D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game

[Hriston]

The problem with 2. above is that there's no implied chance of failure.

Even if a player flat-out states what her character does there's always an implied try to in there somewhere. For example a player saying "I climb the wall" is really saying "I try to climb the wall".

This doesn't seem right to me. If a player states, "I climb the wall," which as an action declaration merely requires an expenditure of movement in 5E, no different than say, "I walk along the road," and I, as DM, am thinking that this is some unclimbable wall or that it's uncertain whether the player's action will be successful, then I probably haven't done my job as DM in describing the environment, and the player and I need to get on the same page as to their character's estimation of the wall's climb-ability and prospects of ascending it.

Or are your players careful to state, "I try to walk along the road," uncertain of the outcome of their effort?

 

[Maxperson]

By the same token, when the PCs successfully use persuasion etc. on Kim's NPCs then Kim becomes merely an actor following the players' directions - right?

No. That's wrong.

And this is my whole point: if mechanics like this are going to exist then to preserve internal setting consistency and have the PCs be part of the setting those mechanics have to work both ways equally.

They already do. The DM can decide an attempt by a PC against an NPC fails or succeeds automatically. And so can the players. It works both ways.

 

[pemerton]

How can they be said to be playing the game when their character's thoughts and actions are being determined by Kim? It seems that in those instances of play, Kim is doing all the roleplaying, and the other players are merely actors following Kim's directions.

I think there is room for nuance here.

For instance, as a result of something that happens in play Kim is able to tell Tran some of Tran's character's desires/motivations. (Eg by imposing a fear effect or condition.) Tran still gets to declare their PC's actions, but doesn't get to decide everything that their PC feels.

Even in the ordinary case, when the GM is telling the players what their PCs see and hear, the players are, consequently, not deciding everything that their PCs think (eg the GM is the one who decides that the PC thinks I can see a door about twenty feet in front of me).

Another possibility I know arises in 4e D&D, and in principle could arise in 5e D&D.

Suppose a fear effect causes a character to move (ie recoil in horror/terror; in 4e I'm thinking of the Deathlock Wight) or to be paralysed with fear (in 4e this is represented via the stunned condition). The player may have a resource that permits them to respond, either when the effect is first imposed, or at some subsequent point (eg if making a saving throw vs stun): in 4e this would probably be an immediate interrupt or a "no action" ability, while in 5e it would probably be a reaction. The player deciding whether or not to use this ability is, in my mind, clearly playing the game even though they are not, at the point of making that decision, deciding what it is that their PC thinks or feels.

It's as designed, no doubt. Two variations that I think could find support from different posters in this thread are:

1. The players describe what their characters want to do, and​

2. The players describe what their characters do.​

My preference is for the second, and I actually find it kind of annoying when players state their character's actions only as proposed additions to the fiction because it kind of leaves it up to me as the DM to play their character and I can't be sure what it is they're actually doing. Tell me what your character does, and I'll tell you what happens as a result.

The results can include that they can’t do as they said. I believe players perforce follow 1. Although they can generally frame that as 2.

If the players declare an action that (by my estimation) they can't do, that's usually a sign that they're imagining their character's fictional positioning differently than I am and that we need to clarify what exactly that is and revise the declaration if needed.

I think clearstream's point turns on more than just inadequate GM narration.

Let's start with the low-hanging fruit: suppose that, in the fiction, there is a trompe-l'oiel effect in place - from a painting, or in D&D more likely from illusion magic - and it is established (using some or other process - eg the player has looked at a GM's handed out illustration; or has failed to "disbelieve" an illusion; or has not used a Detect Magic effect even though they are in hot pursuit of an illusionist) that a PC is fooled by it. The player declares I walk down the corridor - but the GM's response has to be something along the lines of No you don't - there is no corridor!

Another version might be a stone carving or ceramic structure painted and polished to look like wood. The player declares I set it alight with my torch and then discovers, again via GM narration, that it is not flammable.

