1.) The Angry DM is a man, and identifies as such. 2.) Yes, Angry's trademark anger is a gimmick. It is a characterization/caricature he puts on, though the man himself has admitted to IRL anger issues and a strong sense of assertiveness. He, much like me, takes no shit and gives no ****s, but he's perfectly capable of calm, reasoned discourse. It's simply that being Angry(TM) is marketable where calm, reasonable discourse is not.
That being settled:
As a GM, I'm not going to play your character for you. I strongly believe in Angry's final 'Rule' in the article I linked to - the GM being on the player's side. I will warn a player when a decision they're about to make is actively harmful/stupid, such as grievously insulting a high noble or attacking an Elder Wyrm. I won't let the player's unclear knowledge of a situation cause their character unfair harm. I'm not going to jank you, or hit you with anything you can't possibly deal with. As the man himself said, quoting another man saying the same cool line: On the day I kill your character, you will be awake, you will be facing me, and you will be armed.
I will not play your character for you. I do not care how well you roll - if you do not bring your own personal player brain to the table, I don't want the rest of you there either. I'm trying to enjoy the tale we build together as much as you all are. If I'm doing your share of the building for you because you're too busy trying to think with your dice and your character sheet out of some ridiculous Bohemian disdain for using your own brain at the table, I don't need you. I don't want you. Go away and let someone else who's willing to play D&D have your seat.
By all means, try and project yourself into the mind and situation of your character. If you're an engineer playing Grognak the Barberian (yes, Barberian - he was his tribe's haircutter and manicurist before setting out on his Quest) with an INT of 7 because you want to turn off your brain and just be dumb muscle for a while? Do that, with my blessing. But don't roll dice to decide what Grognak thinks. Decide for yourself. If you must involve a die, roll it and interpret it yourself, and I recommend doing so only very sparingly. Don't ever ask me if you can roll to think. Just play. Use your own personal player brain to decide what your character does. Your character sheet is a piece of paper and/or a digital document. Your dice are chunks of inert material. Neither of them are brains - don't make them do your thinking for you. If you don't think you can play a character without being allowed to Roll To Think(C) or Roll To Talk(TM), then you don't get to play that character at my table. Easy as that.
Heh. Not the conversation I started this thread to try and have, but hekkit.
I didn't read everyone's responses here but, I did read the article. It was prefaced as a BS article so, I took that to mean that it would be satirical, exaggerated AND would contain some real points of view. I feel the article could be a good read for new players and DMs but, I feel most of what was stated was common sense or could easily be figured out if you have invested some time into playing D&D. While there is some discussion about playstyles, I think playing your own character and explaining what you want to do is the most common approach as this is what the rules actually tell you to do.
As far as playing a character whose stats are beyond your own ability to fathom, I find that pretty easy to solve. If your character is a genius Artificer tinkerer, you could say something like: "I'm going to run some calculations to find out what I need to do to maximize the support anchors for the rocket boost unit I want to install in my armor". Am I smart enough to do something like this in real life? Nah, not a chance. Am I smart enough to think of something that a smart character might do? Yes.
Let's say I want to use a skill check to think of a competent battle strategy. In this case I chose History to try to remember a battle made decisive due to a tactic employed. I could have a good idea already and just use the check as a way to have the DM endorse it. Depending on the DM, I could just say: "I remember the great battle of Diddly Do where the blah, blah, blah' and the DM allows it with a roll they deem sufficient. Lastly, I don't think it really is that unreasonable to ask if you can make a check with no real specific idea in mind. You have a general idea in mind, to remember a strategy. The DM could award you an effective idea depending of what they consider levels of success on the roll. This is true story building together.
I strongly believe in Angry's final 'Rule' in the article I linked to - the GM being on the player's side. I will warn a player when a decision they're about to make is actively harmful/stupid, such as grievously insulting a high noble or attacking an Elder Wyrm. I won't let the player's unclear knowledge of a situation cause their character unfair harm. I'm not going to jank you, or hit you with anything you can't possibly deal with.
I also agree with this.
