What are peoples thoughts on this? If a player decides to make Charisma their dump stat, (let's say a -1 or -2 modifier), how suave/persuasive/etc... are they "allowed" to be when not making an ability/combat check? Does this hold true for all the stats? Should the character who can barely read and write, have the ability to make complex battle plans? How much of your "real self" is allowed to bleed through into the character, despite your character "not having the stats, to do/come up with that"... Should other players be able to use your ideas, and act like their character, who is smart enough to come up with an idea like that, thought it up?
Generally, if you dump-statted intelligence you shouldn't be the one coming up with complex plans for the same reason that if you dump-statted strength you shouldn't be doing intense physical labor and you shouldn't be running marathons if you dump-statted constitution. If you've got a penalty to charisma, you might be able to "smooth talk" but not without openly leering at them in a creepy way or coming across as insulting rather than charming.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
My players and I actually really like playing to our dump stats, some even go out of their way to roll to get one XD. But we have fun with them, have a dexterity of 6? Well, my character has a peg leg that constantly falls off. You can certainly have fun with the dump stats but with having other players use ideas from another player can certainly be viewed as 4th wall breaking or meta gaming in a sense now it's up to you and your players to agree what would be a reasonable sense of playing to these stats because you can certainly go to far with them...but when you have a character with a stat of 3 that is them either being a masochist or just wondering what their dm would do with it.
I'd say so; it's hardly unprecedented with things like "passive perception/insight/investigation" if one is dead set on a rules justification for it. To some degree; the stats exist to tell us the physical and mental traits of your character; thus they should be born out through role-play/game-play. Example: one of my characters (an Eldritch Knight fighter) has Wisdom as her dump stat. As a consequence I made her a fairly simple "smite evil" sort of straight forward hero. She's "intelligent" in that she understands spell-craft and tactics, but isn't "wise" in that, it would never occur to her to talk to a monster instead of figure out how to put her sword into its squishy bits. She can put together clues in a mechanical sense; but she isn't exaclty the sort to read people well. That sort of thing.
It depends. How do you expect your players to roleplay an Int20+ character? You can't. On average, the players have Int10, the vast majority, if not all of us, can't even comprehend what an Int20 character would think like.
My point is, that I don't think constraining a player to only ever think like their character would actually works. They can try, but it won't ever work.
Now, the worst you can get is a 3. How boring would it be to play such a character the entire campaign? It's frustrating and not worth it. Instead, I'd let the player (not the character) participate in the strategy discussions, contribute ideas and generally be a part of the player's deliberations. That would be incredibly unfun to not be able to do anything than "Hulk, smash!" For several hours a week, every week, for a year or so.
Now, if the character is alone? Sure. He's not solving that complex puzzle to enter the Tomb of the Ancients. He doesn't get help from other players, and he can't do it himself. That's what you get for dumpstatting Int. But when they party is discussing how they're going to take down the Lich? Sure, they're allowed to contribute. Perhaps they roleplay the idea coming from Grandulf the Wizard, but the player is allowed to contribute. After all, I doubt Grandulf's player is intelligent enough to truly roleplay the Wizard's intelligence by themselves anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You're interpreting this through a very narrow lense. It's entirely fair and predictable that they can't meta their way through problems. They can't dumpstat intelligence and use RP to get around it. So if they're on their own, then the level of intelligence they can employ to solve a problem should be appropriate to their character. If they're struggling to ascertain whether their character would solve the problem, then we can create a roll for it.
On the other hand, if they're in a group, then the player is allowed to contribute to discussions. It's not like, despite playing a Ranger, that I'm a survival expert, so advice in that area is welcome from someone who knows better, even if their character is...intellectually challenged. No player has as much knowledge as their character would in every given situation. I have no issue with discussions between players at appropriate times.
You seem to think the the game must be either Gamist, Narrationist or Simulationist. It doesn't, the only rule is do what is fun. No one plays purely according to one of those descriptions, there is a blend. I like to play for the narrative, but you'll also see arguments on the forums for why something should be simulating reality, and other times why game mechanics are important (recently, saying we shouldn't be allowing a Rogue to get the benefits of Subtle Spell without taking an appropriate feat or MCing). Everyone has their tendencies, but what is important is that we're having fun.
