So I wanted my players in a play by post game to roll their dice and then rp it out. For instance, the coward of the group is crying in tears as she runs down the hallway as bait, leading the monsters to her companions who had set up a reaction attack at the end of the corridor. However they gave me this confused response like, I was supposed to tell the whole story. Now I don't giving the play by play what happens if my coward rolls a 1 or 20 or anything in between. I have so many ideas how to actually describe that, but I figured my players would have fun actually doing that themselves.
but is this just a fundemental flaw in my understanding? In play by post D&D games, do the players just make decisions or respond to adversity with dice rolls? And I'm supposed to be the sole narrator?
Your players make decisions, you might ask for them to roll for a check if the decision made requires any great difficulty (which acting as bait probably wouldn't be unless the monsters in question are very suspicious), and then you narrate what happens as a result.
This is a session zero thing. In a PbP group I was in, the GM/Narrator set up the scene and we posted to it. We had rules that we were "forced" to take turns, so that the players that seemed to have too much time on their hands were not dominating the posts. Every 3-4 days the Narrator would come in, adjust text as needed to tidy up what was required and adjudicate actions we intended and turn it back over to the players. We were encouraged to add to the story and "talk amongst ourselves" but if we strayed too far, the narrator/GM would red line our intended action and reassert the story flow. It wasn't railroading exactly, but some times she needed to assert that the "minion" did not spill "ALL" the beans on the BBEG when we interrogated him, or how now we needed to make a roll for derring-do now that we were flying our biplanes through noir-NYC skyscrapers.
This is a session zero thing. In a PbP group I was in, the GM/Narrator set up the scene and we posted to it. We had rules that we were "forced" to take turns, so that the players that seemed to have too much time on their hands were not dominating the posts. Every 3-4 days the Narrator would come in, adjust text as needed to tidy up what was required and adjudicate actions we intended and turn it back over to the players. We were encouraged to add to the story and "talk amongst ourselves" but if we strayed too far, the narrator/GM would red line our intended action and reassert the story flow. It wasn't railroading exactly, but some times she needed to assert that the "minion" did not spill "ALL" the beans on the BBEG when we interrogated him, or how now we needed to make a roll for derring-do now that we were flying our biplanes through noir-NYC skyscrapers.
hmm, well I can talk to them I guess. We haven't started yet, but it's hard to get a response sometimes. I don't know if the lack of response means they didn't see it or they just understood. lol But honestly I don't mind if my BBEG spills some beans, but I'd only stipulate that's a story action and has to be DC'd before it can go through.
but thank you for the help. I was worried that I broke a rule that everyone but me understood.
I think you are missing something, though. I'm not quite sure what. In "standard, by the book" D&D play, the players basically never need to "RP out the result of a die roll", and it's a bit confusing to me what you mean by that. The basic D&D loop is that the players describe what their characters do, then you the DM describe what happens in response to that, having players roll dice if that is needed to decide whether something is successful or not. That doesn't have to change in PBP, though players can preemptively put rolls if they think those rolls might be useful.
Based on the description, I can't quite tell what you intended with your example. Here's how I can imagine that playing out:
1) Player describes how their character runs down the hallway crying, trying to get the monsters to follow them.
2) The DM decides the response, and, if any are necessary, tells the players what rolls are needed.
2a) Maybe the monsters obviously fall for the trap; in which case the DM describes the monsters going down the hallway. If they monsters are walking into a trap that's going to start a fight probably everyone needs to roll initiative, DM needs to decide if the monsters are surprised at the start of combat (and maybe the players need to roll Stealth to help the DM decide that?)
2b) Maybe the monsters obviously don't fall for the trap, in which case the DM describes what they do in response to this crying running person. No rolls needed.
2c) Maybe the DM decides that it depends on how convincing the crying person was, so the DM asks for a Deception check (or whatever check they think is appropriate from the player) and then goes from there.
In the PbP campaign I'm in, the players would probably put in any checks they think might be needed (so the people setting up the ambush would probably have preemptively put a Stealth Check in the post where they describe setting up the ambush, the Bait player might have put a deception check at the end of their post if they thought it might be needed) but the DM would be the one making the decisions on whether they actually used those dice rolls to inform what happened or not. And the DM would have to be the one who decides whether the monsters fall for the plan or not, the players don't know what the monsters will do until the DM tells them, no matter what rolls they put in.