There was an article back in the old Champions days in which they talked about how, because the arey heroes, the PCs usually have something the villains never will: the GM's good will. That's why the PCs almost always win. Because the GM wants them to win. The GM is on their side.
At one point Coleville also talks about this... Someone asked him a question, I think, about DMs being upset that the players killed the BBEG in a campaign. Coleville said, no, usually a DM is not going to be upset that the players killed the BBEG. That's what the BBEG is there for -- to be defeated by the party. It's why you made him up. It's what you envisioned happening when you created him. No (good) DM would ever be upset that the party defeated the boss-monster. BBEG is the antagonist -- its whole purpose is to (eventually) be defeated by the PCs.
It's not just true of the BBEG, either. DMs make puzzles or mysteries so players can solve them -- we don't (or certainly shouldn't) get upset when players do so. We put secret doors in a dungeon to be found. We put treasures to be collected. We put monsters to be defeated (though not necessarily killed -- we're usually perfectly happy for players to trick, cajole, diplomacy, or sneak their way by the guards instead). We put quests in to be solved. We put rewards to be granted. Every D&D published adventure/module is written for the purpose of the players eventually "defeating" the dungeon, the boss, etc. The writers expect the PCs to win, and so do the DMs who run these modules.
Yes, we put in obstacles, to make it a challenge. Because the whole fun of the game is meeting and overcoming challenges. We try not to make it too easy. And when playing the monsters, we RP them as trying to win, because that's what they would do, and the game feels more engaging and fun when the DM is having the bad guys try to win. But as DMs, we don't actually want the bad guys to win. They're the bad guys. We want the heroes to win.
This is the secret of every good DM -- deep down, or maybe not even so deep down, we are rooting for the players. We want you to win... but we're going to make you earn it. Because that's how players have fun in an RPG. By earning victories.
Well, DMs get mad, and understandably so, when players kill the BBEG too easily or too early. Or if they Gordion knot their puzzle. Because the longer it takes to solve, the more satisfying when they win. So the DM, being on the players' side, doesn't want it to be a cheap victory.
Sure... but we have to be open, as DMs, to the fact that players may come up with ways to outsmart us.
As long as the player is not using game cheese or cheating in some way, we should not have a problem with the players outwitting us.
It sometimes may be that they short-circuit a longer plan and we won't have anything ready for next session. I think it is fine to say "I'm not ready yet, someone else wanna host a one-shot?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Of course, the players should be allowed to do this, and it will happen from time to time. At least the player who came up with the plan will usually feel pretty proud of themself. But it's okay for the DM to quietly sulk about it.
Of course, the players should be allowed to do this, and it will happen from time to time. At least the player who came up with the plan will usually feel pretty proud of themself. But it's okay for the DM to quietly sulk about it.
I guess.
I've never been bothered if the players come up with a surprising or cool way to defeat a bad guy.
I *do* get frustrated if that method involves some sort of game cheese, where the players are able to basically make the fight a walkover because they found some rules-lawyery way to win in 1 round what should have been a fun and exciting battle. And I may be disappointed that an enemy had a bunch of cool abilities that I never got to have him use, just cuz I think it might have been cool to see how they dealt with it.
But other than cheese, if they win, they win. I don't generally get sulky about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I don't think anyone is arguing that DMs have to allow things that aren't in the rules. I was just trying to agree with the sentiment that DMs are usually on the player's side, and as supporting evidence pointed to the fact that most DMs make up BBEGs for the purpose of having those enemies defeated, not for the purpose of beating the players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Sure... but we have to be open, as DMs, to the fact that players may come up with ways to outsmart us.
As long as the player is not using game cheese or cheating in some way, we should not have a problem with the players outwitting us.
It sometimes may be that they short-circuit a longer plan and we won't have anything ready for next session. I think it is fine to say "I'm not ready yet, someone else wanna host a one-shot?"
I expect them to outwit me. There’s one of me and 4-6 of them. I’m clever, but so are they and they outnumber me by a lot.
I expect them to outwit me. There’s one of me and 4-6 of them. I’m clever, but so are they and they outnumber me by a lot.