My solution is predictable because the rule is clear and distinct, and it's fair because it doesn't disproportionately punish a player while still imposing consequences. That's not to say that other people's solutions are wrong (the only rule is have fun, so long as you're having fun, you're good), but I'm quite content with my solution. I'm curious how others do it because I like pinching other people's ideas when I think they're beneficial to my table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
No one is claiming to be writing a rulebook for a game. We're sharing our thoughts and strategies. That is my strategy. Why do I need to tell you what the DC is? I'm not telling you how to run your game and saying you're wrong if you don't do it exactly how I would play it. If you find value in what I've said and wish to implement it in some way in your own game...Great! If it doesn't suit your style and you can't make it work in a way that improves your game...then that's cool too. You risked 30 seconds reading my post and it didn't pay off, better luck with the next one.
You're demanding more from me than even the core rules provide. They don't tell you a DC, they tell you that a DC10 is easy, DC15 is medium and so forth, crack on and pick what DC you think suits the situation. They don't provide a complex formula for figuring out the DC, nor do I. A rule can exist without it being GNS, or at least not identifiably so. Or at least, it seems so, since you can't identify it so, despite my rather clear explanation of the motivations behind it and the thought process. You complain that "fun" is too undefined...sure. but I make modifications to the game that may be G, N.or S, but not because they are G, N or S. I do it to increase the fun. Maybe it's so choices have meaning, maybe it's so things make more predictable or defined, other times it's so it's more immersive or engaging. If you wish to categorise rules into GNS, that's cool, but that's a tool that you use, not me and if my rules don't sit comfortably into your categorisation methods, that's a problem with your system, not my rule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You're demanding more from me than even the core rules provide. They don't tell you a DC, they tell you that a DC10 is easy, DC15 is medium and so forth, crack on and pick what DC you think suits the situation.
Not that it really matters, but that (as described) is classically narrativist.
As a player, I try to roleplay to my stats - that is part of what I find fun about making a character and exploring that character’s story. I’m can think of a few times where I failed in that regard, though I usually try and use some kind of after the fact roleplaying to make the character’s actions seem plausible.
As a DM, I do not enforce this as a strict rule - though, admittedly, of the myriad people I have DMed for, I cannot think of a time where someone roleplayed above their abilities (admittedly I DM mostly for folks who are professionals at wearing other personas, such as lawyers, actors, and writers). Generally, I would rather folks play a character they want to play than sycophantically tie them to a pre-game decision. That said, I have played in groups where “deviate from stats” really means “I have main character syndrome and want to do everything”—if I had that problem come up as a DM, then I would address it… but the real issue there is the MCS, not the roleplaying.
I do help when players go the other direction and are playing under their stats - I have a high cha player in one of my campaigns who does not really know how to play a high cha negotiator, politician type, so I work with them behind the scenes so they can better play what they want to play. Still, that is less me trying to make sure their roleplaying and stats match, and more me trying to make sure their roleplaying and how they want to roleplay are in alignment.
Edit: All that said, as a DM, I also have folks roll rather often just to see how well they perform their task, so stats do come into play via statistically being more successful due to higher bonuses.
The same goes for Charisma, if a player has a natural way about them and the result is that his characters come of charismatic in every scene they are in, are you really going to make him roll dice to prove it?
Yes.
Because letting the player substitute their own charisma for their character's charisma means that the character's charisma does not matter. And this goes both ways. If you use the player's role-playing for game-mechanical effects, then not only can high-charisma players mitigate their low stats, but low-charisma players can't effectively play high-charisma characters. (Also, by "player charisma", we usually mean "player skill and comfort in playing out manipulativeness".)
My personal preference is to make the Charisma skill roll first, then play out the interaction knowing what the result is.
This is a reason why Investigation is so problematic as a skill. It's a mechanical way to make inferences and come to conclusions when traditionally things like puzzles and mysteries have been structured as more challenges for the players than the characters.
