D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[DEFCON 1]

I often wonder what those players do when they fail a save vs a fear spell

We've seen talks about this in the past. If the explanation for the reaction is "Magic caused it"... usually the players seemed okay with the result. Because it wasn't their own character's decision-making that forced them to run away, the magic is what compelled them to have to react in that way.

However, if we just went back and looked at all the threads made in the 4E era about the 'Come And Get It' power... the power that allowed a Fighter to pull a target adjacent to them using just "their words" (as per the fluff of the power)... there was a LOT of pushback (no pun intended) from players, saying that they did not like a non-magical ability to "tell them how to react". The power was replicating the action movie trope of the guy who got his enemy so wound up and angry via taunts and such that the enemy just couldn't help but charge the guy in a fury. But players felt that it was their decision as to whether or not to be taunted by insults and such, and having the game force them to move towards a Fighter in that way was a bad decision in the game's design.

This is what I was referring to above when I said it would be dependent on whether players were willing to "play along" with the story logic. If players are willing to go long with the narrative ideas of the trope and submit themselves to doing what these action movies portray in order to play out a similar story within their own game... then using powers like 'Come And Get It' were fine. But if players were not okay with it and demanded total character autonomy during any non-magical interaction... then the 4E game breaks down when powers such as these are on the table.

I myself don't have any real problem when a DM adds color to a scene by saying something like "The darkness of the cavern and the chill in the air cause a ball of fear to begin welling in the pit of your stomach..." in order to help get across the description and essence of what the narrative of the scene is meant to be. But other players do not agree with that take and do not like it at all when that kind of description gets used.

 

[Reynard]

It doesn’t really, by RAW, apply to NPCs, either.

I can't find it on 5esrd.com at the moment but aren't there reaction roll DCs that "force" NPCs to change attitude?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Wait...where's the rule that says something to the effect of, "If an NPC makes a Charisma(Persuasion) roll of X or greater, the character is compelled to do what they say?"

there isn't... and I didn't say it was in the books I said people have repeatedly said they would not follow such a rule.

The rules for fear, charm, etc. are pretty explicit.

as would (I assume) a rule about social combat

As an example, I said in another thread that I would allow a character to hold action and cast the gust cantrip on an archer as they take their shot, thus imposing disadvantage. Now, that's not a rule, its a made-up DM result. It doesn't contradict any rule, but it's not a rule. I might, as a player, say, "Whoah, wait a second. That infringes on one of my core beliefs about how D&D is played and I'm not cool with that, and you just made that up." (I mean, I can't imagine why a player would have that reaction, but that's neither here nor there.)

I mean I would have more an issue with them taking an action on my turn... but okay I am not understanding this anology... maybe they have the 'can use a spell inplace of a reaction' ability and are in melee and this is just a cool fluff way to do it?? I'm not really understanding the idea, the problem, or where you are going with this in a thread about social combat.

Same thing with NPCs "using" social skills on PCs. It's just not in the rules.

sort of... were it isn't spelled out (not as doesn't work not on does) there are readings that let them and readings that don't let them... but I don't want to even think about relitigating that argument now.

It doesn't contradict the rules if the DM wants to make up such a rule, but it's not in the rules. And it does so happen to contradict my foundational belief that players get to choose what their characters think, and what actions they declare, unless the rules specifically state otherwise.

Okay... if a new book came out and had a subclass of rogue or a called out non magical monster that had a

The rule pretty explicit.

and a DM tried to use it how would you react (no right or wrong answer to this)

 

[Bill Zebub]

I can't find it on 5esrd.com at the moment but aren't there reaction roll DCs that "force" NPCs to change attitude?

There might be specific rules that override the general rule. Again, the Berserker Barbarian's 9th level ability is an example.

 

[Reynard]

So what would be a good system to deal with something like a PC and and NPC having opposed goals and they both go to the king (also an NPC) looking to get the king on their side? The GM can't really argue with himself, so leaving it as a purely roleplaying thing won't work 9unless you enlist another player to temporarily fill one of the NPC roles).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't/didn't play PF so I wouldn't know, but at least that effect is codified in the rules (kind of like the Berserker Barbarian's ability to cause fear, right?), and not just some made-up DM effect that takes away player control.

Edit: I will add that my position isn’t that it’s flat out wrong for players in RPGs to be told what their characters think/feel/do, but rather:
1) I prefer that it be treated as a significant boundary
2) When that boundary is crossed I believe it should be because of clear and codified rule, not DM improv
3) D&D 5e, by RAW, meets my criteria

I like your self-analysis to see if your thinking is consistent here, but please let me ask, would you be okay with a DM who "improv'd" that because X spell was cast on Y artifact, that artifact radiated pulses of fear for three rounds? Assume for the sake of the question that this sorta-basically made sense given the known properties of the artifact, but absolutely was not codified in the rules whatsoever? There isn't a "wrong" answer to this, I'm just trying to get a sense - I'm guessing you wouldn't like that either anyway.

Or what about a DM who rules that the roof instantly collapses because of a player casting Shatter right by a structural pillar (which the had no idea nor warning was structural, and indeed, we don't know if it was until the DM said it was), and then damaging and prone'ing and incapacitating PCs in the area (with no save for those except the ones on the edge)? I don't see a meaningful difference between a DM insisting my PC is incapacitated and prone, even though it's complete improv and I may find it entirely implausible, and insisting my PC is prone and incapacitated

I think from my perspective, if it's unreasonable for an improv'd non-magical effect to take away control, it unreasonable for a magical one too, if improv'd, and all improv'd infliction of serious conditions is probably crossing a similar line.

