D&D 5E Tabletop Rules and Guidelines

[feartheminotaur]

The DM (or the dice) determine what a player's character thinks or does all the time.

I gotta disagree, strongly, with this. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is right here: Players, not the dice, decide their own actions and thoughts. The DM (or the dice) determine the result of player actions and whether or not the players beliefs or opinions are confirmed.

"I think the guard is lying!" *rolls below the DC* "Oh, no I don't think that" is 100% completely different from "I think the guard is lying!" *rolls below the DC* "Oh, I thought he was lying but I can't tell. He seems pretty sincere. Maybe I was wrong"

Otherwise, if the DM or dice determine what a player thinks or does...why have players? And if you do, it's like a game where everyone is under the confusion spell - "on my turn I..." *rolls then looks up on a chart* "...I, uh, attack!"

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'm not sure I understand you here. Would you clarify, perhaps with an example if necessary?

It's "I convince the guard to leave by telling him his house is on fire" vs "I tell the guard that his house is on fire, and I hope that causes him to leave".

In the first version, the outcome of a successful roll is that the guard leaves. How strongly the guard believes in the lie, how much he values his house vs his job, the possibility of other house-saving actions and whether he can currently see his house are all rolled into the DC and whether or not the DM adjudicates the outcome is possible.

In the second version, the outcome of a successful roll is that the guard finds the lie believable. Whether he leaves his post then comes down to how much he values his house vs his job, what other house saving options are available and whether he can see his house from here.

In both cases, the guard probably won't leave his post if he can see that his house is on fire: in one case, it's because the DM says "Don't even roll, you fail because his house is visible from here". In the other the player rolls, and the guard tells them that they're lying/mistaken depending on the roll, because he can see his house from here.

I disagree. I think the dice determine the outcome of an action to think or do something, but that's all. So if I try to recall lore on a subject based on my sagely studies and the outcome is uncertain in the eyes of the DM*, an ability check will resolve whether or not I can recall that lore (for example). If I try to convince the guard to let me pass by lying to him about who I work for and the outcome is uncertain in the eyes of the DM*, an ability check will resolve whether or not the guard buys my story and lets me pass. The dice aren't determining what I think or do here, just what the result of my declared actions are.

* If the DM thinks that the action is so free of conflict and stress that it can't fail or is so impossible or inappropriate that it can't succeed, then there is no uncertainty and thus no ability check.

I think the distinction between you and I is more a semantic one: I see the line of PC self determination being at the point where they choose to undertake an action, and everything from there on is a bit fuzzy. A PC chooses to try to recall lore, the DM and dice dictate whether she actually does so. A PC chooses to try to convince the guard to let him pass, and the DM and dice dictate whether the guard is convinced. A PC chooses to lie to another PC, and the dice and the other PC determine whether that's effective.

 

[S'mon]

This is sad. Actual dialogue is fun. The thought of a DM who discourages it makes me cry.

Oh, we certainly have dialogue. I just need to request/make a roll at the same time ("I use Intimidate... got 17"). Tried it on Sunday & seems to work ok.

 

[iserith]

It's "I convince the guard to leave by telling him his house is on fire" vs "I tell the guard that his house is on fire, and I hope that causes him to leave".

In the first version, the outcome of a successful roll is that the guard leaves. How strongly the guard believes in the lie, how much he values his house vs his job, the possibility of other house-saving actions and whether he can currently see his house are all rolled into the DC and whether or not the DM adjudicates the outcome is possible.

In the second version, the outcome of a successful roll is that the guard finds the lie believable. Whether he leaves his post then comes down to how much he values his house vs his job, what other house saving options are available and whether he can see his house from here.

In both cases, the guard probably won't leave his post if he can see that his house is on fire: in one case, it's because the DM says "Don't even roll, you fail because his house is visible from here". In the other the player rolls, and the guard tells them that they're lying/mistaken depending on the roll, because he can see his house from here.

As I see it, the player states the goal and approach e.g. "I want to accomplish X by doing Y..." or "I try to do Y in hopes of achieving X..." Then the DM decides whether it's automatically successful (X is achieved), automatically a failure (X is not achieved), or whether there is a die roll to determine a result (X may or may not be achieved).

I see no value in rolling to see if Y was executed well, but still fails to accomplish X. I would just rule that as an automatic failure to achieve Y without a roll, narrating accordingly. My agenda demands I make every die roll significant. The player wins or loses something as a result. "You spun a good yarn, but the guard still doesn't leave his post..." is a failure result in my view.

I think the distinction between you and I is more a semantic one: I see the line of PC self determination being at the point where they choose to undertake an action, and everything from there on is a bit fuzzy. A PC chooses to try to recall lore, the DM and dice dictate whether she actually does so. A PC chooses to try to convince the guard to let him pass, and the DM and dice dictate whether the guard is convinced. A PC chooses to lie to another PC, and the dice and the other PC determine whether that's effective.

I think the difference is illustrated in my above reply and it's more than semantic. I wonder if there's also a difference in narration like I see in observing other peoples' games, one in which the DM's description of the result of the adventurer's action presumes character action rather than just describes the outcome. I see this a lot when players' descriptions are somewhat lacking and the DM picks up the slack on the back end by establishing more about what the character does than the player did initially.