One-way or locked doors are another D&D staple for this: the GM responds to I open the door with You can't open it.

The general point is that, in typical D&D play, players learn the GM's conception of the setting primarily by declaring actions and receiving GM narration in response, and some of that narration is explaining why declared actions fail.

And the more general reason that (in my view) sits behind @clearstream's point is one I posted about a couple of years ago: Players choose what their PCs do . . .

Every action is amenable to more than one description: in the example I gave in that thread, taken from the philosopher of action Donald Davidson, "I flip the switch, turn on the light, and illuminate the room. Unbeknownst to me I also alert a prowler to the fact that I am home. Here I need not have done four things, but only one, of which four descriptions have been given."

If a player proffers a description that contradicts some hitherto-unrevealed aspect of the fiction, which the GM then draws on to establish what happens, the GM is going to veto the player's proffered description and put forward a different one that avoids the contradiction: so instead of I open the door the GM puts forward the "closest" (not a technical term) true description in the neighbourhood: You grab the door handle and push and pull, but it won't open!

Or in @Lanefan's example, You start to scan and feel the wall closely, looking for holds and a path up, but it looks like it probably can't be climbed or maybe even - if this is consequent on a failed climbing check, for those versions of the game that use them (the Basic PDF, p 64, flags that "At the DM’s option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check) - You scan and feel the wall closely, but you can't find any holds sufficient to climb it - it's too steep and slippery.

For what it's worth, I prefer an approach where the players declare their actions without the "try" or "attempt" - which I find a bit irritating or insipid - and then the GM corrects with the true description where the player's proffered description can't be true.

Yes, a clear statement of intent is also well appreciated! That wasn't what I had in mind with "what their characters want to do," however. I was focusing more on the task portion of the action declaration

Intent and task makes me think straight away of Burning Wheel, which - to the best of my knowledge - is the RPG that coined the phrase to describe it's approach to action declaration and resolution.

In BW the declared task is purely hypothetical or aspirational, in that we don't know whether or not it was achieved until the outcome is determined. If the declared action succeeds, then both intent and task are achieved. If the declared action fails, then the GM narrates the failure, with primary attention paid to the intent but with the option to also narrate some degree of failure of the task.

But a crucial element of BW, that accompanies intent and task, is say 'yes' or roll the dice: ie if there is nothing narratively at stake the GM says yes, and otherwise the dice are rolled and from that either it follows that both intent and task succeeded (if the player succeeds on the check) or that intent was not achieved, and perhaps not the task either (if the player fails the check).

I think in 5e it is more complicated because it is possible for the task to succeed yet the intent fail, due to considerations recorded in the GM's notes; and it is possible for the GM to say "yes" or to say "no" based on adjudication of the fiction rather than having regard to narrative stakes or the outcome of a check. So we can't treat the player's declaration as purely hypothetical pending a roll of the dice - because not all action declarations trigger a dice roll even if there are genuine narrative stakes - but nor can we always treat the player's description of their action as in-principle feasible (because it may be contradicted by as-yet unrevealed stuff in the GM's notes).

Hence why I prefer the approach I described earlier in this post - the player declares their action without the language of try/attempt, but the GM corrects the description if that is what is necessary to achieve a true description of the action relative to the fiction including the as-yet unrevealed fiction.

 

[Oofta]

This doesn't seem right to me. If a player states, "I climb the wall," which as an action declaration merely requires an expenditure of movement in 5E, no different than say, "I walk along the road," and I, as DM, am thinking that this is some unclimbable wall or that it's uncertain whether the player's action will be successful, then I probably haven't done my job as DM in describing the environment, and the player and I need to get on the same page as to their character's estimation of the wall's climb-ability and prospects of ascending it.

Or are your players careful to state, "I try to walk along the road," uncertain of the outcome of their effort?

