D&D 5E Persuade, Intimidate, and Deceive used vs. PCs

[MostlyDm]

I'd put that in the category of players requesting to make rolls or "pushing" rolls as I sometimes call it.

Do you discourage pre-rolling in combat? e.g. Rolling damage and attack at the same time, or similar?

 

[Umbran]

I might agree with you in every edition but this one as I lean more and more these days to the notion that D&D 1e to 4e were actually just very complex board games that people used when roleplaying.

Yes, well, Wick's credentials are a tad stale. He hasn't had a major RPG release in what, 15 years? Not sure if his opinions are particularly relevant.

Perhaps more importantly, while you are always free to have an opinion, it is important to note that for almost any game you pick, there's someone around here who loves it. Belittle the game, and you're willingly spitting on a thing they love. That is unkind.

It is also not well-crafted criticism. You can make the point about aspects of the games you don't like without belittling anything or anyone. We encourage you to do so.

 

[iserith]

in mine it is in a group environment. Anyone can ask anything they want and anyone can use things on there character sheets when ever the rules allow. In yours your say is final and people can't even ask you simple quastions without being told to take actions in game. The difference is that my group is all about open communication and making game the best togather, no one cares witch of the 5 or 6 of us comes up with something...

I wouldn't say "my say is final." I would say that the description is the description and that if you need more information that your character can get by doing stuff, please do that rather than ask the DM questions. Didn't hear me? Want to know the reason for my ruling? Ask me. Otherwise, do stuff.

I also let them correct me on rules. A few weeks ago I said "everyone make a wisdom save..." and one of my players said "Um is it to see through the illusion, because that should be int not wis..." I thanked him and said he was right... just last week (I know not D&D but still and RPG) in Mage the story teller told me he hit me for 10 lethal, and to roll to soak. I told him 'no, that would be agg and I'm dead" and I was right the type of damage he ment to throw was lethal (and me being a ghoul mage could maybe survive that) he had used the wrong thing though... and killed me out right.

I had enemies make saving throws against a sleep spell in a recent game. I know that's not what you do, so I don't know what I was thinking at the time. Nobody even realized that wasn't the case till 2 days later - either we all had brain fart or were too caught up in the game to notice. The next session, I gave Mialee a spell slot back which was used to get the killing blow on a white dragon. That led to this awesome scene:

[sblock]

Courtesy of The High Score Kid[/sblock]

 

[Tony Vargas]

chess-is-not-an-rpg-the-illusion-of-game-balance the notion that D&D 1e to 4e were actually just very complex board games that people used when roleplaying. D&D 5e, however, is different and the rules in an RPG are treated differently than in a board game. This shouldn't be taken as a slight against those editions

No sleight, except maybe against 5e...

Yeah, RPGs involve Role-Playing. They also involve Playing a Game. You can have one without the other, it's just freestyle rollplaying or finite gaming.

You can RP whether the RPG is a good game or a terrible one. The game doesn't need to be terrible to force people to RP - and 5e's not terrible, just for the record.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I wouldn't say "my say is final." I would say that the description is the description and that if you need more information that your character can get by doing stuff, please do that rather than ask the DM questions. Didn't hear me? Want to know the reason for my ruling? Ask me. Otherwise, do stuff.

there is no need to do that in my game, we can communicate at any point about anything...

I had enemies make saving throws against a sleep spell in a recent game. I know that's not what you do, so I don't know what I was thinking at the time.

you made a mistake...it happens

Nobody even realized that wasn't the case till 2 days later - either we all had brain fart or were too caught up in the game to notice.

sure that happens all the time (heck I think we went through 2 years of 3e mis using arcane mark)

The next session, I gave Mialee a spell slot back which was used to get the killing blow on a white dragon. That led to this awesome scene:

View attachment 71337
Courtesy of The High Score Kid

ok, and what does that have to do with anything... when a PC in my game doesn't understand, or just wants more info... he or she just asks... when you tell them 'take an action in game' I just talk to them. I don't know how you think that your way is treating them like equals...

 

[iserith]

No sleight, except maybe against 5e...

Yeah, RPGs involve Role-Playing. They also involve Playing a Game.

