D&D 5E (2014) DM imposed restrictions to the game (+)

[AlViking]

If the DM tells me that such a ruling is being made in the name of PC-NPC symmetry with the intent that those social mechanics work the same no matter who in the setting is using them, I'd go along with it for that reason alone; and I say this as someone strongly in favour of player agency.

A far better way of achieving the same end, though, would be for the DM to just strip social-skill mechanics away from PCs. If the NPCs can't railroad you, why should you be able to railroad them?

As DM I can always say your social-skill mechanic doesn't work. We only use the dice if there's uncertainty. So as long as a player I can always say I can't be forced against my will we do have symetry.

 

[Remathilis]

If the DM tells me that such a ruling is being made in the name of PC-NPC symmetry with the intent that those social mechanics work the same no matter who in the setting is using them, I'd go along with it for that reason alone; and I say this as someone strongly in favour of player agency.

A far better way of achieving the same end, though, would be for the DM to just strip social-skill mechanics away from PCs. If the NPCs can't railroad you, why should you be able to railroad them?

I treat Charisma skills as a cheat the DM CAN use if they want to speed up play. Sometimes it's not worth creating a whole character bio for an innkeeper or role play every negotiation with a goblin. Sometimes I don't know the answer myself and I will roll. But I don't have a to. I can decide for every NPC what their reaction will be. I still can veto obviously ridiculous uses no matter what the dice says. It's a tool for me, not a requirement.

 

[AlViking]

I treat Charisma skills as a cheat the DM CAN use if they want to speed up play. Sometimes it's not worth creating a whole character bio for an innkeeper or role play every negotiation with a goblin. Sometimes I don't know the answer myself and I will roll. But I don't have a to. I can decide for every NPC what their reaction will be. I still can veto obviously ridiculous uses no matter what the dice says. It's a tool for me, not a requirement.

I know far less about an NPC that I expect to have 15 minutes of fame than I do about my own character. But sometimes I know there are reasons the NPC will not change their mind for a variety of reasons. So when I DM I always allow a player to make a check, there's just no guarantee it's going to work no matter how high the roll.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i say if you're allowed to completely ignore your CHA score to narrate your way through conversations why am i not allowed to ignore my other scores and narrate my way trough those skill checks?

oh i can't? well then put away your double standards and roll for your persuasion checks too.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

i say if i'm allowed to completely ignore my CHA score to narrate my way through conversations why am i not allowed to ignore my other scores and narrate my way trough those skill checks?

oh i can't? well then you've got to roll for your persuasion checks too.

Right. PCs roll persuasion checks in my game. They however still need to actually present the argument, and based on it and the disposition and values of the NPC I assign the DC. And sometimes the DC might be "infinite" as the thing they are asking simply is not something the NPC would ever agree to.

 

[AlViking]

i say if i'm allowed to completely ignore my CHA score to narrate my way through conversations why am i not allowed to ignore my other scores and narrate my way trough those skill checks?

oh i can't? well then put away your double standards and roll for your persuasion checks too.

Have you come up with a clever way to completely bypass or disable a trap? No check. Is a door locked with magical runes and you need the McGuffin to open it? Doesn't matter what you roll it's not going to happen. Why would social skill checks be any different?

 

[Remathilis]

i say if i'm allowed to completely ignore my CHA score to narrate my way through conversations why am i not allowed to ignore my other scores and narrate my way trough those skill checks?

oh i can't? well then put away your double standards and roll for your persuasion checks too.

Tell me, if you presented a puzzle to your players and the player playing the 6 Int barbarian solved it, would you not allow him to because his character isn't smart enough?

 

[AlViking]

Right. PCs roll persuasion checks in my game. They however still need to actually present the argument, and based on it and the disposition and values of the NPC I assign the DC. And sometimes the DC might be "infinite" as the thing they are asking simply is not something the NPC would ever agree to.

I do the same - I don't care how well the argument is presented, it's the content of what they say that matters.

 

[Mecheon]

Have you come up with a clever way to completely bypass or disable a trap? No check. Is a door locked with magical runes and you need the McGuffin to open it? Doesn't matter what you roll it's not going to happen. Why would social skill checks be any different?

Parity with other stats

I'm just saying, if a player can bench an impressive amount, that doesn't give them free strength checks for their wizard. "You gave a convincing out of character argument so we ignore what your character can do" is the same as "You beat me in arm wrestling so your weedy 5 strength wizard beats the 20 strength hill giant in arm wrestling"

Why should a character's charisma arguments be based on their out of character side? You're playing a character, not throwing your actual knowledge into things.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That, and as time goes on it makes sense that a player will slowly - and maybe not even intentionally - acquire at least a bit of skill at improvisation simply through repeated practice while roleplaying their character(s).

Never mind that shows like Critical Role, being done by professionals, kind of exposes the rest of us for the amateurs we are; which IMO is a serious negative outcome of those shows.

Personally, I think it's a good thing, as long as we recognize that being an amateur is perfectly fine!

We cannot be exactly like them. Pretending we can is ridiculous--it's that pretense that is harmful, not the knowledge that some people are better than you at something. Is it a problem when we emphasize that medical doctors require extensive training to be actual experts on medicine? Does that discourage people from learning first aid? I wouldn't think so. The fact that experts exist and do something laudable and desirable isn't an excuse to do nothing yourself, nor a reason to judge yourself for not measuring up to a genuinely impossible standard.