I don't expect people to state their actions using any special phrasing. If they say "I climb the wall" and an athletics check is required I'll just ask for an athletics check. I don't see why it matters, I'm quite capable of parsing the meaning. If it's unclimbable I'll just let them know it's not possible.

 

[Hriston]

Because you stated it in the OP, that the narrative is the DM's job if I understood..

I'm not sure what you mean by "the narrative", but you seem to be misinterpreting my reference to the basic pattern of play. I'm not telling players to stay out of the DM's backyard. I'm saying that the PC is the player's vehicle for playing the game, which they do through roleplaying as defined in the rules, and that game procedures that limit player authority over decisions related to their character's thoughts and actions limit their ability to play the game.

Yeah, I just don't care about labels.

This is not about labels. You can call not making your character's decisions whatever you want.

 

[Lanefan]

This doesn't seem right to me. If a player states, "I climb the wall," which as an action declaration merely requires an expenditure of movement in 5E, no different than say, "I walk along the road," and I, as DM, am thinking that this is some unclimbable wall or that it's uncertain whether the player's action will be successful, then I probably haven't done my job as DM in describing the environment, and the player and I need to get on the same page as to their character's estimation of the wall's climb-ability and prospects of ascending it.

Or you have done your job just fine in describing an environment that the PC doesn't necessarily know everything about.

There's a wall, sure; but not until you try climbing it (and, by roll, fail) do you realize just how slippery it is.

Or are your players careful to state, "I try to walk along the road," uncertain of the outcome of their effort?

They can state their actions any old way they like provided I can a) parse and-or interpret what it is they're trying (action) and b) in some cases figure out what it is they're hoping to achieve (goal).

But it's understood by all involved that the "try to" is always there, even if unspoken and even if unnecessary in the moment.

"I walk along the road." - the "try to" is unnecessary here 99.9+% of the time, but it's still implied regardless.
"I climb the wall." - the "try to" is often very necessary here, and is both implied and assumed even if left unsaid.

 

[Lanefan]

For what it's worth, I prefer an approach where the players declare their actions without the "try" or "attempt" - which I find a bit irritating or insipid -

Me too, for the most part. I'm simply trying to point out that actions don't automatically succeed, even when the declaration is phrased as if success is guaranteed, until either the DM or the dice declare it to be so.

I think in 5e it is more complicated because it is possible for the task to succeed yet the intent fail, due to considerations recorded in the GM's notes; and it is possible for the GM to say "yes" or to say "no" based on adjudication of the fiction rather than having regard to narrative stakes or the outcome of a check. So we can't treat the player's declaration as purely hypothetical pending a roll of the dice - because not all action declarations trigger a dice roll even if there are genuine narrative stakes - but nor can we always treat the player's description of their action as in-principle feasible (because it may be contradicted by as-yet unrevealed stuff in the GM's notes).

Hence why I prefer the approach I described earlier in this post - the player declares their action without the language of try/attempt, but the GM corrects the description if that is what is necessary to achieve a true description of the action relative to the fiction including the as-yet unrevealed fiction.

You hit the key word there: a declared action is hypothetical until-unless success is granted either by the DM or the dice (or, very rarely, by the underlying game state absent intervention of DM or dice).

 

[clearstream]

I'm saying that the PC is the player's vehicle for playing the game, which they do through roleplaying as defined in the rules, and that game procedures that limit player authority over decisions related to their character's thoughts and actions limit their ability to play the game.

In order to be playing D&D a participant must accept at least the limits to their freedom to decide that their group understands the D&D rules to impose. To be playing a roleplaying game they must also accept at least the limits to their freedom implied by the fiction that their group has constructed and counts valid.

Choosing within the limits of a game is playing that game. @pemerton usefully illustrated some of the ways that can play out.

Perhaps your intuition can be reframed that in order to play the game of D&D I as player must accept limits on my freedom to roleplay. Gaining in this way a coherent experience that could not be enjoyed were I to insist on total freedom.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think there is room for nuance here.

