own risk.

That said, perhaps a more interesting resolution, IMO, is to come up with a meaningful consequence of failure. If the player declares an action with the goal of determining if the shopkeeper is telling the truth, the DM might then ask for a DC whatever# Wisdom ability check (with player choosing the appropriate skill, if they like). If the roll is a success, the DM will tell the player if the shopkeeper is telling the truth. If the roll is a failure, the DM perhaps will tell the player that it is not possible to determine if the shopkeeper is telling the truth AND the shopkeeper's attitude will also shift towards the hostile end of the spectrum.

 

[robus]

I like players that skillfully and creatively engage with the fiction, so I guess I’m a both. I hate when players try to game theory the story and get stuck in analysis. I love players that are willing to take risks and be adventurous.

 

[Oofta]

@DemoMonkey, @DM Dave1, I'm just relaying how I run my game. There are times I will call for a check there will be times where a player will say something like "Can I tell if they're lying" or "Can I get an insight check". If the player is indicating an insight check I let them roll. If it fails or if the shopkeeper is telling the truth or the check isn't good enough (a 20 isn't auto success) they get a "As far as you can tell they are telling the truth."

I think the "rule" that people rely on is shaky reading of the text at best, but I also don't really care. I'm not a stickler for rules and everybody has their own style. As the text states, don't ask for an acrobatics check to walk across the floor but there are times when I find asking (or allowing for) checks makes for a better game. Even if success or failure is not in question.

Run your games differently, it's a free country, but I'm not going to argue about it. Skill checks* are just one of the tools in the box that I use now and then.

*And yes, I'm well aware that it's an ability check with appropriate proficiency modifier applied. I don't give a fig about that either because it's just way too finicky and wordy for me. It's confusing to new players to ask for a Wisdom (insight) check when I can just ask for an Insight check and point them to the list of skills on their character sheet.

 

[jgsugden]

This is a role playing game. Players run characters, and the characters are the ones experiencing the world. It is the ability of the characters that should, in the end, govern, but only in the end. Players can participate along the path.

Letting the players figure out a riddle is fun. However, at the end of the day, whether the players get it or not, the PCs must determine if they can get it, and that is usually controlled by an ability check. Otherwise, the guy that once ate paste will never get to enjoy playing the smart wizard to the fullest.

This also allows you to incorporate game elements that the players do not understand, but characters do.

For example, "The Gynosphinx begins to recite something in a different language. What languages do you all speak .... OK. Galen speaks Elven. Galen, roll me an Intelligence check. 16? Great. As you're listening to the riddle, you realize that the Gyonsphinx's poem is a series of puns. The poem keeps making use of words with dual meanings. For each of these dual meaning words, one has something to do with the sea. The other meaning are not sea related, but they are the meaning that makes contextual sense in the poem. The poem ends with a line that means, "My brother would speak like me, but in a different sense, and catch all the clues, for catching is the thing he likes. What does my brother do?" Any ideas? No? Well, Galen does. The brother speaks like the riddle giver, meaning they use the same words, and catches those things that come from the seas. That makes them a fisherman. Galen feels confident that is the answer. What does Galen wish to do with that belief?

That is how I have run it for a long time - Player's get a chance to get it to see if they understand, but in the end the abilities of the PC are determined by the character sheet. After all, this is just another situation in which player knowledge and character knowledge need to be differentiated.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

That is most certainly not skilled play. That's being a jerk.

Players not participating in good faith to achieve the goals of play (having fun and creating an exciting, memorable story together) will soon find themselves without an invite to the next session.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

But you can either police character actions that you feel do not match the character's abilities (by restricting what a character can say, making them roll, or, as you say, dropping them from the game for repeat offences) or you don't. If you don't, you have to accept that if the player says the character comes up with correct knowledge or an intricate and cunning plan without needing to roll anything, than that is what the character comes up with. Outside of rewriting enough of the adventure that the knowledge is no longer correct your options are limited.

Well, I do use skills in the game the dice are a part of the game. I even mentioned in a previous post that a Charisma roll is often used as a Reaction indicator to determine initial disposition (if not otherwise known). So it is not like a player can completely cancel the negative of having a 3 Charisma all the time. A 3 Charisma character can expect to have a lot of interactions start hostile or unfriendly.

I just intend that a character with 3 Charisma doesn't force that player at the table to sit out and be quiet during all NPC role-playing interactions.

Why would they have to sit out? A common facet of a low charisma is not knowing when to stay quiet.
I mean the skilled play approach would be to stay quiet in a situation where you might have to roll on your 3 Charisma, until you can come up with an argument that the NPC played by the DM cannot refute.

It is not talking your DM into your character succeeding. It is thinking through the situation presented to you. Approaching the situation as if you were your character doing so and presenting a course of action that, in the judgement of the DM, solves the situation.

