D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Maxperson]

There's a massive difference.

In the first example the DC is 15. In the second example the DC is in fact 10, not 15; as in 5e (and 3e and I think 4e also) success is defined as matching or beating the DC.

No, in the second example the DC is not 10. It is in fact tiered. 10-14 is partial success, and 15 is full success.

For someone who likes quoting RAW I'm surprised you're cool with this.

I argue RAW for rules discussions. I house rule the crap out of my games in real life.

I've never met an edition of D&D that didn't require a bunch of house rules to get in line with how I like to play.

 

[Maxperson]

Comparing a single event in the course of a campaign to the death of the character seems a bit over the top no? It's like @Maxperson's examples of how losing control of an NPC for a single check is okay because he has millions of NPC's, but is totally different from a player losing a tiny bit of control for a short period of time in a campaign.

100% isn't a tiny bit of control. For that period, the player has no agency at all. He is forced to do the bidding of the die roll.

 

[Pedantic]

In the game in question, there wasn’t really any option to negotiate their action declarations. The issue was a cliff that they needed to climb, and I provided all the relevant info, including DV and the consequence on a failure. They knew all this before they rolled.

The point of sharing it all ahead of time is that it gave them an idea of their odds and gave them a chance to deploy any spells, abilities, or items that might assist. Perhaps such a decision would have changes their declaration. If they had a fly spell or potion, then they may have decided for the strongest to drink it and carry the other two up to the top. Then, no roll is needed and no time is lost.

As it turned out, they didn’t use any such spells or items and just attempted the climb.

That would be the second option then. They had other actions to deploy, though I do find it interesting those actions were not subject to further risk, and you've added a second gameplay loop in deploying resources to alter the odds.

 

[Hussar]

100% isn't a tiny bit of control. For that period, the player has no agency at all. He is forced to do the bidding of the die roll.

That is flat out untrue. Since the check will not make the PC do something that the character would never do, your "no agency at all" is flat out wrong. The player, in good faith, acts as if the result is true. No different than the player role playing falling down from failing a climb check or having disadvantage on his attacks because he got hit by a longsword. The results of the check are still filtered through whatever is plausible for that character to do. It might not be the specific thing that the player would choose to do, but, it will never be "out of character".

All the dice do is tell you the direction. The player still has all sorts of agency. And is still only losing a tiny bit of control for a very short (relative to the length of the campaign) period of time.

 

[Maxperson]

That is flat out untrue. Since the check will not make the PC do something that the character would never do, your "no agency at all" is flat out wrong. The player, in good faith, acts as if the result is true. No different than the player role playing falling down from failing a climb check or having disadvantage on his attacks because he got hit by a longsword. The results of the check are still filtered through whatever is plausible for that character to do. It might not be the specific thing that the player would choose to do, but, it will never be "out of character".

All the dice do is tell you the direction. The player still has all sorts of agency. And is still only losing a tiny bit of control for a very short (relative to the length of the campaign) period of time.

If the NPC persuades the PC to do something the PC would never do, the player can ignore it and do something else? Because there is no "good faith acting as if something the PC would never do is true." It can't happen. Never = never. Never =/= never unless the die roll is high.

The bad faith is the die roll taking the agency away from the player and forcing a new "truth" on him that he doesn't want and is potentially a character ruining moment.

Just to be clear, only the player can decide what is in or out of character for his character. Not the DM. Not you. Not me. Not the dice.

Games where that can be done to characters are ones that you will never see me playing in, because I value my agency. And I will never run one, because I value the agency of my players.

 

[Lanefan]

That is flat out untrue. Since the check will not make the PC do something that the character would never do, your "no agency at all" is flat out wrong. The player, in good faith, acts as if the result is true. No different than the player role playing falling down from failing a climb check or having disadvantage on his attacks because he got hit by a longsword. The results of the check are still filtered through whatever is plausible for that character to do. It might not be the specific thing that the player would choose to do, but, it will never be "out of character".

Seems to me this has circled back around to the example from (was it this thread or another?) regarding a teetotal character being persuaded to drink even though drinking is in theory something the character would never do. I seem to recall that one wasn't exactly met with open arms and warm smiles.

All the dice do is tell you the direction. The player still has all sorts of agency. And is still only losing a tiny bit of control for a very short (relative to the length of the campaign) period of time.

The player has some agency in how to play out that which he's lost agency over? Seems a bit odd when taken at face value, but I get what you mean.

There's been times when I've mind-controlled a PC, passed the player a note saying, in effect, "You've been dominated; these are your orders", and let the player play it out. Most players IME are fine with this as they know what mind control is all about and like having it as a weapon in their own arsenal, and it doesn't happen often.

A bit more frequent are things like Vampire charm effects where the victim is just told to stand down and do nothing until these other pests (i.e. the rest of the PCs) are dealt with.

And while the player only loses agency for a short time (in theory) per occurrence, with something as ubiquitous as ordinary social interactions it's not like this is only ever going to happen once.

 

[Hussar]

If the NPC persuades the PC to do something the PC would never do, the player can ignore it and do something else? Because there is no "good faith acting as if something the PC would never do is true." It can't happen. Never = never. Never =/= never unless the die roll is high.

The bad faith is the die roll taking the agency away from the player and forcing a new "truth" on him that he doesn't want and is potentially a character ruining moment.

Just to be clear, only the player can decide what is in or out of character for his character. Not the DM. Not you. Not me. Not the dice.