I think you are missing something, though. I'm not quite sure what. In "standard, by the book" D&D play, the players basically never need to "RP out the result of a die roll", and it's a bit confusing to me what you mean by that. The basic D&D loop is that the players describe what their characters do, then you the DM describe what happens in response to that, having players roll dice if that is needed to decide whether something is successful or not. That doesn't have to change in PBP, though players can preemptively put rolls if they think those rolls might be useful.
Based on the description, I can't quite tell what you intended with your example. Here's how I can imagine that playing out:
1) Player describes how their character runs down the hallway crying, trying to get the monsters to follow them.
2) The DM decides the response, and, if any are necessary, tells the players what rolls are needed.
2a) Maybe the monsters obviously fall for the trap; in which case the DM describes the monsters going down the hallway. If they monsters are walking into a trap that's going to start a fight probably everyone needs to roll initiative, DM needs to decide if the monsters are surprised at the start of combat (and maybe the players need to roll Stealth to help the DM decide that?)
2b) Maybe the monsters obviously don't fall for the trap, in which case the DM describes what they do in response to this crying running person. No rolls needed.
2c) Maybe the DM decides that it depends on how convincing the crying person was, so the DM asks for a Deception check (or whatever check they think is appropriate from the player) and then goes from there.
In the PbP campaign I'm in, the players would probably put in any checks they think might be needed (so the people setting up the ambush would probably have preemptively put a Stealth Check in the post where they describe setting up the ambush, the Bait player might have put a deception check at the end of their post if they thought it might be needed) but the DM would be the one making the decisions on whether they actually used those dice rolls to inform what happened or not. And the DM would have to be the one who decides whether the monsters fall for the plan or not, the players don't know what the monsters will do until the DM tells them, no matter what rolls they put in.
1. DM posts that a group of orc variant monsters are in a clearing. The players are given adequate warning via environmental cues such as totem poles, tracks, and the sound of orks talking to eachother.
2. The players decide what they will do in ooc. Rogue decides she wants wants to greet the orks with 15 feet of movement, then she does a deception check? The fighter decides he'll do a reactive action, aka slashing the orks. He'll roll to see if he passes the stealth check.
3. the two people make their posts from their perspective. Perhaps the rougue player describes her heart beating quickly and what she shouts at the orks. The check needed to draw them over was passed, so they come. The fighter makes his post after the rougue posts describing his shallow breathing and nerves, but unlike the rogue he didn't pass the armor check. So the fighter player describes swinging their blade at the orks.
4. I come in as the gm and describe how the orks avoid it. What's going through their heads and how their attacks go depending on their own check vs the pc armor checks.
that's what I had in mind. It does require prerolling before actually posting. But it's the same standard affair except instead of me doing all the talking. The rogue and fighter describe how their characters felt doing the actions.
The main difference it seems is that you want the players to decide what rolls are necessary AND what the difficulty of those rolls is. I don't think that generally works; that's not within the players' purview.Player doesn't get to decide whether a check is needed to do a particular thing or, if it is, what the difficulty of that check is. That's up to the DM.
In your example:
1. DM posts that a group of orc variant monsters are in a clearing. The players are given adequate warning via environmental cues such as totem poles, tracks, and the sound of orks talking to eachother.
2. The players decide what they will do in ooc. Rogue decides she wants wants to greet the orks with 15 feet of movement, then she does a deception check? The fighter decides he'll do a reactive action, aka slashing the orks. He'll roll to see if he passes the stealth check.
So far so good! Probably would need an initiative roll first if the fighter's starting a fight here, but sure.
the two people make their posts from their perspective. Perhaps the rougue player describes her heart beating quickly and what she shouts at the orks. The check needed to draw them over was passed, so they come. The fighter makes his post after the rougue posts describing his shallow breathing and nerves, but unlike the rogue he didn't pass the armor check. So the fighter player describes swinging their blade at the orks.
But this is the part that doesn't work. The player has no way of knowing what the monsters do. She can describe what HER character is doing - the rogue calling out to them trying to get them to come to her. She needs to provide enough detail here so the DM can figure out what the result of the action is - so she probably needs to say where she's standing, what she's yelling, any gestures she's making, and what she's trying to accomplish with that. She can take a guess that maybe she needs a deception check for this - reasonable guess I suppose. Might be right, might not be, might as well pre-roll to save some back-and-forth time.
