D&D General If you had to choose between quality of story or combat

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't consider a player deciding what their character believes about a situation to be abusing the rules of the game. If a player wants their character to react to an NPC in some particular way, that's fine. If they're magically compelled to believe something, then I'll just use magic, otherwise it's fine if they do or don't believe anything. "You're not allowed to suspect that this obvious setup is an obvious setup" is not something I'd do when running a game like D&D (it would be different in a game like Pendragon).

This runs both ways, some NPCs simply don't believe PCs regardless of what they can roll on perception or deception. The goblin chieftain who has been screwed over a bunch may simply insist on payment up front regardless of what a PC can get on a persuasion or deception roll. The King isn't going to be persuaded to give up his kingdom to you by chatting, if I call for a persuasion roll it's to see whether you get exiled or managed to convince the King that it was a fun joke.


Yes, the player has 'absolute veto' of deciding what their character thinks and what deals they accept. I don't consider it abusing the rules of the game for a player to decide that their character wants revenge more than money, or believes the offer is too good to be true, or believes the offer actually has strings, or whatever else leads to them turning down the deal. This sounds to me like a DM who is trying to treat a player as an NPC in their story instead of letting the player play their character.

To be clear: I don't regard a PC turning down a 'great deal' to be ridiculous, and even if I did whether a player's character is ridiculous is a decision I leave to the player.

To use two examples from media, I'm perfectly fine if someone trying to buy their way out of revenge happens gets a response like this from The Princess Bride:

Or this response to an old business partner offering to solve all of a character's financial problems with no strings attached from Breaking Bad:


For a real-world example, 'place your abusive partner behind bars' is absolutely not the amazing deal no one would ever refuse you seem to think it is. It's incredibly common for victims in DV cases to refuse to testify or cooperate with police and prosecutors, sometimes to the point of attacking police attempting to arrest the abusive partner. While I don't have an interest in roleplaying situations like that in a game*, if I did take on something that emotionally charged I certainly would not object to a player deciding to have their character react to an offer like that in the way that real people often do, and absolutely would not try to force a player to accept a 'win' that they don't think their character would want in a highly emotionally charged situation.

*(To be clear: I think that trying to use D&D's simple social rules to handle an incredibly complex emotional situation that lots of players have real-life trauma from that they might not have disclosed or wish to disclose to the DM is an absolutely, absurdly bad idea.)

So, just to drive this down to the quick:

The player is always perfectly capable of shrugging off ANY attempt at persuasion, no matter what, so long as the player decides that that's what happens.

Why is this okay for social encounters, but utterly unacceptable for combat encounters?

Why can I say "The social DC to persuade me is infinity", but I cannot say "The physical AC to hit me is infinity"?

 

[Remathilis]

I still don't see how you've cleaved these things apart.

Welp, then I can't help you. Lead a horse to water, but you can't make them shrink.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Welp, then I can't help you. Lead a horse to water, but you can't make them shrink.

I have added an edit to that post. I'll include it here as well.

It seems I have had some pretty serious failures of reading comprehension here, as I missed some parts of this post that I don't know how I could have missed them before. You've made clear your beef is about being told the specific, individual actions your character takes. I have no desire to do that, any more than I have a desire to enforce your "slipped on a banana peel" example of missing an attack.

Everything you've described reads, to me, like a beef about the way the GM narrates, not about the structure itself. It sounds, to me, like: "Every GM will always narrate this stupidly, so it can't be made mechanical." And that is where I still don't see any daylight here. If the GM is guaranteed to give you the stupidest possible narrations of these things, then why doesn't that also apply to combat? If it doesn't apply to combat, then why do you presume that social mechanics guarantee idiotic narration, but combat mechanics don't?

 

[Remathilis]

So, just to drive this down to the quick:

The player is always perfectly capable of shrugging off ANY attempt at persuasion, no matter what, so long as the player decides that that's what happens.

Why is this okay for social encounters, but utterly unacceptable for combat encounters?

Why can I say "The social DC to persuade me is infinity", but I cannot say "The physical AC to hit me is infinity"?

Why should I even pick an alignment if my character can be made to love or hate anything with a high enough skill roll.

"Well now, you've convinced me. Time to genocide the elves."

 

[AlViking]

In my game the social mechanics work exactly the same for PCs and NPCs.

• If a PC tries to use persuasion on an NPC the DM is responsible for how the NPC responds. They get to decide whether or not the NPC can be persuaded. If they're uncertain whether or not it would work the DM determines the DC and asks for a roll.
• If an NPC tries to use persuasion on a PC the player is responsible for how the PC responds. They get to decide whether or not the PC can be persuaded. If they're uncertain whether or not it would work the player determines the DC and asks for a roll.

The only difference is who is responsible for deciding how the target of persuasion responds. A player no more has to preestablish the reason they would or would not agree to do something than as DM I am required to preestablish the reason the NPC would or would not agree.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

So, just to drive this down to the quick:

The player is always perfectly capable of shrugging off ANY attempt at persuasion, no matter what, so long as the player decides that that's what happens.

Why is this okay for social encounters, but utterly unacceptable for combat encounters?