In some cases this is easy to figure out. I have stifled multiple of my own ideas of what we should do because my dumb-as-rocks barbarian would never have thought of it. My kenku has given up more than once to try to communicate something that I remembered but the rest of the party forgot, but I didn't have the words to explain.
But some of the lines are not as easily drawn. Persuasion checks are often "enhanced" by the player deciding to take a certain angle or leverage a certain point which may not line up with that character's Insight proficiency. This isn't a completely bad thing, because players want to feel smart. They like having ideas and drawing conclusions and figuring things out. So as a DM you really have to go with your gut and find the balance that's right for you and your party. This is one of the reasons why D&D can do stuff video games and the like can't - because there's a human brain making the decisions.
This is a reason why Investigation is so problematic as a skill. It's a mechanical way to make inferences and come to conclusions
I don't see how it's problematic. The players aren't on the scene, and they don't have all the context clues that their characters will.
"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."
when traditionally things like puzzles and mysteries have been structured as more challenges for the players than the characters.
Puzzles designed to be solved by the players can easily come off weird. A game-world puzzle, even if it's in the sort of situation where it makes sense, ought to be based on in-world stuff that the players wouldn't know. ("Of course! The Dwarven god of trickery is left-handed, so you can only get through the maze by following the left-hand wall!") So puzzles like that tend to be extremely obvious ("Speak, friend, and enter") or completely opaque. (Or "obvious to the DM, and the players just don't see it".)
As for mysteries, Investigation is hugely useful for those, both for providing clues that the players can't figure out because they're not there ("The killer struck from above, and very strongly"), or because they need more pieces to the puzzle, because they've found all the clues the DM left, and are still sure that it all means that the killer is a vampire, when they're obviously a werewolf.
Because letting the player substitute their own charisma for their character's charisma means that the character's charisma does not matter. And this goes both ways. If you use the player's role-playing for game-mechanical effects, then not only can high-charisma players mitigate their low stats, but low-charisma players can't effectively play high-charisma characters. (Also, by "player charisma", we usually mean "player skill and comfort in playing out manipulativeness".)
I disagree with that and it's objectively untrue. Charisma is still used in several skills, there are classes impacted by it, spells, and saving throws. There are plenty of mechanics that ensure Charisma just like any stat matters.
Those charisma skills are exactly the skills under discussion here, are they not? Except for Charisma-based casters, they're by far the main use of the stat, and probably the most-used skills overall at most tables.
My personal preference is to make the Charisma skill roll first, then play out the interaction knowing what the result is.
As a player, I'm surprised your players don't have issue with that. To me, rolling Charisma before a social encounter is troublesome unless the purpose is simply to define first impressions (reaction roll) but to my knowledge (could be wrong) there is no such thing in 5e.
Like to me skills like Diplomacy in social encounters are used for "skipping" stuff that isn't terribly relevant. Like "I negotiate with this merchant and try to get the prices down"... ok roll Diplomacy. But.. as I'm entering a scene we are going to play out for a Charisma check to determine the general path of how this is going to go, I find that.. the opposite of how role-playing works. Like I enter a scene in character usually with goals in mind, how I'm going to approach a situation, what tactic I might use to convince or manipulate the NPC...
And, unless the DM is letting you substitute you, the player's, Charisma, then your goals and approach are ultimately subservient to the skill roll. Similarly, the player who's not up to putting together the prepared social patter you are capable of is disadvantaged.
Also, it just feels really silly to role-play out your complicated scheme and roll a 2 on your Deception check. It's like saying "I (a monk) leap over to him, striking him in the head with my staff, then I get him in the stomach on the backswing. As he crumples, I bring my knee up to meet his chin, and knock him back with a snap kick", and then rolling 2, 3, "does an 8 hit?", 1. I roll first, and then describe how cool I am.
If going into it I know the result is bad.. I just as well skip it altogether and treat it like a Diplomacy Check... non-encounter kind of thing.
That's your call, but role-play for the purpose of role-play is a thing many people are into.
