Skills used by players on other players.

Lord Mhoram said:

Note that kind of situation came up in a game I was in. Everyone at the table loved it.

Click to expand...

It sounds like fun when everyone is on the same page. Players control their players. But the party controls the party, if that makes sense. And that's why I as a DM am hesitant (unless asked to adjudicate) to intercede in intraparty actions like convincing B.A. to go along with the plan (or your party's equivalent).

The player and the rest of the party can resolve the persuading however they'd like and probably to a more enjoyable resolution when it doesn't have to be filtered through the DM. The DM controls everything else, let the party control itself.

As a DM, I enjoy sitting back and being an observer for once and not being in control.

clearstream said:

For me that isn't a point of differentiation: the players decide what they want their characters to do, and as part of narrating the outcome using the rules, the DM decides if a check should be made. Informally, a player could say "I'd like to make a Persuade check against" which is simply shorthand for describing that they want to persuade someone: the DM still decides if a check should be made.

Click to expand...

Sure, I can agree with that. The trouble is, that shorthand doesn’t give me, as DM, enough informattion to decide fairly whether or not a check should be made. I’m even ok with your assertion that an action’s outcome is uncertain if the DM decides it is uncertain. But I can’t decide if it’s uncertain unless I understand specifically what the approach is with which your character hopes to accomplish your goal. That’s why I don’t say, “please rephrase your action in the form of a goal and approach”, I say “I’m hearing that you want to _______. What is your character doing to try to bring that about?” It’s not enough for me to know that you want to convince the other character to go along with your plan. I also need to know what you’re saying (even if only in nonspecific terms like “politely requesting”), or I can’t adequately decide whether or not I think the outcome is uncertain. On top of that, if the subject of your action is under the control of someone who is not me, I simply cannot have enough information to make that determination without the input of the person who is in control of that character. And ultimately, that person’s input is always going to carry more weight than my own, so I might as well defer to them on the matter entirely.

Charlaquin said:

And ultimately, that person’s input is always going to carry more weight than my own, so I might as well defer to them on the matter entirely.

Click to expand...

This is what it invariably comes down to.

Somebody has to make a determination of how likely the action is to lead to a given result. Even if you think you're letting the dice decide, whoever sets the DC is making that determination. Even a contested roll really means that you think it's 50% likely, modified by proficiencies and attributes.

And the only reason to NOT let the owner of the character make that determination is if you don't actually trust them to participate in the narrative.

This is 100% an issue of trust and respect.

Q.E.F.D.

Elfcrusher said:

This is what it invariably comes down to.

Somebody has to make a determination of how likely the action is to lead to a given result. Even if you think you're letting the dice decide, whoever sets the DC is making that determination. Even a contested roll really means that you think it's 50% likely, modified by proficiencies and attributes.

And the only reason to NOT let the owner of the character make that determination is if you don't actually trust them to participate in the narrative.

This is 100% an issue of trust and respect.

Q.E.F.D.

Click to expand...

To be fair to folks who prefer to call for a roll in these situations, I don’t believe this comes from a place of distrust or disrespect. I used to be on that side of the fence, and it wasn’t that I didn’t believe my players would play their characters faithfully if I didn’t enforce dice rolls on every action. Rather, I think it’s a matter of carrying over ways of playing from previous editions of the games. There are very good reasons that 3e and 4e have players declare what rolls they want to make, that have nothing to do with trust or respect and everything to do with the way the sustems are built. Having tried both styles, I do prefer 5e’s approach, which is why I don’t go back to 4e despite preferring a LOT of its systems over 5e’s. Well, that and the fact that it’s harder to find players for 4e. But the fact of the matter is that I could find 4e players if I really wanted to, but despite all of what I perceive to be 5e’s flaws, this different fundamental approach it takes to task resolution is ultimately so preferable to me that it’s worth dealing with the system’s warts.

