D&D 5E Power Gamers and Balance - How to handle

[FrogReaver]

I have to disagree here. The check was not to persuade him not to kill them, so the attempt on their lives is not part of failure or success of the persuasion attempt at all. The check was to build the passage, which he did. That's a success. The attempt is the bad guy doing what he does and protecting himself in bad ways, moving the story further along. That's a good thing.

Party comes across an unknown tribe. The bard decides to impress them with his playing the lute. He rolls a 20 on his performance check. They immediately try to kill him. Unknown to the party is that this tribe sacrificies anyone that can play an instrument well to the gods...

You know, I guess I can see that scenario. I still dislike that succeeding on your check directly results in bad things happening to you.

 

[iserith]

This might be backfiring on you.

Since you're giving your players the impression that they have a chance to suceed on even anything they try, and then find they just aren't hitting the DCs reasonably often enough, they may have decided that they need to pump up the numbers higher and higher.

I know I'd be thinking I'd have to pump up my checks if you let me roll but I was never seeming to succeed.

Right. The DM reaps what he or she sows. If dice are rolled in most situations, even when the players describe actions that don't reasonably work in the given fictional situation, then it's no wonder players are "power-gaming." That is exactly the right thing to do.

I noticed once I internalized the 5e paradigm, I can from the very first post tell if players at that table are pushing to make checks or the DM is always asking for them. The same outcomes always arise.

 

[iserith]

Ever watch Critical Role, as the DM Matt Mercier has said on more than one occasion "you can always make a roll".

That approach tends to lead to predictable results - the players "power game." That is exactly what they should do if the DM does that. Then when they do the reasonable thing and max their bonuses and push their preferred skills in play, they get labelled as if they are some kind of bad player.

The problem with telling you when a roll is straight up impossible can break the game on occasion. Imagine a situation where the party encounters what they think is a mook, in reality it is a very high level NPC there to help them. He is one of those Elminster types that likes to guide others instead of act. He also has high enough stats that no one in the party has any chance of using Persuasion or Intimidation on him. Would break the game if they try to bribe him using Persuasion and I tell them sorry what you are doing is impossible don't even roll.

Basically in social situations in DnD you do not always know you are trying to do the impossible. It is the nature of social skills. It is obvious you cannot make an Athletics check to jump straight up 50 feet. It is not as obvious that you cannot bribe the head of the Kings personal guard who just happens to be his bastard son, a fact that will come out late. So when you try to bribe him you fail, it would would kill the situation if I told you not to bother rolling because you cannot succeed.[/URL]

Everything you say here is due to the expectation that the players will always roll. Fix that and all your issues downstream go away.

 

[Maxperson]

Party comes across an unknown tribe. The bard decides to impress them with his playing the lute. He rolls a 20 on his performance check. They immediately try to kill him. Unknown to the party is that this tribe sacrificies anyone that can play an instrument well to the gods...

You know, I guess I can see that scenario. I still dislike that succeeding on your check directly results in bad things happening to you.

Well, the BBEG isn't killing them right away. It was after he built the passage, which is fairly long after the rolls was made. The better analogy would be if the party comes across an unknown tribe and the bard decides to impress them by playing his lute. He rolls a 20 and they are so impressed that they don't sacrifice the party to the volcano. After a few weeks of celebration, the volcano which now had no sacrifices erupts and the party may die to the lava.

Nothing wrong with things playing out in a reasonable manner.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Right. The DM reaps what he or she sows. If dice are rolled in most situations, even when the players describe actions that don't reasonably work in the given fictional situation, then it's no wonder players are "power-gaming." That is exactly the right thing to do.

I noticed once I internalized the 5e paradigm, I can from the very first post tell if players at that table are pushing to make checks or the DM is always asking for them. The same outcomes always arise.

Wrong on a basic level.

There is no reason to roll when a player wants to do the physically impossible. Though I have allowed it when an annoying player keeps arguing. "No really I slide my spear into the crack and use leverage to force the drawbridge open" yep go ahead and roll so I can tell you that you fail.

But we are NOT talking about obviously impossible tasks. We are talking about social interaction and it is rarely cut and dry that a situation is impossible.

Here is a silly example.