Yup, there is that.
Though sometimes not. In my campaign, which is on hold while one of the players spells me and takes a turn at running some Candlekeep adventures, there is this one simple thing I keep expecting the players to do, and have for a while now (ever since they were high enough level to do it, which was like 4th, and they're 8th now), and they haven't done it. I've been all prepared for it for months and months, but they haven't done it. I keep wondering when they'll think of it.
Not gonna solve their problems for them, though.
And it's one of the rare cases when I have thought of an easy solution to something that they have done much more complicated ones. They still solve it, but it's a lot harder than it needs to be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I expect them to outwit me. There’s one of me and 4-6 of them. I’m clever, but so are they and they outnumber me by a lot.
Yup, there is that.
Though sometimes not. In my campaign, which is on hold while one of the players spells me and takes a turn at running some Candlekeep adventures, there is this one simple thing I keep expecting the players to do, and have for a while now (ever since they were high enough level to do it, which was like 4th, and they're 8th now), and they haven't done it. I've been all prepared for it for months and months, but they haven't done it. I keep wondering when they'll think of it.
Not gonna solve their problems for them, though.
And it's one of the rare cases when I have thought of an easy solution to something that they have done much more complicated ones. They still solve it, but it's a lot harder than it needs to be.
If that premise – “Characters Gather Information and Execute Actions; Players Draw Conclusions and Formulate Strategies" – is always true, then what role does the Investigation skill have? Or should it have?
Because Investigation is described thus in the PHB (emphasis mine):
Investigation. When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check.
And if we limit Investigation to being an information-gathering tool – rather than a deductive tool – how do we distinguish the information it gives you as distinct from other skills like Perception, Arcana, Nature, or Medicine?
I already tried to start a discussion on how the Investigation skill, as written, is potentially actively harmful to D&D. Heh...much like this thread, I was mostly told: "Roll Toi Think(TM) is the only way somebody can play a character smarter, wittier, or more charming than they are, and we as D&D players deserve to be able to do that!" My own, apparently incredibly contentious and outright evil view, is that it is not possible to portray a character drastically more intelligent, charismatic, or wise than yourself, no matter your numbers or how generous your DM is with Rolling To Think(TM). You can ape it poorly by throwing dice at the DM's head and demanding they play/narrate/think your character for you, but Investigation as written is basically "Can I roll to spoil/sidestep/circumvent the plot?" It's why I try and stumble towards solutions like the one Angry presents in his article. I hate Roll To Think(TM). It defeats the entire purpose of an RPG for me.
Investigation is used to represent training in discernment and more advanced methods of gleaning information from one's surroundings, at the cost of being associated with a weaker stat and requiring greater risk to use, at least at my table. An investigator will notice things and pick up on clues someone else would not, but I will not tell you "Okay, you rolled 23 Investigation. The murder was clearly committed by..." At that point, why am I even running a game instead of just reading from a story script and pretending to be a bad radio show host?
I dunno, I think every Wizard I've ever played is more intelligent than I am. And I don't play Bards because I have no game in real life so wouldn't know how to RP it =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The fuzziness of the game allows for some leeway. "IRL INT 12", as a loose and probably offensive but generic example, could get away with running an INT 14 character. IRL Charisma 14 is probably fly enough to handle CHA 17, or higher if the rest of their table is, ahh...lower, as it were. The lack of sharp time pressure outside combat or rare Ticking Clock situations can also help, as the player is allowed to operate at a lower clock speed than their character, but you still have to be able to see your target mark before you can try and successfully fuzz it.
IRL INT 9 trying to run an Intelligence 20 character is going to be painful, for everyone at the table. The fuzziness of the game doesn't stretch that far. They can do it, but their portrayal of the character won't be convincing and they'll likely wind up intensely frustrated by their own inability to try and keep up with their character. Ginny's videos that got linked earlier have a partial answer - tell your DM your massive score is linked to a specific incarnation of that attribute, i.e. a 20-Intelligence character having a great deal of educated knowledge rather than being extremely sharp and quick-witted - but even then there are limits.