For instance, as a result of something that happens in play Kim is able to tell Tran some of Tran's character's desires/motivations. (Eg by imposing a fear effect or condition.) Tran still gets to declare their PC's actions, but doesn't get to decide everything that their PC feels.

Even in the ordinary case, when the GM is telling the players what their PCs see and hear, the players are, consequently, not deciding everything that their PCs think (eg the GM is the one who decides that the PC thinks I can see a door about twenty feet in front of me).

Another possibility I know arises in 4e D&D, and in principle could arise in 5e D&D.

Suppose a fear effect causes a character to move (ie recoil in horror/terror; in 4e I'm thinking of the Deathlock Wight) or to be paralysed with fear (in 4e this is represented via the stunned condition). The player may have a resource that permits them to respond, either when the effect is first imposed, or at some subsequent point (eg if making a saving throw vs stun): in 4e this would probably be an immediate interrupt or a "no action" ability, while in 5e it would probably be a reaction. The player deciding whether or not to use this ability is, in my mind, clearly playing the game even though they are not, at the point of making that decision, deciding what it is that their PC thinks or feels.

I think clearstream's point turns on more than just inadequate GM narration.

Let's start with the low-hanging fruit: suppose that, in the fiction, there is a trompe-l'oiel effect in place - from a painting, or in D&D more likely from illusion magic - and it is established (using some or other process - eg the player has looked at a GM's handed out illustration; or has failed to "disbelieve" an illusion; or has not used a Detect Magic effect even though they are in hot pursuit of an illusionist) that a PC is fooled by it. The player declares I walk down the corridor - but the GM's response has to be something along the lines of No you don't - there is no corridor!

Another version might be a stone carving or ceramic structure painted and polished to look like wood. The player declares I set it alight with my torch and then discovers, again via GM narration, that it is not flammable.

One-way or locked doors are another D&D staple for this: the GM responds to I open the door with You can't open it.

The general point is that, in typical D&D play, players learn the GM's conception of the setting primarily by declaring actions and receiving GM narration in response, and some of that narration is explaining why declared actions fail.

And the more general reason that (in my view) sits behind @clearstream's point is one I posted about a couple of years ago: Players choose what their PCs do . . .

Every action is amenable to more than one description: in the example I gave in that thread, taken from the philosopher of action Donald Davidson, "I flip the switch, turn on the light, and illuminate the room. Unbeknownst to me I also alert a prowler to the fact that I am home. Here I need not have done four things, but only one, of which four descriptions have been given."

If a player proffers a description that contradicts some hitherto-unrevealed aspect of the fiction, which the GM then draws on to establish what happens, the GM is going to veto the player's proffered description and put forward a different one that avoids the contradiction: so instead of I open the door the GM puts forward the "closest" (not a technical term) true description in the neighbourhood: You grab the door handle and push and pull, but it won't open!

Or in @Lanefan's example, You start to scan and feel the wall closely, looking for holds and a path up, but it looks like it probably can't be climbed or maybe even - if this is consequent on a failed climbing check, for those versions of the game that use them (the Basic PDF, p 64, flags that "At the DM’s option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check) - You scan and feel the wall closely, but you can't find any holds sufficient to climb it - it's too steep and slippery.

For what it's worth, I prefer an approach where the players declare their actions without the "try" or "attempt" - which I find a bit irritating or insipid - and then the GM corrects with the true description where the player's proffered description can't be true.

Intent and task makes me think straight away of Burning Wheel, which - to the best of my knowledge - is the RPG that coined the phrase to describe it's approach to action declaration and resolution.

In BW the declared task is purely hypothetical or aspirational, in that we don't know whether or not it was achieved until the outcome is determined. If the declared action succeeds, then both intent and task are achieved. If the declared action fails, then the GM narrates the failure, with primary attention paid to the intent but with the option to also narrate some degree of failure of the task.