Stats: In general stats affect the use of other stats. So using your Int or Wis before making a ST check to move a large stone or using Int or Wis before or while making a CH check. An example of problems ie fail a int or wis check so when you jump out of the way of a rock slide you jump off a cliff. So in general your stats IMHO do not exist in a vacuum but are/tend to be inter-connected.
Narration Games: I have played in a few narration games and observed quite a few others (non run or played in by pro's) and have found that players who speak well often get bonuses beyond what their PC would simple because they talk well and by the GM standards are "advancing the game in the right direction".
Roll before task: Yes roll before the task after a simple explanation. Why? Because I have seen the players RP affect the mods vs the roll should affect how the player speaks and interacts. Again this goes back to Narration gaming to me and player being rewarded for creative storytelling vs acting their PC.
Playing a PC that at first you like to RP: I agree that playing a 3 Int PC might be a lot of RP fun at the beginning and may advance the story or be part of the story in itself before the player plays a PC they want to stick with. I have also played with a player who liked to switch PC's every couple of months and thus looked for easy ways for their PC to die so they could switch.
Playing Stats and what the player can do or not do: I think this is a 20-200 page book topic but simple it is how your table choices to play the game you are playing. For myself I realize I when playing and my players when GMing are not experts in areas our PC's are, and when GMing I try and correct players before they decide on action that I know are against what their PC would know and or do or I provide them with the info on why they might not do what they are trying to do and then they can make the decision if they want their PC to do it anyway. I have also allowed a player who was knowledgeable on a subject to provide info to another player who was not even though the original player's PC did not have that knowledge.
Stats: In general stats affect the use of other stats. So using your Int or Wis before making a ST check to move a large stone or using Int or Wis before or while making a CH check. An example of problems ie fail a int or wis check so when you jump out of the way of a rock slide you jump off a cliff. So in general your stats IMHO do not exist in a vacuum but are/tend to be inter-connected.
Narration Games: I have played in a few narration games and observed quite a few others (non run or played in by pro's) and have found that players who speak well often get bonuses beyond what their PC would simple because they talk well and by the GM standards are "advancing the game in the right direction".
Roll before task: Yes roll before the task after a simple explanation. Why? Because I have seen the players RP affect the mods vs the roll should affect how the player speaks and interacts. Again this goes back to Narration gaming to me and player being rewarded for creative storytelling vs acting their PC.
Playing a PC that at first you like to RP: I agree that playing a 3 Int PC might be a lot of RP fun at the beginning and may advance the story or be part of the story in itself before the player plays a PC they want to stick with. I have also played with a player who liked to switch PC's every couple of months and thus looked for easy ways for their PC to die so they could switch.
Playing Stats and what the player can do or not do: I think this is a 20-200 page book topic but simple it is how your table choices to play the game you are playing. For myself I realize I when playing and my players when GMing are not experts in areas our PC's are, and when GMing I try and correct players before they decide on action that I know are against what their PC would know and or do or I provide them with the info on why they might not do what they are trying to do and then they can make the decision if they want their PC to do it anyway. I have also allowed a player who was knowledgeable on a subject to provide info to another player who was not even though the original player's PC did not have that knowledge.
Its an interesting take but I think for me it boils down to how I view RPG's in general, not just D&D.
For example when we play Vampire The Masquerade, the game is a political thriller in a nightmarish alternate reality where the players are the monsters. It's a game almost entirely about social interaction, most of which is filled with hidden meaning and trying to outguess your opponents, trying to read between the lines, coming to conclusions about who you trust and don't trust.
I don't see why I would ever make any interaction checks in a Vampire game. It's very much about what the player does and says and though there are stats and skill checks, I can't imagine a player with a lower Charisma for example having to make a reaction or interaction checks of any kind. Like the role-playing is the mustard, what you do and say in character matters, what your stats are in those situations are irrelevant.
I don't see why it would be different in D&D. Why something a player says or thinks, has to be verified to make sure it's in line with their character's ability scores? Especially if 5e as a RPG endeavors to be a narrative, storyteller system rather than a gamist or simulationist system, neither of which is supported by RAW.
