D&D 5E How do you rule on NPC-to-PC social interactions?

[Voadam]

This still doesn't address my core concern from earlier then: how to you propose you avoid punishing players who are not naturally charismatic? Why should an autistic or socially anxious player be effectively barred from playing a charisma character when we don't require the fighter to actually learn to sword fight or force the wizard to perform calculus every time they want to prepare a spell? Why should a DM's entire group suffer in every roleplaying/investigation encounter simply because their DM isn't a professional voice actor or an author in breadth of vocabulary? Or why should that same DM effectively be barred from having any deceptive villains simply because their poker face doesn't match that of a trained master spy?

Or the opposite on the player side of things: why should the minmaxing player get the benefits of all their characters having an 18 charisma simply because the player themselves is a born liar/manipulator even if they've loudly declared at the table that "charisma is worthless and their dump stat"?

I'm not talking in hyperbole here. I want you to answer these questions because frankly your posts seem to indicate a frankly outrageous expectation for most players in terms of mental stats and it borders dangerously on ableism.

This seems to be purely a playstyle preference.

You can resolve swordfights in a roleplaying game by having the players fight with swords, it is what happens in some live action roleplaying games and swordfighting with player skill using foam weapons is part of the fun of that experience. LARP games can use mechanics such as the rock paper scissors to resolve combats to resolve things quickly, non-physically and focus the gameplay on other areas.

Social interactions can be roleplayed first person with improv acting.
Social interactions can be roleplayed out second person narratively.
Social interactions can be roleplayed out abstractly using mechanics.

D&D supports using any or a mix of these choices depending on preference or situation.

For some engaging the players directly for socially interacting or thinking through issues is the fun part of the game, for others it is using mechanics to be treated as something they are not.

Neither end of the spectrum is right or wrong, good or bad. They are just different experiences focusing on different aspects that can be fun for different people to varying degrees.

 

[overgeeked]

I suggest that depends on whether you take 5th edition to be a simulation. For me, it is enough that Insight reads:

In the world of 5th edition, you can determine the true intentions of a creature from body language, speech habits and changes in mannerisms. Perhaps we really should imagine that every creature in the game-world has some measure of telepathy. A DM is encouraged to change anything - rules included - that doesn't deliver on how they picture their game-world.

Nah. I already have to cut out all the other superhero elements from 5E. I see no point in adding one more myself.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

This seems to be purely a playstyle preference.

You can resolve swordfights in a roleplaying game by having the players fight with swords, it is what happens in some live action roleplaying games and swordfighting with player skill using foam weapons is part of the fun of that experience. LARP games can use mechanics such as the rock paper scissors to resolve combats to resolve things quickly, non-physically and focus the gameplay on other areas.

Social interactions can be roleplayed first person with improv acting.
Social interactions can be roleplayed out second person narratively.
Social interactions can be roleplayed out abstractly using mechanics.

D&D supports using any or a mix of these choices depending on preference or situation.

For some engaging the players directly for socially interacting or thinking through issues is the fun part of the game, for others it is using mechanics to be treated as something they are not.

Neither end of the spectrum is right or wrong, good or bad. They are just different experiences focusing on different aspects that can be fun for different people to varying degrees.

I'm well aware of the existence of larps and groups akin to Dagorhir and the like and I have been to several myself. What those groups also do is NOT tend to even have stats for characters because the assumption is that one physical and mental abilities are determined by the player. They are also largely ableist in nature (albeit some are more accommodating than others) and tend to be upfront with that at least with their players with their expectations, resulting in both a smaller niche group of players and players who are less mentally/physically able opting to play other less demanding games.

I'm also well aware of the long history of d&d having older players and editions with roleplaying a puzzles and whatnot being more tests of the players than characters. But just because a precedent exists does not make it good. I would argue that much of the old guard ways are bad play. Adversarial DM vs player mindsets are bad for the game. Hinging plot points on the puzzle solving skills of the players without reflecting their character's statblocks is bad design. Punishing players roleplaying for having mental illnesses is bad design and if the "rules" do this then the rules are dumb and need to be changed.

