Skills used by players on other players.

iserith · Dec 13, 2018

billd91 said:
Is it really necessary to have a consequence other than lack of success? Most things sort themselves out - fail a knowledge check, don't know the potential info; fail the detection check, don't detect the treasure or threat. Does there really need to be the risk of something more stacked onto that?

I don't worry about the chorus of "Can I roll, too?" because I have all the characters in position to either know or detect the same thing make the check. Then I start with the lowest roll in giving out results of what they know/perceived/whatever.

There needs to be a meaningful consequence of failure in order for there to be an ability check because that's one of the two criteria by which the DM calls for a roll. It's up to the DM to decide what that means in context though, so reasonable people can disagree on what is or isn't meaningful in the abstract.

Oofta · Dec 13, 2018

TaranTheWanderer said:
Would you let one check influence a combat? I wouldn't. It's a contest. A series of rolls vs a series of rolls. And you aren't forcing it, You are asking the players up front. Once again, it's more about the stakes than the actual contest. I was just using an example to answer FrogReaver's question. Joining a known villain is probably a pretty extreme case.

I'm curious how would you rp a diplomatic talk where the pcs risk losing something but can gain something by being successful? To me, if only the PCs can influence the NPCs and not vice versa, then aren't you lacking one whole side of a conflict?

The amount a PC can influence an NPC varies depending on the situation (and vice versa). The player of the PC/NPC should decide whether or not a roll (or rolls) is going to make a difference when it comes to persuasion or intimidation.

Let's put it this way. There's a well known psychological phenomena, when people are convinced of something the more you evidence you give that is contrary to their opinion, the more they are convinced that they are right. It doesn't matter how convincing your arguments are or how persuasive you are, some people are just going to dig in their heels. It doesn't really matter much if it's their opinion or some political figure, climate change, or what the best ___ is. Some people simply cannot be convinced.

So why should it be any different in game? Sometimes a character is on the fence on something and rolls may be called for. Other times no persuasion check is going to matter. I don't care if it's the DM running the character or a player, the person running the character gets to decide.

I get that some people want to reduce social interactions to a numbers game, and it's perfectly fine. Just not my cup of tea.

GameOgre · Dec 13, 2018

I'm just saying"I HATE to move. I HATE to help friends move even more. I just am NOT going to do it. I have done it enough! I'm done!"
I have them mindset firmly in place and if I was in rpg.......My character is NOT EVER going to do it again. It isn't fun, I'm getting old so now it has a much worse impact on me than it used to. So no,save your frigging breath....it's NEVER going to happen, %$%$% your nat 20, 42 persuasion role.

Yet, here I sit typing on this keyboard with a aching back and leg from helping a friend move. Next week ANOTHER friend is moving and $%$% him. Pay the dang $$ for a mover. Yet I will probably be here next week saying the same thing because evidently even with resolve firmly in place.......I'm effected by outside influences beyond my control.

Maybe it frigging IS some sort of Mind Control!

TheCosmicKid · Dec 13, 2018

Oofta said:
The amount a PC can influence an NPC varies depending on the situation (and vice versa). The player of the PC/NPC should decide whether or not a roll (or rolls) is going to make a difference when it comes to persuasion or intimidation.

Let's put it this way. There's a well known psychological phenomena, when people are convinced of something the more you evidence you give that is contrary to their opinion, the more they are convinced that they are right. It doesn't matter how convincing your arguments are or how persuasive you are, some people are just going to dig in their heels. It doesn't really matter much if it's their opinion or some political figure, climate change, or what the best ___ is. Some people simply cannot be convinced.

So why should it be any different in game? Sometimes a character is on the fence on something and rolls may be called for. Other times no persuasion check is going to matter. I don't care if it's the DM running the character or a player, the person running the character gets to decide.

I get that some people want to reduce social interactions to a numbers game, and it's perfectly fine. Just not my cup of tea.

I'd say you can still reduce this to a numbers game if you really want to. A high Persuasion check is going to have the persuadee take the request in the best possible light within the bounds of feasibility for their character (as decided by their player/DM), and a low check the opposite. So if a PC bard walks into the throne room and says, "Hey, king! Pretty please cede your kingdom to me!", the DM may decide...

Low check: The king grows wroth and the bard is thrown into the dungeon.
High check: The bard still doesn't get the kingdom, but the king is impressed by her brazenness and laughs it off.

Similarly, if an NPC dark lord says to a PC, "Join me and we can rule this world together!", the player might decide...

Low check: Mortal insult; proceed immediately to combat.
High check: Still no, but if the villain is interested in talking, let's keep talking.

I guess my point is, even when outright acquiescence is out of the question, there's often still a wide range of possible outcomes which a skill check could be used to explore.

guachi · Dec 13, 2018

Bawylie said:
Because of take-backsies.

“Is the door trapped?”
“Make a Perception check.”
(Roll, low result)
“As you examine the door, your hand brushes the handle and an electric jolt...”
“Hang on I never said I touched the door. I was just searching for traps.”

This. Ten thousand times this. I use this example almost verbatim (though in my example it's a statue and not a door. Every statue in D&D is suspicious.).

The statue gets used as an example of how stating a Goal and Approach can variously lead to a Perception, Investigation, History, Religion, Arcana, and a Stone Mason's Tools check depending on what the PC is actually doing.

