D&D 5E How to model a party of cinematically charismatic heroes?

[5ekyu]

Ah, this again, and I see you're still reading other's statements in the worst possible light so that you can maintain your prejudices. Sigh.

Look, it works like this. If a player states their character walks across the room and opens the door, they do that. No roll needed -- the situation isn't uncertain nor is a failure meaningful. If, however, there's a trap on the floor in front of the door, well, now the situation is uncertain (will the character see the trap in time?) and the outcome meaningful (the trap goes off), so a roll is called for. Perception seems a good place to start. So, same declaration, different outcome. If, however, the player declared that his character was checking the floor in front of the door for a trap, and I deem that any significant effort will discover said trap, then I might or might not call for a roll depending on my prep. If, for instance, the party had received information about the kinds and placement of traps in this area from an informant, I'd decide this was an autosuccess (and likely the reason the player declared such a specific action). If, instead, it was a lucky guess on the part of the player absent any other information, then I'd call for a check (you can miss obvious things) but might give advantage for the lucky declaration.

The same goes for the key in the drawer. If a player declares they're searching the drawer, there's a check called for (again, you can miss things, so it's uncertain and not finding the key is a meaningful outcome). If, however, the player declares they're taking the time to do a detailed search of the drawer, looking for false bottoms, for instance, then I'm going to decide that such a detailed examination of the contents finds the key automatically, but not a false bottom (there was none). The cost, here, will be time, as the character will take a number of minutes to conduct a detailed examination of the drawer and so can't perform other actions and may trigger a knock-on effect do to taking more time. Balance.

in the case of social check, sure, the player of that 6 CHA character can deliver a Globe Theatre quality monologue to the merchant, and I'll applaud their effort, but then I'll ask for a CHA check to convince the merchant of whatever the monologue was going for. This is because I don't really care what words you pick, the question isn't whether or not the player can speak but if his character can convince the merchant to part with that precious thing or not. To that effect, the flowery speech is nothing more than a longwinded goal/approach statement, and that affects neither the uncertainty nor the meaningfulness of the interaction. So, please roll a check.

Autosuccess in social engagements isn't based on the quality of the delivery, but on the quality of the approach. If you've done your research, and you know that this merchant is afraid of the tax-man because he's been cheating, or that he loves, loves, loves the taste of a rare spice, then if you couch your approach as leveraging these things you'll get a better go of it. Insinuate that you know the auditor and that if the merchant is unreasonable he might stop in for a visit or that you'd be willing to offer a tin of this fine spice for some consideration about the item and you'll likely be rolling with advantage. Do them both (carrot/stick) and you might get an autosuccess for doing a good job of prep and application of knowledge. Deliver a flowery speech at the player table and I'll clap and then ask for a roll.

Or, if you just are out looking for some rope, you can buy that at book price without a single roll needed. It's not uncertain -- at least for now, but when the Great Hemp Shortage starts up next session, well... check time.

Accusing other people of being easily swayed by player theatrics, especially when you've never gamed with them and have zero idea of what happens at their table (and your continued imaginings despite clear statements to the contrary show you have no idea) is petty and looks very bad on you. Again, I'm happy you enjoy your game, which you play in a different (or not different) style than I or [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] or anyone else, for that matter, does. It's exciting to know that there are so many good ways to play Pretend Elves. And, honestly, I'm a bit of a gaming butterfly -- I can play in and enjoy many different styles of play and games and adapt easily to most tables. But, for now, when I run, I like the style I use, and I'm sure you like the style you use. Neither is the most right style, but both are the most right style for each of us. Which is pretty awesome when you think about it.

Thanks for once again creating and then slaying strawmen of your creation. Its always amusing.

Where to start?

First the opening long graphs... Yes thanks for going into such in depth detail which repeats what i said... Combined use of some auto-play and some checks is done, is done to different degrees by different GMs (you describe what i assume to be some of yours here and others have described differently iirc esp for the drawer key for instance.) Its a spectrum, with wherever you are on the soectrum having its pitfalls and benefits.

