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

[Micah Sweet]

Is this based on your reading of the text, or on the opinions of others (eg @Maxperson) who haven't read the text.

Like, what is confusing about a direction to the GM to Make the players' characters' lives not boring, but in doing so, to Be a fan of the players' characters'. Even without more, I think it's fairly clear that this rules some stuff in but rules other stuff out: eg one way to make a character's life not boring is to create a fiction in which they are persecuted by the gods and all their hopes dashed, but that probably isn't consistent with being a fan of the character (unless the character is a very particular sort of character).

I don't get this. The techinque is straightforward. @TwoSix gave an illustration of its use. The fact that you don't want to use it doesn't make it complicated!

Well, if someone is resolute in their determination to pay no attention to any ideas or developments in RPGing except those found in D&D rulebooks (excluding 4e D&D), that of course is their prerogative. It would seem to be reasonably described as a "conservative" outlook. They might want to argue that their conservatism is not exhausting, but I'm not sure how they could argue that they're not conservative.

I always found the exhausting comment more insulting than the conservative one. That part is why IMO several posters seem to see this thread as permission to throw shade at traditionally-minded gamers.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree it's not impossible. In fact, it would be pretty easy to implement; far easier than a lot of other kitbashes I've done.

The more important question is whether it's desirable to add in these sort of mechanics (or expand them such that they work on PCs just like they do on NPCs). I'm really not sure it is, for a whole laundry list of reasons, and therefore despite it being an easy kitbash it's not one I'm going to do.

Yes, we know. Yet others may find it desirable to do so. That you don't is both clear and also irrelevant to that.

Loss of agency is just one issue.

The other big one: ever since 3e introduced social skills, my concern (borne out all too often in our 3e games) is that players will want to skip the free-roleplay piece and jump straight to the roll; which seems to rather defeat the purpose of a role-playing game.

And that concern persists despite the many of us who use such rules telling you that it is not the case. It's not something you're going to try, and you're not going to change your opinion based on what others with actual experience tell you... so you just continue to voice the same concern, when there is no real cause for concern.

 

[Maxperson]

Unnecessary. Find many rule in the 5e DMG that talks about a PC using a social skill on an NPC (using those terms, please). Even so, there's nothing about how the rules work that prevents PCs from being effected.

I typed DMG instead of PHB by mistake. The rules are in the PHB. The DMG just says creature and the like, which are 100% NPCs.

"ABILITY CHECKS
In addition to roleplaying, ability checks are key in determining the outcome of an interaction.

Your roleplaying efforts can alter an NPC's attitude, but there might still be an element of chance in the situation. For example, your DM can call for a Charisma check at any point during an interaction if he or she wants the dice to play a role in determining an NPC's reactions. Other checks might be appropriate in certain situations, at your DM's discretion.

Pay attention to your skill proficiencies when thinking of how you want to interact with an NPC, and stack the deck in your favor by using an approach that relies on your best bonuses and skills. If the group needs to trick a guard into letting them into a castle, the rogue who is proficient in Deception is the best bet to lead the discussion. When negotiating for a hostage's release, the cleric with Persuasion should do most of the talking."

That's the section on ability checks for social interactions. And as I said, the DMG just talks about PCs affecting NPCs, but without using the term NPC. Instead if uses terms like creatures, or "when the adventurers request..." indicating PC to NPC, but not vice versa.

Find me anything that says or implies that social skills can be used on PCs. Just one thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To me, this is a pretty odd claim. Particularly given that I know some of the processes that you use: eg rolling some dice to see who wins a sword fight doesn't seem especially verisimilitudinous as a process.

I did say some processes, Pemerton.

 

[Campbell]

So, there are basically 4 places we could block any given action in a roleplaying game:

• Intent: a character wants to do something
• Initiation: a character attempts to do something
• Execution: a character succeeds or fails at their attempt
• Effect: a character affects the game world through their success or failure

Typically, in most traditional games, actions are only really blocked at either the execution stage or the effect stage. The notable exception here are games like Vampire where you might have to roll Self Control to stop from feeding on an innocent (intent) or Courage to walk closer to a fireplace (initiation).

In a game where the norm is to block at Execution or Effect like 5e is I don't think the DM should block at a previous stage, but in the broader scheme I do not think there's like anything special or more agency limiting about blocking at the intent stage versus the execution stage beyond personal aesthetics (which are important).

From a purely aesthetic standpoint I actually prefer being blocked at intent or initiation over execution because stakes of who you over ones based on competence. I also like that say in Apocalypse World that the Gunlugger could do it is never in doubt, only if their commitment to violence in this moment is sufficient.

In a recent session of our Final Fantasy 8 inspired Cypher game ran by @RenleyRenfield my character's failure to get information from a tour guide (who spoke several languages far too fluidly) was established as him becoming distracted by his fellow SeeD operative that we had previously established there was some romantic tension with. This cut off my character's ability to engage with the tour guide for the scene.

From my perspective that is no more agency denying than if the consequence had been a reaction from the tour guide, especially if it would influence her reaction in future scenes. Blocking at intent in this case preserves agency in future scenes we might still have. It also preserves other elements of his concept - the GM chose a consequence for failure that was consistent with a well-trained noble who understands social protocol extremely well but has shown a tendency to become emotionally comprimised at times.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Though as I've noted before there's at best some selective pleading for people who play D&D and object to "gamist" structures; the game is stuffed full of them and was from day one.

