D&D 5E Deal Breakers - Or woah, that is just too much

[Sunseeker]

Why even get the Player to roll if there is no chance of success? I hate DMs like that but I dont know if it would be a deal breaker or not.

Because players have full authority over their characters in my games. If he wants to charm the lady, he's welcome to roll for it. I didn't say there wasn't a chance of success, I just said that she declined. He may have more success with another woman with a lower roll too! But a charisma check is not mind control. It's a check to see just how suave you are, you're REALLY suave. It's NOT a check to see how well you are recieved.

Our party swashbuckler has as his Bond he casnt say no to a pretty face.

He's already bedded our PC Druid (both played by heterosexual men) and two NPCs (Im the DM and also a dude). We're all mature enough to deal with it.

If youre not comfortable with it, you can always RP it in the third person, or just describe the action 'She flirts back with you, and you get the impression that she's attracted to you' and later 'You wake up with a warm body next to yours'

Its been pretty amazing in our campaign so far. Weve had love triangles, petty jealosy and other complications introduced, along with benefits (obviously I award him inspiration when he is succesful)

Or I could not. Yay free will.

 

[Flamestrike]

Because players have full authority over their characters in my games. If he wants to charm the lady, he's welcome to roll for it. I didn't say there wasn't a chance of success, I just said that she declined. He may have more success with another woman with a lower roll too! But a charisma check is not mind control. It's a check to see just how suave you are, you're REALLY suave. It's NOT a check to see how well you are recieved.



Or I could not. Yay free will.

If youre comfortable with bashing a dudes skull in with an axe, making pacts with demons or animating a corpse as a zombie then romance or flirting shouldnt be oout of the picture.

But I understand individual concerns - each to their own and all that. Our group contains myself (a 40 year old RL unrepentant womaniser) and one of our players (a 30 year old self described asexual virgin). Its a mixed group so you need to be considerate of all the views of the players in question, and play within individual comfort zones.

Would you be comfortable with two PCs who were in a romantic relationship but kept the sexual and intimate stuff 'off camera'. What about if they were real life partners and played characters that were also in a relationship?

 

[Shasarak]

Because players have full authority over their characters in my games. If he wants to charm the lady, he's welcome to roll for it. I didn't say there wasn't a chance of success, I just said that she declined. He may have more success with another woman with a lower roll too! But a charisma check is not mind control. It's a check to see just how suave you are, you're REALLY suave. It's NOT a check to see how well you are recieved.

You did not say there was not a chance of success even though you knew that there was not a chance of success and that is exactly why it is a dick move.

Because really NPCs do not have any free will which is why they are NPCs.

 

[Lanliss]

You did not say there was not a chance of success even though you knew that there was not a chance of success and that is exactly why it is a dick move.

Because really NPCs do not have any free will which is why they are NPCs.

Specifically, the player in the example said "To charm the pretty lady". As DM, I would rule that to mean she is impressed, and is probably going to be more willing to pay a lot for a quest,or recommend them to other people in need of help. I am sorry, but I prefer my NPCs to be more than a lifeless automaton, blindly following a roll wherever it may lead. Out of curiosity, would you allow a Nat 20 to impress a king force him to give up his kingdom?

 

[Shasarak]

Out of curiosity, would you allow a Nat 20 to impress a king force him to give up his kingdom?

If I called for a roll for forcing a king to give up his kingdom because I was not sure what the result would be then yes, absolutely I would allow it.

More likely I would either just narrate the result of such a request or, I dont know, roleplay it through.

 

[Lanliss]

If I called for a roll for forcing a king to give up his kingdom because I was not sure what the result would be then yes, absolutely I would allow it.

More likely I would either just narrate the result of such a request or, I dont know, roleplay it through.

My point was, the player in the example did not say "I want to sleep with her *rolls 20*." He said he was trying to impress her. If a player just said "I want to impress the king with my incredible strength" and rolled a natural 20, that in no one gives them the kingdom, nor allows them to sleep with him, unless of course the proper lore has been established that would lead to the king pursuing such a relationship. Assuming a player did specifically say they wanted to sleep with a woman, I would just flat out say no.

 

[Shasarak]

My point was, the player in the example did not say "I want to sleep with her *rolls 20*." He said he was trying to impress her.

He said he was going to Charm her. If you were not sure what that meant then it is on you to clarify.

If a player just said "I want to impress the king with my incredible strength" and rolled a natural 20, that in no one gives them the kingdom, nor allows them to sleep with him, unless of course the proper lore has been established that would lead to the king pursuing such a relationship.

Again it seems that no one bothered to find out exactly what the player wanted to achieve by "impressing" the king. If the PC had say a 18 or 20 Strength then I most likely would not even ask for a roll for success just to do a strong man trick.

Assuming a player did specifically say they wanted to sleep with a woman, I would just flat out say no.

Yes, exactly. If there is no chance then you do not need a roll.

 

[Shasarak]

Woops

 

[Sunseeker]

He said he was going to Charm her. If you were not sure what that meant then it is on you to clarify.

Charm as in "sweet talk her", not "Charm" as in use a magical ability to control her mind to get her in bed, which by the way, I would crush readily under my +5 Iron-gauntlet-ed DM Fist of Absolute Power. Because that's rape and non-con is strictly forbidden at my table. The player will get a firm warning, the ONLY warning on the subject and if they object or repeat it they will be promptly pushed through the door and have it slammed behind them.

You did not say there was not a chance of success even though you knew that there was not a chance of success and that is exactly why it is a dick move.

I knew there was no chance of success for that NPC, okay. The players are NOT entitled to know what I know. They have no idea how the world will react to them unless they take some action within it. My job is to play out how the world reacts to player actions. Not to prevent my players from taking action by giving them metagame knowledge that their attempts will fail. Besides, it is a non-linear relationship. Your attempts to flirt with the unattainable girl may get the attention of some other suitors, or they may attract some girl who's interested in you and sees you get shot down as her chance to go after you. Doing a thing has more effects than just the thing you intended. Your roll may not matter in the context of where you wanted it to matter, but it may matter for other things. It is the player's job to FIGURE IT OUT, it is not my job to tell them.

I also want to emphasize this as it is one area where I strike back against player entitlement: a nat 20 is not an "I win" button. It is merely the best possible outcome provided by a d20 roll. Rolling a nat 20 does not mean you automatically get what you want. It means you've made the best possible progress towards getting what you want. Especially in social conversations.

Because really NPCs do not have any free will which is why they are NPCs.

WRONG. NPCs are as free willed as PCs, that is as free-willed as any make-believe character run by a puppet-master outside their world can be. NPCs have no less free will than PCs, their will just tends to be generic because I don't have time to detail out their day-to-day activity. The fact that some of their reactions are pre-planned? That's not an indication of a lack of free will. Real people have pre-planned reactions to things. You know how you're going to react to certain issues, certain people, certain attitudes, certain comments, certain colors. You KNOW these things, so two weeks from now your reaction to spiders is the same as it was two weeks ago, provided nothing life-altering happens in between which is really the big difference between NPCs and PCs, not free will, but the fact that PCs are undergoing life-changing experiences EVERY DAY. NPCs are generally not.

 

[Hussar]

To be fair, I'm not very comfortable with ... detailed descriptions of romance in the game. I'm better off with letting that stuff occur off screen. I was very put off in one game when one player was romancing my character. I just wasn't really interested in it. Not necessarily a deal breaker but I am sympathetic to those for whom it might be.