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

[Shasarak]

Charm as in "sweet talk her", not "Charm" as in use a magical ability to control her mind to get her in bed, which by the way, I would crush readily under my +5 Iron-gauntlet-ed DM Fist of Absolute Power. Because that's rape and non-con is strictly forbidden at my table. The player will get a firm warning, the ONLY warning on the subject and if they object or repeat it they will be promptly pushed through the door and have it slammed behind them.

Well obviously that is your call but I personally like my games to be less PG13. My group are adults who can deal with adult themes, if we had kids in the group then obviously it would be dialed way back.

I knew there was no chance of success for that NPC, okay. The players are NOT entitled to know what I know. They have no idea how the world will react to them unless they take some action within it. My job is to play out how the world reacts to player actions. Not to prevent my players from taking action by giving them metagame knowledge that their attempts will fail. Besides, it is a non-linear relationship. Your attempts to flirt with the unattainable girl may get the attention of some other suitors, or they may attract some girl who's interested in you and sees you get shot down as her chance to go after you. Doing a thing has more effects than just the thing you intended. Your roll may not matter in the context of where you wanted it to matter, but it may matter for other things. It is the player's job to FIGURE IT OUT, it is not my job to tell them.

As I get older I find playing the "guess what the DM is thinking" game to get less and less fun. If the DM just shuts you down then just do something else.

I also want to emphasize this as it is one area where I strike back against player entitlement: a nat 20 is not an "I win" button. It is merely the best possible outcome provided by a d20 roll. Rolling a nat 20 does not mean you automatically get what you want. It means you've made the best possible progress towards getting what you want. Especially in social conversations.

I dont think that it is entitlement to expect to have a chance of success. Actually the opposite of entitlement if you ask me. Entitlement would be expecting to get what I want without having to even roll for it and then kicking up a stink when the DM even asks me to roll.

If you ask me to roll when I can not even succeed on a 20 is not Player Entitlement that is the DM being a dick.

WRONG. NPCs are as free willed as PCs, that is as free-willed as any make-believe character run by a puppet-master outside their world can be. NPCs have no less free will than PCs, their will just tends to be generic because I don't have time to detail out their day-to-day activity. The fact that some of their reactions are pre-planned? That's not an indication of a lack of free will. Real people have pre-planned reactions to things. You know how you're going to react to certain issues, certain people, certain attitudes, certain comments, certain colors. You KNOW these things, so two weeks from now your reaction to spiders is the same as it was two weeks ago, provided nothing life-altering happens in between which is really the big difference between NPCs and PCs, not free will, but the fact that PCs are undergoing life-changing experiences EVERY DAY. NPCs are generally not.

NPCs are not as free willed as PCs by definition because they are not the Protagonists, they just support the story they dont drive it. The Dragon does not suddenly decide not to kidnap the Princess because his friend asked him to move caves and Orcus does not decide to sit around the campfire singing Kumbaya because a millenia of chaos and destruction is enough for anyone.

So you may imagine a NPC has free-will but in truth it is just the DM getting them to do whatever he wants in the service of the story he is telling.

 

[MechaPilot]

This comes down to a fundamental difference in ruling social skills more than anything else.

I certainly allow social skills to influence NPCs (and expect PCs to roleplay social skill use on them - awarding inspiration if they do it well). I'm just selective about when I allow a roll (a DM is only to allow a roll when the result is in doubt - otherwise the attempt either auto fails or auto succeeds).

If my wealthy and charming (Cha 16, expertise in persuasion) heroic Swashbuckler wants to charm a tavern wench who isnt important to the story, then he gets to make a persuasion check to charm her. If I determine that she's dead broke and he is being ostentatious with money, or shes sick of the dull town in the middle of nowhere and he's promising her a life of luxury and glamor (or something similar), then I might give him advantage on the check, or just grant automatic success. Might also call for a deception check (knowing our swashbuckler) also! If (OTOH) I the DM know that she's not intrested and never will be for whatever reason, no amount of rolling is going to change her mind.

I read from your post above that you always let players roll, and they dictate to you when they roll a skill. I take a different approach personally; players only roll for skills when called for by the DM. I either allow the roll if there is a chance of success, forbid the roll if there is none, grant auto success if its something the player should be able to do automatically, or occasionally roll the check myself (ar let the player do a blind roll) behind the screen when I want the result to be a secret.

If you roll at my table, it means something - and affects the narrative if you succeed.

Is there any real reason why the entire situation must be resolved in one go? If multiple checks can change the outcome is calling for the first roll, which will not by itself change anything, unwarranted?

 

[Shasarak]

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.

Exactly what kind of skill system are you running here. I do not roll a check to find out how well I perform. I roll a check to find out if I succeed or if I fail, just like a roll an attack to find out if I hit or I miss.

If you have another system then it probably explains why it seems complicated.

 

[MechaPilot]

Well obviously that is your call but I personally like my games to be less PG13. My group are adults who can deal with adult themes, if we had kids in the group then obviously it would be dialed way back.