But no matter what she rolls, she can't know the result since she doesn't control the orks, she only controls her character. For example, even if the player rolls a 20, a possible outcome could be "You greet the orks, try to look helpless to get them to come to you. ...but instead of running after you, the orcs get out their longbows and shoot at you, since these are archer orks." Or vice versa! The player might roll a 1, but get the result of "You greet the orks. They don't really understand what you're saying, but they think you looked delicious so they chase you anyway" if these particular orks didn't really need much tricking to do what the players wanted.
No way for the players to know that. The players don't know what roll the rogue needs to hit to get the orks to come towards them if, indeed, there IS any such roll - that's what the DM has to provide.
Same for the others. I guess if the players know the statblock of the orks then the fighter could probably know what stealth check he needs and what attack roll he needs, since those are pretty standard... ...but if he fails his stealth check, he has no way of knowing what the orks reaction to seeing him is. DM needs to narrate that.
4. I come in as the gm and describe how the orks avoid it. What's going through their heads and how their attacks go depending on their own check vs the pc armor checks.
that's what I had in mind. It does require prerolling before actually posting. But it's the same standard affair except instead of me doing all the talking. The rogue and fighter describe how their characters felt doing the actions.
Sure, that part works. I think you have to come in earlier though. Basically anytime the players don't know what the results of one of their actions are, the DM needs to tell them, since that stuff is all up to the purview of the DM.
Edit: For me I just imagined standard dnd is:
rogue: I try to trick them
rolls.
dm: you succeed. you trick them
fighter: I wait for them since they were tricked
I slash at them.
dm: you miss
Eh, that's probably not enough information. When the rogue says "I try to trick them" that's not enough info for the DM to decide whether the action is successful or not - the rogue needs to describe how she's trying to trick them and what she's trying to accomplish with that trick. Those details are going to determine what the result of the action is (and if any rolls are needed for it, and if so, what type of rolls and what DC.)
But this is the part that doesn't work. The player has no way of knowing what the monsters do.
Maybe I was unclear here. I intended to first map out their ideas just like you'd normally do(in a discord ooc convo). In this case the rogue says I wanna decieve them. I'd tell the rogue to roll and then say if it's successful or not. So what you're saying is the player can't even say the orks chase her even if that was what the rogue was trying to goad them into doing? I realize in VC or in person I'd simply tell them yes they chase her if the rogue succeeded. But in this case I tell the player they succeed. So is that too far for D&D?
Eh, that's probably not enough information. When the rogue says "I try to trick them" that's not enough info for the DM to decide whether the action is successful or not - the rogue needs to describe how she's trying to trick them and what she's trying to accomplish with that trick. Those details are going to determine what the result of the action is (and if any rolls are needed for it, and if so, what type of rolls and what DC.)
This.
Standard D&D is more along these lines:
DM: (having described the scene) What do you want to do?
Rogue: I want to trick them.
DM: OK, what are you going to do to try and trick them?
Rogue: Well, since there are a lot of totems here, I am going to take this severed hand I got from the last dungeon, and put it on a stick I find nearby.
DM: Make a perception check to see if you can find a stick of the appropriate length. (behind the screen, DM decides the DC of the check, probably in this case fairly easy, say 8).
Rogue: (rolls) 11
DM: OK, you find a stick about 3 feet long and an inch thick that looks like a recently fallen branch. The pointy end could probably be inserted into the base of the severed hand.
Rogue: I take the severed hand out of my pack and say, "See guys? I told you this thing would come in handy!" Then I jam it onto the sharp end of the stick and hold it aloft.
Fighter: Ew.
Wizard: My character says, "I don't want to even know what you would do when drunk."
Rogue: I give a wicked grin and say, "If this works we can celebrate at the tavern and you'll find out!" Then I head toward the orcs holding the severed hand aloft.
DM: The orcs all stop as you approach and look warily at you. Several of them appear fixated on the severed, bloody hand you are holding on the end of that stick.
Rogue: OK, I try to convince them that this hand is from one of their totem spirits.
DM: What language are you saying this in? Do you speak orcish?
Rogue: Hang on (looks at player sheet). Um, no, I don't.
DM: So what language do you use.
Rogue: I'll try common.
