D&D General "I make a perception check."

[Charlaquin]

Right, if the player says explitly says their character is emptying the drawers and checking the pockets of the clothes within, it seems unfair and intentionally adversarial to still make them roll Perception. Is it possible for someone to do all that and miss the hidden key? Sure -- but not to a degree that it is worth doing in a game about finding secrets stashes of coins -- especially when those coins are just little tiny angry, hungry mimics.

Earlier someone, don’t remember who, said that their response to a player describing a particularly clever approach would be “cool idea! Roll [whatever] to see how well your character pulls it off.” And as a player, that would frustrate the heck out of me. In fact, I’ve had exactly such an experience before in an online game. We were petitioning the chief of a Barbarian clan for aid or something, and throughout this scene I had been listening carefully to the DM’s portrayal of her, listening to what she says, trying to get a good idea of who she is, what she values, etc. I choose my moment carefully, and at what I think will be an appropriately dramatic point in the conversation, I deliver my carefully thought-out argument for why the chief should help us, and…

“Make a persuasion check.”

For all that effort, I don’t even get so much as advantage. What the heck was the point? Why did I bother listening to what the DM said or crafting an argument I thought would be convincing, when I would have gotten exactly the same result just by saying “I try to persuade her to help us” and pressing the Persuasion button on my Roll20 character sheet? Moreover, it made the story feel a lot less credible to me that, because I rolled low, this speech was completely ineffective despite my conscious efforts to hit on points I knew this character would find compelling. In any movie or book, this would have been a climactic moment where the hero’s compelling speech wins the hearts and minds of the tribe. But, no, apparently the events that we narrate are not as important as the random numbers the computer spits out.

If it works for y’all to prioritize the dice over the specifics of what the player describes their character doing, I hope you have fun that way. But it really, really doesn’t work for me.

 

[Mannahnin]

Moreover, it made the story feel a lot less credible to me that, because I rolled low, this speech was completely ineffective despite my conscious efforts to hit on points I knew this character would find compelling. In any movie or book, this would have been a climactic moment where the hero’s compelling speech wins the hearts and minds of the tribe. But, no, apparently the events that we narrate are not as important as the random numbers the computer spits out.

If it works for y’all to prioritize the dice over the specifics of what the player describes their character doing, I hope you have fun that way. But it really, really doesn’t work for me.

Yep. And I absolutely think that character stats SHOULD matter and that if (say) your character happened to be one with poor persuasion skills, there's something to the argument that they won't necessarily be good at making the case you laid out.

But you're engaging with the world and the plot. You paid attention to the details the DM put in, and made use of of them. That should at least have been good enough for Advantage, even if the DM (perhaps quite reasonably) didn't want to allow for auto-success as a possibility.

 

[Reynard]

1st I 100% support baby mimics as coins...

2nd I;m not sure if something as easy to find as some coins in a drawr requires some roll either... it seems like any degree of looking in that room should turn it up

The idea posited was that a key was hidden in the drawer. I added the element that it was to a safe full of hungry mimic coins.

 

[Charlaquin]

so if you were showing a kid (lets say teenager but young teenager) how to play, and they came to a situation and asked "Can I use X skill to do Y" where in context you can understand both what they want and how they more or less plan to do it, what would you tell them?

I have played with kids, and I have never seen one do this. Kids are intuitively familiar with the format of imagining a scenario and describing what they imagine their character would do, because that’s most of what they do for fun, and it translates into D&D seamlessly. What I have sometimes seen is other players “helpfully” pointing out that, “oh, to do that you roll [such and such]!” And from that, the kid begins to un-learn their intuitive descriptive approach to roleplaying, and internalize the idea that they have to operate through a rules-interface to accomplish things in the game. They stop describing actions narratively and start asking “how do I [accomplish a goal]?” It’s frankly tragic.

