@
Sadras, my understanding is that 5e D&D does not permit the GM to make social checks resulting from NPC behaviour in the fiction which then yield results that are binding on players in their play of their PCs. But I'm not an expert on 5e D&D, so perhaps there is an option to that effect that I'm not aware of.
You are correct in your understanding. The point of that question was to reflect that as the player is allowed to freely roleplay their character and not to be bound by any social die, similarly the DM is free to roleplay their NPC. Again I stress this is very much part of the roleplaying aspect of the game. You might not like it, and that is fair, but this roleplaying aspect of the game does not somehow make it a MMI-styled game.
Given the above (FG cannot persuade PC) why is it not Player-May-I? or following from Mother, Child-May-I?
As far as your example of play is concerned, you are the one who posted it and (implicitly) invited comment. In your example of play, the player has declared an action - to the effect of I look at the giant imploringly and gesture with my hand for the return of my shard - and you have unilaterally decided the outcome of that action based on your conception of what is reasonable for a giant. You haven't spelled out all your reasoning (and obviously are not obliged to) - for instance, upthread I noted the possible relevance of alignment to the situation, and (I think) you XPed that post, but you haven't actually indicated whether your decision-making as GM was affected by a view that a CE being will never respond to imploring looks.
I XPed you for your creative thinking. It had nothing to do with the alignment, that would be, IMO, a little too simplistic.
My internal reasoning: It had to do with the write-up of Frost Giants (it takes what is need/wants from others, values sheer brute strength, society of plunderers since they are not crafters, prize steel, and recognise 2 kinds of loot - one which is kvit = material goods) and their lack of relationship with them.
In essence the FG liked something, and it was given freely and there was no compulsion on the FG to return the item to a lesser and weaker being. Simple as that. The alignment descriptor is just gravy.
To me, a key feature of your example of play is that your conception of what is reasonable for the giant differs from that of the player - unless there is something else going on that you haven't mentioned (like the player saying something or making a face or whatever that indicated that s/he thought the action declaration was a try-on), the player clearly thought that it might be reasonable for the giant to respond to the request.
I cannot fault you on this as you do not know the particular player, but this player would have called me out on this if he thought I roleplayed this FG incorrectly, especially since his character lost an extremely important item both for backstory purposes and from a mechanical aspect. In fact he still ridicules the roleplaying decisions of a particular NPC I DMed 2 years ago.
I never got any flack from him or the table for this, and in fact he has been teased by the rest of the players for his momentary lapse in judgment by
This feeds directly into the claim from you and @
Imaro that there is no difference, to RPG play, between the GM unilaterally deciding an outcome and the GM calling for a check. That claim is, in my view, rebutted by the following point
made by Vincent Baker:
Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game (players and GMs, if you've even got such things) have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not. . . .
Mechanics . . . exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.
I'm not so convinced it rebuts any claims.
We can elaborate a bit: we have to assume that the action declaration and hence "negotiation" is sincere and made in good faith (something I already alluded to above, when I said I'm assuming that the player has not conceded that the action declaration is a try-on); likewise I am assuming that the use of the mechanics is done sincerely and in good faith.
With sincerity and good faith I can set a DC 30 Diplomacy check, similar in a way that I handwave yes to some things with anything I consider under DC 10 and I don't bother with the possible 20's or 1's respectively.
I'm also not entirely convinced we had reached the negotiation aspect of the roleplaying game. In any event, D&D attempts to retain much of the free-flowing roleplaying within the social and exploration pillars as the combat pillar is much more clearly defined.
Which poster in this thread do you think plays a game "lacking in roleplaying depth"?
Rushing to grab dice to establish the fiction at every point is like stop-starting in a game of Football (soccer). The game is less free flowing (and often more frustrating) as the whistle is blown (dice are rolled) for everything.