DM: Most of the orcs don't appear to understand common, but their leader, the one with the bear skull on his head, appears to understand some of what you are saying. But he's not great at common so roll persuasion at disadvantage, because he might not comprehend everything. (Behind the screen, DM determines the DC of this check is 13.)
Rogue: I rolled a 17 and 14, +2 for persuasion so, 16.
DM: The orc leader's eyes go wide and....
... etc. (And note, my descriptions of how people RP their dialogue are just for examples only -- lots of people RP in different ways, first person, third person, etc.)
Maybe I was unclear here. I intended to first map out their ideas just like you'd normally do(in a discord ooc convo).
Huh. That isn't what I'd normally do, I didn't realize people separated out the planning from the playing that much. There's certainly always OOC discussion. Sometimes OOC clarification questions asked to the DM (like "How wide is the chasm" or "Do the orcs look threatening") which could even be questions about the feasibility of plans and what rolls would be needed for them ("Can I try to push this big stone over, or is it way too big to even try that?")
But the players generally don't find out whether their plans work until after they ACTUALLY say they're doing them, in-character. And they only make the roll AFTER they say what they're doing, not before.
In this case the rogue says I wanna decieve them. I'd tell the rogue to roll and then say if it's successful or not.
Yeah, this isn't how it should work. The player should describe what they DO. The in-character action they are taking. "Deceiving" isn't something they're doing, it sounds like they're just referencing the skill from their character sheet whose bonus they want to add to a roll.
What is the character actually doing? Do they walk up to the orcs and say "Yo momma's so fat, she's an orc!" in orcish? Do they put on some fake blood to make it look like they're wounded and slink by, hoping the orcs see them as a tasty meal give chase? Or vice versa, do they run up with a loud war cry, pretending they think they'll kill all the orcs singlehandedly? Or do they call out to them in common "Hey guys, I'm lost and need directions to the nearest road, can you help?"
"I deceive" isn't enough.
By the way, this is a super-common thing. I remember the first D&D campaign I played; it was three players and one GM, and none of the four of us had ever played D&D before. There was a moment when we came across an animal for whatever reason and the player who had proficiency in Animal Handling excitedly called out "I Animal Handle it!!!" ...which isn't the way it's supposed to be. The player is supposed to describe "I give the wolf some meat to try and calm it down", not "I use my Animal Handling skill."
What skill (if any) is applicable to the roll (if any roll is needed) comes out of what the task is the player is trying to accomplish and what they do. Not vice versa, you don't say the roll you do and then, based on the result, narrate what actions that roll represented.
So what you're saying is the player can't even say the orks chase her even if that was what the rogue was trying to goad them into doing?
Yeah, normally the player is probably almost never in a position where they can say what the monsters do. There's exceptions, sure. Maybe the player has actually cast a mind-control spell like Dominate Monster. Maybe when the stakes are low and there's high trust between the DM and player, so for convenience a player in PBP might RP out both sides of the player-NPC interaction.
You could do it differently if you've decided this explicitly in session zero. I get the sense that you want players to narrate their successes, trusting them with control over the monsters and the world for the duration. That could work but it'll probably take some explanation to get across. You'd have to effectively sketch out the whole scene out-of-character (who does what, both players and monsters, make any rolls as needed) and THEN turn it over to the players to narrate it in more detail.
That's not typical though, and I think it often wouldn't work very well.
I realize in VC or in person I'd simply tell them yes they chase her if the rogue succeeded. But in this case I tell the player they succeed. So is that too far for D&D?
Yeah, just like "I deceive" isn't really enough information for the DM to know what the player does, "You succeeded on your deception check" is not enough information for the player to know what the monsters or NPCs do.
Do they shoot at the player with arrows? Do they run after the player - and if they do, have they taken the time to pick up their weapons? Are all of them running, or just some? Is the leader at the front or in the back? What path are they taking? Etc etc etc!
I've done a few "Play by Post" games that ranged from "long form fiction" to "we expect posts 5-8 times a night". I've done them "in the old days" when we'd physically mail our character journals to the DM and they'd mail back out a "report" of what had happened that month. I did a few on Live Journal where you'd plan to have a "scene" and then post back and forth up to 10 times an hour. Your mileage, obviously, will vary.