This isn't even just my stance on it, even Wizards of the Coast themselves have literally been spending all of 5th ed trying to make D&D as broadly appealing and as inclusive as possible. It's why we've seen inclusions of transgendered NPCs, why items like the combat wheelchair and a push for less evil forced evil races exist. It isn't just about token representation, WoTC is actively wanting the made the game as broadly appealing and inclusive as possible. Sure the cynical side is that it is mainly for a large profit, but that doesn't diminish the point that making the game more inclusive for neurodivergant is a good thing. And if by changing a single rule can make my table more inclusive why the hell wouldn't I do it?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Nah. I already have to cut out all the other superhero elements from 5E. I see no point in adding one more myself.

This is why fighters can't have nice things.

 

[Voadam]

I'm well aware of the existence of larps and groups akin to Dagorhir and the like and I have been to several myself. What those groups also do is NOT tend to even have stats for characters because the assumption is that one physical and mental abilities are determined by the player.

This varies. I remember NERO had hp and damage from weapons that varied by character mechanics and levels which had impacts on fights along with player abilities.

I'm also well aware of the long history of d&d having older players and editions with roleplaying a puzzles and whatnot being more tests of the players than characters. But just because a precedent exists does not make it good.

Sure.

I would argue that much of the old guard ways are bad play.

And I would disagree.

Old guard ways covers a hugely varied array of modes of play.

Hinging plot points on the puzzle solving skills of the players without reflecting their character's statblocks is bad design.

I don't feel the "without reflecting statblocks" is the bad part there. Stopping plot points because somebody does not have a certain stat block or because they roll badly is bad design.

Puzzling things out, exploring, and investigating are great plot elements for adventures and campaigns. Whether you go with players puzzling things themselves or mechanics to get there is a playstyle choice that can vary. Generally it is better to not make pass/fail chokepoints but to have the game continue on with consequences depending on how things turn out.

Punishing players roleplaying for having mental illnesses is bad design and if the "rules" do this then the rules are dumb and need to be changed.

Punishing players roleplaying for having mental illnesses would be a weird way to characterize non-mechanical roleplay.

And if by changing a single rule can make my table more inclusive why the hell wouldn't I do it?

I encourage you to change the rules in the game you run to make the game more fun for you and the people you are playing with.

 

[HammerMan]

Social interactions can be roleplayed first person with improv acting.
Social interactions can be roleplayed out second person narratively.
Social interactions can be roleplayed out abstractly using mechanics.

D&D supports using any or a mix of these choices depending on preference or situation.

For some engaging the players directly for socially interacting or thinking through issues is the fun part of the game, for others it is using mechanics to be treated as something they are not.

Neither end of the spectrum is right or wrong, good or bad. They are just different experiences focusing on different aspects that can be fun for different people to varying degrees.

yeah there is a 100+ page thread about it... no one agrees

 

[Maxperson]

My take is that Intimidation and Persuasion must be seen in one light, given their parallel wording, and Performance and Deception in another, again down to their parallel wording.

I agree. With intimidation and persuasion, the DM might call for a check. To find out when he might or might not call for one, we have to look at other rules like the one on page 185 of the PHB. Since the player decides what his PC thinks, and intimidation and persuasion deal with what a character thinks, the player decides and situations involving NPCs using those skills on PCs are not ones where the DM might call for a check.

 

[Maxperson]

I guess I see the play loop as not being quite as formal a structure as some seem to.

It wasn't always formal, but it's how the game has been played since inception. From the get go the DM has described the environment, the players have responded with what they want to do, and the DM has adjudicated and narrated the results.

 

[clearstream]

I agree. With intimidation and persuasion, the DM might call for a check. To find out when he might or might not call for one, we have to look at other rules like the one on page 185 of the PHB. Since the player decides what his PC thinks, and intimidation and persuasion deal with what a character thinks, the player decides and situations involving NPCs using those skills on PCs are not ones where the DM might call for a check.

I included that as one of the interpretations people sometimes make. I think it's wrong, as you know

 

[Lanefan]

It wasn't always formal, but it's how the game has been played since inception. From the get go the DM has described the environment, the players have responded with what they want to do, and the DM has adjudicated and narrated the results.

It's a bit fuzzier than that, however, in that the DM narrating the results bleeds right into (or is) the DM describing the environment as changed by whatever the PCs just did or tried to do, which closes the loop.