There's definitely a "degree of trust", issue, and a DM who is constantly improv'ing that his NPCs cause Frighten or similar effects non-magically is probably not going to be very popular with his players, but I suspect that is also true of a DM constantly improv'ing poison, paralysis, incapacitate and so on, on his PCs.

Either way I agree codification helps.

1) Players have reason to suspect that magical compulsion will be rare and exceptional, where as social compulsion would be ubiquitous. The thing about mundane skill is that it's generally a per round ability you can use any number of times per day and everyone can do it. So if skill based compulsion was a thing, they would be exposed to it repeatedly in a way that they wouldn't be with magical compulsion.
2) Players have every reason to believe that skill based compulsion would be less fair than magical compulsion. Magical compulsion generally depends on the ordinary standard system of magical resistance like "saving throws" which games work hard to balance and which is not heavily reliant on GM fiat. Skill based compulsion would depend on a games social system which is inherently hard to balance owing to the complexity of human social interaction and which therefore almost always has to rely very heavily on GM fiat. Players therefore have very good reason to believe that if social skill based compulsion applied to the PCs, that it would be extraordinarily easy for GMs to justify treating the player characters like puppets.

Neither of these hold up to close analysis, imho.

The former can be addressed simply by codifying this stuff and making it relatively weak. The latter relies on it not being codified, and doesn't actually have anything to do with "social compulsion", but rather a lack of trust in the DM and DM fiat. That's not unreasonable, but it's easy to address by codification.

This isn't unprecedented. Many other RPGs do it. Including D&D-like RPGs.

I agree that it's not an "accident" PCs aren't hit by this stuff in default 5E, but it's very common to see what you seem to be dismissing, and it's very easy to imagine a 5E in which there were rules which allowed, say, more in-combat Intimidation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I’m curious how people have seen or would like to see Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws used in this manner.

The standard rules treat them solely as an optional roleplaying guide that when invoked by a player, may earn them Inspiration at the GM’s discretion.

As described, the rules are pretty minimal and rather toothless. They can be ignored entirely by the player. This is an odd design decision, I’d say, and seems especially poor for a Flaw. Why have a Flaw that can just be ignored?

I feel like it’s a missed opportunity for there not to be some more heft to this part of the game. Like if a Flaw is relevant in a scene, perhaps the character has Disadvantage on associated rolls… something like that. Still minimal, but not entirely voluntary in the moment on the player’s part (though hard to see it as totally involuntary since the player is the one to choose their Flaw).

I think there’s room there for some meaningful game play, which I don’t think replaces roleplay in any way but rather makes it an active part of play.

I’m curious if folks have attempted or would like to attempt to incorporate the Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws in a more meaningful way.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So what would be a good system to deal with something like a PC and and NPC having opposed goals and they both go to the king (also an NPC) looking to get the king on their side? The GM can't really argue with himself, so leaving it as a purely roleplaying thing won't work 9unless you enlist another player to temporarily fill one of the NPC roles).

Opposed skill challenge, 4E-style? (Possibly in DMG2?) I forget exactly how that worked, but I think it would be possible to work out a system of accumulating successes, and a First-Past-the-Post approach would probably work (assuming the king was a decisive sort - which probably hopefully he is!).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The difference is that that is a magical, obviously unnatural effect after which the character returns to normal. There's a distinction between having a spell cast on you, and being "genuinely" persuaded (especially when the player disagrees that the argument was actually persuasive to their character), which changes the character you're playing (pretty much the only thing you have control over in the game).

again... if it is a rule, a mechanic why does it matter? it is still 'against your characters will' as much as a spell is... you were tricked or charmed or frieghtend through not your own action but declaired action by another

(and no there is no right or wrong answer just YOUR answer, but I do wish to know)

And more seriously, talking having that level of mechanical weight or potential for harm leads to the above point about perverse incentives--be prepared for PC's to start clapping their hands over their ears or drawing swords whenever dice come out during a conversation. Or silly dynamics with one PC "deprogramming" the others when they know OOC that persuasion mind-whammy happened, meaning a lot of pointless dice-rolling.

I mean how different is this then people not stareing at medusa... or not letting a succubus charm you, and spending time turing stone back to flesh and counterspell or despelling charms?

(and no there is no right or wrong answer just YOUR answer, but I do wish to know)

There is a good point there that most social systems don't take into account; that there are some things that you just can't persuade someone of by dice-bombing them, and even the attempt would probably ensure they don't trust or listen to you unless you put a LOT of work into setup. I'm fairly sure that no matter how charismatic I am, I couldn't persuade you to sell your best friend into slavery based on a single conversation.

again what you have are limits... but we have those in other places... a charm person spell wont do that either.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I’m curious if folks have attempted or would like to attempt to incorporate the Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws in a more meaningful way.

Weirdly we never have, despite playing tons of other RPGs which do exactly that (PtbA for example). I suspect if there was a solid rules suggestion on what to do with them we might have tried it, but 5E doesn't really even suggest anything, and I've yet to read a compelling take on the subject from a 3PP or messageboard or the like - though I bet there are a number of good takes out there.