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

[Lanefan]

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

Good summary.

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).

There's times when all four block points come into play:

Intent - you want to do something but you're prevented before you start by internal (e.g. alignment, vows) or external (e.g. laws, physical restraint) considerations.

Initiation - you set out to do something blatantly impossible such as jump to the moon or build a nuclear bomb out of paper clips, and get summarily shut down.

Execution - you fail at a task or action at which you could have succeeded (this is the most common block point)

Effect - you succeed at the task or action but something makes it either redundant (while you were picking the door lock another PC already got in through an open window) or counterproductive (the "third guard on the left" you just shot dead was actually the captive prince - disguised by his captors - you came here to rescue). Probably the least common block point.

And really, any of these can be used to deny agency if done wrongly; my captive prince example would probably be one such.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

When done properly, this makes loads of sense.

However, there's always that guy (and in 3e days, I played with a few) who just leads off with "I roll Persuasion. 16. He's letting us in!" or "Let's just skip to the roll, can we?". And the rationale behind this is crystal clear: the player knows it's going to come down to a roll in the end anyway so why not just cut to the chase?

The way I see it, if there's no roll involved then there's no chase to cut to, meaning it has to be roleplayed out in full.

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.

My concerns are for play in general, and how to (re)design the rules in order to thwart that guy's approach before it has a chance to take root and become normalized anywhere.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To a point. I still think it tells you something about the result in terms of process, it just doesn't tell you if it worked.

I mean as a parallel, there are games like the incarnations of the D6 System or Mutants and Masterminds that have damage resistance rolls; but even if the target resists the damage, rolling the attack tells you they got hit. Similarly, the die roll here would tell you the person's argument seemed convincing, the character just didn't buy it.

Except is based on game rules, and not being affected by social mechanics is based on PC fiat (that was fun to say).

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Unless one sees in-character dialogue and thespianism as being the point of furthest advance, and thus sees subsequent movement as backsliding.

 

[Lanefan]

I disagree on both.

You're framing player motivation as something inherently suspect. That because players express themselves through a single character, they have an incentive to push boundaries or act in bad faith for personal gain. But that’s an assumption, not a logical necessity. This is a cooperative hobby, not a competitive one.

Says you.

Pushing boundaries and acting in bad faith are very much not the same thing. The former is IMO expected of a good player of any type of game or sport where there's malleable boundaries to be pushed; and (I think) all RPGs qualify as such. The latter is not, and deserves to be smacked down.

It’s absolutely possible, and in my experience, common, for players to invest in their characters because they care about the story, not because they’re angling for power or advantage. Treating self-expression, like this, as inherently suspicious puts a strain on trust before anything has even happened. It promotes bad behavior from the GM as a form of inoculation against the possibility of bad behavior from a player.

It's the GM's job to enforce the boundaries the players push against, for sure. That's the 'referee' part of the role. But doing so not bad GM behavior and nor should it be seen as such.

It all frames players as naturally inclined to "get away with things" for personal in-game advantage, but that runs counter to well-established psychological and sociological principles, particularly the human desire for belonging, acceptance, and cooperation in group settings.

Belonging and acceptance happens when we all show up each week to engage in the shared activity of playing the game. But once the puck drops, in-fiction co-operation may or may not go out the window depending on the situation at the time.

 

[hawkeyefan]

When done properly, this makes loads of sense.

However, there's always that guy (and in 3e days, I played with a few) who just leads off with "I roll Persuasion. 16. He's letting us in!" or "Let's just skip to the roll, can we?". And the rationale behind this is crystal clear: the player knows it's going to come down to a roll in the end anyway so why not just cut to the chase?

The way I see it, if there's no roll involved then there's no chase to cut to, meaning it has to roleplay it out in full.

My concerns are for play in general, and how to (re)design the rules in order to thwart that guy's approach before it has a chance to take root and become normalized anywhere.

I think you’ve missed the point. If you have “that guy” pushing for a roll without doing anything to inform the fiction, then you tell him no, don’t roll. Or you say “without making an argument of some kind, the DC will be 25” or “without making an argument, you’ll roll with disadvantage”.

