D&D 5E Deal Breakers - Or woah, that is just too much

[Sunseeker]

If youre comfortable with bashing a dudes skull in with an axe, making pacts with demons or animating a corpse as a zombie then romance or flirting shouldnt be oout of the picture.

But I understand individual concerns - each to their own and all that. Our group contains myself (a 40 year old RL unrepentant womaniser) and one of our players (a 30 year old self described asexual virgin). Its a mixed group so you need to be considerate of all the views of the players in question, and play within individual comfort zones.

Would you be comfortable with two PCs who were in a romantic relationship but kept the sexual and intimate stuff 'off camera'. What about if they were real life partners and played characters that were also in a relationship?

What two players want to do with their characters is fine provided they keep it tasteful. Fade-to-black, PG-13, off-camera, great, if those two players are okay with that's fine. It's not that I haven't had PCs try to romance NPCs, or even had bordellos in my games, but I just don't role-play it. NPCs will either respond, or they won't. You'll either appear charming, or you won't. Charming people may be successful in romance, just as uncharming people might too. But I'm not going to in-depth with it.

 

[innerdude]

It's only just now occured to me that there's one thing I (somewhat amazingly) haven't seen mentioned at all in this thread as a deal-breaker either way:

Level of seriousness and-or whimsy in a campaign.

Me, if it were a 1-10 scale where 1 is all serious all the time and 10 is endless farcical slapstick, I'd prefer a game be around '6' and would probably bail on a 1, 2 or 10 once I realized that's what I'd signed on for.

Lan-"I hit you with a salmon for 1d4 damage"-efan

This, sadly, is why I'm not sure I'll ever get to run a GOOD Lord of the Rings campaign, whether it's with the One Ring system or anything else.

I'm too invested in LotR to ever treat it as anything higher than a "4" on the goofiness scale; maybe a "5" on the absolute outer limit.

For some reason my group inevitably ends up somewhere between 6.5 and 7, regardless of campaign, setting, or GM. For any given session it's far more common for it to drift up closer to a "9" than down to a "5".

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes, exactly. If there is no chance then you do not need a roll.

But the player succeeded. He was incredibly charming. But she spurned his advance. Why is this complicated? You're rolling to see how well you perform. You're NOT rolling to see how well the target is effected by it.

 

[dewderino]

This, sadly, is why I'm not sure I'll ever get to run a GOOD Lord of the Rings campaign, whether it's with the One Ring system or anything else.

I'm too invested in LotR to ever treat it as anything higher than a "4" on the goofiness scale; maybe a "5" on the absolute outer limit.

For some reason my group inevitably ends up somewhere between 6.5 and 7, regardless of campaign, setting, or GM. For any given session it's far more common for it to drift up closer to a "9" than down to a "5".

I've run into a similar problem. Mine is more related to one night is closer to 10 and then the next session is closer to 1. I don't mind this but when rp it's difficult to separate meta gaming from rp when there's no fluidity from session to session.

 

[rlor]

But the player succeeded. He was incredibly charming. But she spurned his advance. Why is this complicated? You're rolling to see how well you perform. You're NOT rolling to see how well the target is effected by it.

In general a player expects their die roll to determine the success of an action. If a character succeeds their sleight of hand check versus a NPC's perception check they expect to steal their coin pouch. Not that they made an excellent attempt but it failed due to DM fiat. Note, I don't have a problem with a DM shutting down an idea at the onset, but asking for a roll then shutting it down is going to cause unnecessary player frustration at the tables I've gamed at.

I think something like the following prevents that frustration but conveys the same result:
Player: I attempt to seduce the NPC.
Me: You're very charming with your approach but they seem uninterested, you get the feeling that they [are loyal to their significant other/don't have an interest in men/hate elves/are not looking for a relationship/whatever]

 

[Mouseferatu]

There are plenty of reasons to roll even if the PC can't possibly seduce that particular NPC.

Maybe if the PC rolls poorly, several of the other NPCs are going to laugh at him, leading to some potentially interesting future interaction. Similarly, that natural 20? Maybe it didn't seduce the NPC into bed, but perhaps it attracted the attention of some other potentially interested NPCs.

Maybe the big bruiser in the corner, who carries a torch for the NPC, is threatened by the PC being so suave around her and picks a fight.

Maybe the PC's success in being charming makes the NPC friendlier, and even though she didn't allow herself to be seduced, perhaps she gives the PC a bit of interesting rumor or gossip she otherwise wouldn't have.

Maybe the success now makes her more receptive the next time the PCs are in town.