But a crucial element of BW, that accompanies intent and task, is say 'yes' or roll the dice: ie if there is nothing narratively at stake the GM says yes, and otherwise the dice are rolled and from that either it follows that both intent and task succeeded (if the player succeeds on the check) or that intent was not achieved, and perhaps not the task either (if the player fails the check).

I think in 5e it is more complicated because it is possible for the task to succeed yet the intent fail, due to considerations recorded in the GM's notes; and it is possible for the GM to say "yes" or to say "no" based on adjudication of the fiction rather than having regard to narrative stakes or the outcome of a check. So we can't treat the player's declaration as purely hypothetical pending a roll of the dice - because not all action declarations trigger a dice roll even if there are genuine narrative stakes - but nor can we always treat the player's description of their action as in-principle feasible (because it may be contradicted by as-yet unrevealed stuff in the GM's notes).

Hence why I prefer the approach I described earlier in this post - the player declares their action without the language of try/attempt, but the GM corrects the description if that is what is necessary to achieve a true description of the action relative to the fiction including the as-yet unrevealed fiction.

Hmmmm, I'm not sure I really see much reason for this preference. That is, in practice, play in ANY RPG, certainly in most, even story games, revolves around something similar. There are things which PCs will learn in some fashion when they interact. I guess you could completely describe every possible defined element of every scene explicitly for the players beforehand, but my guess is that never really happens. Maybe its informal, maybe its even 'not really how its supposed to be done', but it kind of happens. That is the player says "My character seems to perceive a door here, I test that perception." Now, maybe in the above "all distinctions are explicit" there CANNOT be a point where the PLAYER 'discovers' that the door is locked, they would already know. So, maybe BW is like that, I'm not sure, I only played one variant a couple times long ago.

HoML deserves a slight commentary here, in that you CANNOT declare actions unless something is at stake. The game literally has 2 modes, one where 'nothing is at stake' and checks simply play no part, and 'challenges' where SC-like rules are in effect. However, those rules run on an 'obstacle, intent, action' model. Its perfectly reasonable for the GM to also just 'Say yes' but since this is inherently a stakefull situation being resolved via a series of rolls, the GM is likely motivated to present things in terms of situations that the PCs might not be able to handle and need to check to resolve, some kind of conflict, in the dramatic sense of the word.

Thus, I think, I've largely avoided the issue in that if a scene is posited, the players can reason that the obstacle is present, and it should generally be in the foreground of the scene. Imagine a locked door, the GM would normally just frame the scene as "you come to a locked door" or something analogous. There's no need to be coy about this kind of thing, and there isn't really an exploration process that is the focus of the game as in classic D&D. The PCs are heroic larger-than-life figures, if they fiddle with a locked door it is unlikely to be just any old door!

I guess the point is, combinations of process, agenda, genre can produce a few different forms of game play! That is not even touching on mechanical system details, which are rather secondary IMHO to the whole architecture of play.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It may serve some purpose to split roleplaying into Direct and Indirect components.

I think the Direct components are covered nicely in the OP (and subsequent explanations).

The Indirect components include at least two other aspects of the game. While engaged in these Indirect components of roleplaying, I would argue that the player is, in fact, playing the game.

First, there is character creation (as @Cadence mentioned way upthread) in which a player is determining a background, personality traits, ideals, bonds, flaws, and perhaps a backstory - all of which serve to inform how the player will roleplay their PC during gameplay.

Second, during gameplay, there is time that is well-spent listening to the others at the table:

• the DM describing the environment
• the other players describing what their characters are saying or doing
• the DM adjudicating actions.

This is a critical part, IMO, of a player playing the game - listening and absorbing what is going in the game world so they can best roleplay their PC when their turn comes around. Indeed, someone on their phone (or otherwise distracted) and not paying attention to these "not me" aspects of the game can truly be said to NOT be playing the game.