Trying to build a character around a skillset you are explicitly massively deficient in is going to make for frustration. If you can't crack wise at the drop of a hat and talk rings around people, you can't play a rapier-witted silver-tongued Cap'n Jack Sparrow rapscallion. If you're terrible at holding information in your head, extrapolating from it, and making rapid leaps of logic and deduction, you can't play an always-prepared master arcanist-investigator who knows the perfect spell for every occasion. If you're terrible at visualization, focus, and fine attention to detail, you can't play a wise old sage who lives in serene, highly-aware harmony with everything around them. You cannot build a character whose primary defining traits are skills you have absolutely no capacity for and expect that character top simply make you an instant expert in those skills. Yes, you can absolutely try and push your limits, improve with those skills by making a character who's better at it than you are, but if you are badly deficient in a given skill, you don't get to 'push your limits' with a character defined by that skill. You're playing beyond your capabilities and your game will suffer for it.
Everybody has limits. I never get to play a bard because I don't have the performance talent for it. Yes yes, people will say "but that's the whole point of D&D - you can play a bard, you just roll Performance instead of performing!", like they always do every time I use that example. That's not me playing a bard, though. That's me chucking dice at the DM's head and demanding they bard for me. I don't get the satisfaction of having stirred my audience with a delightful performance, I simply push a button on my sheet and hope it does what I want it to. You know that firsthand, Wysp - I just got done pushing the "Play Music" button on Ilyara's control panel in Echolon's game, and the only person entertained was the not-a-sphinx who'd been sitting in sewer water for two years. I chucked dice and hoped it worked - nothing about that interaction involved me embodying the character's performance talent.
That's one of my limitations. Everybody has them. You can stretch them, but you can't break them without suffering.
I can use a skill I don't have in real life to handle an animal. I can use Persuasion to a degree I am not capable of in the real world. My character may be able to pick open locks, and that is something I was never trained to do. I've never used weapon in battle, but my Fighter sure has.
So yes, I don't think there is anything wrong with Rolling To Think as a last resort.
First of all, OODA is not a process used in a fighter jet, it is for Operational Planning. It is a quick process and the key is for your OODA loop to be tighter (faster) than your enemy so you can act before they can react. We're talking battles here not shooting someone.
For game terms, I suggest a hybrid of what has been discussed. The player can use their own RP to advocate a charisma check and that argument can be used by the DM to grant advantage or disadvantage to a roll made by the player. This allows both aspects to be involved and you can have a great argument, but still fail and vice-versa. Luck matters in everything, just ask any military planner.
That's one of my limitations. Everybody has them. You can stretch them, but you can't break them without suffering.
This is a key point.
What we're really talking about here with "Rolling to Think (tm)" is roleplaying, and what you are comfortable RPing about. If you are not comfortable RPing the role of the charming and suave bard who always knows what to say, then you won't enjoy doing that. There are lots of these for people. Many folks are not comfortable playing a character of a different gender from themselves. Some people may only be comfortable, in a game like D&D, playing a human vs. non-human races. In my long experience, the vast majority of players are not comfortable getting too far from themselves when making up a character.... their PC will have one or two traits highly different from them, but otherwise be very similar. That is their comfort zone.
For most players, you have to stay in the comfort zone to enjoy the game (it is, after all, called the "comfort zone" for a reason). We all have them, and going too far outside them is not enjoyable for the majority of players.
I think that's what a lot of this boils down to. Not "can" you play a character way more intelligent than yourself, but "is it in your comfort zone to do so?" If the answer to the second question is no, the answer to the first question is irrelevant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Big agree on the personal confusion on why this is an issue for so many people.
In character acting is optional flavor tables have in order to make the game fun/interesting. But mechanically it's a bunch of numbers interacting. Bards describing their arguments should be treated the same as fighters describing their attacks: flavor added to the mechanics in order to facilitate fun. Not a mechanical adjustment.
RP should be its own reward. If something is truly above/beyond that's what inspiration is for.