Yes, the player plays their character and decides what the character thinks, feels, and attempts to do. This is what I consider 'roleplaying' to be, and is a significant part of why I'm into games that have the 'R' in RPG.

Social encounters and combat encounters have different rules, and the combat rules have much more involved resolution mechanics. If I was playing a hypothetical game that devoted the vast majority of rules to social abilities and how to resolve use of them, but that only had brief rules for handling combat that were similar to D&D's rules for social skill checks, that would be different, but we're not talking about a hypothetical other game.

Why can I say "The social DC to persuade me is infinity", but I cannot say "The physical AC to hit me is infinity"?

Neither one is a correct statement within the framework of the game rules.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why should I even pick an alignment if my character can be made to love or hate anything with a high enough skill roll.

"Well now, you've convinced me. Time to genocide the elves."

Why should I even pick a class if my character can be made to miss anything with a high enough AC?

The symmetry is still there.

You pick these things because they matter, Remathilis. But just because they matter, does not mean you get to unilaterally decide that they could never, ever be broken, no matter what, always, solely and exclusively because you said so.

Is that not actual, literal realism? Y'know, that thing people keep trying to use as a standard?

Real people are almost never inviolate about even a few things, let alone literally EVERYTHING. Yet the position I've seen, consistently, is that the mere existence of the possibility that a roll could EVER affect ANYTHING about your character's personality instantly destroys every choice you've ever made. Your character has been completely reformatted into an obedient little robot who always does exactly what he or she is told.

Do you not see how this is exactly the catastrophizing I know you personally have taken me to task for in other areas?

 

[Remathilis]

I have added an edit to that post. I'll include it here as well.

It seems I have had some pretty serious failures of reading comprehension here, as I missed some parts of this post that I don't know how I could have missed them before. You've made clear your beef is about being told the specific, individual actions your character takes. I have no desire to do that, any more than I have a desire to enforce your "slipped on a banana peel" example of missing an attack.

Everything you've described reads, to me, like a beef about the way the GM narrates, not about the structure itself. It sounds, to me, like: "Every GM will always narrate this stupidly, so it can't be made mechanical." And that is where I still don't see any daylight here. If the GM is guaranteed to give you the stupidest possible narrations of these things, then why doesn't that also apply to combat? If it doesn't apply to combat, then why do you presume that social mechanics guarantee idiotic narration, but combat mechanics don't?

Moreover, I have a problem when the game forces specific narration on the DM and player. Critical fumbles are the clearest examples of that in combat (and I'm not talking the "Nat 1 always misses" rule, I'm talking throse elaborate charts that always end up with snapped bowstrings, dropped swords, or other zany outcomes) but things like 2e Ravenloft fear checks telling me exactly how my fear reaction manifests removes not only the player agency to describe how the fear is affecting me, it straightjackets the DM to using it as well (unless they ignore or change the fear check rules, but we're back to fiat then anyway).

I'll accept the miss. I'll take the penalty for Frightened. Let me describe how that looks to my character in a way that makes sense to them.

 

[Maxperson]

Adventurers kill in hot blood all the time. It's not that much of a jump. That requires some justification--why horrendous violence is perfectly acceptable in one area and utterly unacceptable in another. Killing a family member brings its own justification...but also its own reason why someone would have exactly the extreme rage to kill too, so there needs to be at least the paper-thin justification of "I do in fact love my family". As for robbing the local baron...c'mon, Max. "Rob the local baron" is literally a stock first adventure for D&D. Yes, I do actually think you need to establish in advance that your character would NEVER rob a baron, no matter how horrendous his conduct, no matter how vicious his rule, no matter how unjust his methods of acquiring his wealth were? Yes, I genuinely do think that an absolute "never, EVER stealing, from ANYONE, for ANY reason" requires preestablished justification.

Murdering someone cold blood is a huge leap from killing in self-defense or killing monsters. And as for the baron, there's a reason why I said "the" baron and not "any baron anywhere." Let's assume that the baron isn't some sort of unjust monster who takes pennies from destitute widows. Let's also assume that the party isn't a bunch of thieves who would rob anyone, but just a normal group and my character isn't a thief.

With no pre-establishment, there's still a 0 percent chance that someone can use persuasion to get my PC to go rob the local baron.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, the player plays their character and decides what the character thinks, feels, and attempts to do. This is what I consider 'roleplaying' to be, and is a significant part of why I'm into games that have the 'R' in RPG.

Social encounters and combat encounters have different rules, and the combat rules have much more involved resolution mechanics. If I was playing a hypothetical game that devoted the vast majority of rules to social abilities and how to resolve use of them, but that only had brief rules for handling combat that were similar to D&D's rules for social skill checks, that would be different, but we're not talking about a hypothetical other game.



Neither one is a correct statement within the framework of the game rules.

Except that is precisely what you've said.

Nothing anyone can ever do will ever persuade your characters without your metagame permission. Nothing.

God Himself could descend from the heavens and give a literally perfect pitch. "Nope. Can't persuade me. I'm incorruptible."

That is perfectly identical to saying that the DC to convince the character is infinite. Hence, why is it okay for you to declare the one, but not the other? The structural similarity but worlds apart treatment remains unexplained.