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

[Maxperson]

I have to agree. There's no ironclad reason social skills can't work on PCs. Just common (but not universal) custom.

It's actually in the 5e rules. None of them in the PHB or DMG are about NPCs to PC. All of them are PC to NPC and the designers confirmed that they are not supposed to be used on PCs.

Now, the DM can absolutely change that, but by default they aren't supposed to be used against PCs.

 

[Lanefan]

The character can be influenced lots. The player is the one who allows the influence. Good players will allow themselves be influenced appropriately. The reason I said that you can't enforce it is that for a game like D&D, which doesn't emphasize working together to tell a story, you will get people who don't care and who try to game the system. In a narrative game, you won't have this sort of problem--at least not nearly as much, because the game is built around the narrative.

This treads close to suggesting that either a) narrative games never have players who try to game the system or b) that only good players play narrative games.

Hard to see how that comes across very well.

D&D can easily do something like this. Not with the Hope slot, of course--although I wouldn't mind too terribly much if they brought back the permanent reduction to Constitution upon resurrection, like in AD&D--but with the narrative effects.

The other key thing with the 1e system was that even if you managed to recover those lost Con points somehow, there was an over-riding hard-line rule saying you could not be revived by any means more times than your original Con score, period.

(Mind, from what I've seen, most D&D players aren't even that cool with taking a level of exhaustion after being dropped to 0 hp, so the -1 to Con almost certainly wouldn't fly.)

There's nothing saying you can't have a similar house rule--or even an official rule in a future update/edition to the game--that's similar. "When you die, you suffer some sort of trauma of your choice, here's some examples."

We have the Con loss but also tacked on a homebrew death-effects table. Some of the effects are beneficial (e.g. you come back with knowledge of a language or proficiency you didn't have before), some are neutral (e.g. on revival your hair turns pure white), and some are harmful or dangerous (e.g. if you ever approach within a mile of where you just died you will immediately die again). There's also a good chance you don't come back with any death effects.

The intent wasn't to model or even abstract any sort of trauma, but more to reflect the idea that things might have happened to your spirit (or, maybe, your body) while it was wandering around not attached to anything.

But note that trauma is not the same thing as in "run away because you rolled badly on a morale check against a bunch of orcs."

Though I suppose, if one uses such mechanics, past trauma might affect things like morale rolls. Example: as a death effect, for the next [x-period of time] after revival from this death you have disadvantage on any morale rolls when interacting with creatures similar to that which just killed you.

 

[Lanefan]

He's saying "don't have degrees of success, just make it easier."

Not quite. I'm saying degrees of success all have to be contained within the "success" side of the roll while degrees of failure all go under the "fail" side.

Success with complication is still success.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not quite. I'm saying degrees of success all have to be contained within the "success" side of the roll while degrees of failure all go under the "fail" side.

Success with complication is still success.

Note, as I commented before, that's not how some people will feel about it; they'll see it as a failure where you've been tossed a bone.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. My own feeling is, however, there's "Is even there a basic structure here that seems like where I want to go?" Mighty little of that is true with D&D's structures. There are are some bits that are more acceptable than others, but mighty little is what I'd consider actually things I'd select by close.

(And again, not expecting D&D folks to agree here.)

TSR-era D&D is a better starting point IMO due to its discrete-subsystem design. WotC-era unified design is, by comparison, terrible for kitbashing as before long you're rebuilding the entire thing from the ground up rather than just changing/adding/eliminating a subsystem in relative isolation.

Even porting ideas over from one edition of D&D to another is easier done from WotC-era to TSR than from TSR to WotC.

 

[Lanefan]

Do you believe in different rules for NPCs and PCs?

No.

Next question?

 

[Lanefan]

I can't say I'm surprised that you would cavalierly destroy the things that make your players enjoy your game in order to uphold perfect fidelity to the feeling of verisimilitude. Player enjoyment of the experience is not the most important goal.

"Cavalierly destroy"? Your precious item has the same chance of being destroyed as anything else you're carrying, mitigated by any protective measures you've taken to help ensure its safety.

It happens all the time: characters lose items that are mechanically vital to their ability to do most anything. A Cleric can't cast without a holy symbol, usually worn around the neck. A mage can't study without a spellbook, usually carried in a backpack*. A warrior's survivability (and thus, usefulness) declines sharply when his fancy magic plate armour lies unrepairably scattered around his feet.

That you start complaining when someone (was it Micah? I forget now) merely suggests you get a fireproof box to put your not-mechanically-essential item in really isn't a good look; I'll leave it at that.

Also, did it occur to you that the players might very well be enjoying the experience because of the underlying verisimilitude and believability that permeates the whole campaign?

* - due to their uncanny ability over the decades to succeed on saving throws we have declared backpacks to be the master race, and determined that after the nuclear holocaust they will become the planet's dominant lifeform.

 

[Lanefan]

Note, as I commented before, that's not how some people will feel about it; they'll see it as a failure where you've been tossed a bone.

Tough. I'll deal with that argument as and when I have to.

 

[zakael19]

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.

When I do stuff like this in most games I run right now, it’s a “pay a cost to resist or succumb” type situation. Blades gives me Stress And Resolve Threats as a mechanic - the first to power through the second. In Stonetop, if I drag the character’s doubts and fears out via something (asking them what they are), I then give them a similar choice - if you want to act despite your fear etc, Defy that Danger (and tell the table how you do so).

Incredibly strong roleplay, but we leave the character’s ultimate response uncertain and let the dice surprise us & tell the story. I mentioned it before in this thread, but my favorite moment of this was when the Ranger pushed on through the miasma of fear suffusing a corrupted dryad to expunge its influence by focusing his mind on needing to make it through this to not disappoint his boyfriend back home.

Turned out he rolled an 11 or 12, IIRC - pretty much max. Powerful motivator

 

[DinoInDisguise]

In exactly the same way that social mechanics cannot override an Npc’s established character you cannot override a pcs character.

If we go back to where I first joined this conversation, it’s clear that this is precisely the issue I’ve been raising. The idea of using mechanics to override a player’s depiction of their character’s core beliefs. Let’s revisit Lanefan’s post, which originally prompted my reply:

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.

I bolded the important bits.

That was the moment I stepped in, and I’ve consistently and repeatedly objected to that exact situation throughout this discussion. I actually thought the point was self evident, and did not expect push back.

So I just want to be clear: Should I take your statement as agreement? That persuasion checks cannot and should not override a player’s characterization of their PC, especially when that characterization is clearly and strongly expressed?

If so, cool! I'm happy to agree on this matter.