Social Checks in Combat

[KahlessNestor]

Seems like it works okay for certain very famous DMs that have very popular Twitch shows, so... I'm inclined to go with Fitz on that.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

Only if you always do it and treat it as how-it-should-be-done.

If you use it as a teaching tool, giving an example of what COULD be going on, and let the player confirm, deny, or use but modify for their own descriptions, it elevates those who start out not so good at descriptions.

So... I guess I'm saying I disagree that it works at cross-purpose.

You may have had DMs take over and describe everything for everyone colour your vision of it, but it's my experience that descriptions like in the original example teach everyone how to describe. I've actually never seen happen what you think are the drawbacks.[/URL]

Notably, I'm not even really advocating players be "good at descriptions." Only that they state clearly their goal and approach which makes it easier for the DM to adjudicate without making a lot of assumptions. Which was a solution posted to the OP that had a lot of support. If the DM is filling in the blanks, as it were, it's performing the player's role for him or her and doing them no favors in my view.

Edit: As you note, players can "confirm, deny, or use but modify" what the DM says their characters are doing. But none of that is necessary if the player is performing his or her role.

 

[iserith]

Seems like it works okay for certain very famous DMs that have very popular Twitch shows, so... I'm inclined to go with Fitz on that.[/URL]

Yep, I'm sure that's where a lot of people get this from. With the expected affects on their own games.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yep, I'm sure that's where a lot of people get this from. With the expected affects on their own games.

I've been doing it that way for 30 years. Sure, when the players are good at asking for what they want, it can be less necessary, but in my experience, it actively teaches players to do it, rather than holds them back, as you seem to think, advocating that no DM ever do it.

I think that is where we differ. I am not saying "do it every time". I am taking issue with you saying "good DMing is to never ever do it." I just mean "use it as a teaching tool".

BOTH of us want the player to stand on his/her own.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

I am taking issue with you saying "good DMing is to never ever do it."

I didn't say that though.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I didn't say that though.

Oh, my bad. I guess I inferred it from whatever it was you actually said. It seemed to me that you intended that DMs should not do it. I apologize.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I didn't say that though.

No, I get it. You said they should avoid it. I actually didn't mean what I wrote as a direct quote, but as a reading of intent. But using quotes was stupid, as it looks like I meant to actually quote you. I sometimes find internet communication tricky.

My point is only that I don't think we disagree as much as it may seem we do. Just badly stated.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

I've been doing it that way for 30 years.

As an aside from the topic of the thread, did you run D&D 3e? If so, do you recall using this approach prior to D&D 3e? There's a theory that this approach may have come about due to a focus on system mastery and mechanics on the player's side of the table. They focus on mechanics while the DM does the description. And it has evolved from there. But it's possible it goes back further.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

As someone who's soon getting the chance to play (as an actual Player!) a Mastermind Rogue whose prime stat will be Charisma, I've been pondering this lately.

On one hand, I figure that the social skills should play their role before combat, so as to either make combat easier - scare of some of the enemies/bribe them/do a Han solo and trick them into believing you're the vanguard of a larger force and so on (Intimidate, Persuasion and Deception, respectively).

In combat... I'm not so sure. In an actual anatomy-to-the-wall brawl, you're really not looking to engage with the other player in the same way as you would socially. I can see feinting being a thing, though I reckon that's implied in the straight-up attack bonus, as part of a certain style of fighting. However I could see the social skills getting some mileage when playing dead, as would giving up a convincing surrender and the following pleas for mercy and I could seem them being used to trash-talk an opponent into lashing out, which might cause them to commit when they should be maintaining range.

But yes, generally I reckon social skills bring more than enough to the combat table - in the form of extra bodies/minions/lackeys, persuaded/bullied/duped into fighting for the social-skilled character, ranging from angry fisherman looking for someone to take out their frustrations upon to the authorities following up a convincing tip-off.

Likewise, I reckon the social skills should be used to call for a foe's surrender sooner, or more likely, manipulate them into surrendering in a manner that suits the socially-skilled character (rather than hitting the dirt and grovelling, they lay down their arms and reveal the location of their guard house.)

Saying all that, a good old, 'Your boot laces are undone/they're behind you!' is always welcomed at our table, as long as its not overused. Straight up appropriate social-skill check, at disadvantage because folks are generally wary of other folks trying their best to kill them. As for the action type, I'm not sure. Maybe the Bonus Action? And let's assume that, success or failure, once duped/distracted/baited, the target will no longer fall for such shenanigans, at least during the current combat.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

My games don't focus on mechanics or system mastery, but on story and the way the characters think and feel, about what's going on in the world at that exact moment. It's just that everyone is free to give ideas to everyone else on how their characters might think and feel or on what's going on in the world.

This goes back and forth between DM and players. Players might suggest what a monster is thinking, feeling, or doing in the story as much as the DM might do it to them. (In practice this doesn't happen as often as this is starting to sound - just when someone has what they think is a good suggestion. So here and there.)

I probably do it most often (maybe even as a player, I don't know) because I'm good at it. It absolutely has to be understood as a suggestion not an override, and the players certainly get final say in their own character and the DM for the monsters and story. But when you have a group that has gotten good at it (as I currently do) it can make the story much richer (not relying on only one person at a time to come up with the best story elements).

To answer your question though, sure I played 3.x, but not often. It was (by far) my least favorite version of the game, and I mostly played other games during those years. So I don't think it has anything to do with it.

I get your motive in suggesting that DMs should let the players play their own characters and not play it for them. The concern that they will learn to sit back and let the DM do it (or be oppressed into leaving it to the DM). But you can ALSO go the other way (which I see less often) and let everyone tell the story, at least a little.

(Like I mentioned above, this is starting to sound like no one knows their place, which isn't what I advocate. It's not as drastic as it sounds. Just good ideas are listened to.)

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app