On the sicial ones, again the seemingly fallback strawman. Not talking about globe theater oratory or flowery speech... Thats a rather hostile read if it is meant to portray the positions presented. Its about a player being better at presenting a case that is convincing to the GM to get into the GMs oarticular auto-play zone and bypass the character's shortcomings in presenting similarly convincing arguments.

As your own example shows with your "insinuate this" "offer that" you have an option where you are removing the possibility for the CHARACTER failing at social discourse botches a PLAYER well constructed social attack or as you would say approach. Meanwhile, other folks on that spectrum might choose to allow the CHARACTER stats to play a role, allowing in our game for the possibility that a character with low cha or low persuasion to fail at the presentation.

Surely we have all seen cases where great ideas were presented badly and so failed to be received as well as they could.

"Accusing other people of being easily swayed..." Was not said. I simply acknowledge that many people are influenced by more persuasive presentations and so the more a GM allows the scope of the Player-GM auto-play to cover with no reference to character (enough to make it an oft cited strategy for more success, for instance) the more the more persuasive player may benefit and te less some characterctraits may be worth.

Since iserith admitted being subject to persuasion, not sure why you think recasting this as easily swayed accusations will serve your case.

In my case, as noted, i tend to keep the scope of my GM-player only auto-play without reference to character rather small, in keeping with the walk across florr, tie shoes, etc. That means when i get persuaded, the impact is minimal since its usually stuff even poor stats would succceed at most times. So, its much more like a "time saver" and much less a "strategy."

But itis good to see that even after the creation of the "flowery shakespear" and "easily swayed" diversions, you come back to agreement... Different tabkes, different preferences and no need to portray or reference a "lack of pitfalls" (potential or otherwise) for any one approach.

So seems we agree on some of the big picture.





Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

Since iserith admitted being subject to persuasion, not sure why you think recasting this as easily swayed accusations will serve your case.

My self-evident "admission" that I am a human being and thus subject to persuasion does not serve your argument either nor does it allow you to ignore what else I said which is that we're not playing in an environment where the players are trying to persuade the DM. We're playing in an an environment where paying attention and acting diligently while being reasonably specific can remove uncertainty and the meaningful consequence of failure. Where a player's skill, at least at my table, is not handicapped twice by the character's shortcomings, once in determining uncertainty of the outcome because of an arbitrary notion of what an ability score means in the fiction in and of itself and once more when the DM, after determining any uncertainty, calls for an ability check. Your players appear to be taxed twice for their ability score selection. And here I would point out as the DMG does (in part) that seems to make the play experience subject to a potential drawback: That roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls (and/or their ability scores) rather than their decisions and characterizations always determine success. Players that feel that way may in some cases make or ask to make ability checks which I do believe your players do based on your own previous admissions.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thanks for once again creating and then slaying strawmen of your creation. Its always amusing.

Where to start?

First the opening long graphs... Yes thanks for going into such in depth detail which repeats what i said... Combined use of some auto-play and some checks is done, is done to different degrees by different GMs (you describe what i assume to be some of yours here and others have described differently iirc esp for the drawer key for instance.) Its a spectrum, with wherever you are on the soectrum having its pitfalls and benefits.

On the sicial ones, again the seemingly fallback strawman. Not talking about globe theater oratory or flowery speech... Thats a rather hostile read if it is meant to portray the positions presented. Its about a player being better at presenting a case that is convincing to the GM to get into the GMs oarticular auto-play zone and bypass the character's shortcomings in presenting similarly convincing arguments.

As your own example shows with your "insinuate this" "offer that" you have an option where you are removing the possibility for the CHARACTER failing at social discourse botches a PLAYER well constructed social attack or as you would say approach. Meanwhile, other folks on that spectrum might choose to allow the CHARACTER stats to play a role, allowing in our game for the possibility that a character with low cha or low persuasion to fail at the presentation.

Surely we have all seen cases where great ideas were presented badly and so failed to be received as well as they could.