 

[Reynard]

Earlier someone, don’t remember who, said that their response to a player describing a particularly clever approach would be “cool idea! Roll [whatever] to see how well your character pulls it off.” And as a player, that would frustrate the heck out of me. In fact, I’ve had exactly such an experience before in an online game. We were petitioning the chief of a Barbarian clan for aid or something, and throughout this scene I had been listening carefully to the DM’s portrayal of her, listening to what she says, trying to get a good idea of who she is, what she values, etc. I choose my moment carefully, and at what I think will be an appropriately dramatic point in the conversation, I deliver my carefully thought-out argument for why the chief should help us, and…

“Make a persuasion check.”

For all that effort, I don’t even get so much as advantage. What the heck was the point? Why did I bother listening to what the DM said or crafting an argument I thought would be convincing, when I would have gotten exactly the same result just by saying “I try to persuade her to help us” and pressing the Persuasion button on my Roll20 character sheet? Moreover, it made the story feel a lot less credible to me that, because I rolled low, this speech was completely ineffective despite my conscious efforts to hit on points I knew this character would find compelling. In any movie or book, this would have been a climactic moment where the hero’s compelling speech wins the hearts and minds of the tribe. But, no, apparently the events that we narrate are not as important as the random numbers the computer spits out.

If it works for y’all to prioritize the dice over the specifics of what the player describes their character doing, I hope you have fun that way. But it really, really doesn’t work for me.

I am less and less inclined to use things liek persuasion checks. I don't care if players act out their dialogue, but I want to know what they say to the NPC and then I will judge the response based on what I know about the NPC. I usually only used skill checks in those circumstances where I don't know the NPC well -- the players just picked some poor unimportant bastard out of a crowd -- or I literally have no reason to believe the NPC will respond one way or the other. And even then half the time I am not really judging the PC's performance -- they did what they said they did -- so much as I am taking the temperature of the NPC. Poor result? It might not be you; maybe that guard just got chewed out for sleeping on the job last night, or that courtier was rebuffed by his romantic target.

 

[Celebrim]

I have played with kids, and I have never seen one do this. Kids are intuitively familiar with the format of imagining a scenario and describing what they imagine their character would do, because that’s most of what they do for fun, and it translates into D&D seamlessly. What I have sometimes seen is other players “helpfully” pointing out that, “oh, to do that you roll [such and such]!” And from that, the kid begins to un-learn their intuitive descriptive approach to roleplaying, and internalize the idea that they have to operate through a rules-interface to accomplish things in the game. They stop describing actions narratively and start asking “how do I [accomplish a goal]?” It’s frankly tragic.

This. 1000 times this.

Most younger players roleplay really really well because they come into it from natural imaginative "let's pretend" play and they aren't embarrassed or self-conscious to do that. Which is why your average 12 year old is less annoying to play with and more entertaining and less dysfunctional than your average Con attendee with their inability to role-play, "win at all costs" attitude, self-centered play, and rules lawyering.

 

[Maxperson]

I have played with kids, and I have never seen one do this. Kids are intuitively familiar with the format of imagining a scenario and describing what they imagine their character would do, because that’s most of what they do for fun, and it translates into D&D seamlessly. What I have sometimes seen is other players “helpfully” pointing out that, “oh, to do that you roll [such and such]!” And from that, the kid begins to un-learn their intuitive descriptive approach to roleplaying, and internalize the idea that they have to operate through a rules-interface to accomplish things in the game. They stop describing actions narratively and start asking “how do I [accomplish a goal]?” It’s frankly tragic.

And not just with D&D.

We are born creative geniuses and the education system dumbs us down, according to NASA scientists - Creativity Workshop

By Coert Engels

creativityworkshop.com

 

[iserith]

Both are game naive. One is younger and not a teen.

So they probably won’t ask that. I think I train them to just tell me what they want to do. We will see.

Over time I will coach them about what the skills mean so they might start thinking that way and they know what they are “good at.” But to start, I want to just train them to say what you do.