I'm not looking to go down this road, not in this thread and I'm sure it's already been done fairly recently. Take it as a roundabout statement of my belief that we should treat each game differently which, to me, means changing up approaches is advisable to account for those changes. I don't use the same approach in 5e as I use in 3e or 4e. I'll leave that topic at that for this thread.

 

[iserith]

Do you discourage pre-rolling in combat? e.g. Rolling damage and attack at the same time, or similar?

Usually, yes. In some cases, such as with the transcript you're reading, I set things up to roll at the same time because in that game's format it would take too long to prompt for both at separate times and to make editing easier.

 

[Hriston]

And why must a DM be impartial with their NPC reactions while players have free reign to control how their PCs react?

The DM has traditionally maintained impartiality because of the vast amount of meta-game knowledge at the DM's disposal. It's hard for me to imagine a game where the DM has the same investment in the agendas of NPCs and monsters as the players do in the goals of their PCs. It's always been my assumption that the DM's goal in play should never be to achieve victory over the PCs on behalf of the NPCs, whereas the immersion of the players depends on their full investment in achieving the goals of the PCs.

That being said, impartiality doesn't depend on using dice to determine NPC reactions. Die rolls are merely a tool that can be used to that end, and shouldn't be though of as replacing role-play. Many DMs are impartial without resorting to the dice and role-play all NPC reactions.

I have never allowed a single dice roll to fully control how my NPCs react, and I don't allow players to think that dice rolls have no impact on their character.

A die roll can't account for all the factors that can be taken into account in determining an NPC's reaction and many DMs don't use them at all. I'm probably more inclined to be guided by the dice than most DMs, but other than starting attitude and the possibility of risk to the NPC, I also take alignment, race, and a number of other factors into account in determining the reactions of NPCs.

On the player side, you seem to have misunderstood the position of myself and others that PCs not be bound by the results of Charisma checks. My position isn't that the roll have no effect on the PC, but that the roll not occur in the first place. I agree with you that if a roll is made it should have an impact, which is why in the case of Charisma checks that would limit PC agency, I don't make them.

If one is going to simply ignore the rules for the social skills because of concerns about mechanical constraints, why bother roll dice and have a rule book in the first place?

Exactly. There's no point in making a check that doesn't resolve anything in the fiction, which is why I don't call for them, but I wouldn't call that ignoring the rules. The rules tell us that the players are in control of their characters, and we can't ignore one part of the rules in favor of another. Instead we need to understand how the rules are meant to work together and what purpose ability checks serve within that context.

 

[iserith]

there is no need to do that in my game, we can communicate at any point about anything...

So can we. We do, however, agree to keep things in terms of actions taken rather than questions asked of the DM wherever possible.

ok, and what does that have to do with anything... when a PC in my game doesn't understand, or just wants more info... he or she just asks... when you tell them 'take an action in game' I just talk to them. I don't know how you think that your way is treating them like equals...

We're equals, but in the game, we have different roles that work in synergy to create a fun time for everyone and an exciting, memorable story.

 

[Sunseeker]

ok, and what does that have to do with anything... when a PC in my game doesn't understand, or just wants more info... he or she just asks... when you tell them 'take an action in game' I just talk to them. I don't know how you think that your way is treating them like equals...

It may just be me, but this seems fairly clear-cut.

DM: You find a room full of doors, what would you like to do?
P1: I check out the door nearest to my on the right.
DM: Ok, the door is about 7 feet tall, wooden, and roughly shaped like a christmas tree, anything else?
P2: I check the door for traps.
DM: Ok, roll *whatever check*, *dice hit the table, total 16* okay you don't find any obvious traps, the door is not locked, but you can't detect anything at all beyond the door.
P3: Using my magical knowledge I want to see if the door has any magical elements.
....and so on.

As you can see there is a progression from general information, to specific information. Each step made with an in-game action. One guy pokes the door with his finger. One guy pokes the door while specifically looking for any hidden mechanisms, the 3rd guy pokes the door with his magic for any magical elements.

This is as opposed to simply asking the DM "Is it trapped?" or "Is it magical?" The players are doing something first and the DM is adjudicating the results based on their actions. Gently caressing the door may provoke a different reaction than hitting it with your sword. Asking the DM "If I hit it with my sword, will I learn anything?"