D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[iserith]

This is where I disagree. While I can certainly see potential for abuse (though to be fair, "potential for abuse" borders on being universal, since the game at its core arguably relies on trust between the players and the GM as much, or even more than, the dice), I don't think it violates the PCs agency if the DM narrates (for the purposes of this discussion/example) a failed roll on the part of a PC.

Narrate the failure, just don't say what the PC does unless you're just restating what the player already established.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This is where I disagree. While I can certainly see potential for abuse (though to be fair, "potential for abuse" borders on being universal, since the game at its core arguably relies on trust between the players and the GM as much, or even more than, the dice), I don't think it violates the PCs agency if the DM narrates (for the purposes of this discussion/example) a failed roll on the part of a PC.

Oh, I'm not really worried about the trust factor. That's a whole other discussion. I'm talking about a table where there is trust and everyone is playing in good faith to achieve the goals of play: have fun and create an exciting, memorable story.

If the PC fails a Perception check, and the monsters get surprise on them, the DM saying something like "you're taken by surprise, and can't bring yourself to react in time as the trolls rush up to you, claws and fangs bared," strikes me as being both innocuous and appropriate.

Think of it more as a division of labor. The players control their PCs. The DM controls everything else. I'm saying the DM does not need to play the PCs at all, even in the de minimus way you are indicating.

The fact is, there are very simple ways to describe the effects of a PC's actions without having to invoke what the PC is choosing to do/say/think. I personally challenge myself to avoid using the word "you" completely when I'm DMing - it's not always possible but it keeps me from "taking control" of the PCs. I mean, even the slightest most innocuous seeming "control" for the sake of the narration might not sit well with a player - even at a table that has complete trust - and I want to avoid that. In your example: "The trolls rush up, claws and fangs bared. Roll initiative. The trolls have the benefit of surprise for the first round." No need to tell the player how their PC acted, reacted, thought, even if it is so very minor.

It's subtle - and I understand why you would call it innocuous - but it has made a big difference in how I run my games to avoid telling the players how their PCs think, act, or speak. It sends the message to the players that they are in complete control of playing their PCs and boosts the trust factor at our table, IMO.

 

[Hriston]

In short, how does this get resolved at your table?

I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know if someone else has said this, but to answer this question, I would need to know what the player's intention is in having their character touch the chest. What are they trying to accomplish?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

@Ruin Explorer I think we can both agree that wool gloves intended to keep hands warm & prevent frostbite in the cold is a very different thing from reinforced kevlar gloves that will hopefully keep fingers attached if they are blasted by an explosion. One is pretty mundane but the other is closer to a magic item & that was my point.

I mean, I didn't say anything about "reinforced kevlar gloves to prevent your hands being blown off", did I? I'm just saying sometimes they wear gloves. I don't even know if "reinforced kevlar gloves to prevent your hands being blown off" even exist lol.

 

[iserith]

I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know if someone else has said this, but to answer this question, I would need to know what the player's intention is in having their character touch the chest. What are they trying to accomplish?

The situation as described doesn't say, only that whatever it was, the PC touched the poisoned chest. Feel free to fill in the player's intentions if you think it will help illustrate your position.

 

[Reynard]

If the PC fails a Perception check, and the monsters get surprise on them, the DM saying something like "you're taken by surprise, and can't bring yourself to react in time as the trolls rush up to you, claws and fangs bared," strikes me as being both innocuous and appropriate.

It's both unnecessary and bad descriptive writing.

"You're taken by surprise and can't react in time as the trolls rush you" is better but still clumsy. If as GM you want to flavor up your descriptions of die roll outcomes, focus on the scene elements you as GM control.

"Trolls burst out of the darkness, claws and fangs bared. You're surprised."

"The poison seeps through your worn leather gloves. Save or die."

And invite the players to describe their actions where appropriate. "The dragon exhales an inferno at you." ::dice:: "You made your save. How do you avoid the worst of the blast?"

Telling players what their PC does is almost never necessary.

 

[CleverNickName]

I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know if someone else has said this, but to answer this question, I would need to know what the player's intention is in having their character touch the chest. What are they trying to accomplish?

We weren't told. All we know from the original post is:

"Unbeknownst to an unarmored character and despite the DM's sufficient telegraphing, they touched a chest."

The character's intention, or the details leading up to how and why the character touched the chest, were never mentioned. The scene begins with the character touching the chest. Apparently the DM had dropped a few hints about it, too.

 

[Alzrius]

It's both unnecessary and bad descriptive writing.

"You're taken by surprise and can't react in time as the trolls rush you" is better but still clumsy. If as GM you want to flavor up your descriptions of die roll outcomes, focus on the scene elements you as GM control.

"Trolls burst out of the darkness, claws and fangs bared. You're surprised."

"The poison seeps through your worn leather gloves. Save or die."

And invite the players to describe their actions where appropriate. "The dragon exhales an inferno at you." ::dice:: "You made your save. How do you avoid the worst of the blast?"

Telling players what their PC does is almost never necessary.

Your terminology here presents your opinions as facts; just because it's not your preferred style of play does not make that description "unnecessary," "bad," or "clumsy."

For that matter, "necessary" is a rather pointless term in the context of any game (role-playing or not), because when it comes to recreational pastimes nothing is ever truly "necessary." It's a pointless term in this context that invites the conversation to spiral out of control until people are debating Maslow's hierarchy of needs and where the human predisposition to tell stories qualifies on that schema.

 

[Lanefan]

Now, if you want to define "agency" in this context as "attempting to do anything" (insofar as your own PC goes),

Up until this thread that's pretty much the only way I've seen it defined, so...yeah.

Player agency = the ability to declare actions for your PC(s). (there's other aspects but in the end they all boil down to the same thing)

and not with regard to what happens to them, that's certainly a reasonable way to look at the issue. But with regard to the topic under discussion, it's only somewhat germane to this thread; the idea that the PC has agency has been brought up in a context that is, at best, orthogonal to that. Hence the issue of Schrodinger's gloves and what their potential existence means for the PC that opened the contact poison-smeared chest.

Schroedinger's Gloves is an issue that should have been cut off at the pass long before it ever arose during play. Blame for this not happening falls on all three of the DM, the player, and the game designers.

 

[Reynard]

Your terminology here presents your opinions as facts; just because it's not your preferred style of play does not make that description "unnecessary," "bad," or "clumsy."

For that matter, "necessary" is a rather pointless term in the context of any game (role-playing or not), because when it comes to recreational pastimes nothing is ever truly "necessary." It's a pointless term in this context that invites the conversation to spiral out of control until people are debating Maslow's hierarchy of needs and where the human predisposition to tell stories qualifies on that schema.

I mean, okay. I was pretty clear in my point though: don't describe what PCs do, let players do that.