"Accusing other people of being easily swayed..." Was not said. I simply acknowledge that many people are influenced by more persuasive presentations and so the more a GM allows the scope of the Player-GM auto-play to cover with no reference to character (enough to make it an oft cited strategy for more success, for instance) the more the more persuasive player may benefit and te less some characterctraits may be worth.

Since iserith admitted being subject to persuasion, not sure why you think recasting this as easily swayed accusations will serve your case.

In my case, as noted, i tend to keep the scope of my GM-player only auto-play without reference to character rather small, in keeping with the walk across florr, tie shoes, etc. That means when i get persuaded, the impact is minimal since its usually stuff even poor stats would succceed at most times. So, its much more like a "time saver" and much less a "strategy."

But itis good to see that even after the creation of the "flowery shakespear" and "easily swayed" diversions, you come back to agreement... Different tabkes, different preferences and no need to portray or reference a "lack of pitfalls" (potential or otherwise) for any one approach.

So seems we agree on some of the big picture.





Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

I really, really, really cannot overstate how ridiculous your argument is about protecting yourself from your players by invoking a stricter limitation on auto-success.

Personally, I just don't play with manipulative jerks. Seems to work out just fine, and I don't need to account for it in my playstyle.

 

[iserith]

I really, really, really cannot overstate how ridiculous your argument is about protecting yourself from your players by invoking a stricter limitation on auto-success.

Personally, I just don't play with manipulative jerks. Seems to work out just fine, and I don't need to account for it in my playstyle.

Indeed. Long gone are the days where my approach to DMing is informed by acts of bad faith performed by the players. There are too many people who want to play to have to settle for those who act like that.

 

[5ekyu]

I really, really, really cannot overstate how ridiculous your argument is about protecting yourself from your players by invoking a stricter limitation on auto-success.

Personally, I just don't play with manipulative jerks. Seems to work out just fine, and I don't need to account for it in my playstyle.

See this is just baffling. Where did i say or imply manipulative jerks were being invoked? Or did you read that in as a rathet "uncharitable" reading, to borrow terms?

Different people present their actions with different degrees of communicative ability. Some are better at choosing the things they have learned work than others. Some are able to communicate them better than others.

The more the game is played in the GM-player auto-play the more those differences play a role and affects the outcomes and the less the actual interaction between character and environment does.

So, points for creativity but since i have not invoked "protecting myself from players" or ",manipulative jerks" in this discussion, i will just have to leave those imaginative topics for you to discuss yourself.



Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[5ekyu]

My self-evident "admission" that I am a human being and thus subject to persuasion does not serve your argument either nor does it allow you to ignore what else I said which is that we're not playing in an environment where the players are trying to persuade the DM. We're playing in an an environment where paying attention and acting diligently while being reasonably specific can remove uncertainty and the meaningful consequence of failure. Where a player's skill, at least at my table, is not handicapped twice by the character's shortcomings, once in determining uncertainty of the outcome because of an arbitrary notion of what an ability score means in the fiction in and of itself and once more when the DM, after determining any uncertainty, calls for an ability check. Your players appear to be taxed twice for their ability score selection. And here I would point out as the DMG does (in part) that seems to make the play experience subject to a potential drawback: That roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls (and/or their ability scores) rather than their decisions and characterizations always determine success. Players that feel that way may in some cases make or ask to make ability checks which I do believe your players do based on your own previous admissions.

Several things...

Nothing that i have described indicates rolls always determining success or roleplaying not gettings its fair share. As i tend to repeat this is not some imagined binary situation but a spectrum.

If one sees it as a more binary concept -"its auto-success without character" vs "its rolls determining success and roleplaying hurt" then that can definitely make it more likely for certain pitfalls.

But in fact, its much more a mixed soup for me where the character stats are involved in most of the resolutions (small numbet of no need to resolve) and the players choices and plans and approach and/or roleplaying are (almost) always in use. (Almost there because sometimes passive skill checks are used and sometimes there are no actions from the PC relating to those.)

The description of a stat as being used "twice" is only accurate when meaningful resolutions are allowed without stats being used creating two separate resolution steps.

For my game, and perhaps others, there is no expectation of auto-success stage for resolutions that matter, so its just part of the value.

