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

[Campbell]

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.

At bare minimum in order to get to the point where we can even roll the dice we need to establish the following:

• fictional positioning that justifies the aim the character is pursuing
• telegraphing possible complications/consequences for the roll
• possible downstream implications for other player characters

A fair amount of setup work needs to be done, especially in social situations. We cannot assess consequences unless we actively establish some details first. My experience is that in a 20-30 minute social encounter I might see 3-4 dice rolls. We're also old hands so we're fairly adept at integrating them into the freeform roleplay.

Some people obviously fail to do the work here. See how a lot of people skipped over crucial parts of Skill Challenges. But my personal concerns are for the people I play with. I don't play with just anyone and wouldn't regardless of the techniques in use. Especially if we're mostly doing freeform roleplaying - then skill at making that dynamic and captivating becomes an even bigger deal.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I can't see DW as a version of D&D.

Dragonlance.

I was very clear about that. Dragonlance is the version of D&D that has limited-to-zero-death rules.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

I am willing to assume good faith on the part of the GM.

If, and ONLY if, we also assume good faith on the part of the players.

As you can see, far too many people want to have their cake and eat it too on this front. They want to assume that every player is a nasty, grubbing, grabby-hands little gremlin who 100% guaranteed WILL destroy everything they touch unless beaten back. And they want to assume that that beating-back is only, and exclusively, done by GMs who we presume do no wrong.

It's either a presumption of good faith from all parties, or an open field where we must prepare for bad faith from all parties. No special treatment presuming GMs are saints and players are sinners.

 

[hawkeyefan]

negatives aren't always bad.

Yes, they are. That's what makes them negative. It's the definition of the word.

If it's a part of the game, and it's a known risk that the player is aware of, then it's kind of silly to say it's a loss of agency.

Like if I'm playing hockey, and I slash one of the opposing players, I get sent to the penalty box. My agency hasn't been taken from me... I've been punished for my choice.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I've already accepted that this clearly the designer intent of 5e. But the rules don't prevent PCs from being affected, and thus it's not even a houserule (not that I have any problem with houserules) for it to do so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Generally no, but only because my players disagree with me on this issue. I rarely get to run a game completely the way I want. Still believe in the principle though.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Isn't that the point? That there isn't necessarily conventional wisdom to be offered? That we've moved past the point where the “purpose of a role-playing game” is a bunch of in-character dialogue and thespianism.

That there are other ways to do it would seem to me to be progress. We've moved past that conventional wisdom.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Dragonlance.

I was very clear about that. Dragonlance is the version of D&D that has limited-to-zero-death rules.

Dragonlance has been a setting for several versions of D&D, all of which have death rules. Unless you're talking about the original module run, which is so railroady that to me it barely counts as a game, more like a Choose Your Own Adventure book (one where none of the choices lead to a bad end). The actual setting has no less potential for death than any other D&D game.

 

[AlViking]

Isn't that the point? That there isn't necessarily conventional wisdom to be offered? That we've moved past the point where the “purpose of a role-playing game” is a bunch of in-character dialogue and thespianism.

That there are other ways to do it would seem to me to be progress. We've moved past that conventional wisdom.

You can state your opinion and what you want out of a game without framing it as "moved past" which almost universally means "better". I use skill checks on a regular basis if I'm unsure of whether the argument was unsure, but I'm not going to cast shade on those who don't. There is no one true way.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, examples were produced. But when trying to understand exactly what was suggested - that is the neccessary and sufficient conditions for having followed the suggestion - I struggeled to even get a straight forward answer on if fail without retry would be following "fail forward" in the context of D&D as suggested. It was said it wouldn t count as fail forward, but when asked about why, it always pointed back to principles of other games than D&D.

Why does the label matter? Do you think fail without retry is a useful part of your repertoire as a D&D GM? Then use it. Do you think that more "adventurous" ways of doing "fail forward" might be useful to? Then try them and find out!