True. But that doesn't mean that crowd wishes for MORE gamist structures.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That certainly makes it sound like the “purpose of a role-playing game” is a bunch of in-character dialogue and thespianism; that might have been the conventional wisdom 25-30 years ago, but I think we’ve moved past that.

Come on man. You know you can't just make claims for the whole community like that. You can say you used to feel that way and now you don't, but that's about it. At least, that statement is very vulnerable to challenge.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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

Out of interest Micah in the D&D games you run do you allow NPCs to persuade and/or intimidate PCs via the skill system?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Quite fair; my issue is not that bad outcomes shouldn't be possible (I always endeavor to do the same). Rather, in the context of the preceding conversation, the principle given was some variation of "Don't take away the things that make the character matter to the player." I fear I don't remember the exact wording, so that's a complete paraphrase, not the original wording, but it gets to the same point.

I certainly grant that for some styles, e.g. "classic" ones, there isn't any particular thing, and having the character taken away is just an expected part of the experience. I would also say those classic styles are...not as commonly-played in "contemporary" gaming, because they don't appeal to the average contemporary gamer. For players of more contemporary tastes, rather than classic ones, there will usually be certain things that are very important to their investment. Where losing the character entirely would actually be less of a problem than losing some particular thing about said character. For example, perhaps a 5e Fighter who picks up calligrapher's tool proficiency and uses those tools to add new poems and illustrations to a book that's been in his family for three generations. To have said book just get casually burned up because (say) the character got hit by a fireball and that spell can set things on fire...sure, it would be a very small gain of verismilitude, but it would ruin an irreplaceable key element of the character's roleplay, for pretty light and transient reasons.

Now, obviously, this could theoretically be be abused if you have a player acting in bad faith, but as I have previously argued, if we are to assume GMs acting in good faith, then I expect a presumption of good faith from the player unless and until evidence suggests otherwise. It's a give and take; the GM gives those minor, incidental deflections away from absolutely perfect verisimilitudinous representation (such as "random fire spells won't burn your family heirloom book"), the player gives that such deflections will only apply to a few, limited, warranted things, and would be lost if the player actively does something to risk them (and presumably none of the items will have more than highly incidental mechanical significance.) Basically, if a player really cares about a "fluff" item that might be conceivably vulnerable, don't just willy-nilly let it go kablooey simply because it would give a very minor boost of verisimilitude; conversely, the player should understand that taking obvious stupid risks with a treasured item might result it in being destroyed.

Tit for tat. Respect given in both directions.

Or, if I may, consider: You play a Sorcerer. Your group went through some kind of planar adventure and interacted with a cousin of a rust monster that feeds on magic instead of metal, and the thing almost killed you in a fight, but you survived. The GM says, "Well, because it fed on your blood, you've lost all of your Sorcerer magic. Replace all of your Sorcerer levels with Rogue levels, unless you accept a Warlock pact from some empowering entity to fill the void--then replace the Sorcerer levels with Warlock levels instead." Would you find that a reasonable or appropriate thing for the GM to inflict on your character? Would you feel that something pretty essential to the character's nature had been rudely ripped away simply because the GM felt that that would be "more verisimilitudinous" than just having your character recover normally from their wounds?

To be fair, can I assume your comment on "assuming good faith on the part of the GM" is theoretical for you? Because the impression you've given historically is quite the opposite. Unless you've changed your mind?

 

[hawkeyefan]

does anyone have any examples they could bring to the discussion of how social mechanics are implemented in some games other than DnD? i'm seems they manage to not make it mind control in other systems, or at least i never hear complaints of it being so...

I offered one not too long ago in a thread that touched on this topic.

In Stonetop, there is a playbook called The Heavy. They're a fighter type character, and in this case, the player had selected a background option that the character was marked by the runes of Tor, the god of the storm. This made the character much more like a D&D barbarian in that they could "roil with anger" and that would give them benefits in combat, much like a barbarian's rage ability.

The main difference is that once the rage begins, it is not easy to stop. They have to make a roll + Wisdom to stop roiling with anger. If they fail the roll, then the player has to tell you what foolish thing they do.

This came up quite often in our game, and the character had a -1 Wisdom, so it was a roll he failed often. He beat up allies, he broke useful items, he killed a prisoner... all because he could not control his anger. The most notable time this came up was with a scene between the Heavy and his young son. They were estranged, with a lot of conflict between them. The boy hurled an accusation at the Heavy and then ran off. The Heavy roiled with anger and chased the boy down (the player's decision to roil with anger was becuase it made sense in light of the accusation, and also because it would increase his chances of catching the boy).

So he rolls successfully to catch the boy... but then has to roll to control his anger. If he fails, then the player "has to say what damn fool thing" the Heavy does. So it was a tense moment in play. Luckily, for the first time, the player succeeded at such a roll.

I brought this example up as an interesting way that mechanics about controlling one's character can be used in play. It seems far more meaningful to me that there is a dice roll involved here rather than just leaving it up to the player. Others disagreed and thought this was somehow "problematic".