Biff the hard sees a gorgeous woman at the tavern and decides he is going to take her back to his room. He has a +14 Persuasion and he is rich, should be a no brainer here right? Wrong the gorgeous woman in question is a lesbian AND she is currently possessed by an asexual alien spirit that has no interest or time for a night of seduction.

Tell the player that they have no chance and not to bother rolling tells them too much information in a totally meta format. Letting them roll a 16 for a total of 30 and get turned down flat by an obvious barmaid? To me at least that works better as it makes the player wonder. Might even be part of a plot point as the party is currently attempting to hunt down what they think is a serial killer whose victims have nothing to do with each other and happen in places that no one person in town could get to all of.

Sent from my SM-T820 using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

Wrong on a basic level.

There is no reason to roll when a player wants to do the physically impossible. Though I have allowed it when an annoying player keeps arguing. "No really I slide my spear into the crack and use leverage to force the drawbridge open" yep go ahead and roll so I can tell you that you fail.

But we are NOT talking about obviously impossible tasks. We are talking about social interaction and it is rarely cut and dry that a situation is impossible.

Here is a silly example.

Biff the hard sees a gorgeous woman at the tavern and decides he is going to take her back to his room. He has a +14 Persuasion and he is rich, should be a no brainer here right? Wrong the gorgeous woman in question is a lesbian AND she is currently possessed by an asexual alien spirit that has no interest or time for a night of seduction.

Tell the player that they have no chance and not to bother rolling tells them too much information in a totally meta format. Letting them roll a 16 for a total of 30 and get turned down flat by an obvious barmaid? To me at least that works better as it makes the player wonder. Might even be part of a plot point as the party is currently attempting to hunt down what they think is a serial killer whose victims have nothing to do with each other and happen in places that no one person in town could get to all of.

Sent from my SM-T820 using EN World mobile app

I don't see how what you quoted of mine is wrong based on what you said above.

The reason it would impart "too much information in a totally meta format," whatever that means, is because there's an expectation at your table players can always roll. So if there isn''t a roll, the player may suspect something is up. At my table, that's not the expectation, so if I have the woman in your example rebuff the attempt at seduction without asking for a roll, that's the end of that. At least till I describe something else in the environment or the player describes what he or she wants to do now.

Therefore, to fix this issue, reset expectations as to whether and when players roll dice at your table. As a side effect, if there is no expectation that they roll for most things, then there's less of a reason for them to try to eke out ever little bonus they can so they can push skill rolls.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, the BBEG isn't killing them right away. It was after he built the passage, which is fairly long after the rolls was made. The better analogy would be if the party comes across an unknown tribe and the bard decides to impress them by playing his lute. He rolls a 20 and they are so impressed that they don't sacrifice the party to the volcano. After a few weeks of celebration, the volcano which now had no sacrifices erupts and the party may die to the lava.

Nothing wrong with things playing out in a reasonable manner.

Oh I'm fine with that. Someone else mentioned immediately trying to kill the party after they gave him the diea.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh I'm fine with that. Someone else mentioned immediately trying to kill the party after they gave him the diea.

Hrm. We have different interpretations of that post. The example I saw was that the BBEG had the PCs, the workers, the planners and anyone else who knew about the passage immediately put to death. If the workers were in that list, the implication was that a good amount of time passed before the attempted murders as the passage had to have been completed. However, I can see where you could read that as an immediate attempt on the lives of the PCs.

 

[Nevvur]

On the matter of automatically succeeding or failing social checks without rolling, I've heard some good points from both sides. Maybe the best method of handling it is not to take a hard line stance on the subject. When the outcome is predetermined, call for a roll - or don't - based on your needs as a storyteller and arbiter. This isn't the sort of rule that I feel requires consistency to be fair to the players.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Biff the hard sees a gorgeous woman at the tavern and decides he is going to take her back to his room. He has a +14 Persuasion and he is rich, should be a no brainer here right? Wrong the gorgeous woman in question is a lesbian AND she is currently possessed by an asexual alien spirit that has no interest or time for a night of seduction.

...or maybe the DM believes in realism and rules that at least some women have a brain and can't be talked into one night stands with strangers just because said strangers are rich and persuasive.








But, hey, I'm all for propagating the popular notion that all gamers are adolescent boys. Carry on.