You seem ok with strength being rule driven and less GM-player interaction driven (an inference drawn from your response to an earlier post) and i suspect that even then a lot of player approach and roleplaying can work into result... We would i suspect both be in similar territory there.

Lets look at jumping...

The rules define how far a character can jump. It also allows a skill check for jumping an unusually long distance.

So, stats playing a role in where the move from "can do this without roll" to "needs roll to do this" is not some newly imposed double taxation anymore than not requiring a character with a +5 bonus for a very easy task while a character with a -1 has to roll.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Ovinomancer]

See this is just baffling. Where did i say or imply manipulative jerks were being invoked? Or did you read that in as a rathet "uncharitable" reading, to borrow terms?

Different people present their actions with different degrees of communicative ability. Some are better at choosing the things they have learned work than others. Some are able to communicate them better than others.

The more the game is played in the GM-player auto-play the more those differences play a role and affects the outcomes and the less the actual interaction between character and environment does.

So, points for creativity but since i have not invoked "protecting myself from players" or ",manipulative jerks" in this discussion, i will just have to leave those imaginative topics for you to discuss yourself.



Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

Then it should be trivial for you to provide an example, yes? I can't, because your argument only makes sense if bad faith is ion play. One of my players that does very well in this style with declarations that garner auto-success relatively often happens to also be one that you wouldn't call socially adept. That's because I base decisions not on how well you present it but on how the approach matches the situation. "Come, good merchant, key uts work together! My friend, the tax auditor, just asked me what I thought about you establishment. I'd like to tell him something good, perhaps we could work on that" gets add much benefit as "Oh, I threaten the shop owner about not paying his taxes unless he sells us the item!"

Both get you advantage.

 

[iserith]

You seem ok with strength being rule driven and less GM-player interaction driven (an inference drawn from your response to an earlier post) and i suspect that even then a lot of player approach and roleplaying can work into result... We would i suspect both be in similar territory there.

Lets look at jumping...

The rules define how far a character can jump. It also allows a skill check for jumping an unusually long distance.

So, stats playing a role in where the move from "can do this without roll" to "needs roll to do this" is not some newly imposed double taxation anymore than not requiring a character with a +5 bonus for a very easy task while a character with a -1 has to roll.

This example does not support your argument at all.

The rule has nothing to do with your assertion that the DM uses an ability score to determine where or not there is uncertainty. Jumping is the same as moving across an empty room - it's certain regardless of ability score, being a subset of the Movement rules, barring some kind of complication such as a low obstacle, difficult terrain at the landing point, or an approach to jumping higher than normal that isn't certain. Further, just so you're aware, that part of the rule is for jumping higher, not jumping farther. It also reasonably suggests, due to the mention of "in some circumstances" and "your DM might allow" for a check to resolve uncertainty as to jumping higher than normal, that the player has stated an approach to a goal that the DM has determined to be uncertain separate from simply jumping as normal. Perhaps the character tries to use a 10-foot pole to pole vault ("some circumstance") and gain some more height. It seems reasonable to deem that uncertain without reference to ability scores and to call for an ability check. After all, the impact of an 8 Strength and an 18 Strength will be seen after the roll.

Bringing it back around to cinematically charismatic heroes, judging uncertainty based on an ability score then, when uncertainty is established, calling for an ability check would in my view produce the opposite effect of what the original poster wanted. A player who wants to succeed more often than fail who also has a low Charisma is dinged twice for the low stat. The ability score on its own, according to such a method of resolution, creates uncertainty, so he or she will roll more often than someone with a higher stat even with the same approach to a goal. Then he or she also has a lesser chance of success due to the bonus or penalty from the ability score. It seems to me that if I'm that player, I'm not going to engage in social interaction challenges at all if I can avoid it, unless I have some other resource that can boost my rolls. This seems to be the opposite of what the original poster wants.

I would therefore rule that your approach to the goal of encouraging the players to have their characters be more cinematically charismatic in the game is uncertain at best. You may also note that I didn't need to know your ability score to determine that uncertainty.