I find it to be a conflicting view to be a game about story in which role-playing is the central focus (what do the players think, what do they do, what do they say) and then to implement a mechanic that doesn't actually exist in RAW to validate the role-playing and narrative elements of the game to make sure it matches the stats. In particular given how vague the range of stats actually are. I mean its obviously easy to differentiate a 3 from an 18 but what about a 12 and a 15? Or a 16 and an 18. Aren't you pretty Charismatic and/or Intelligent if you have a 16? Is it acceptable to say.. well you are a 16 Intelligence so you don't need a roll, but if you are a 12.. well, that idea you just had is a bit to clever you have to make an Int check.
My issue is both with the inconsistency with which this propose concept of making sure players RP their stats and the lack of clarity when it does and does not apply.
I have played the 1st 3 versions Vampire, Werewolf and Mage and read another version of them and I use the same method, describe basic action, I the GM decide on the mods, roll and then the action is described and the game moves on. Note I played the RP version and watched a Minds Eye game then read the material and decided that version was not for me. To me those are very different forms of role playing under the heading of Role Playing
I am surprised at the repetitively of same threads upon release of the 1D&D UA vs the same doc in the past. This thread, the VTT thread, the threads in the UA section talking about the play test are basically the same as in the past. With often the same comments and arguments, to me it seems almost bot like in nature.
Is the GM/ST/DM more or less likely to be a neutral referee if the player does an in-depth narration of their actions or a brief description of their actions then decide on mods for the die roll?
I have seen (played and observed) games in which it tends to be less neutral with the in-depth narration vs the roll and act method. That is why I prefer that method as there is less potential bias based on if the GM/ST/DM "enjoyed" my actions. I try and not be biased in any way when I GM or play (I know I do not always succeed) but I tend to notice when others do it.
I have found talking to people in the past that actors, ex-actors writers and people who want to monetize their games tended to like the describe/discuss and roll method vs others that preferred to have some direction or boundaries on their actions before they acted/enacted them out. Note: general observations based on watching people play and playing in game stores, house games and talking to people in various situations, not a full on scientific study of a large group at any specific time period.
So what i do as a long time DM is this - i set markers on things like if you have X strength you just pass this check. Why? because if you have 20 strength and can't push open a DOOR and your rogue with 9 strength rolls a 19 and does....naw **** that stronk boy stronk. I do the same with every basic intelligence and w/e check. If it's an arcana/religion/history etc check and the DC is 15? Oh look the WIZARD with the SCHOLAR background rolled a 2...ooooo sorry sucks budddddyyyy, naw he's got a 19 intelligence he just auto passes. If he wants to glean MORE information or learn something specific then i require a check.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What are peoples thoughts on this? If a player decides to make Charisma their dump stat, (let's say a -1 or -2 modifier), how suave/persuasive/etc... are they "allowed" to be when not making an ability/combat check? Does this hold true for all the stats? Should the character who can barely read and write, have the ability to make complex battle plans? How much of your "real self" is allowed to bleed through into the character, despite your character "not having the stats, to do/come up with that"... Should other players be able to use your ideas, and act like their character, who is smart enough to come up with an idea like that, thought it up?
Generally, if you dump-statted intelligence you shouldn't be the one coming up with complex plans for the same reason that if you dump-statted strength you shouldn't be doing intense physical labor and you shouldn't be running marathons if you dump-statted constitution. If you've got a penalty to charisma, you might be able to "smooth talk" but not without openly leering at them in a creepy way or coming across as insulting rather than charming.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I ppersonally slap my players with their own character sheets, if they roleplay totally against their stats.
My players and I actually really like playing to our dump stats, some even go out of their way to roll to get one XD. But we have fun with them, have a dexterity of 6? Well, my character has a peg leg that constantly falls off. You can certainly have fun with the dump stats but with having other players use ideas from another player can certainly be viewed as 4th wall breaking or meta gaming in a sense now it's up to you and your players to agree what would be a reasonable sense of playing to these stats because you can certainly go to far with them...but when you have a character with a stat of 3 that is them either being a masochist or just wondering what their dm would do with it.