Charlaquin said:

To be fair to folks who prefer to call for a roll in these situations, I don’t believe this comes from a place of distrust or disrespect. I used to be on that side of the fence, and it wasn’t that I didn’t believe my players would play their characters faithfully if I didn’t enforce dice rolls on every action. Rather, I think it’s a matter of carrying over ways of playing from previous editions of the games. There are very good reasons that 3e and 4e have players declare what rolls they want to make, that have nothing to do with trust or respect and everything to do with the way the sustems are built. Having tried both styles, I do prefer 5e’s approach, which is why I don’t go back to 4e despite preferring a LOT of its systems over 5e’s. Well, that and the fact that it’s harder to find players for 4e. But the fact of the matter is that I could find 4e players if I really wanted to, but despite all of what I perceive to be 5e’s flaws, this different fundamental approach it takes to task resolution is ultimately so preferable to me that it’s worth dealing with the system’s warts.

Click to expand...

I think there’s something to the act of rolling dice that serves as a sort of ceremonial observance. As though maybe an action is more “official” or legit if a die is also cast.

After all, the most consequential actions, the most dramatic circumstances, all involve dice. It’s only natural to reach for the dice when something is important to us.

Some games even push the drama such that EVERY action must be important and therefore necessitate dice.

I agree - it’s not distrust or disrespect. It’s more like ‘ratification’ maybe.

But the trap you can fall into is inadvertently substituting the ceremonial ritual for the drama it is intended to resolve. Which, IMO, is why you sometimes see play devolve into “I roll perception,” “I diplomacy the guard,” “Can I roll Arcana here?” And of course none of these things are actions that an adventurer might be carrying out - they’re game mechanics.

I kind of want to try a 5E game without any dice at all. I wonder if I can keep the drama and uncertainty or if it just turns into a math problem.

GameOgre said:

Why are you acting like ability scores and the paint by number pregenerated ideals,flaws and bonds are anything alike? Backgrounds are very malleable, don't like the options make up your own, don't want to use them at all? That's fine to. Want to use premade backgrounds but put your own ideals and flaws in? Sure go ahead.

Stats are not like that. You roll,assign and then role-play and the rest with what they are.

Click to expand...

What's the real difference between choosing your own flaw and where you put your one 8? Or your 11, if you're using point buy and choose to stay average? Or your one 16, because your table uses roll 8d6 keep highest and assign to taste? Your argument here is that traits are malleable and stats aren't, but stats are just as malleable as traits, you're just choosing to ignore that.

It looks a lot like your trolling.

Click to expand...

I assure you I am not. Coming face to face with honestly held different beliefs can look like that if you're unwilling to step back and actually consider where it's coming from. I recommend playing in a few sessions of any of the Powered by the Apocolypse games and seeing that there are, indeed, very different styles of play than your own. Perhaps then you'd consider that someone might have a rational, fully formed, and coherent style of play that isn't yours and doesn't lionize the same things your style does. I don't fetishize stats. I'm not to the point of [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], though, in that I think that playing a 5 INT Sherlock Holmes is farcical because that character cannot actually perform in game according to archetype, but that's my dislike of farce in game, not a hard rule on what a 5 INT represents. I've no problem playing a 5 INT as not a drooling moron, because I don't think it represents that, either.

At this point are you actually trying to get him to see your side? Do you think your going to change anything?

Click to expand...

Yes. Maybe? I'm asking the question because it seems like there's a contradiction in the statements and I'd curious as to what causes it. Maybe it'll make him change his mind, or maybe it'll provide a new avenue for discussion, or maybe it won't. If I don't ask, only the latter is sure to obtain.

What he does at his table isn't going to effect you and I think this thread has done a lot to show that both sides are right,neither side 100% but enough that we can understand that yeah people are viewing things differently and that's ok. Neither side is engaging in bad or hurtful game play, it's just a difference of opinion in a rpg that aims to have much of it left up to the players and DM.

Click to expand...

Oh, goodness, someone has forgotten their on a discussion forum. Of course it won't affect my table -- or will it? Because, in that 3 year old thread that was linked a few pages ago about NPCs using skills against PCs, I was on your side of the argument. Go read it, you'll see. I made a lot of the same arguments you and [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] are making (and [MENTION=6803664]ccs[/MENTION]). But, starting in that thread, and in a few more where I got mad at [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] (I've accused him of trolling, too, much to my future embarrassment), I started looking at how I run games, what I was doing, and realized that a lot of my dissatisfaction was how I was running -- what luggage I was bringing with me. I've changed my style since then, sought out a few good non-D&D games to sample different concepts altogether, and fashioned a different playstyle that's much more [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] that my old one.