I think the distinction lies in the bolded text. Approaching the situation as if you were your low-Wis, low-Int character doing so (the role-playing approach), is a different attitude to approaching it as a player to find the optimal solution to the situation (the skilled play approach).

But you do make a good point. Knowledge whether from experience from the game, good guesswork, or even reading the manual/module is a part of Skilled Play.

A player who has played D&D for 20-30 years has every right to put that accumulated experience to bear on being successful at the game.

D&D is a game. Practice and experience makes you better at it.

Reading the manual/module might be cheating, but sometimes it can't be helped. Sometimes you run for someone who is a DM. Sometimes that player who is a DM may know more about the game than you do. They may have ran the module you are running already. They may have ran a campaign that used all the same monsters you used.

But you present this in the context of this someone manipulating or getting one over on the DM by dumping Int and Cha and then using their knowledge to make up for it as a way to 'game the system'. You seem to present this in the worst possible light. I doubt that this really happens all that much.

Indeed, but as you can see from some of the other responses, you are very much not at the extreme end of the skilled play aficionados. The "game the DM, not the system" attitude has been actively promoted.

In my groups, and quite possibly yours as well, that attitude may well fall afoul of the social contract. In others it seems to be accepted. As with extreme character min/maxing, both are valid playstyles; the only issue is when people with different attitudes/preferences end up in the same group.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

@DemoMonkey, @DM Dave1, I'm just relaying how I run my game. There are times I will call for a check there will be times where a player will say something like "Can I tell if they're lying" or "Can I get an insight check". If the player is indicating an insight check I let them roll. If it fails or if the shopkeeper is telling the truth or the check isn't good enough (a 20 isn't auto success) they get a "As far as you can tell they are telling the truth."

I think the "rule" that people rely on is shaky reading of the text at best, but I also don't really care. I'm not a stickler for rules and everybody has their own style. As the text states, don't ask for an acrobatics check to walk across the floor but there are times when I find asking (or allowing for) checks makes for a better game. Even if success or failure is not in question.

Run your games differently, it's a free country, but I'm not going to argue about it. Skill checks* are just one of the tools in the box that I use now and then.

*And yes, I'm well aware that it's an ability check with appropriate proficiency modifier applied. I don't give a fig about that either because it's just way too finicky and wordy for me. It's confusing to new players to ask for a Wisdom (insight) check when I can just ask for an Insight check and point them to the list of skills on their character sheet.

Whoa. No need to go on the defensive. You indicated a problem (players will know x if DM doesn't do y) and I gave a solution to the problem per how we run the games at our tables. I hadn't always played that way and it was clunky. Now I do, and things run more smoothly. Obviously, everyone can choose to play however they like.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

But you can either police character actions that you feel do not match the character's abilities (by restricting what a character can say, making them roll, or, as you say, dropping them from the game for repeat offences) or you don't. If you don't, you have to accept that if the player says the character comes up with correct knowledge or an intricate and cunning plan without needing to roll anything, than that is what the character comes up with. Outside of rewriting enough of the adventure that the knowledge is no longer correct your options are limited.

Again, a player trying to hoodwink the DM is not skilled play. I've already explained how we mechanically deal with low scores in my response above to @Minigiant. A player can come up with whatever knowledge they want and play that as what the character thinks. But just because a character thinks something does not mean that knowledge is correct in the game world. If the player then wants their PC to act upon that player knowledge without testing the assumptions in the game world first, well, that could lead to problems for said PC. Players learn quickly not to lean too heavily on "metagaming" knowledge and instead choose to explore the game world through their PC. As for "rewriting enough of the adventure", it's hardly necessary.

 

[GSHamster]

Sometimes I think that D&D would work better if we used concrete stats for the 3 physical attributes, but then had mental stats and personality be more abstract. Maybe pick 3 descriptors to describe your character's personality.

Then you have formal checks for the physical side, but handwave the mental side, and let the players roleplay more freely.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, collapsible equipment (whether metal or wood) would likely require a greater level of "tech" (metal working, precision tools, etc.) than is present in the D&D world.

Not really.

First, make the pole square instead of round.
Second, chop it into four 2.5' lengths.
Third, take the hinges off your small treasure chest and attach them to the four pieces of pole such that it folds into two stacked Zs.

Bingo. Collapsible pole.

Examples will be on sale in the lobby as you leave.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sometimes I think that D&D would work better if we used concrete stats for the 3 physical attributes, but then had mental stats and personality be more abstract. Maybe pick 3 descriptors to describe your character's personality.

Then you have formal checks for the physical side, but handwave the mental side, and let the players roleplay more freely.

With the caviat that there still be a Magic stat, I agree.