That said, I don't think there's any wrong way to do it as long as everyone playing understands the format and expectations. The RPG Kids on Bikes actually has in the rules that the players are supposed to eventually take over running the game without the DM. They tell the story (in theory) of the monsters and the heroes and just focus on keeping the story going. The only time a DM is needed, ideally, is to adjudicate if the party can't agree on what a difficulty challenge might be. So when the players want to sneak into a warehouse without the FBI seeing, is that as 12 or a 15 they need? But then again, KoB is a very low statistic game with long gaps between dice rolling, and no HP for the characters. It's not DnD.
But my point is that you can run a form of DnD in a Play by Email that is more rules-lite and story heavy. On the other hand you can totally set it up where it's Player Post, DM respond, Player Post, DM Repond. It's all up to you and the players.
I feel like it is important, when players are taking actions that will require any great skill or cunning, that they say why they are doing what they are doing, unless their intentions are completely obvious. What is the rogue tricking the orcs into doing?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I wanted my players in a play by post game to roll their dice and then rp it out. For instance, the coward of the group is crying in tears as she runs down the hallway as bait, leading the monsters to her companions who had set up a reaction attack at the end of the corridor. However they gave me this confused response like, I was supposed to tell the whole story. Now I don't giving the play by play what happens if my coward rolls a 1 or 20 or anything in between. I have so many ideas how to actually describe that, but I figured my players would have fun actually doing that themselves.
but is this just a fundemental flaw in my understanding? In play by post D&D games, do the players just make decisions or respond to adversity with dice rolls? And I'm supposed to be the sole narrator?
Your players make decisions, you might ask for them to roll for a check if the decision made requires any great difficulty (which acting as bait probably wouldn't be unless the monsters in question are very suspicious), and then you narrate what happens as a result.
This is a session zero thing. In a PbP group I was in, the GM/Narrator set up the scene and we posted to it. We had rules that we were "forced" to take turns, so that the players that seemed to have too much time on their hands were not dominating the posts. Every 3-4 days the Narrator would come in, adjust text as needed to tidy up what was required and adjudicate actions we intended and turn it back over to the players. We were encouraged to add to the story and "talk amongst ourselves" but if we strayed too far, the narrator/GM would red line our intended action and reassert the story flow. It wasn't railroading exactly, but some times she needed to assert that the "minion" did not spill "ALL" the beans on the BBEG when we interrogated him, or how now we needed to make a roll for derring-do now that we were flying our biplanes through noir-NYC skyscrapers.
hmm, well I can talk to them I guess. We haven't started yet, but it's hard to get a response sometimes. I don't know if the lack of response means they didn't see it or they just understood. lol But honestly I don't mind if my BBEG spills some beans, but I'd only stipulate that's a story action and has to be DC'd before it can go through.
but thank you for the help. I was worried that I broke a rule that everyone but me understood.
I think you are missing something, though. I'm not quite sure what. In "standard, by the book" D&D play, the players basically never need to "RP out the result of a die roll", and it's a bit confusing to me what you mean by that. The basic D&D loop is that the players describe what their characters do, then you the DM describe what happens in response to that, having players roll dice if that is needed to decide whether something is successful or not. That doesn't have to change in PBP, though players can preemptively put rolls if they think those rolls might be useful.
Based on the description, I can't quite tell what you intended with your example. Here's how I can imagine that playing out:
1) Player describes how their character runs down the hallway crying, trying to get the monsters to follow them.
2) The DM decides the response, and, if any are necessary, tells the players what rolls are needed.
2a) Maybe the monsters obviously fall for the trap; in which case the DM describes the monsters going down the hallway. If they monsters are walking into a trap that's going to start a fight probably everyone needs to roll initiative, DM needs to decide if the monsters are surprised at the start of combat (and maybe the players need to roll Stealth to help the DM decide that?)
2b) Maybe the monsters obviously don't fall for the trap, in which case the DM describes what they do in response to this crying running person. No rolls needed.
2c) Maybe the DM decides that it depends on how convincing the crying person was, so the DM asks for a Deception check (or whatever check they think is appropriate from the player) and then goes from there.