Bards describing their arguments should be treated the same as fighters describing their attacks: flavor added to the mechanics in order to facilitate fun.
Wellllll....
The fighter doesn't just describe the move with the sword. The fighter also has to position in the proper place on the battlefield, maybe to attempt to get flanking, worry about an Attack of Opportunity upon moving, choose which weapon to use, etc. It's not just "I attack the orc." The DM will ask -- which orc, with which weapon, are you going to move into flanking position, etc. This is similar to asking the bard who says, "I want to persuade the merchant," What are you trying to persuade, what reasoning are you using for your argument, etc.
Remember, the fighter doesn't just say, "I kill the orc." He has to take specific actions, make a series of rolls (not just one) such as rolling to hit more than once, rolling for damage if he hits, and so on.
So it's not fair to say that the bard, by analogy, should be able to just make one persuade roll, without any other information, and just get the NPC to do what he wants on a success.
1.) The Angry DM is a man, and identifies as such.
2.) Yes, Angry's trademark anger is a gimmick. It is a characterization/caricature he puts on, though the man himself has admitted to IRL anger issues and a strong sense of assertiveness. He, much like me, takes no shit and gives no ****s, but he's perfectly capable of calm, reasoned discourse. It's simply that being Angry(TM) is marketable where calm, reasonable discourse is not.
That being settled:
As a GM, I'm not going to play your character for you. I strongly believe in Angry's final 'Rule' in the article I linked to - the GM being on the player's side. I will warn a player when a decision they're about to make is actively harmful/stupid, such as grievously insulting a high noble or attacking an Elder Wyrm. I won't let the player's unclear knowledge of a situation cause their character unfair harm. I'm not going to jank you, or hit you with anything you can't possibly deal with. As the man himself said, quoting another man saying the same cool line: On the day I kill your character, you will be awake, you will be facing me, and you will be armed.
I will not play your character for you. I do not care how well you roll - if you do not bring your own personal player brain to the table, I don't want the rest of you there either. I'm trying to enjoy the tale we build together as much as you all are. If I'm doing your share of the building for you because you're too busy trying to think with your dice and your character sheet out of some ridiculous Bohemian disdain for using your own brain at the table, I don't need you. I don't want you. Go away and let someone else who's willing to play D&D have your seat.
By all means, try and project yourself into the mind and situation of your character. If you're an engineer playing Grognak the Barberian (yes, Barberian - he was his tribe's haircutter and manicurist before setting out on his Quest) with an INT of 7 because you want to turn off your brain and just be dumb muscle for a while? Do that, with my blessing. But don't roll dice to decide what Grognak thinks. Decide for yourself. If you must involve a die, roll it and interpret it yourself, and I recommend doing so only very sparingly. Don't ever ask me if you can roll to think. Just play. Use your own personal player brain to decide what your character does. Your character sheet is a piece of paper and/or a digital document. Your dice are chunks of inert material. Neither of them are brains - don't make them do your thinking for you. If you don't think you can play a character without being allowed to Roll To Think(C) or Roll To Talk(TM), then you don't get to play that character at my table. Easy as that.
Heh. Not the conversation I started this thread to try and have, but hekkit.
Please do not contact or message me.
I didn't read everyone's responses here but, I did read the article. It was prefaced as a BS article so, I took that to mean that it would be satirical, exaggerated AND would contain some real points of view. I feel the article could be a good read for new players and DMs but, I feel most of what was stated was common sense or could easily be figured out if you have invested some time into playing D&D. While there is some discussion about playstyles, I think playing your own character and explaining what you want to do is the most common approach as this is what the rules actually tell you to do.
As far as playing a character whose stats are beyond your own ability to fathom, I find that pretty easy to solve. If your character is a genius Artificer tinkerer, you could say something like: "I'm going to run some calculations to find out what I need to do to maximize the support anchors for the rocket boost unit I want to install in my armor". Am I smart enough to do something like this in real life? Nah, not a chance. Am I smart enough to think of something that a smart character might do? Yes.