I'd say so; it's hardly unprecedented with things like "passive perception/insight/investigation" if one is dead set on a rules justification for it. To some degree; the stats exist to tell us the physical and mental traits of your character; thus they should be born out through role-play/game-play. Example: one of my characters (an Eldritch Knight fighter) has Wisdom as her dump stat. As a consequence I made her a fairly simple "smite evil" sort of straight forward hero. She's "intelligent" in that she understands spell-craft and tactics, but isn't "wise" in that, it would never occur to her to talk to a monster instead of figure out how to put her sword into its squishy bits. She can put together clues in a mechanical sense; but she isn't exaclty the sort to read people well. That sort of thing.
It depends. How do you expect your players to roleplay an Int20+ character? You can't. On average, the players have Int10, the vast majority, if not all of us, can't even comprehend what an Int20 character would think like.
My point is, that I don't think constraining a player to only ever think like their character would actually works. They can try, but it won't ever work.
Now, the worst you can get is a 3. How boring would it be to play such a character the entire campaign? It's frustrating and not worth it. Instead, I'd let the player (not the character) participate in the strategy discussions, contribute ideas and generally be a part of the player's deliberations. That would be incredibly unfun to not be able to do anything than "Hulk, smash!" For several hours a week, every week, for a year or so.
Now, if the character is alone? Sure. He's not solving that complex puzzle to enter the Tomb of the Ancients. He doesn't get help from other players, and he can't do it himself. That's what you get for dumpstatting Int. But when they party is discussing how they're going to take down the Lich? Sure, they're allowed to contribute. Perhaps they roleplay the idea coming from Grandulf the Wizard, but the player is allowed to contribute. After all, I doubt Grandulf's player is intelligent enough to truly roleplay the Wizard's intelligence by themselves anyway.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You're interpreting this through a very narrow lense. It's entirely fair and predictable that they can't meta their way through problems. They can't dumpstat intelligence and use RP to get around it. So if they're on their own, then the level of intelligence they can employ to solve a problem should be appropriate to their character. If they're struggling to ascertain whether their character would solve the problem, then we can create a roll for it.
On the other hand, if they're in a group, then the player is allowed to contribute to discussions. It's not like, despite playing a Ranger, that I'm a survival expert, so advice in that area is welcome from someone who knows better, even if their character is...intellectually challenged. No player has as much knowledge as their character would in every given situation. I have no issue with discussions between players at appropriate times.
You seem to think the the game must be either Gamist, Narrationist or Simulationist. It doesn't, the only rule is do what is fun. No one plays purely according to one of those descriptions, there is a blend. I like to play for the narrative, but you'll also see arguments on the forums for why something should be simulating reality, and other times why game mechanics are important (recently, saying we shouldn't be allowing a Rogue to get the benefits of Subtle Spell without taking an appropriate feat or MCing). Everyone has their tendencies, but what is important is that we're having fun.
My solution is predictable because the rule is clear and distinct, and it's fair because it doesn't disproportionately punish a player while still imposing consequences. That's not to say that other people's solutions are wrong (the only rule is have fun, so long as you're having fun, you're good), but I'm quite content with my solution. I'm curious how others do it because I like pinching other people's ideas when I think they're beneficial to my table.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
No one is claiming to be writing a rulebook for a game. We're sharing our thoughts and strategies. That is my strategy. Why do I need to tell you what the DC is? I'm not telling you how to run your game and saying you're wrong if you don't do it exactly how I would play it. If you find value in what I've said and wish to implement it in some way in your own game...Great! If it doesn't suit your style and you can't make it work in a way that improves your game...then that's cool too. You risked 30 seconds reading my post and it didn't pay off, better luck with the next one.
You're demanding more from me than even the core rules provide. They don't tell you a DC, they tell you that a DC10 is easy, DC15 is medium and so forth, crack on and pick what DC you think suits the situation. They don't provide a complex formula for figuring out the DC, nor do I. A rule can exist without it being GNS, or at least not identifiably so. Or at least, it seems so, since you can't identify it so, despite my rather clear explanation of the motivations behind it and the thought process. You complain that "fun" is too undefined...sure. but I make modifications to the game that may be G, N.or S, but not because they are G, N or S. I do it to increase the fun. Maybe it's so choices have meaning, maybe it's so things make more predictable or defined, other times it's so it's more immersive or engaging. If you wish to categorise rules into GNS, that's cool, but that's a tool that you use, not me and if my rules don't sit comfortably into your categorisation methods, that's a problem with your system, not my rule.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Not that it really matters, but that (as described) is classically narrativist.