So, yeah, maybe this is the start of a change and maybe it isn't, but whether or not it affects my table right now, this is still a discussion forum where we talk about pretending to be elves.

I think sometimes we get so caught up in the argument that we forget that we are all on the same side. We love rpg's! There are few enough of us out there lets agree to disagree and still hold each other in a positive light.

You told us what you would do, how you feel about it and why. That's cool man, I would have no issue with playing in that game. That doesn't mean I agree, just that eh it's not that big a thing. When I'm a player I'm more than willing to twist my likes and dislikes to whatever the poor smuck who I conned into doing all the work and letting me play in his game want!

I can role play in any game. Enjoy any (healthy) play-style. I had to say Healthy as I once joined a Vampire The Masquerade game that ended up being WAY more S&M than I was comfortable with lol. Though even then...I guess if THEY were having a blast who am I to say it was wrong?

Peace, my man.

Click to expand...

Kumbaya, dude.

Ovinomancer said:

You, you've played a version of D&D for that long maybe, and this is part of the problem. You've an ingrained expectation that you haven't challenged. You're okay with magic missile having a different set of rules, or with concentration being a new spellcasting mechanics, but you can't let go of previous edition thinking to consider how the game fundamentally uses a different paradigm of play.

...

Here's something fun -- at no point have I made my arguments from the point of view that PVP wasn't allowed, or with the table rule that the target decides. I've stuck entirely to the rules as presented in the front of the PHB -- dice are only used to decide uncertainty and that players get to say what their characters think. If someone tries to persuade a PC, the player decides what that character thinks so there's no uncertainty -- no roll is made. It's that simple and it follows the PHB procedure. It doesn't care about how you define roleplaying, it doesn't care what you'd do if it was a grapple and not a persuasion check -- it applies the rules as presented.

Click to expand...

Yes - I continue to see on here and IRL where participants are bringing old, ingrained ideas from playing past versions to their 5e experience. Sometimes that's harmless, sometimes it triggers a disagreement or, worse, an experience at the table that isn't as fun as it could and should be.

Ovinomancer said:

I started looking at how I run games, what I was doing, and realized that a lot of my dissatisfaction was how I was running -- what luggage I was bringing with me.

Click to expand...

This is really good stuff. If nothing else, we should all be open to listening carefully to suggestions on ENWorld about how others run 5e successfully. I know my own fun, and the fun of those at our tables, has directly benefited from hearing the experiences of other contributors here. As a result, I've tweaked and improved how I run certain aspects of the game that I had been misinterpreting - that has made for a smoother, more fulfilling and memorable experience with conflict and rules lawyering kept to a bare minimum.

406 posts in and I think there's a cyclical argument happening...I've started skimming.

1. There's nothing wrong with using rolls to decide what your character will do, or using your stats as a guide to how your character will act. In fact, a 20 INT, (just as much as 5 Wisdom) might be the basis of many, many bad decisions if that character is arrogant enough to think they can outsmart everyone they encounter. So, rolling the dice to see if you might go against your better judgement for the sake of the character's foibles is perfectly acceptable, IMO.

2. There's nothing wrong with a player calling for a role if they think their character can be persuaded. "I know this is a totally bad idea and my character doesn't want to do this but he's just arrogant enough to think he can do it and come out ahead. Frank, Why don't you roll persuasion?" But there has to be player buy-in. Even if the DM calls for a roll, there has to be player buy-in. If the DM simply says, "Hey, Bob, is there any way that Frank can convince your character to help the village?" Bob needs to agree that there is and both players need to know what the stakes are if they fail to convince the other.

3. If there's no buy-in, then it's pointless. You can call it bad role-playing or not but there should be some kind of consensus around the table. I think this thread has thoroughly established that there's lots of differences in opinion. So, If you don't have consensus, then there's going to be tension. It's the kind of thing that should be established before you start the campaign.

On a side note:
I sometimes like to offer inspiration as incentive to complicate things. It could be any justification of stats or flaws/bonds.