Let's say I want to use a skill check to think of a competent battle strategy. In this case I chose History to try to remember a battle made decisive due to a tactic employed. I could have a good idea already and just use the check as a way to have the DM endorse it. Depending on the DM, I could just say: "I remember the great battle of Diddly Do where the blah, blah, blah' and the DM allows it with a roll they deem sufficient. Lastly, I don't think it really is that unreasonable to ask if you can make a check with no real specific idea in mind. You have a general idea in mind, to remember a strategy. The DM could award you an effective idea depending of what they consider levels of success on the roll. This is true story building together.
I also agree with this.
There was an article back in the old Champions days in which they talked about how, because the arey heroes, the PCs usually have something the villains never will: the GM's good will. That's why the PCs almost always win. Because the GM wants them to win. The GM is on their side.
At one point Coleville also talks about this... Someone asked him a question, I think, about DMs being upset that the players killed the BBEG in a campaign. Coleville said, no, usually a DM is not going to be upset that the players killed the BBEG. That's what the BBEG is there for -- to be defeated by the party. It's why you made him up. It's what you envisioned happening when you created him. No (good) DM would ever be upset that the party defeated the boss-monster. BBEG is the antagonist -- its whole purpose is to (eventually) be defeated by the PCs.
It's not just true of the BBEG, either. DMs make puzzles or mysteries so players can solve them -- we don't (or certainly shouldn't) get upset when players do so. We put secret doors in a dungeon to be found. We put treasures to be collected. We put monsters to be defeated (though not necessarily killed -- we're usually perfectly happy for players to trick, cajole, diplomacy, or sneak their way by the guards instead). We put quests in to be solved. We put rewards to be granted. Every D&D published adventure/module is written for the purpose of the players eventually "defeating" the dungeon, the boss, etc. The writers expect the PCs to win, and so do the DMs who run these modules.
Yes, we put in obstacles, to make it a challenge. Because the whole fun of the game is meeting and overcoming challenges. We try not to make it too easy. And when playing the monsters, we RP them as trying to win, because that's what they would do, and the game feels more engaging and fun when the DM is having the bad guys try to win. But as DMs, we don't actually want the bad guys to win. They're the bad guys. We want the heroes to win.
This is the secret of every good DM -- deep down, or maybe not even so deep down, we are rooting for the players. We want you to win... but we're going to make you earn it. Because that's how players have fun in an RPG. By earning victories.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Well, DMs get mad, and understandably so, when players kill the BBEG too easily or too early. Or if they Gordion knot their puzzle. Because the longer it takes to solve, the more satisfying when they win. So the DM, being on the players' side, doesn't want it to be a cheap victory.
Sure... but we have to be open, as DMs, to the fact that players may come up with ways to outsmart us.
As long as the player is not using game cheese or cheating in some way, we should not have a problem with the players outwitting us.
It sometimes may be that they short-circuit a longer plan and we won't have anything ready for next session. I think it is fine to say "I'm not ready yet, someone else wanna host a one-shot?"
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Of course, the players should be allowed to do this, and it will happen from time to time. At least the player who came up with the plan will usually feel pretty proud of themself. But it's okay for the DM to quietly sulk about it.
I guess.
I've never been bothered if the players come up with a surprising or cool way to defeat a bad guy.
I *do* get frustrated if that method involves some sort of game cheese, where the players are able to basically make the fight a walkover because they found some rules-lawyery way to win in 1 round what should have been a fun and exciting battle. And I may be disappointed that an enemy had a bunch of cool abilities that I never got to have him use, just cuz I think it might have been cool to see how they dealt with it.
But other than cheese, if they win, they win. I don't generally get sulky about it.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I don't think anyone is arguing that DMs have to allow things that aren't in the rules. I was just trying to agree with the sentiment that DMs are usually on the player's side, and as supporting evidence pointed to the fact that most DMs make up BBEGs for the purpose of having those enemies defeated, not for the purpose of beating the players.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I expect them to outwit me. There’s one of me and 4-6 of them. I’m clever, but so are they and they outnumber me by a lot.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yup, there is that.
