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

[Hussar]

We aren't talking about things that are very much in character. We're discussing things that if done, are entirely out of character.

No. That's what YOU are insisting we talk about. No one else is talking about this.

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.

I presume that this is something that has been established in the game? The DM is aware that your character will never lie? So why would the DM, knowing this, allow a persuasion check to counter this? We absolutely know that this character will not lie. So, how is this any different from an NPC? Why would there be any chance of success for this check?

You have stated repeatedly that you have NPC's that you know things well enough about to disallow certain persuasion/social checks. Totally fair. I have no quibble with that. So, again, why would you apply completely different rules for a PC?

 

[DinoInDisguise]

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.

The issue remains, the roll is the mistake. Who rolls it is irrelevant.

Anytime we use mechanics to bludgeon players into acting in a certain way, especially if the player protests, we are crossing a boundary. We are choosing mechanics over the people at the table for little gain. Anything that could be accomplished through such tactics can be done in other less intrusive ways.

I believe GMs have a responsibility to take the path of least resistance in directing the course of the game. They need to provide interesting situations but need to do so in a way that doesn't remove the player's creative control over their own character decisions. If you need a player to open a cupboard, instead of persuasion, give them a reason to open it themselves.

Using mechanics to bludgeon a player into compliance is rarely going to be the least intrusive option. It's easy to get PCs to do as you wish if you compel them via mechanics. But we’d call it railroading if done any other way. Hiding that same force behind a die roll doesn’t make it less controlling.

In systems like D&D, that’s rarely a healthy or collaborative approach to the game. I wouldn’t recommend it, and I don’t consider it good GMing. I think, if done consistently, it'd put you on a fast track to r/dndhorrorstories.

 

[Maxperson]

No. That's what YOU are insisting we talk about. No one else is talking about this.

You want to sweep the problem under the rug? I know my characters in ways that the DM cannot possibly know, and he will know much more than the dice will.

Unless I have 100% veto power over social skills used against my character, sooner or later it will force my PC to act completely out of character, and incredibly often it will force my PC to act in ways I don't think he would in those circumstances. And 100% of the time it completely removes my agency.

I presume that this is something that has been established in the game? The DM is aware that your character will never lie? So why would the DM, knowing this, allow a persuasion check to counter this? We absolutely know that this character will not lie. So, how is this any different from an NPC? Why would there be any chance of success for this check?

The DM probably wouldn't, which is why it would shatter trust. That said, the DM can't know everything that I know and I don't tell the DM absolutely everything. Some things are waiting in the wings to come out during play.

I need that 100% veto power to avoid the issues that will inevitably happen.

You have stated repeatedly that you have NPC's that you know things well enough about to disallow certain persuasion/social checks. Totally fair. I have no quibble with that. So, again, why would you apply completely different rules for a PC?

1) Lack of full knowledge of the PC.
2) The removal of player agency inherent in every social check that succeeds against a PC.

 

[Enrahim]

You want to sweep the problem under the rug? I know my characters in ways that the DM cannot possibly know, and he will know much more than the dice will.

Unless I have 100% veto power over social skills used against my character, sooner or later it will force my PC to act completely out of character, and incredibly often it will force my PC to act in ways I don't think he would in those circumstances. And 100% of the time it completely removes my agency.

The DM probably wouldn't, which is why it would shatter trust. That said, the DM can't know everything that I know and I don't tell the DM absolutely everything. Some things are waiting in the wings to come out during play.

I need that 100% veto power to avoid the issues that will inevitably happen.

1) Lack of full knowledge of the PC.
2) The removal of player agency inherent in every social check that succeeds against a PC.

But you have that veto power. (Edit - assuming a healthy group setting)

When I made my own game way back, I introduced a somewhat convoluted in-game veto system. This was intended as a fail safe. Problem was that during playtest people were actively pushing the fiction in unhealthy directions in order to engage with that system.

Traditional RPGs do not codify any such systems, but I still argure it is de facto there. By making all rules explicitely overridable by the GM without that breaking the activity, they have subtly delegated such matters to the social meta level.

You do not have any veto power within the bounds of the rules. That is not needed, as the veto system exist outside the rules, and the activity is not slave to the rules. Hence the activity can rely on the extremely complex set of structures that guide human social interaction for the kind of edge cases you here express concerns about.

 

[Maxperson]

But you have that veto power.

When I made my own game way back, I introduced a somewhat convoluted in-game veto system. This was intended as a fail safe. Problem was that during playtest people were actively pushing the fiction in unhealthy directions in order to engage with that system.

We only have that veto power if it's built in like you did. If it exists, I couldn't care less about social skills being used against me, because the only ones that work are the ones that I likely would have done anyway.

Traditional RPGs do not codify any such systems, but I still argure it is de facto there. By making all rules explicitely overridable by the GM without that breaking the activity, they have subtly delegated such matters to the social meta level.