I’m always surprised when folks who present themselves as tough, old-school GMs act like players can somehow dictate this stuff. Why would you let “that guy” get away with such shenanigans if it’s not what you want.

I far prefer social mechanics use by PCs because it allows me to be surprised and it makes sure that my ideas don’t always remain paramount. It also means that my players can’t learn my preferences and then tailor their approach accordingly. As GM, I’m going to be involved in every interaction, so any issue with me is far worse than with “that guy”, who’s only one player.

I also prefer letting players talk about this stuff out of character. I find that’s actually a really good insight to their character and their reasoning. It helps give everyone else at the table a better idea of the character.

I find that to be much more enlightening than players speaking in character.

Unless one sees in-character dialogue and thespianism as being the point of furthest advance, and thus sees subsequent movement as backsliding.

I suppose if one was blind to any desires but one’s own, sure. Most of us, I think, look at variety in the RPG scene as a positive.

As I said before, it’s not about comparing the methods… it’s about there being more than one.

 

[Xamnam]

Pushing boundaries and acting in bad faith are very much not the same thing. The former is IMO expected of a good player of any type of game or sport where there's malleable boundaries to be pushed; and (I think) all RPGs qualify as such.

Of your strong opinions I see consistently, this is the one that really makes me bristle every time. I disagree fervently, and I thankfully have almost never played with folks who treat games this way. There are tables and games this is good for, but it's far from a universal truth. I want to play the game we sat down to play with the rules we all agreed to, not to see how far they can bend without breaking. I want to avoid the boundaries, not run into them.

 

[Maxperson]

Dragonlance.

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

A few things.

1) The way you described it, it was plot armor until a certain situation comes to pass, then the named characters can die. That's not zero death rules. That's limited death rules.

2) You are talking about the modules, which aren't any version of D&D. They're modules. The version of D&D with the original modules was I believe 1e, but even if it were 2e, that version of D&D did in fact have death rules. Also, the Dragonlance setting had death rules in it, even if those modules were limited.

 

[Lanefan]

I think you’ve missed the point. If you have “that guy” pushing for a roll without doing anything to inform the fiction, then you tell him no, don’t roll. Or you say “without making an argument of some kind, the DC will be 25” or “without making an argument, you’ll roll with disadvantage”.

And I sat through that discussion/argument between DM and player more times than I care to count.

As far as I can tell, the only way to prevent this behavior is to remove the roll completely.

I’m always surprised when folks who present themselves as tough, old-school GMs act like players can somehow dictate this stuff. Why would you let “that guy” get away with such shenanigans if it’s not what you want.

I wasn't the DM. And the DM did his best, but it was an argument every time. (still is, from what I gather; with one player form then who is still active now in a game I'm not in)

I far prefer social mechanics use by PCs because it allows me to be surprised and it makes sure that my ideas don’t always remain paramount. It also means that my players can’t learn my preferences and then tailor their approach accordingly. As GM, I’m going to be involved in every interaction, so any issue with me is far worse than with “that guy”, who’s only one player.

Fair point about their learning my preferences. When I think of it I sometimes intentionally try to change it up some so I'm not as predictable, but it's an issue to be sure.

I also prefer letting players talk about this stuff out of character. I find that’s actually a really good insight to their character and their reasoning. It helps give everyone else at the table a better idea of the character.

I find that to be much more enlightening than players speaking in character.

Interesting. Me, I want them speaking in character as much as possible, and we'll learn about their characters that way (much like character-development scenes in movies).

I suppose if one was blind to any desires but one’s own, sure. Most of us, I think, look at variety in the RPG scene as a positive.

As I said before, it’s not about comparing the methods… it’s about there being more than one.

"Moved past" strongly suggests a comparison.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The rules don't prevent the DM from creating nuclear explosions from PC farts, either.

The social interaction rules as written are PC to NPC and not vice versa. The DM can of course allow them to work on PCs, but that's not RAW.