I think the optimal approach is to always describe what you want to do with reasonable specificity with an aim for automatic success, but to stick to tasks where you have some decent modifiers to the ability score or skill proficiency in case you have to roll. So in practice the rogue will tend to do rogue things, more or less, and the wizard will tend to do wizard things.

Then if Inspiration is a tool that is used in the game, you keep that in your back pocket for when you do something you're not so great at and give yourself advantage if you have to roll. The incentive is basically then to portray your character well according to established characterization to be able to later shore up areas where you're otherwise weak or to try to ensure that the stuff you're good is way less likely to fail (again, if you have to roll at all).

This creates a good feedback loop - I describe what I want to do and act like my character so that I can be more successful.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yep. And I absolutely think that character stats SHOULD matter and that if (say) your character happened to be one with poor persuasion skills, there's something to the argument that they won't necessarily be good at making the case you laid out.

But you're engaging with the world and the plot. You paid attention to the details the DM put in, and made use of of them. That should at least have been good enough for Advantage, even if the DM (perhaps quite reasonably) didn't want to allow for auto-success as a possibility.

Yeah, and to be fair my character did have low Charisma. Of course, that was because she was an ill-mannered Barbarian, which doesn’t seem like it would have been a huge detriment in that situation. But still, I could understand the DM not wanting to rule auto-success just because I “roleplayed well” or whatever. The issue was that I felt that effort was completely wasted. Not only did I not get advantage for playing on the chief’s values, but because I rolled low, my speech was completely ineffective. I mean the DM could have at least given me progress combined with a setback, right? Like, she finds my words convincing, but demands I perform some kind of trial to prove myself through action? Something? Anything?

 

[Mort]

Earlier someone, don’t remember who, said that their response to a player describing a particularly clever approach would be “cool idea! Roll [whatever] to see how well your character pulls it off.” And as a player, that would frustrate the heck out of me. In fact, I’ve had exactly such an experience before in an online game. We were petitioning the chief of a Barbarian clan for aid or something, and throughout this scene I had been listening carefully to the DM’s portrayal of her, listening to what she says, trying to get a good idea of who she is, what she values, etc. I choose my moment carefully, and at what I think will be an appropriately dramatic point in the conversation, I deliver my carefully thought-out argument for why the chief should help us, and…

“Make a persuasion check.”

For all that effort, I don’t even get so much as advantage. What the heck was the point? Why did I bother listening to what the DM said or crafting an argument I thought would be convincing, when I would have gotten exactly the same result just by saying “I try to persuade her to help us” and pressing the Persuasion button on my Roll20 character sheet? Moreover, it made the story feel a lot less credible to me that, because I rolled low, this speech was completely ineffective despite my conscious efforts to hit on points I knew this character would find compelling. In any movie or book, this would have been a climactic moment where the hero’s compelling speech wins the hearts and minds of the tribe. But, no, apparently the events that we narrate are not as important as the random numbers the computer spits out.

If it works for y’all to prioritize the dice over the specifics of what the player describes their character doing, I hope you have fun that way. But it really, really doesn’t work for me.

Yeah that would be frustrating.

My general method is to have a set DC, but to pay attention to what the player is saying and to make sure that adds to their roll (effectivelly modifying the DC). So the closer the PC can get to aligning with the NPCs interests the more likely they are to succeed.

I Still have the player roll for their PC, because there ARE varying levels of success. Say they are trying to convince the king that there is a threat in his castle. a basic success (say DC 10, made with advantage if the player made a good case or even advantage +5 if the king can't possibly be anything but convinced) may convince the king to let the PCs investigate unimpeded. A great success (say DC 15) would have the king offering assistance, guards or whatever. A truly amazing success (say the PC hits DC 25) could have the king offering access to his armory or magic item stash.

This way any player, even one not trained in persuasion can "convince the king" if they are careful and paying attention. But a player whos PC is trained in persuasion and is ALSO paying attention and making an effort can get better benefits/success because that's their PCs schtick.