Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7611732" data-attributes="member: 6919838">The 5e system does not by default enforce or require any sort of roleplaying. The mechanics fo not take any of that and codify it into rules. The closest it comes are a few cases where &quot;in good standing&quot; is required for some features.But, yo me that is, by design, left to the table to determine. The &quot;system&quot; does not say &quot;Int is a dump stat&quot; because when and where skill checks are required and for what is up to the GM and de facto the group. But, if it needs to be said, there is a major difference between &quot;what the PC thinks&quot;, &quot;what actions the PC tries&quot; and &quot;what the PC knows&quot; and it seems that perhaps for some the system giving pretty much broad or absolute authority to the second and maybe the first should not, to me, lead one to see the system as giving the same to the third.&quot;I know who killed the magister and where the evidence is&quot; is perfectly valid as a character statement, maybe even as &quot;what the character thinks&quot; but not necessarily more than that. That is much more a case of the stuff the system leaves to&nbsp; table side and in-game aspects.The rules fo not put the onus on the GM to change published monsters and scenarios if their table doesn't buy into the table-side &quot;what the player knows, the character knows&quot; and that leaves Int checks and the like as one possible way to try an adjudicate those.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7611732, member: 6919838"] The 5e system does not by default enforce or require any sort of roleplaying. The mechanics fo not take any of that and codify it into rules. The closest it comes are a few cases where "in good standing" is required for some features. But, yo me that is, by design, left to the table to determine. The "system" does not say "Int is a dump stat" because when and where skill checks are required and for what is up to the GM and de facto the group. But, if it needs to be said, there is a major difference between "what the PC thinks", "what actions the PC tries" and "what the PC knows" and it seems that perhaps for some the system giving pretty much broad or absolute authority to the second and maybe the first should not, to me, lead one to see the system as giving the same to the third. "I know who killed the magister and where the evidence is" is perfectly valid as a character statement, maybe even as "what the character thinks" but not necessarily more than that. That is much more a case of the stuff the system leaves to table side and in-game aspects. The rules fo not put the onus on the GM to change published monsters and scenarios if their table doesn't buy into the table-side "what the player knows, the character knows" and that leaves Int checks and the like as one possible way to try an adjudicate those. [/QUOTE]

Verification