As a player, I try to roleplay to my stats - that is part of what I find fun about making a character and exploring that character’s story. I’m can think of a few times where I failed in that regard, though I usually try and use some kind of after the fact roleplaying to make the character’s actions seem plausible.
As a DM, I do not enforce this as a strict rule - though, admittedly, of the myriad people I have DMed for, I cannot think of a time where someone roleplayed above their abilities (admittedly I DM mostly for folks who are professionals at wearing other personas, such as lawyers, actors, and writers). Generally, I would rather folks play a character they want to play than sycophantically tie them to a pre-game decision. That said, I have played in groups where “deviate from stats” really means “I have main character syndrome and want to do everything”—if I had that problem come up as a DM, then I would address it… but the real issue there is the MCS, not the roleplaying.
I do help when players go the other direction and are playing under their stats - I have a high cha player in one of my campaigns who does not really know how to play a high cha negotiator, politician type, so I work with them behind the scenes so they can better play what they want to play. Still, that is less me trying to make sure their roleplaying and stats match, and more me trying to make sure their roleplaying and how they want to roleplay are in alignment.
Edit: All that said, as a DM, I also have folks roll rather often just to see how well they perform their task, so stats do come into play via statistically being more successful due to higher bonuses.
Yes.
Because letting the player substitute their own charisma for their character's charisma means that the character's charisma does not matter. And this goes both ways. If you use the player's role-playing for game-mechanical effects, then not only can high-charisma players mitigate their low stats, but low-charisma players can't effectively play high-charisma characters. (Also, by "player charisma", we usually mean "player skill and comfort in playing out manipulativeness".)
My personal preference is to make the Charisma skill roll first, then play out the interaction knowing what the result is.
Our group generally role-play our characters according to their ability scores, otherwise we wouldn't be role-playing.
This is a reason why Investigation is so problematic as a skill. It's a mechanical way to make inferences and come to conclusions when traditionally things like puzzles and mysteries have been structured as more challenges for the players than the characters.
In some cases this is easy to figure out. I have stifled multiple of my own ideas of what we should do because my dumb-as-rocks barbarian would never have thought of it. My kenku has given up more than once to try to communicate something that I remembered but the rest of the party forgot, but I didn't have the words to explain.
But some of the lines are not as easily drawn. Persuasion checks are often "enhanced" by the player deciding to take a certain angle or leverage a certain point which may not line up with that character's Insight proficiency. This isn't a completely bad thing, because players want to feel smart. They like having ideas and drawing conclusions and figuring things out. So as a DM you really have to go with your gut and find the balance that's right for you and your party. This is one of the reasons why D&D can do stuff video games and the like can't - because there's a human brain making the decisions.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I don't see how it's problematic. The players aren't on the scene, and they don't have all the context clues that their characters will.
"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."
Puzzles designed to be solved by the players can easily come off weird. A game-world puzzle, even if it's in the sort of situation where it makes sense, ought to be based on in-world stuff that the players wouldn't know. ("Of course! The Dwarven god of trickery is left-handed, so you can only get through the maze by following the left-hand wall!") So puzzles like that tend to be extremely obvious ("Speak, friend, and enter") or completely opaque. (Or "obvious to the DM, and the players just don't see it".)
As for mysteries, Investigation is hugely useful for those, both for providing clues that the players can't figure out because they're not there ("The killer struck from above, and very strongly"), or because they need more pieces to the puzzle, because they've found all the clues the DM left, and are still sure that it all means that the killer is a vampire, when they're obviously a werewolf.
Those charisma skills are exactly the skills under discussion here, are they not? Except for Charisma-based casters, they're by far the main use of the stat, and probably the most-used skills overall at most tables.
