D&D General Renamed Thread: "The Illusion of Agency"

[bloodtide]

I’m curious about those of you who omit non-combat dice rolls. How do you handle character creation? Do you tell your players NOT to invest in Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation, Perception, History etc?

In other words, do you even use skills in your game? Why are you even playing D&D post 2e?

Edit: genuinely confused and curious.

Social skill still see use, it is just that the focus of the game is no role playing and not rolling the dice. And it depends on the skill.

Knowledge skills and the "DM tell me stuff" skills are gone. At no point during the game can roll some dice and have the DM tell you stuff.

In general I do leave the skill in the game so the players that want to can use them. So players can still to the dull "I roll a DC 10 persuasion". I'm fine with the idea that a character might have some vague odd quirk about them that makes them good at a skill. Even if the player puts in zero effort. They can still mechanically play the game just fine. Though they will get the bare minimum of whatever happens.

But I very much encourage more role playing and much more role playing enhanced skill checks and much more immersion.

Example: Our brave halfling wants to get past the goblin bridge guard quietly.

The mechanical player can just sit back and say "my character persuades the goblin to let me pass with a check on 17". The DM nods and character moves past the goblin.

The deep role player acts this out. The player tells a whole story about how they are a goblin disguised as a halfling as they are a spy. The player knows enough about the goblin forces to name drop the general and the spy master. As well as another goblin or two. The character also has a necklace of halfling ears to show as "proof". And the player adds in the touch of being friendly to the guard and even giving him a small present. No roll is needed here, as it would just have a +10 bonus anyway.

 

[Bill Zebub]

True enough... but I'd also say the use of the word "risk" to me is a little unnecessarily harsh in this context. I don't think it has to be as hardline as "risk : reward", but rather simply "desire : achievement". Every character has wants and needs... and they all take actions to try and get those wants and needs. And that doesn't require any "risk" per se in getting those things (unless we're just saying the risk is the possibility of not being successful.) Other than just not getting what one wants, there never has to be some sort of physical, mental, or emotional risk. It's just what the character wants.

I disagree here. Or, at least, I think action declarations in game with risk should be treated differently from those with no risk.

If there's no risk to failure, I truly believe there's no point to gating success behind a random number generator. If I trust a DM to fairly adjudicate the odds of success, and the cost of failure, when there is risk, then surely I have to problem with that same DM just deciding whether or not it's better for the story if I succeed or fail.

But if there is risk, then I want to know (at least roughly) what the odds are, and (at least generally) what will happen if I fail. And then I want to get to make the decision myself. I want that tension when I roll the dice. The higher the stakes, the more exciting the anticipation, and the greater the emotion when I see the result.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If there's no risk to failure, I truly believe there's no point to gating success behind a random number generator. If I trust a DM to fairly adjudicate the odds of success, and the cost of failure, when there is risk, then surely I have to problem with that same DM just deciding whether or not it's better for the story if I succeed or fail.

To illustrate what I mean, here's an example:

We're facing a locked door. There's no time pressure to open it. No risk at getting caught. We don't care if anybody knows we've been here.

If the DM wants to let us proceed, they can let the rogue/thief/burglar succeed at picking it, maybe with some description.

And if they want us to have to figure out how to open it (is there a key to be found? a magical pass-phrase we need to learn? an alternative entrance?) then the thief fails.

But if we are given a random chance to succeed, with no cost to failure, the message is "It really doesn't matter to the story whether or not you get the door open. It's fine either way."

How and I supposed to get excited about that, or be invested in the die roll?

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

But not willing to try to solve problems without invoking a skill and rolling dice? Yeah, my table is probably not the place for you. Try @Lanefan.

I still think this really clashes with D&D, though.

I mean, it's actively hostile to anything that isn't a spell. I hope for the sake of at least some sense of balance that you also don't permit spells to solve out-of-combat problems, else non-casters suck even worse than they do in vanilla 5e.

 

[Lanefan]

But not willing to try to solve problems without invoking a skill and rolling dice? Yeah, my table is probably not the place for you. Try @Lanefan.

Or don't, 'cause you'll get no satisfaction here either.

