D&D 5E Charisma to prevent giving out info during interrogation?

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
1. Players decide what their characters think and do.
2. Some spell descriptions say otherwise.
3. Specific overrides general.

All three things are in the rules.



Same answer. Let's say we're talking alcohol. If you want to impose penalties on dice rolls due to inebriation, go for it. The player will still get to declare actions, but if you require a dice roll to determine success then the alcohol may be a factor.

However, if you think the character should behave certain ways while drunk, in other words, that certain actions should be declared...sorry, that's for the player to decide. Get your own NPCs drunk and roleplay them however you like.
So, are you objecting because it's what the rules say, or is it a general objection to players never losing mental control nonmagically unless the player wants them to? If the former, cool. If the later, still cool - but why is it different than physical control?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
So, are you objecting because it's what the rules say, or is it a general objection to players never losing mental control nonmagically unless the player wants them to?
Both, in the case of D&D 5e.
If the former, cool. If the later, still cool - but why is it different than physical control?
I thought I explained that up-thread: because it's a clear, unambiguous boundary. The DM and the rules get to make decisions on one side, the player gets to make decisions on the other side. There's never any question of who has authority.

EDIT: I'll add that while in general I prefer games where the player has control, I still do play games where there are exceptions. But I want the circumstances of when that occurs to be codified in the rules, and not left to GM whim.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Both, in the case of D&D 5e.

I thought I explained that up-thread: because it's a clear, unambiguous boundary. The DM and the rules get to make decisions on one side, the player gets to make decisions on the other side. There's never any question of who has authority.

EDIT: I'll add that while in general I prefer games where the player has control, I still do play games where there are exceptions. But I want the circumstances of when that occurs to be codified in the rules, and not left to GM whim.
Thank you for the clarifying edit.

Do you also prefer the physical actions to be more definitive in the rules and less up to GM whim?
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
Both, in the case of D&D 5e.

I thought I explained that up-thread: because it's a clear, unambiguous boundary. The DM and the rules get to make decisions on one side, the player gets to make decisions on the other side. There's never any question of who has authority.

EDIT: I'll add that while in general I prefer games where the player has control, I still do play games where there are exceptions. But I want the circumstances of when that occurs to be codified in the rules, and not left to GM whim.
Yeah, to some extent it's like, dude, you already control almost all of the game. Can I please just have this one thing?
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Thank you for the clarifying edit.

Do you also prefer the physical actions to be more definitive in the rules and less up to GM whim?

Hmm. Interesting question.

1. In general I like lighter rules, which usually means that a lot of situations...especially outside of combat...are left to the GM to determine how to apply the rules. This is the case in D&D: the player gets to declare what action they are going to attempt, but the DM gets to make them make an ability score role, with a DC of the DM's choosing, to determine success. Or even just tell them they automatically succeed or fail.

2. However, in parallel with that approach to GM authority, I prefer that the GM describe how they are going to apply the rules (or rule automatic success/failure), what the consequences will be for failure, and then give the player a chance to change their mind. That's to get the player and GM on the same page about how they are envisioning the game world before the player commits.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Yeah, to some extent it's like, dude, you already control almost all of the game. Can I please just have this one thing?
Your answer before seemed to emphatically be just doing what the rules said. Bringing up DM v. Player control balance seems irrelevant to that.

It feels like a lot of people want a wall around mental control. I'm just wondering why so many folks (most of us) feel that's totally different than physical control. A great musician or craftsman or acrobat needs to make a role to do well at their specialty under trying circumstances. They don't have to worry about being led to the wrong place when drunk or given narcotics or being distracted for even a few seconds by a pretty face.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
Your answer before seemed to emphatically be just doing what the rules said. Bringing up DM v. Player control balance seems irrelevant to that.

It feels like a lot of people want a wall around mental control. I'm just wondering why so many folks (most of us) feel that's totally different than physical control. A great musician or craftsman or acrobat needs to make a role to do well at their specialty under trying circumstances. They don't have to worry about being led to the wrong place when drunk or given narcotics or being distracted for even a few seconds by a pretty face.
My comment refers to DMs with so much control over the game already going for even more control, encroaching on what little the player does control, outside of what the rules say. I'd be more curious about that.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
My comment refers to DMs with so much control over the game already going for even more control, encroaching on what little the player does control, outside of what the rules say. I'd be more curious about that.

There are a lot of things in fiction where the main character is distracted or drugged that don't involve magic. Having those things be impossible seemed odd to me. (I guess those examples might be perception check modifiers though? Is a con save to not pass out from too much alcohol a fair thing in 5e?)
 

There are a lot of things in fiction where the main character is distracted or drugged that don't involve magic. Having those things be impossible seemed odd to me. (I guess those examples might be perception check modifiers though? Is a con save to not pass out from too much alcohol a fair thing in 5e?)
I think disadvantage covers those situations just fine if mechanics get involved. No need for the DM to narrate what the PC is saying, thinking, or how they are acting.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
There are a lot of things in fiction where the main character is distracted or drugged that don't involve magic. Having those things be impossible seemed odd to me. (I guess those examples might be perception check modifiers though? Is a con save to not pass out from too much alcohol a fair thing in 5e?)
Something to consider: Why would I, as DM, put myself in a situation where I would have to set up an interrogation or torture scene and create special mechanics that allows me to control what a character says, when I can just have my NPCs get that information from a divination spell or gathering information on the street or scrying or some other means already at my disposal? Why am I not happy with the player deciding what to divulge in these situations? Like what is going on here exactly?
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top