D&D 5E Tabletop Rules and Guidelines

[iserith]

You don't just let the one player tell the other how their character's words should be interpreted? You make the dice inform each other?

Like, instead of: "My wizard tells your barbarian to go eff off, but in a joking way. Cuz we're buds who can talk to each other like that."

You prefer: "My wizard tells your barbarian to go eff off," <rolls low on required intimidate check> "but I guess in a joking way. Cuz evidently we're buds who can talk to each other like that?" <whew...sheepishly grinning under a thin layer of nervous sweat>

That's what I'm seeing, too, based on what has been described. Or, in the case of the PC to NPC, the player is saying he or she is making a check to accomplish a thing, rolling, giving the result, and then the DM is going off that. Which to me is backwards, putting the system ahead of the DM's decisions and forcing the DM to, at times, ignore the result of the roll. I would always want to hear the action described by the player (however direct and plain or flowery), decide whether the action has an effect, no effect, or potential effect and only in the latter case call for a check that can sway the NPC. If a particular argument simply can't work against an NPC because of established reasons, then I can't see why a roll should be made at all only to be ignored.

 

[Sunseeker]

You don't just let the one player tell the other how their character's words should be interpreted? You make the dice inform each other?

Like, instead of: "My wizard tells your barbarian to go eff off, but in a joking way. Cuz we're buds who can talk to each other like that."

You prefer: "My wizard tells your barbarian to go eff off," <rolls low on required intimidate check> "but I guess in a joking way. Cuz evidently we're buds who can talk to each other like that?" <whew...sheepishly grinning under a thin layer of nervous sweat>

No. I said, several times now, that players may roll dice, if they'd like to see if their statements sound better "in game" than out, or worse I suppose. It's up to them.

I'm unclear on this. You have a low tolerance for people having opinions that differ from yours?

I have a low tolerance for people who declare that things must be exactly to their liking, or they will not play. I prefer people who are flexible in their tastes.

Interesting, I guess I thought it was normal to use the dice to determine whether a wavering NPC is persuaded or not. If the NPC isn't wavering then what's the point of the roll. And surely the "quality" of the argument is really the determining factor in whether the NPC is persuaded or not. And thus it's the same result in the end is it not?

I'm not sure I get the distinction you're making.

If the PC is persuadable (i.e some objection they have is surmountable with the right argument) either the PC makes a slam-dunk argument requiring no roll (the NPC is a coward and the PC just threatened to kill him - no roll needed as the NPC says yes to anything to save their scrawny neck) or the argument is good but the DM is not sure it's good enough - leave it to the dice.

The distinction I'm making is that people often run social "checks" as something ranging from Charm Person to Dominate. That is not how I run checks. This may be particular to my table, but it's a rule I've had to make strong use of because of one particular player who seems to be under the impression that if he can get an NPC to be his friend, that means they are his willful slave and will do whatever they want for him.

It was a problem, this is the solution I've found. NPCs make decisions on their wants and needs just like the players do. If your argument is good and aligned with their wants and needs, they'll be inclined towards aiding you. But the end result so to speak is that I want my players to understand that the NPC is making the choice because he has the free will to do, not because you rolled or even spoke well, but because your goals aligned with their goals.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

No. I said, several times now, that players may roll dice, if they'd like to see if their statements sound better "in game" than out, or worse I suppose. It's up to them.

Is this something like that thing I've seen on occasion, in play, where a player says something like:

"I'm not sure if my character would heal the fallen orc or let him die. I'll roll a Wisdom save. If I fail I won't heal him..."

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Springheel]

I think I would let players make rolls for roleplaying, but I wouldn't require other players to abide by them. I'm playing with some rather young players who don't know much about how to roleplay. Getting them to say, "I try to convince the party it's a good idea" is an accomplishment. In that case, I would let them roll a persuasion check, and I'd tell the rest of the players, "Milaelee makes a really good argument" if they roll high. But it's up to the players to decide if their characters would be convinced by that good argument or not. If the players decided to go along with it, I'd probably give them Inspiration.

 

[MechaPilot]

I think I would let players make rolls for roleplaying, but I wouldn't require other players to abide by them. I'm playing with some rather young players who don't know much about how to roleplay. Getting them to say, "I try to convince the party it's a good idea" is an accomplishment. In that case, I would let them roll a persuasion check, and I'd tell the rest of the players, "Milaelee makes a really good argument" if they roll high. But it's up to the players to decide if their characters would be convinced by that good argument or not. If the players decided to go along with it, I'd probably give them Inspiration.

By my interpretation, that's precisely what [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] meant. I also think it's a decent way to handle things, because there can be a gap (sometimes a very substantial one) between the eloquence or persuasive capability of a player and her character.

 

[Sunseeker]

By my interpretation, that's precisely what [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] meant. I also think it's a decent way to handle things, because there can be a gap (sometimes a very substantial one) between the eloquence or persuasive capability of a player and her character.

Eggsaladly!

 

[robus]

I think I would let players make rolls for roleplaying, but I wouldn't require other players to abide by them. I'm playing with some rather young players who don't know much about how to roleplay. Getting them to say, "I try to convince the party it's a good idea" is an accomplishment. In that case, I would let them roll a persuasion check, and I'd tell the rest of the players, "Milaelee makes a really good argument" if they roll high. But it's up to the players to decide if their characters would be convinced by that good argument or not. If the players decided to go along with it, I'd probably give them Inspiration.

Thanks for that example. I understand now

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'm of the mind that skill checks modify the information that the other party receive, but don't force a course of action on the other party.

If you make a successful persuasion check, then it makes an argument sound reasonable. It doesn't compel the target to do that thing.

If you make a successful deception check, then it makes a lie sound like you believe it to be true. It doesn't compel your target to take that at face value.

If you make a successful intimidation check, the target doesn't have to hand over the information.

This approach makes usage of these skills vs PCs work fine.

 

[MechaPilot]

I'm of the mind that skill checks modify the information that the other party receive, but don't force a course of action on the other party.

If you make a successful persuasion check, then it makes an argument sound reasonable. It doesn't compel the target to do that thing.

If you make a successful deception check, then it makes a lie sound like you believe it to be true. It doesn't compel your target to take that at face value.

If you make a successful intimidation check, the target doesn't have to hand over the information.

This approach makes usage of these skills vs PCs work fine.

I very much agree with that approach if for no other reason that it supports player control over their own characters. With an alternate approach where the die result determines the outcome instead if the quality of the attempt, you can end up in a situation where one player through PC action and good rolling can compel another PC into such things as a sexual/romantic relationship, which is just begging for all kinds of hard feelings and awkwardness if the player of that PC isn't into it.