Maybe the player decides that the PC is now highly curious as to why he was turned down, and starts trying to learn more about this NPC, perhaps resulting in a throwaway character becoming important.

(And of course, this says nothing about the information you're giving to the players on a meta-level if you let them try the exact same roll with some NPCs but not others.)

You can accomplish all sorts of things with a roll that may not be what the player meant to accomplish.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Because really NPCs do not have any free will which is why they are NPCs.

NPCs have exactly as much free will as PCs.

 

[Sunseeker]

In general a player expects their die roll to determine the success of an action. If a character succeeds their sleight of hand check versus a NPC's perception check they expect to steal their coin pouch. Not that they made an excellent attempt but it failed due to DM fiat. Note, I don't have a problem with a DM shutting down an idea at the onset, but asking for a roll then shutting it down is going to cause unnecessary player frustration at the tables I've gamed at.

I think something like the following prevents that frustration but conveys the same result:
Player: I attempt to seduce the NPC.
Me: You're very charming with your approach but they seem uninterested, you get the feeling that they [are loyal to their significant other/don't have an interest in men/hate elves/are not looking for a relationship/whatever]

I don't ask for rolls. My players may use their skills at any time provided they're not being a clattering annoyance to the table. But otherwise if they find a locked door I will tell them "it looks like there is some kind of puzzle to it, what would you like to do." and the players will say what they want to do and how they want to go about it. If they are unsure what skill to use, I'll give them some options. But I didn't ask my player to hit on that chick. He wanted to do it. I didn't ask him to roll, he rolled for it. The girl wasn't interested.

That's life. Sometimes no matter how hard you succeed, you still fail. I put that in my games. It's not always fun, but it gives the game a level of believably. Sometimes the magic door needs a magic key, not a good arcana check, but you don't know that. I'm not here to TELL you that. You're here to figure it out, that's why it's a puzzle.

 

[Tectuktitlay]

In general a player expects their die roll to determine the success of an action. If a character succeeds their sleight of hand check versus a NPC's perception check they expect to steal their coin pouch. Not that they made an excellent attempt but it failed due to DM fiat. Note, I don't have a problem with a DM shutting down an idea at the onset, but asking for a roll then shutting it down is going to cause unnecessary player frustration at the tables I've gamed at.

I think something like the following prevents that frustration but conveys the same result:
Player: I attempt to seduce the NPC.
Me: You're very charming with your approach but they seem uninterested, you get the feeling that they [are loyal to their significant other/don't have an interest in men/hate elves/are not looking for a relationship/whatever]

But the player specified they were being charming. If they HAD said they were trying to seduce the person with a persuasion check or whatnot, it sounds the the DM in question would have told them something along the lines of, "no, that is simply not allowed; you don't get to roll a die to see if you convince a person to sleep with you in my games". The player may very well have meant "have sex" when they said "charming", but the DM saying ok, you charmed them quite thoroughly, but they're still not interested, certainly not right away. The NPC might, however, think the PC is delightful, and someone to perhaps try to get to know better in the long run.

But an expectation of sex on a persuasion roll? Yeah, I agree completely with shidaku. The NPCs get to exert their own agency, and if they're not likely to sleep with someone right away, that is that. If it were, say, a tavern wench who it is known gets some on the side regularly with anyone that tickles their fancy, they might very well succumb to a honey-tongued charmer. But it's up to the DM to decide how any given NPC will react to what sounds like very strong advances by someone making a concerted effort to get into their undergarments.

And yeah, some of us are not at all ok with consent violations being roleplayed out in a campaign.

But regardless, if you tell the DM you are being charming, and crit, and they say well cool, you charmed the hell out of them, be as disappointed as you like. But you didn't say you were trying to persuade them to actually have sex with you. If they still don't want to sleep with you, but they do really like you and might want to get to know you better, now, deal with it.

 

[rlor]

I don't ask for rolls. My players may use their skills at any time provided they're not being a clattering annoyance to the table.

A playstyle difference then. As a DM the player states an action, then I say what happens or ask for a roll. In that past I did it differently but found a large portion of game time was spent with the players spinning their wheels which was fun for no one.

But the player specified they were being charming. If they HAD said they were trying to seduce the person with a persuasion check or whatnot

In the example the DM knew that they were trying to seduce the NPC by being "charming". If not then the player and the DM have a communication problem that should be solved by the player being more specific and the DM asking for what they're trying to accomplish if the player is not being specific enough.

In my mind no rolls should be made until the goal of the attempt is clear.