D&D 5E When making decisions for your character in 5E, which is your top priority? RP or G?

[GMforPowergamers]

Option 1) you act in character as you the player have established them, but you are at a mechanical disadvantage as a result.

Option 2) you ignore the personality of the character as you the player have established them, but gain a mechanical advantage as a result.

I voted RP, but I have a hierarchy of choice making

"What is the most fun at the table?"
"What makes sense that my character would do with what they know?"
and then
"What is the best most useful choices?"

 

[Fenris-77]

But you decide what the character would do? Like, I think you're saying "do what the personality of the character dictates", but since you created said personality, you're still on some level making the choices.

(Which as an aside, is my general speech to any player who wants to say "it's what my character would do" when doing something detrimental to the other players).

I think he's getting at something like declare actions based on the diegetic frame, and without specific reference or consideration given to mechanical advantage. That said, a particular characters approach to problem solving is related directly to the mechanics, and there isn't anything wrong with approaching a situation with a mind to use what the PC is good at. If you're an intimidating character that's bad at things like persuading folk, then yeah, you'll probably reach for the intimidate tool first, but that fine, that's in character. In cases where there's an obstacle that a PC doesn't have the obvious skills to overcome easily then just go with the bad skill, as opposed to trying to do and end run by convincing that GM that you can actually do it with (high) skill X instead. This issue is one of the reasons that I like games that grant XP on failed skills or rolls - it gives the player a reason to use skills they didn't sink any char gen currency into.

 

[Lanefan]

But you decide what the character would do? Like, I think you're saying "do what the personality of the character dictates", but since you created said personality, you're still on some level making the choices.

Yes, the difference (ideally!) being that I'm making those choices as the character rather than as me-the-player.

(Which as an aside, is my general speech to any player who wants to say "it's what my character would do" when doing something detrimental to the other players).

Do what the character would do. If the other characters don't like it, tough - they can do what they would do in opposition if they like, and we'll see what happens next.

This assumes, of course, fairly complete separation of character feelings from player feelings; but in my eyes that's a prerequisite before sitting down at the table.

 

[Mad_Jack]

I think it's important to note, as pointed out in the edited OP, that this poll is only concerning itself with the question of "What do you do in one specific instance of play at the table?"

I.e., it's your turn and you can choose to do something that's tactically advantageous (providing you with some sort of mechanical advantage) but out-of-character for your character, or to do something that would narratively fit your character's personality and decision-making process, but doesn't provide any mechanical advantage or puts you at a disadvantage.

That's an entirely different animal than just the general philosophical dilemma of narrative vs. numbers...


For myself, I generally try to find the best balance between the two that I can find in that particular situation.

Most of the time, if the most tactically or mechanically advantageous action to take in a particular situation isn't that far off of whatever choice my character might make without mechanical considerations, then I can generally come up with a narrative reason for them to do it.
I tend to play characters that are both reasonably intelligent and fairly pragmatic, so it's usually within character for them to analyze the situation at hand and try to resolve it as efficiently and smartly as possible, and hopefully find a way to work it out to their advantage. They generally follow the philosophy of: "There's Good, there's Bad, and then there's Necessary...", so if they're smart enough or wise enough to realize in that moment that taking an action different than what they might otherwise be inclined to do might be better for them, that's generally the action they'll take.

If the mechanically advantageous thing to do is wildly out of character, then it becomes a matter of determining if the stakes involved warrant the character making that kind of decision in the heat of the moment, or at least being willing to go along with that sort of action. If it's a matter of hitting a party member with your fireball just to get a few more mooks inside the radius, that's probably not worth the narrative betrayal of the character's principles - assuming the character has them, lol. Which is an entirely different level of moral/philosophical decision than having your shining-knight LG paladin suddenly choose expediency over morality and bullrush the skinny mage BBEG off a balcony in the final battle of the entire campaign instead of fighting him fairly.

 

[Lanefan]

I think he's getting at something like declare actions based on the diegetic frame, and without specific reference or consideration given to mechanical advantage. That said, a particular characters approach to problem solving is related directly to the mechanics, and there isn't anything wrong with approaching a situation with a mind to use what the PC is good at. If you're an intimidating character that's bad at things like persuading folk, then yeah, you'll probably reach for the intimidate tool first, but that fine, that's in character.