Oofta · Dec 13, 2018

TheCosmicKid said:
I'd say you can still reduce this to a numbers game if you really want to. A high Persuasion check is going to have the persuadee take the request in the best possible light within the bounds of feasibility for their character (as decided by their player/DM), and a low check the opposite. So if a PC bard walks into the throne room and says, "Hey, king! Pretty please cede your kingdom to me!", the DM may decide...

Low check: The king grows wroth and the bard is thrown into the dungeon.
High check: The bard still doesn't get the kingdom, but the king is impressed by her brazenness and laughs it off.

Similarly, if an NPC dark lord says to a PC, "Join me and we can rule this world together!", the player might decide...

Low check: Mortal insult; proceed immediately to combat.
High check: Still no, but if the villain is interested in talking, let's keep talking.

I guess my point is, even when outright acquiescence is out of the question, there's often still a wide range of possible outcomes which a skill check could be used to explore.

You can. I don't unless it makes sense. It almost never makes sense unless it's random guard #43 or if the player asks me to because they're undecided.

If it works for you and your group, go for it. I would not want to play a game where the DM told me what my character thinks because of a die roll (or 10).

5ekyu · Dec 13, 2018

billd91 said:
Is it really necessary to have a consequence other than lack of success? Most things sort themselves out - fail a knowledge check, don't know the potential info; fail the detection check, don't detect the treasure or threat. Does there really need to be the risk of something more stacked onto that?

I don't worry about the chorus of "Can I roll, too?" because I have all the characters in position to either know or detect the same thing make the check. Then I start with the lowest roll in giving out results of what they know/perceived/whatever.

5e defines failure as either not making any,progress *or* some progress with setback... So you have solidly defined in the rules two outcomes for ability check failures the GM can call on as they see fit.

I for one, mix them up a lot, some of both.

So, pile on rolls can have risk applied and so the risk is present even if it doesn't happen.

I dont follow the doctrine of only rolling when bad stuff might happen - given those two options presented in the basic definitions and passive checks defined as including repeated tasks.

Most of the time, my gang prefers one better roll with advantage to four or five lesser rolls, some of which carry risks.

5ekyu · Dec 13, 2018

Oofta said:
The amount a PC can influence an NPC varies depending on the situation (and vice versa). The player of the PC/NPC should decide whether or not a roll (or rolls) is going to make a difference when it comes to persuasion or intimidation.

Let's put it this way. There's a well known psychological phenomena, when people are convinced of something the more you evidence you give that is contrary to their opinion, the more they are convinced that they are right. It doesn't matter how convincing your arguments are or how persuasive you are, some people are just going to dig in their heels. It doesn't really matter much if it's their opinion or some political figure, climate change, or what the best ___ is. Some people simply cannot be convinced.

So why should it be any different in game? Sometimes a character is on the fence on something and rolls may be called for. Other times no persuasion check is going to matter. I don't care if it's the DM running the character or a player, the person running the character gets to decide.

I get that some people want to reduce social interactions to a numbers game, and it's perfectly fine. Just not my cup of tea.

Actually, i would say what you are describing is a failed persuasion check - taking the wrong approach, directly challenging the belief.

The same studies found that while the counter evidence cases create the digging on heels, the finding common ground and more sidereal "common ground" did work.
So you might not be able to directly attack their big position directly but can get them to come to agreement on say a good hunting policy.

Same way folks can all agree on the individual elements of complex laws but be against it whencertain politicians name is on it - you work to the solo agreements.

Not unlike choosing to not frontal assault the castle but work a deal with a sude gate guard.

That said, yes, "can i be convinced of x" can be an absolute "no" - especially if the context is a single conversation or worse, a quick statement.

To me, one of the keys to skill use is time... How long are you going to work at it?

Want to seduce - takes time.
Want to get the king to like you - takes multiple things not just one quick line.

GM can choose the time requirement for various tasks that make sense... Nothing says Persuasion is always a six second task.

5ekyu · Dec 13, 2018

guachi said:
This. Ten thousand times this. I use this example almost verbatim (though in my example it's a statue and not a door. Every statue in D&D is suspicious.).

The statue gets used as an example of how stating a Goal and Approach can variously lead to a Perception, Investigation, History, Religion, Arcana, and a Stone Mason's Tools check depending on what the PC is actually doing.

Counterpoint, if the player tells you the skill/tool/proficiency being used, **that also** brings with it the linkage to actions taken.

If the player says rolling perception that says looking, if they say check with tools, thats touching fiddling etc. Quite possibly DCs are different, definitely risks and outcomes different.

Thats where i get amused at the rigid "GM chooses checks, players shall not" when the go with how approach reveals type of check - it works both ways.

Both can work well, both can botch usually on the same ground - do the players and gm have the same understanding of what skills and tools and such cover or do they have different expectatiins.

billd91 · Dec 13, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
Yeah, but is that actually fun? Sounds like a whole bunch of dice rolling to me (more than 'sounds'; I've played that way, too) instead of storytelling.

Again, I'm not trying to tell you that you're breaking the rules or doing something wrong. Lots of us have played the way you are describing for a long, long time. Maybe consider that RPGs have evolved and there's another way of doing things that is less mechanical and more narrative?

We're trying to share an exciting new(ish) recipe, not tell you that you're a bad cook or breaking kitchen rules.

Funny how you can diagnose a lot from one statement about having everyone in position to notice or know something roll instead of focusing on one character. :hmm:

Skills used by players on other players.

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Oofta

Legend

GameOgre

Adventurer

TheCosmicKid

Hero

guachi

Hero

Oofta

Legend

5ekyu

Hero

5ekyu

Hero

5ekyu

Hero

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)

Similar Threads