I bet the player of the barbarian would have been less angry if you'd just said,

The Barb failed and so I told him the Face man sounded very convincing and that his instinct was to go along with it, for the face mans sake if nothing else.

Click to expand...

and followed it up with, "and, if you do, I'll give you an inspiration for your trouble because it relates to your flaw" or whatever. In fact the Face player could have offered an inspiration of his own. In the end, though, the player of the barbarian still needs to buy in.

Lastly, I would have let the barbarian choose which skills to defend with. A barbarian rolling Insight? I mean, you knew who was going to win that contest. As long as there's good justification for the use of the skill and stat, it should be fine. Of course, as I stated above, there needs to be buy-in. You can't have a contest without it.

DM Dave1 said:

This is really good stuff. If nothing else, we should all be open to listening carefully to suggestions on ENWorld about how others run 5e successfully. I know my own fun, and the fun of those at our tables, has directly benefited from hearing the experiences of other contributors here.

Click to expand...

This.

Bawylie said:

I think there’s something to the act of rolling dice that serves as a sort of ceremonial observance. As though maybe an action is more “official” or legit if a die is also cast.

After all, the most consequential actions, the most dramatic circumstances, all involve dice. It’s only natural to reach for the dice when something is important to us.

Some games even push the drama such that EVERY action must be important and therefore necessitate dice.

I agree - it’s not distrust or disrespect. It’s more like ‘ratification’ maybe.

But the trap you can fall into is inadvertently substituting the ceremonial ritual for the drama it is intended to resolve. Which, IMO, is why you sometimes see play devolve into “I roll perception,” “I diplomacy the guard,” “Can I roll Arcana here?” And of course none of these things are actions that an adventurer might be carrying out - they’re game mechanics.

I kind of want to try a 5E game without any dice at all. I wonder if I can keep the drama and uncertainty or if it just turns into a math problem.

Click to expand...

Yeah, fair enough. I should have added the caveat that once you understand the rationale that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] so eloquently expressed in this thread, and you still refuse to let the players just narrate their reactions, then it's an issue of trust and respect.

Ovinomancer said:

I'm not to the point of @Elfcrusher, though, in that I think that playing a 5 INT Sherlock Holmes is farcical because that character cannot actually perform in game according to archetype, but that's my dislike of farce in game, not a hard rule on what a 5 INT represents.

Click to expand...

To be clear, I don't actually want to play a 5 Int Sherlock (or a 5 Int Genius!) either, and I also don't like farce in my games (with the exception of the good one line zinger here and there). I do feel very strongly that playing a 5 Int Sherlock isn't contrary to the rules, though, and a refusal to acknowledge that is a...canary test?...of a deeper issue about player agency and a right to contribute to the fiction.

In other words, it's fine to oppose it for aesthetic reason, as long as one is not claiming that it's "wrong".

I've no problem playing a 5 INT as not a drooling moron, because I don't think it represents that, either.

Click to expand...

Yes. And if I *did* want to play a drooling moron I might start with 5 Int, but that in itself is insufficient to describe the character.

Ovinomancer said:

Oh, goodness, someone has forgotten their on a discussion forum. Of course it won't affect my table -- or will it? Because, in that 3 year old thread that was linked a few pages ago about NPCs using skills against PCs, I was on your side of the argument. Go read it, you'll see. I made a lot of the same arguments you and @Ratskinner are making (and @ccs). But, starting in that thread, and in a few more where I got mad at @iserith (I've accused him of trolling, too, much to my future embarrassment), I started looking at how I run games, what I was doing, and realized that a lot of my dissatisfaction was how I was running -- what luggage I was bringing with me. I've changed my style since then, sought out a few good non-D&D games to sample different concepts altogether, and fashioned a different playstyle that's much more @iserith and @Bawylie that my old one.

Click to expand...

Oh! THAT explains it! In this thread I keep thinking, "Man, I remember getting so mad at Ovinomancer and his style of argument that I came close to blocking him. But he's totally rational and reasonable. Maybe it's some other topic we disagree on...? Strange."

And, yeah, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] have had a huge impact on my style, too. When are you guys going to kickstart a DMing guide?