Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Swarmkeeper" data-source="post: 8192919" data-attributes="member: 6921763">And after those initial challenges when the fighter is taking all the actions and the DM is going along with that without having the wizard participate?&nbsp; As I said, examples are difficult on a forum so your mental picture of what's happening between the lines in the example is different from mine is different from...Never said that how that particular fighter player is playing their character was the more immersive way - unless you are extrapolating from the supposition that your way might actually demand that a DM use the words &quot;your character wouldn't do/say/think that&quot; when someone slips from adhering to strict stats-based roleplay whereas my way actually demands the opposite, that the DM never says those words.&nbsp; In that case I can see how you arrived at that conclusion since I've mentioned those words in particular are immersion-breaking.I did say, however, a player is free to determine, per the rules of 5e, how they roleplay their character.&nbsp; Indeed, a player using that rule as an excuse to hog the spotlight, as the player in the example is seemingly doing in that last two challenges (and presumably beyond that), is acting in bad faith.&nbsp; I'm not discussing people acting like jerks.Also, I wonder where&nbsp; you are getting the idea that a player is &quot;free to ignore his or her character sheet&quot;?&nbsp; That just seems like a strange extreme misunderstanding of what I've been saying.&nbsp; Players are free to interpret stats however they like in 5e.&nbsp; That said, it is not a smart play to pretend your character is super smart when the game situation begs for a DM to call for an Intelligence check with meaningful consequences.&nbsp; Does that make sense?&nbsp; However, I'm not going to sit behind the screen and mandate that the INT 6 Barbarian play as the drooling idiot in our 5e game.&nbsp; I get the feeling that this type of roleplay is a conceit from an earlier edition but I'm certain that 5e has no such requirement.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Swarmkeeper, post: 8192919, member: 6921763"] And after those initial challenges when the fighter is taking all the actions and the DM is going along with that without having the wizard participate? As I said, examples are difficult on a forum so your mental picture of what's happening between the lines in the example is different from mine is different from... Never said that how that particular fighter player is playing their character was the more immersive way - unless you are extrapolating from the supposition that your way might actually demand that a DM use the words "your character wouldn't do/say/think that" when someone slips from adhering to strict stats-based roleplay whereas my way actually demands the opposite, that the DM [I]never[/I] says those words. In that case I can see how you arrived at that conclusion since I've mentioned those words in particular are immersion-breaking. I did say, however, a player is free to determine, per the rules of 5e, how they roleplay their character. Indeed, a player using that rule as an excuse to hog the spotlight, as the player in the example is seemingly doing in that last two challenges (and presumably beyond that), is acting in bad faith. I'm not discussing people acting like jerks. Also, I wonder where you are getting the idea that a player is "free to ignore his or her character sheet"? That just seems like a strange extreme misunderstanding of what I've been saying. Players are free to interpret stats however they like in 5e. That said, it is not a smart play to pretend your character is super smart when the game situation begs for a DM to call for an Intelligence check with meaningful consequences. Does that make sense? However, I'm not going to sit behind the screen and mandate that the INT 6 Barbarian play as the drooling idiot in our 5e game. I get the feeling that this type of roleplay is a conceit from an earlier edition but I'm certain that 5e has no such requirement. [/QUOTE]

Verification