Games where that can be done to characters are ones that you will never see me playing in, because I value my agency. And I will never run one, because I value the agency of my players.

Again, you never allow players to persuade an NPC to do something they would never do, so, why are you allowing an NPC to do it? If the NPC tries to persuade the character to do something the character would never do, it's treated exactly the same way as the player trying to do that to an NPC.

Where is the problem?

To me, it's far more about portraying an actual, believable character. We accept the dice telling us all sorts of things about the character, so, I have no real problems with this either. And, there are many ways of doing it. FATE's Aspects is a great way, for example. If your character has a particular Aspect, the DM can target that Aspect and the player can then behave as the Aspect demands, or pay the price to change the Aspect. In either case, the character's consistency is maintained.

In D&D terms, if your character has a particular Flaw, the DM could target that Flaw and you would either have to play out that Flaw or pay some sort of price to resist the Flaw. In any case, the character is still maintained.

For some bizarre reason you seem to think that if the DM has the ability to influence your character, the DM is going to ruin your character. Given all the flack I take over not trusting DM's, this seems to be the most damning condemnation of DM's. Allowing an NPC to convince the PC to do something through a skill roll is somehow going to "ruin" the character? What happened to "trust your DM"?

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Seems to me this has circled back around to the example from (was it this thread or another?) regarding a teetotal character being persuaded to drink even though drinking is in theory something the character would never do. I seem to recall that one wasn't exactly met with open arms and warm smiles.

We are mixing up the issue here. The issue is not with the results of the roll, but with the GM ever asking for the roll in the first place. Asking for a roll that can override character intent is itself a mistake. There’s no good outcome from it. It’s a misapplication of mechanics, not a debate about agency per say.

If a player says, “My character would never do this,” and the GM responds with, “Roll Insert Skill here,” the GM has already denied authorship. The die becomes a bludgeon used to override character intent. It’s akin to calling for a perception check for something the PC isn’t trying to notice. You're forcing a potential outcome the player didn’t opt into by DM fiat under the guise of a mechanic. The roll doesn’t reveal anything, it just enforces your will on the player.

The core issue is that the GM is using a mechanic to seize narrative control of a character that is not theirs to steer. The mistake is asking for that roll. The GM should find another way, if they need that thing to happen.

And just because I know someone will bring it up. This has nothing to do with trust, it's about preserving the collaborative structure in which GMs and players operate in systems like D&D.

TLDR: Asking for the roll is the issue., the agency discussion is simply a downstream effect of that mistake that has no good answer.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, you never allow players to persuade an NPC to do something they would never do, so, why are you allowing an NPC to do it? If the NPC tries to persuade the character to do something the character would never do, it's treated exactly the same way as the player trying to do that to an NPC.

Where is the problem?


To me, it's far more about portraying an actual, believable character. We accept the dice telling us all sorts of things about the character, so, I have no real problems with this either. And, there are many ways of doing it. FATE's Aspects is a great way, for example. If your character has a particular Aspect, the DM can target that Aspect and the player can then behave as the Aspect demands, or pay the price to change the Aspect. In either case, the character's consistency is maintained.

In D&D terms, if your character has a particular Flaw, the DM could target that Flaw and you would either have to play out that Flaw or pay some sort of price to resist the Flaw. In any case, the character is still maintained.

For some bizarre reason you seem to think that if the DM has the ability to influence your character, the DM is going to ruin your character. Given all the flack I take over not trusting DM's, this seems to be the most damning condemnation of DM's. Allowing an NPC to convince the PC to do something through a skill roll is somehow going to "ruin" the character? What happened to "trust your DM"?

Those few NPCs that I know as well as a player knows a PC, can have things that no PC can convince them to do or not do. There will be no roll in those situations. Rolls only happen when there is doubt.

The issue is that I can't know what the PC absolutely will or won't do. If social skills can work against PCs, that becomes an issue unless the player has 100% veto power over any successful social check against his PC.

I'm also failing to see how FATE's aspects apply here. They are similar to the traits and flaws in 5e. If a 5e character is greedy, then it's not really a stretch for the character to be greedy. We aren't talking about things that are very much in character. We're discussing things that if done, are entirely out of character.

If I have a character whose truthfulness is one of the core aspects of his being, and an NPC forces him to lie with a simple persuasion check, that character is done. He doesn't ever lie, yet here he did it because of social mind control forcing him to act against his very being.

As for trust, you should trust the DM until he shows you he can't be trusted. Like say if he forces a PC to act against entirely out of character with a persuasion check that isn't even supposed to be used. At that point he has broken the trust by taking my agency away from me entirely to destroy my character.

There's a reason why I would just get up and walk out of game where a DM uses social skills against my character and takes away my agency.

 

[Hussar]

The core issue is that the GM is using a mechanic to seize narrative control of a character that is not theirs to steer. The mistake is asking for that roll. The GM should find another way, if they need that thing to happen.

But, you've got this backward.

The DM has had the NPC try to persuade the PC to do something and is rolling for the NPC. It's not that the PC failed any check. The NPC succeeded. Had the NPC failed the check, then the PC would not be persuaded. But the dice and mechanics have said that the PC has been persuaded (or an Aspect has been Invoked, or a Trait/Flaw is in play, or various other social mechanics have been engaged) and it is now up to the player to play that out in good faith, exactly the same way we play out every other mechanic.

At no point has the DM asked the player to roll anything.