Though sometimes not. In my campaign, which is on hold while one of the players spells me and takes a turn at running some Candlekeep adventures, there is this one simple thing I keep expecting the players to do, and have for a while now (ever since they were high enough level to do it, which was like 4th, and they're 8th now), and they haven't done it. I've been all prepared for it for months and months, but they haven't done it. I keep wondering when they'll think of it.
Not gonna solve their problems for them, though.
And it's one of the rare cases when I have thought of an easy solution to something that they have done much more complicated ones. They still solve it, but it's a lot harder than it needs to be.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
You too hunh? Lol
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If that premise – “Characters Gather Information and Execute Actions; Players Draw Conclusions and Formulate Strategies" – is always true, then what role does the Investigation skill have? Or should it have?
Because Investigation is described thus in the PHB (emphasis mine):
And if we limit Investigation to being an information-gathering tool – rather than a deductive tool – how do we distinguish the information it gives you as distinct from other skills like Perception, Arcana, Nature, or Medicine?
I already tried to start a discussion on how the Investigation skill, as written, is potentially actively harmful to D&D. Heh...much like this thread, I was mostly told: "Roll Toi Think(TM) is the only way somebody can play a character smarter, wittier, or more charming than they are, and we as D&D players deserve to be able to do that!" My own, apparently incredibly contentious and outright evil view, is that it is not possible to portray a character drastically more intelligent, charismatic, or wise than yourself, no matter your numbers or how generous your DM is with Rolling To Think(TM). You can ape it poorly by throwing dice at the DM's head and demanding they play/narrate/think your character for you, but Investigation as written is basically "Can I roll to spoil/sidestep/circumvent the plot?" It's why I try and stumble towards solutions like the one Angry presents in his article. I hate Roll To Think(TM). It defeats the entire purpose of an RPG for me.
Investigation is used to represent training in discernment and more advanced methods of gleaning information from one's surroundings, at the cost of being associated with a weaker stat and requiring greater risk to use, at least at my table. An investigator will notice things and pick up on clues someone else would not, but I will not tell you "Okay, you rolled 23 Investigation. The murder was clearly committed by..." At that point, why am I even running a game instead of just reading from a story script and pretending to be a bad radio show host?
Please do not contact or message me.
I dunno, I think every Wizard I've ever played is more intelligent than I am. And I don't play Bards because I have no game in real life so wouldn't know how to RP it =)
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The fuzziness of the game allows for some leeway. "IRL INT 12", as a loose and probably offensive but generic example, could get away with running an INT 14 character. IRL Charisma 14 is probably fly enough to handle CHA 17, or higher if the rest of their table is, ahh...lower, as it were. The lack of sharp time pressure outside combat or rare Ticking Clock situations can also help, as the player is allowed to operate at a lower clock speed than their character, but you still have to be able to see your target mark before you can try and successfully fuzz it.
IRL INT 9 trying to run an Intelligence 20 character is going to be painful, for everyone at the table. The fuzziness of the game doesn't stretch that far. They can do it, but their portrayal of the character won't be convincing and they'll likely wind up intensely frustrated by their own inability to try and keep up with their character. Ginny's videos that got linked earlier have a partial answer - tell your DM your massive score is linked to a specific incarnation of that attribute, i.e. a 20-Intelligence character having a great deal of educated knowledge rather than being extremely sharp and quick-witted - but even then there are limits.
Trying to build a character around a skillset you are explicitly massively deficient in is going to make for frustration. If you can't crack wise at the drop of a hat and talk rings around people, you can't play a rapier-witted silver-tongued Cap'n Jack Sparrow rapscallion. If you're terrible at holding information in your head, extrapolating from it, and making rapid leaps of logic and deduction, you can't play an always-prepared master arcanist-investigator who knows the perfect spell for every occasion. If you're terrible at visualization, focus, and fine attention to detail, you can't play a wise old sage who lives in serene, highly-aware harmony with everything around them. You cannot build a character whose primary defining traits are skills you have absolutely no capacity for and expect that character top simply make you an instant expert in those skills. Yes, you can absolutely try and push your limits, improve with those skills by making a character who's better at it than you are, but if you are badly deficient in a given skill, you don't get to 'push your limits' with a character defined by that skill. You're playing beyond your capabilities and your game will suffer for it.