But it's only delegated to the DM, unless like you he further delegates it to the players. Absent that delegation, all the player has is arguing with the DM and/or leaving the game.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Using mechanics to bludgeon a player into compliance is rarely going to be the least intrusive option. It's easy to get PCs to do as you wish if you compel them via mechanics. But we’d call it railroading if done any other way. Hiding that same force behind a die roll doesn’t make it less controlling.

In systems like D&D, that’s rarely a healthy or collaborative approach to the game. I wouldn’t recommend it, and I don’t consider it good GMing. I think, if done consistently, it'd put you on a fast track to r/dndhorrorstories.

Heh. How to say you only play D&D without saying you only play D&D. ((Sorry, that might be more snarky than it's meant. It is meant as a gentle ribbing))

There are tons of systems out there that disagree with you. FATE being an easy example. There are all sorts of mechanics in Fate, the Aspects for example, which give the DM a lever to influence the player's actions. in my current indie darling Ironsworn, there are a TON of mechanics for absolutely letting not only the GM (not that you actually need on in Ironsworn) but also every other player at the table get their fingers in your PC pie.

Your presumption here is that a character that is brought to the table is 100% known from generation. Everything we can know about that character is created before the campaign even begins. That's not true in all sorts of RPG's. An older one that I really enjoyed was 3:16 Carnage Beyond the Stars, where the character at the outset was barely detailed at all and it was during play that we learned who this character is.

As a DM in D&D, I always ask permission before I get my greasy fingers on someone else's character, but, since my players are generally groovy with it, they tend to let me. One of my players has, in the past, deliberately left his history blank with the presumption that I would be the one filling in at least some of those blanks.

But, in any case, the notion that allowing something like a social check to influence PC's would result in "horror stories" is pretty hyperbolic.

 

[Enrahim]

We only have that veto power if it's built in like you did. If it exists, I couldn't care less about social skills being used against me, because the only ones that work are the ones that I likely would have done anyway.

But it's only delegated to the DM, unless like you he further delegates it to the players. Absent that delegation, all the player has is arguing with the DM and/or leaving the game.

Yes, added an edit before you posted, but after you grabbed the quote: Assuming a healthy group setting.

 

[Hussar]

1) Lack of full knowledge of the PC.
2) The removal of player agency inherent in every social check that succeeds against a PC.

Why would you not just have a quiet word with the DM if the DM is making you do something you absolutely couldn't see your character doing?

But, for me, things in your head that haven't come out at the table don't exist. If you have some secret knowledge of your character that you haven't shared with me, the DM? Too bad. It's not true. It doesn't become true until it comes out during the game.

But, again, you're taking this to such a bizarre extreme. Things that your character absolutely won't do. Most characters don't really have that many lines that they absolutely won't cross that are somehow secret from the table. Your character absolutely will not lie. So on and so forth.

OTOH, something like a morale check is, in my mind, perfectly plausible. Characters break under stress. It happens. It happens all the time. It's not an unreasonable thing and most characters don't have "will always fight to the death" as a character trait. Having a morale score that can trigger fear effects isn't unreasonable or unheard of. Nor will it "ruin" your character.

 

[Maxperson]

But, for me, things in your head that haven't come out at the table don't exist. If you have some secret knowledge of your character that you haven't shared with me, the DM? Too bad. It's not true. It doesn't become true until it comes out during the game.

Er, no. It's true as soon as I make my character. It's MY character, not the DMs. I get to decide what parts are true and what parts aren't. As for it coming out, it would be coming out in the game in response to the attempted removal of my agency.

But, again, you're taking this to such a bizarre extreme. Things that your character absolutely won't do. Most characters don't really have that many lines that they absolutely won't cross that are somehow secret from the table. Your character absolutely will not lie. So on and so forth.

OTOH, something like a morale check is, in my mind, perfectly plausible. Characters break under stress. It happens. It happens all the time. It's not an unreasonable thing and most characters don't have "will always fight to the death" as a character trait. Having a morale score that can trigger fear effects isn't unreasonable or unheard of. Nor will it "ruin" your character.

Ultimately, I will know 1000000 times better how my PC will react than some random die roll. Leaving it to a roll takes away all agency that I have over my character. I'm fully capable(I know because I've done it) of having my character beak under stress and/or not fight to the death.

I'm not okay with loss of agency. It's not something that I will take away from a player like that, and I won't play in a game where the DM is taking away my agency with social skills.

Loss of agency is the biggest issue, and it's an irreconcilable difference.

 

[Enrahim]

Er, no. It's true as soon as I make my character. It's MY character, not the DMs. I get to decide what parts are true and what parts aren't. As for it coming out, it would be coming out in the game in response to the attempted removal of my agency.

Ultimately, I will know 1000000 times better how my PC will react than some random die roll. Leaving it to a roll takes away all agency that I have over my character. I'm fully capable(I know because I've done it) of having my character beak under stress and/or not fight to the death.

I'm not okay with loss of agency. It's not something that I will take away from a player like that, and I won't play in a game where the DM is taking away my agency with social skills.

Loss of agency is the biggest issue, and it's an irreconcilable difference.

Would the lines and veils safety tool adress your concern? It sound to me like you might have a line at character behaving in a way you don't envision yourself?