D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Oofta]

I'm not sure what is really meant by a game token here. If you mean something beyond the charisma/persuade modifier then 5e already has a bunch of those - bardic inspiration, Lucky feat, background traits, inspiration, various spells, etc.

Magic such as bardic inspiration is a feature of the campaign world. For me lucky is also a supernatural effect, similar to Spider-Man's intuition. Background traits are something I rarely cared about, although of course previous experience (including what I would call backstory) can affect target DC or grant advantage. Just like previous interactions with the NPC, the party's reputation and many other factors.

Inspiration is a metagame tool and something I have mixed feelings about. I accept inspiration as a fun game feature but I rarely use it. If someone plays a human (we've switched to 2024, they get inspiration after a long rest), I'll accept it as the blessings of the gods since human adventurers seem to be as common as hen's teeth in my games.

 

[Oofta]

So aren't you completely disincentivising players from providing that charismatic delivery?

I'm not incentivizing it. I encourage people to speak in person but will never force a particular style of play at that level.

 

[Oofta]

Ignore the tokens. There's an interesting question here that's extremely relevant to D&D.

If you're prioritizing immersive "acting as your character" roleplay, where the rules "get out of the way", where is the point where you need to start calling for a resolution check? And how much, if any, impact does the immersive roleplay have on the results of the check?

I'm not saying it's a perfect system. But rolls can frequently be ignored, the only reason to ask for a roll is if the outcome is uncertain.

If the player (immersed as his character) and the DM (playing the duke) have a ten-minute negotiation in character at the table, and the player does an excellent job, does that bypass the need for checks? Does it give a bonus? Or is a straight roll?

Depends on the situation. Sometimes there will be multiple rolls, sometimes there will be none. If it's a complex negotiation I'll try to figure out how to give multiple characters a way to contribute.

Are you more likely to bypass the check if the character has 16 Cha and Persuasion expertise? What if they only have 12 Cha and Persuasion proficiency?

If I decide on a fairly low DC and the PC would automatically pass I don't ask for a roll. Same as if the DC is too high for that PC to pass.

I'm not going for high drama here, I don't expect that from my players. The players are not the characters and I don't expect them to be. I also don't find the occasional die roll all that disruptive of immersion, what I find disruptive is if that die roll is unaffected by the content of what is said. I accept that any negotiation is a complex thing. It's a mix of how well I'm expressing my thoughts, how well the target is receiving it, and how well I'm reading the target and adjusting my phrasing and timing.

Haven't you ever had a discussion, trying to convince someone where you have to take a careful approach? Perhaps you realized later that you pushed a little to hard or should have used a slightly different wording? Then there's the insight into the reception or factual details that may come into play. In game terms some of that is guided by persuasion checks but perhaps also insight and some knowledge check such as history or religion.

We can't model that accurately and I wouldn't want to try. But I also don't expect players to have done debate team prep, even for important conversations.

 

[soviet]

I'm not incentivizing it. I encourage people to speak in person but will never force a particular style of play at that level.

OK. I didn't say forcing. But in not incentivising it, aren't you getting less of it?

 

[Oofta]

OK. I didn't say forcing. But in not incentivising it, aren't you getting less of it?

I encourage people speak in person. If the fun of that kind of direct interaction isn't incentivizing them then I'm not going to force it. I'm not going to force someone to do something they aren't comfortable with just because it's my preference.

My goal is to run a fun game, if I get less of something from an individual but we're still enjoying the game we've still achieved our goal.

 

[mamba]

Oofta, do I understand you to be saying that when you adjudicate a persuasion check, the delivery of the player doesn't affect the chances of success?

yes

It's still a skill check using the character's modifiers. If the player's delivery is particularly impassioned or effective does that grant a bonus or affect the DC?

depends on what you mean by this, to me it is more about the argument and the approach (are you addressing the king too casually, do you present a convincing case), that has an impact, the rest of the delivery does not.

All the theatrics in the world will not help you if the case you are making is not of interest to the target. Likewise not wrapping it in theatrics will not hurt your core argument

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, if a bunch of players want high-action low-thespianism play, maybe that’s what the game should evolve into?

“Can we stop talking and get to the point” is a pretty common play style preference!

Maybe we should let D&D be what it is, and make/market new games that cater to different preferences? I believed that 35 years ago, and 25, and 15, and 10, and I believe it now.

 

[TwoSix]

Maybe we should let D&D be what it is, and make/market new games that cater to different preferences? I believed that 35 years ago, and 25, and 15, and 10, and I believe it now.

To be clear, I meant that specific game at that table, not D&D as a whole.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oofta, do I understand you to be saying that when you adjudicate a persuasion check, the delivery of the player doesn't affect the chances of success? It's still a skill check using the character's modifiers. If the player's delivery is particularly impassioned or effective does that grant a bonus or affect the DC?

I don't particularly believe the player's delivery needs to matter, just their intent and the PCs abilities. Just last night, my 11yo daughter (whose PC had the best Charisma and social skills) was struggling to figure out what to say to convince an NPC to give us something we needed. I told her to tell the DM what she wanted her character to do, in regular language, and not to worry about making a speech or even talking in character. Then she could roll. The mechanics would determine success or failure.

We all love to hear an impassioned speech, but not everybody is up for it. And they shouldn't have to be.

 

[Mort]

So aren't you completely disincentivising players from providing that charismatic delivery?

IME, players who like/want to deliver a charismatic delivery don't need incentive. They're doing it because they like doing it, it's part of the fun of the game for them. I'm glad for them to do this, but I won't let it overly compensate if they chose to take a low charisma character. Their supposed charismatic delivery is going to come off as obnoxious or inappropriate - if the dice dictate it was a low roll.

On the other hand, some players are perfectly able to describe the approach they wish to take, but tend to fumble anything resembling a "charismatic delivery." I don't want to penalize this player if they chose a high charisma, high skill character. So whatever they say, as long as it remotely fits the situation and the roll is ok (remember they will get good modifiers because they invested) they're good.