Agreed fully so far.

In cases where there's an obstacle that a PC doesn't have the obvious skills to overcome easily then just go with the bad skill, as opposed to trying to do and end run by convincing that GM that you can actually do it with (high) skill X instead.

Or as opposed to giving up and not even trying.

This issue is one of the reasons that I like games that grant XP on failed skills or rolls - it gives the player a reason to use skills they didn't sink any char gen currency into.

I'm not sold on giving xp for failed attempts, if only because that would become rather easy to game by just trying everything; but giving a few extra xp for successful attempts by someone otherwise not skilled in that area is fine with me. (example - a burly brute with no "face" skills who in some given situation somehow ends up being the party diplomat and manages to pull it off - yeah, a few bonus xp for you)

 

[Fenris-77]

I don;t know that 'fairly complete seperation' is achievable, honestly, but I'd settle for something that might be described as 'functionally complete separation', if you'll allow me to be somewhat hair-splitty.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm not sold on giving xp for failed attempts, if onyl because that would become rather easy to game by just trying everything; but giving a few extra xp for successful attempts by someone otherwise not skilled in that area is fine with me. (example - a burly brute with no "face" skills who in some given situation somehow ends up being the party diplomat and manages to pull it off)

In that games that use it I've found it to be a wonderful aid to diegetic decision making, and not something that people 'gamed' a lot. You need a lot of advancement in most system to change from being unskilled to being the party go-to. The go-to PCs with that skill are likely to accumulate as many or more failed attempts on that same skill simply because they roll it more often.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think they're equally important. I suppose that in extreme circumstances, such as whether another character lives or dies, I would probably choose game over RP, in order to best ensure that character's survival. I wouldn't want another player to lose their character because my cowardly character runs away from a winnable encounter and leaves them to die. On the other hand, there are plenty of times that I've disadvantaged my own characters for the sake of RP.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's a question older than the hobby. But it's still interesting.

So where do 5E players and referees of ENWorld stand on this question?

When making decisions for your character(s), and you have to choose one or the other, which priority wins out?

Is roleplaying more important to your decision making than the game mechanics or are the game mechanics more important to your decision making than the roleplaying?

ETA: To expand on this to make it clearer. You're playing 5E and you the player have to make a choice for your character.

Option 1) you act in character as you the player have established them, but you are at a mechanical disadvantage as a result.

Option 2) you ignore the personality of the character as you the player have established them, but gain a mechanical advantage as a result.

Okay with the edit I can find a satisfying answer to this, and I voted that RP wins.

While I am very much a system oriented person, and I love building mechanically interesting characters (and encounters and environments when DMing), I like to front-load the mechanical thinking, and drop as fully as is practical into the mind of a character when playing.

So, my rogue will impulsively rush in the open to gank the wizard that murdered his friends, even though he easily could die and he’d be more effective with patience and stealth. Or he will be so full of himself after a successful (but not final) battle against the Lich that he arrogantly scouts out the broken tower for the monster that’s been eating villagers, and almost get one-shotted by a behir’s lightning while his friends are a full round or more away from him and might not even see or hear the attack.

He somehow survived both actions, lucky bastard.

Then again even when building, I will make suboptimal choices to better suit the character.

 

[Ovi]

ETA: To expand on this to make it clearer. You're playing 5E and you the player have to make a choice for your character.

Option 1) you act in character as you the player have established them, but you are at a mechanical disadvantage as a result.

Option 2) you ignore the personality of the character as you the player have established them, but gain a mechanical advantage as a result.

The edit doesn't really help because I'm struggling to imagine the latter being a thing -- ie one that requires action in the fiction that differs from established character but only has a mechanical effect with no fictional foundation. Because if there is a fictional foundation to the benefit, then how is this automatically not roleplaying? We might be seeing a stumble on the path or learning that this character isn't exactly who we all thought they were. I'm struggling with the assumption here that character is fixed and you can only align or diverge, never change.