And, unless the DM is letting you substitute you, the player's, Charisma, then your goals and approach are ultimately subservient to the skill roll. Similarly, the player who's not up to putting together the prepared social patter you are capable of is disadvantaged.
Also, it just feels really silly to role-play out your complicated scheme and roll a 2 on your Deception check. It's like saying "I (a monk) leap over to him, striking him in the head with my staff, then I get him in the stomach on the backswing. As he crumples, I bring my knee up to meet his chin, and knock him back with a snap kick", and then rolling 2, 3, "does an 8 hit?", 1. I roll first, and then describe how cool I am.
That's your call, but role-play for the purpose of role-play is a thing many people are into.
Stats: In general stats affect the use of other stats. So using your Int or Wis before making a ST check to move a large stone or using Int or Wis before or while making a CH check. An example of problems ie fail a int or wis check so when you jump out of the way of a rock slide you jump off a cliff. So in general your stats IMHO do not exist in a vacuum but are/tend to be inter-connected.
Narration Games: I have played in a few narration games and observed quite a few others (non run or played in by pro's) and have found that players who speak well often get bonuses beyond what their PC would simple because they talk well and by the GM standards are "advancing the game in the right direction".
Roll before task: Yes roll before the task after a simple explanation. Why? Because I have seen the players RP affect the mods vs the roll should affect how the player speaks and interacts. Again this goes back to Narration gaming to me and player being rewarded for creative storytelling vs acting their PC.
Playing a PC that at first you like to RP: I agree that playing a 3 Int PC might be a lot of RP fun at the beginning and may advance the story or be part of the story in itself before the player plays a PC they want to stick with. I have also played with a player who liked to switch PC's every couple of months and thus looked for easy ways for their PC to die so they could switch.
Playing Stats and what the player can do or not do: I think this is a 20-200 page book topic but simple it is how your table choices to play the game you are playing. For myself I realize I when playing and my players when GMing are not experts in areas our PC's are, and when GMing I try and correct players before they decide on action that I know are against what their PC would know and or do or I provide them with the info on why they might not do what they are trying to do and then they can make the decision if they want their PC to do it anyway. I have also allowed a player who was knowledgeable on a subject to provide info to another player who was not even though the original player's PC did not have that knowledge.
I have played the 1st 3 versions Vampire, Werewolf and Mage and read another version of them and I use the same method, describe basic action, I the GM decide on the mods, roll and then the action is described and the game moves on. Note I played the RP version and watched a Minds Eye game then read the material and decided that version was not for me. To me those are very different forms of role playing under the heading of Role Playing
I am surprised at the repetitively of same threads upon release of the 1D&D UA vs the same doc in the past. This thread, the VTT thread, the threads in the UA section talking about the play test are basically the same as in the past. With often the same comments and arguments, to me it seems almost bot like in nature.
Is the GM/ST/DM more or less likely to be a neutral referee if the player does an in-depth narration of their actions or a brief description of their actions then decide on mods for the die roll?
I have seen (played and observed) games in which it tends to be less neutral with the in-depth narration vs the roll and act method. That is why I prefer that method as there is less potential bias based on if the GM/ST/DM "enjoyed" my actions. I try and not be biased in any way when I GM or play (I know I do not always succeed) but I tend to notice when others do it.
I have found talking to people in the past that actors, ex-actors writers and people who want to monetize their games tended to like the describe/discuss and roll method vs others that preferred to have some direction or boundaries on their actions before they acted/enacted them out. Note: general observations based on watching people play and playing in game stores, house games and talking to people in various situations, not a full on scientific study of a large group at any specific time period.
So what i do as a long time DM is this - i set markers on things like if you have X strength you just pass this check. Why? because if you have 20 strength and can't push open a DOOR and your rogue with 9 strength rolls a 19 and does....naw **** that stronk boy stronk. I do the same with every basic intelligence and w/e check. If it's an arcana/religion/history etc check and the DC is 15? Oh look the WIZARD with the SCHOLAR background rolled a 2...ooooo sorry sucks budddddyyyy, naw he's got a 19 intelligence he just auto passes. If he wants to glean MORE information or learn something specific then i require a check.