In the PbP campaign I'm in, the players would probably put in any checks they think might be needed (so the people setting up the ambush would probably have preemptively put a Stealth Check in the post where they describe setting up the ambush, the Bait player might have put a deception check at the end of their post if they thought it might be needed) but the DM would be the one making the decisions on whether they actually used those dice rolls to inform what happened or not. And the DM would have to be the one who decides whether the monsters fall for the plan or not, the players don't know what the monsters will do until the DM tells them, no matter what rolls they put in.
1. DM posts that a group of orc variant monsters are in a clearing. The players are given adequate warning via environmental cues such as totem poles, tracks, and the sound of orks talking to eachother.
2. The players decide what they will do in ooc. Rogue decides she wants wants to greet the orks with 15 feet of movement, then she does a deception check? The fighter decides he'll do a reactive action, aka slashing the orks. He'll roll to see if he passes the stealth check.
3. the two people make their posts from their perspective. Perhaps the rougue player describes her heart beating quickly and what she shouts at the orks. The check needed to draw them over was passed, so they come. The fighter makes his post after the rougue posts describing his shallow breathing and nerves, but unlike the rogue he didn't pass the armor check. So the fighter player describes swinging their blade at the orks.
4. I come in as the gm and describe how the orks avoid it. What's going through their heads and how their attacks go depending on their own check vs the pc armor checks.
that's what I had in mind. It does require prerolling before actually posting. But it's the same standard affair except instead of me doing all the talking. The rogue and fighter describe how their characters felt doing the actions.
Edit: For me I just imagined standard dnd is:
rogue: I try to trick them
rolls.
dm: you succeed. you trick them
fighter: I wait for them since they were tricked
I slash at them.
dm: you miss
The main difference it seems is that you want the players to decide what rolls are necessary AND what the difficulty of those rolls is. I don't think that generally works; that's not within the players' purview.Player doesn't get to decide whether a check is needed to do a particular thing or, if it is, what the difficulty of that check is. That's up to the DM.
In your example:
So far so good! Probably would need an initiative roll first if the fighter's starting a fight here, but sure.
But this is the part that doesn't work. The player has no way of knowing what the monsters do. She can describe what HER character is doing - the rogue calling out to them trying to get them to come to her. She needs to provide enough detail here so the DM can figure out what the result of the action is - so she probably needs to say where she's standing, what she's yelling, any gestures she's making, and what she's trying to accomplish with that. She can take a guess that maybe she needs a deception check for this - reasonable guess I suppose. Might be right, might not be, might as well pre-roll to save some back-and-forth time.
But no matter what she rolls, she can't know the result since she doesn't control the orks, she only controls her character. For example, even if the player rolls a 20, a possible outcome could be "You greet the orks, try to look helpless to get them to come to you. ...but instead of running after you, the orcs get out their longbows and shoot at you, since these are archer orks." Or vice versa! The player might roll a 1, but get the result of "You greet the orks. They don't really understand what you're saying, but they think you looked delicious so they chase you anyway" if these particular orks didn't really need much tricking to do what the players wanted.
No way for the players to know that. The players don't know what roll the rogue needs to hit to get the orks to come towards them if, indeed, there IS any such roll - that's what the DM has to provide.
Same for the others. I guess if the players know the statblock of the orks then the fighter could probably know what stealth check he needs and what attack roll he needs, since those are pretty standard... ...but if he fails his stealth check, he has no way of knowing what the orks reaction to seeing him is. DM needs to narrate that.
Sure, that part works. I think you have to come in earlier though. Basically anytime the players don't know what the results of one of their actions are, the DM needs to tell them, since that stuff is all up to the purview of the DM.
Eh, that's probably not enough information. When the rogue says "I try to trick them" that's not enough info for the DM to decide whether the action is successful or not - the rogue needs to describe how she's trying to trick them and what she's trying to accomplish with that trick. Those details are going to determine what the result of the action is (and if any rolls are needed for it, and if so, what type of rolls and what DC.)
Maybe I was unclear here. I intended to first map out their ideas just like you'd normally do(in a discord ooc convo). In this case the rogue says I wanna decieve them. I'd tell the rogue to roll and then say if it's successful or not. So what you're saying is the player can't even say the orks chase her even if that was what the rogue was trying to goad them into doing? I realize in VC or in person I'd simply tell them yes they chase her if the rogue succeeded. But in this case I tell the player they succeed. So is that too far for D&D?
This.
Standard D&D is more along these lines:
... etc. (And note, my descriptions of how people RP their dialogue are just for examples only -- lots of people RP in different ways, first person, third person, etc.)