I prefer social stuff be roleplayed out to the point of ideally being resolved without any dice hitting the table; which means if you're not willing-ready-able to speak in character and actively fight for the spotlight this ain't the place for you. I don't have stuff like Intimidate, Bluff, etc. in my game as character "skills"; if I did, the NPCs would be able to use them as well.

As for character knowledge and-or memory, I often give a roll-under-Intelligence to see how much background knowledge a character has about something e.g. do you happen to know the best route from here to where we're going, or what do you know about [monster X being encountered for the first time]; with good rolls giving useful info, middling-to-poor rolls giving nothing, and very poor rolls sometimes giving bad or wrong info.

Dice are otherwise there to help resolve the physical things we have to abstract - combat, climbing, lockpicking, navigation, etc. - because we can't actually do them at the table.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I guess there's something unsatisfying to me in someone saying they roll to persuade without saying how they are persuading them. It can be pretty much be anything, but for me, it has to be something. In fairness, that's not much different from saying "I make an attack", and no one expects anyone to describe the attack per se, but at least in that case, I know what weapon they're attacking with.

It's a double standard, I admit, but it's not one I think I can shake.

I will always argue the opposite because I have gamed with too many people who have nearly nonexistent social awareness. I always want them to be able to play the Face just as well as the total klutz can play a monk.

I treat social skills like the Battlemaster. PCs can make Insight tests to get info on their opponents and use that to decide which motivation(s) to target (Fear, Greed, Status, Revenge, Shame, etc) with Persuasion and/or Intimidate with modifiers for some kind of bribe (cash, favors, singing their praises, etc)

 

[Lanefan]

To illustrate what I mean, here's an example:

We're facing a locked door. There's no time pressure to open it. No risk at getting caught. We don't care if anybody knows we've been here.

If the DM wants to let us proceed, they can let the rogue/thief/burglar succeed at picking it, maybe with some description.

And if they want us to have to figure out how to open it (is there a key to be found? a magical pass-phrase we need to learn? an alternative entrance?) then the thief fails.

But if we are given a random chance to succeed, with no cost to failure, the message is "It really doesn't matter to the story whether or not you get the door open. It's fine either way."

I'd rather that the message be "We've no idea whether this matters to the story or not" learned from experience with past situations where sometimes it mattered and sometimes it didn't.

And so, the random result of your best-attempt die roll may or may not have seriously set you back, or may or may not have granted access to something significant.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I still think this really clashes with D&D, though.

I mean, it's actively hostile to anything that isn't a spell. I hope for the sake of at least some sense of balance that you also don't permit spells to solve out-of-combat problems, else non-casters suck even worse than they do in vanilla 5e.

You are not understanding it, then. Not sure exactly what the disconnect is. If you're genuinely interested in exploring it I'd love to engage. Let me know.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'd rather that the message be "We've no idea whether this matters to the story or not" learned from experience with past situations where sometimes it mattered and sometimes it didn't.

Sure. I don't understand what the value of that is, but....sure.

And so, the random result of your best-attempt die roll may or may not have seriously set you back, or may or may not have granted access to something significant.

Yeah, again I don't get why anybody would want to spend precious game time thinking about that, but ok. We all have our preferences.

 

[Xamnam]

If there's no risk to failure, I truly believe there's no point to gating success behind a random number generator. If I trust a DM to fairly adjudicate the odds of success, and the cost of failure, when there is risk, then surely I have to problem with that same DM just deciding whether or not it's better for the story if I succeed or fail.

This is the aspect of your initial post that sits most uncomfortably with me, and I've been watching the thread to see if the conversation would make it more palatable or at least understandable. Is it fair to rephrase this part of your view as "Uncertain outcome alone is not a good reason to use dice, and should be left to DM fiat."?

Because I think of all the times in my games where players have invoked chance at the behest of their skills for consequence-less questions, of their own volition. Not "Do I know trolls are weak to fire?" but more "How familiar am I with Neverwinter?" or "Can I make a calming tea with local flora at the campsite tonight?" to be used solely for flavor, not to gain any sort of advantage. These are situations I'm picturing where it's not a question of success, but merely of characterization and color. Would you advocate for the DM to just take ownership of that answer?