Sorry but no. I'm an adult and I can definitely deal with adult themes. Just because non-con is a dealbreaker for me doesn't mean I can't deal with adult themes. I'm not going to tell other people what they can and can't do in their games that I'm not involved in, but I will say that I at least hope you warn people. I've had that sprung on me before and TTRPGs almost lost decades of my money because of it. And it's important to add that I've, thank god, never had to deal with real life rape. Not warning people ahead of time can lead to a situation where a real life rape victim player (male or female) who is innocently enjoying a recreational activity gets smacked in the face with a reminder of something horrible that happened to him/her.

 

[Flamestrike]

Is there any real reason why the entire situation must be resolved in one go? If multiple checks can change the outcome is calling for the first roll, which will not by itself change anything, unwarranted?

I rely on one roll resolution for everything.

5E is swingy enough as is. Compound skill checks amblify this problem creating an exponential chance of failure with each added roll. Assumiing a 50 percent chance of success, having 2 rolls required for success reduces your chance of success to 25 percent. A third roll reduces it to 12.5 percent. A fourth drops it to 5.75 percent.

I cant emphasise this enough. Never call for more than one roll to succeed in something in 5E.

Determine if a roll is needed. Then select the appropriate ability score and skill, then make one roll on it, either vs a target number or opposed roll. Apply advantage or disadvantage depending on external factors, roleplaying or ingenuity.

 

[Arial Black]

Exactly what kind of skill system are you running here. I do not roll a check to find out how well I perform. I roll a check to find out if I succeed or if I fail, just like a roll an attack to find out if I hit or I miss.

If you have another system then it probably explains why it seems complicated.

We don't roll a single d20 to find out which side wins the fight. I see no reason why a seduction should be resolved with a single roll.

 

[Shasarak]

Sorry but no. I'm an adult and I can definitely deal with adult themes. Just because non-con is a dealbreaker for me doesn't mean I can't deal with adult themes. I'm not going to tell other people what they can and can't do in their games that I'm not involved in, but I will say that I at least hope you warn people. I've had that sprung on me before and TTRPGs almost lost decades of my money because of it. And it's important to add that I've, thank god, never had to deal with real life rape. Not warning people ahead of time can lead to a situation where a real life rape victim player (male or female) who is innocently enjoying a recreational activity gets smacked in the face with a reminder of something horrible that happened to him/her.

And, with respect, we do adjust our game to take into account who is playing. I dare say there would be less Irish jokes if we had an Irishman in the room (but then again there could be more, who really knows for sure, eh Dougal)

 

[Flamestrike]

We don't roll a single d20 to find out which side wins the fight. I see no reason why a seduction should be resolved with a single roll.

For the same reason climbing a rope shoud be resolved with a single roll (and most of the time no rolls at all).

Compound skill chaecks create an exponential chance of failure. They should be avoided in 5E (which is very swingy) at all costs.

Let the player describe what he is doing, and roleplay the interaction. Then call for a single check against an appropriate skill + ability.

Then tell him how long the skill use took.

 

[MechaPilot]

I rely on one roll resolution for everything.

5E is swingy enough as is. Compound skill checks amblify this problem creating an exponential chance of failure with each added roll. Assumiing a 50 percent chance of success, having 2 rolls required for success reduces your chance of success to 25 percent. A third roll reduces it to 12.5 percent. A fourth drops it to 5.75 percent.

I cant emphasise this enough. Never call for more than one roll to succeed in something in 5E.

Determine if a roll is needed. Then select the appropriate ability score and skill, then make one roll on it, either vs a target number or opposed roll. Apply advantage or disadvantage depending on external factors, roleplaying or ingenuity.

If you mean never call for multiple where one single roll failure means the failure of them all, then I agree.

If you mean never call for multiple rolls where the accumulation of rolls influences the outcome without one failed roll automatically resulting in failure, then I disagree.

The former (one failed roll automatically kills the whole attempt) just means that each additional roll ratchets up the difficulty. You're better off just raising the DC and making it a single roll.

The latter (each roll result influences the ultimate outcome but does not individually mean automatic success or failure) is indicative of an extended process and offers one greater ability to determine degrees of success or failure, which can be very relevant to some tasks/checks.

 

[MechaPilot]

And, with respect, we do adjust our game to take into account who is playing. I dare say there would be less Irish jokes if we had an Irishman in the room (but then again there could be more, who really knows for sure, eh Dougal)

Not to be difficult, but it's not as if those who've been through sexual assault carry that in their name (it's a subject where those who've been through it are often quite reluctant to talk about it, to the point where they often don't even report it to the police). You can easily tell that Irish or Scottish ancestry is possible/likely from hearing someone say their last name is O'Brian or MacCloud, but no one introduces themselves as Annie Prom Night Roofies.

Again, I'm not trying to tell anyone what they can or cannot do at their own tables when I'm not involved. I just said I hope you provide some warning so the expected content doesn't differ from what they're actually confronted with. You know, informed decision and all that.