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.
Huh. That isn't what I'd normally do, I didn't realize people separated out the planning from the playing that much. There's certainly always OOC discussion. Sometimes OOC clarification questions asked to the DM (like "How wide is the chasm" or "Do the orcs look threatening") which could even be questions about the feasibility of plans and what rolls would be needed for them ("Can I try to push this big stone over, or is it way too big to even try that?")
But the players generally don't find out whether their plans work until after they ACTUALLY say they're doing them, in-character. And they only make the roll AFTER they say what they're doing, not before.
Yeah, this isn't how it should work. The player should describe what they DO. The in-character action they are taking. "Deceiving" isn't something they're doing, it sounds like they're just referencing the skill from their character sheet whose bonus they want to add to a roll.
What is the character actually doing? Do they walk up to the orcs and say "Yo momma's so fat, she's an orc!" in orcish? Do they put on some fake blood to make it look like they're wounded and slink by, hoping the orcs see them as a tasty meal give chase? Or vice versa, do they run up with a loud war cry, pretending they think they'll kill all the orcs singlehandedly? Or do they call out to them in common "Hey guys, I'm lost and need directions to the nearest road, can you help?"
"I deceive" isn't enough.
By the way, this is a super-common thing. I remember the first D&D campaign I played; it was three players and one GM, and none of the four of us had ever played D&D before. There was a moment when we came across an animal for whatever reason and the player who had proficiency in Animal Handling excitedly called out "I Animal Handle it!!!" ...which isn't the way it's supposed to be. The player is supposed to describe "I give the wolf some meat to try and calm it down", not "I use my Animal Handling skill."
What skill (if any) is applicable to the roll (if any roll is needed) comes out of what the task is the player is trying to accomplish and what they do. Not vice versa, you don't say the roll you do and then, based on the result, narrate what actions that roll represented.
Yeah, normally the player is probably almost never in a position where they can say what the monsters do. There's exceptions, sure. Maybe the player has actually cast a mind-control spell like Dominate Monster. Maybe when the stakes are low and there's high trust between the DM and player, so for convenience a player in PBP might RP out both sides of the player-NPC interaction.
You could do it differently if you've decided this explicitly in session zero. I get the sense that you want players to narrate their successes, trusting them with control over the monsters and the world for the duration. That could work but it'll probably take some explanation to get across. You'd have to effectively sketch out the whole scene out-of-character (who does what, both players and monsters, make any rolls as needed) and THEN turn it over to the players to narrate it in more detail.
That's not typical though, and I think it often wouldn't work very well.
Yeah, just like "I deceive" isn't really enough information for the DM to know what the player does, "You succeeded on your deception check" is not enough information for the player to know what the monsters or NPCs do.
Do they shoot at the player with arrows? Do they run after the player - and if they do, have they taken the time to pick up their weapons? Are all of them running, or just some? Is the leader at the front or in the back? What path are they taking? Etc etc etc!
I've done a few "Play by Post" games that ranged from "long form fiction" to "we expect posts 5-8 times a night". I've done them "in the old days" when we'd physically mail our character journals to the DM and they'd mail back out a "report" of what had happened that month. I did a few on Live Journal where you'd plan to have a "scene" and then post back and forth up to 10 times an hour. Your mileage, obviously, will vary.
That said, I don't think there's any wrong way to do it as long as everyone playing understands the format and expectations. The RPG Kids on Bikes actually has in the rules that the players are supposed to eventually take over running the game without the DM. They tell the story (in theory) of the monsters and the heroes and just focus on keeping the story going. The only time a DM is needed, ideally, is to adjudicate if the party can't agree on what a difficulty challenge might be. So when the players want to sneak into a warehouse without the FBI seeing, is that as 12 or a 15 they need? But then again, KoB is a very low statistic game with long gaps between dice rolling, and no HP for the characters. It's not DnD.
But my point is that you can run a form of DnD in a Play by Email that is more rules-lite and story heavy. On the other hand you can totally set it up where it's Player Post, DM respond, Player Post, DM Repond. It's all up to you and the players.
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir
I feel like it is important, when players are taking actions that will require any great skill or cunning, that they say why they are doing what they are doing, unless their intentions are completely obvious. What is the rogue tricking the orcs into doing?