Everybody has limits. I never get to play a bard because I don't have the performance talent for it. Yes yes, people will say "but that's the whole point of D&D - you can play a bard, you just roll Performance instead of performing!", like they always do every time I use that example. That's not me playing a bard, though. That's me chucking dice at the DM's head and demanding they bard for me. I don't get the satisfaction of having stirred my audience with a delightful performance, I simply push a button on my sheet and hope it does what I want it to. You know that firsthand, Wysp - I just got done pushing the "Play Music" button on Ilyara's control panel in Echolon's game, and the only person entertained was the not-a-sphinx who'd been sitting in sewer water for two years. I chucked dice and hoped it worked - nothing about that interaction involved me embodying the character's performance talent.
That's one of my limitations. Everybody has them. You can stretch them, but you can't break them without suffering.
Please do not contact or message me.
I can use a skill I don't have in real life to handle an animal. I can use Persuasion to a degree I am not capable of in the real world. My character may be able to pick open locks, and that is something I was never trained to do. I've never used weapon in battle, but my Fighter sure has.
So yes, I don't think there is anything wrong with Rolling To Think as a last resort.
<Insert clever signature here>
First of all, OODA is not a process used in a fighter jet, it is for Operational Planning. It is a quick process and the key is for your OODA loop to be tighter (faster) than your enemy so you can act before they can react. We're talking battles here not shooting someone.
For game terms, I suggest a hybrid of what has been discussed. The player can use their own RP to advocate a charisma check and that argument can be used by the DM to grant advantage or disadvantage to a roll made by the player. This allows both aspects to be involved and you can have a great argument, but still fail and vice-versa. Luck matters in everything, just ask any military planner.
This is a key point.
What we're really talking about here with "Rolling to Think (tm)" is roleplaying, and what you are comfortable RPing about. If you are not comfortable RPing the role of the charming and suave bard who always knows what to say, then you won't enjoy doing that. There are lots of these for people. Many folks are not comfortable playing a character of a different gender from themselves. Some people may only be comfortable, in a game like D&D, playing a human vs. non-human races. In my long experience, the vast majority of players are not comfortable getting too far from themselves when making up a character.... their PC will have one or two traits highly different from them, but otherwise be very similar. That is their comfort zone.
For most players, you have to stay in the comfort zone to enjoy the game (it is, after all, called the "comfort zone" for a reason). We all have them, and going too far outside them is not enjoyable for the majority of players.
I think that's what a lot of this boils down to. Not "can" you play a character way more intelligent than yourself, but "is it in your comfort zone to do so?" If the answer to the second question is no, the answer to the first question is irrelevant.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Big agree on the personal confusion on why this is an issue for so many people.
In character acting is optional flavor tables have in order to make the game fun/interesting. But mechanically it's a bunch of numbers interacting. Bards describing their arguments should be treated the same as fighters describing their attacks: flavor added to the mechanics in order to facilitate fun. Not a mechanical adjustment.
RP should be its own reward. If something is truly above/beyond that's what inspiration is for.
Wellllll....
The fighter doesn't just describe the move with the sword. The fighter also has to position in the proper place on the battlefield, maybe to attempt to get flanking, worry about an Attack of Opportunity upon moving, choose which weapon to use, etc. It's not just "I attack the orc." The DM will ask -- which orc, with which weapon, are you going to move into flanking position, etc. This is similar to asking the bard who says, "I want to persuade the merchant," What are you trying to persuade, what reasoning are you using for your argument, etc.
Remember, the fighter doesn't just say, "I kill the orc." He has to take specific actions, make a series of rolls (not just one) such as rolling to hit more than once, rolling for damage if he hits, and so on.
So it's not fair to say that the bard, by analogy, should be able to just make one persuade roll, without any other information, and just get the NPC to do what he wants on a success.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.