Ruling on Suggestion (longish)

[Uller]

In general, I want my players to come up with the role-playing aspects of stuff themselves. But if a player is having trouble coming up with the right wording to get his point across, I might let him make a diplomacy vs sense motive check or some such.

 

[EOL]

If the caster has a high Int, he should probably be able to craft a well-worded Suggestion. Have him make an Int check against DC 10 or 11. He can tell you what effect he's going for. Based on the roll you can role-play what he said and determine the effectiveness of the spell.

I thought about that, and it's something if I had to do it over again I might very well change, but at the same time I don't necessarily want to get into the habit of role-playing for the characters.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I thought about that, and it's something if I had to do it over again I might very well change, but at the same time I don't necessarily want to get into the habit of role-playing for the characters.

Another thing I'd consider taking into account is alignment.

I think (as a very, very broad generalisation) a lawful (particularly lawful evil) creature will be concerned with the letter of a command/compulsion/contract, while a chaotic creature will tend to identify more with the spirit.

I think if you lay a Geas or Planar Binding on a demon, it'll be upset, and if it manages to break the spell, you'll be in big trouble, but it'll generally do what you intend.

If you do the same thing to a devil, I should imagine they'd make an outward show of cooperating... but in their heads, they'll be racing through every possible interpretation of every single word, looking for a way to fulfil your command literally, while at the same time completely screwing with the intent.

Obviously, the more intelligent the creature is, the better chance it has of finding the loopholes.

By the same token, if you're allowing a player to state the intent of the command, and then wording it for him on the basis of the character's intelligence, I'd be inclined to let a lawful character generate a more airtight phrasing than a chaotic.

-Hyp.

 

[Wippit Guud]

Call me a ruthless bastard of a DM, but it's called a 'role' playing game, not a 'roll' playing game. Half the challenge is in portraying the character correctly, and that would include wording the spell correctly.


Think of it this way... wish has to be worded corectly, would you let a character make a die roll to see if he worded it right?

(For a less powerful example, replace wish with command)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Call me a ruthless bastard of a DM, but it's called a 'role' playing game, not a 'roll' playing game. Half the challenge is in portraying the character correctly, and that would include wording the spell correctly.

While I agree with you, the traditional argument is that we allow the shrimp playing a 20 Str half-orc to roll a die to break open a door, when the player might not even be able to open the same door when it's not locked...

... so why shouldn't we allow the socially inept fumble-tongued player to roll a die for his halfling to convince the guardsman that he's a polymorphed lammasu?

-Hyp.

 

[Galfridus]

... so why shouldn't we allow the socially inept fumble-tongued player to roll a die for his halfling to convince the guardsman that he's a polymorphed lammasu?

-Hyp.

We should allow this...but at the same time, the fact that this is a role playing game (not a door-busting game) means that players should be encouraged to roleplay, and that roleplaying should have consequences. It's a really hard line to draw; you want to encourage players to play characters that are different, but you also want them to be involved in determining their characters' actions.

As DM, I would interpolate actions like this if I thought that the character would know better. I let the player get as involved as they want, then modify the command (if needed) to more properly reflect what they wanted to have happen.

In my last session, the players were searching the belongings of an NPC for hidden stuff. They did a fairly thorough job, but they missed something. I thought about it and decided it was a subtle enough point that their characters wouldn't automatically think of it. If someone had a relevant Profession skill (Thief, etc.) I would have given a roll to think of what they missed -- and I did give a difficult Int check for everyone. As it stands, however, the players didn't figure it out, so the characters will miss out. Breaking down and telling them what they didn't "do right" would discourage them from thinking for themselves, so I didn't do it.

 

[Moonglum]

when the player might not even be able to open the same door when it's not locked...

Hey, I play D&D to overcome my physical ineptitude, not my lack of intelligence.

 

[EOL]

We should allow this...but at the same time, the fact that this is a role playing game (not a door-busting game) means that players should be encouraged to roleplay, and that roleplaying should have consequences. It's a really hard line to draw; you want to encourage players to play characters that are different, but you also want them to be involved in determining their characters' actions.

It is a really hard line to draw, and generally I find myself on the other side of the line. I see a few differences here:

1- They had lots of time to prepare a decent suggestion (coupled with this the session was just about over, I'm a real stickler for time)

2- The suggestion did not have to be complex, and I did guide him in some respects.

3- The suggestion spell itself seems to mandate some sort of inducement, I am definitely not going to provide it every time the spell is cast.

Still as I said earlier if I had to do it over again... No, sorry I must be strong!! The DM is GOD! I am infallible! I would change nothing! May the bloodied remains of the characters be washed away with the sewage never to be remembered!

 

[Uller]

The best example I've seen of using the dice to role-play when a player isn't up to the task was on this board.

I didn't come up with this example, but I've always thought it was brilliant. It basically goes like this:

Han Solo's Player: I'm going to try to convince the guy on the radio that there is nothing wrong and not to send anyone to investigate the blaster fire.

DM: Okay. What do you want to tell him to convince him everything is okay?

Player: Ummm...we had a weapons malfunction.

DM: Okay...I _guess_ that's plausible. Make a Bluff check at -4. The guard on the other end rolled a 15.

Player: Does a 2 suffice?

DM: No. You say "Negative, negative. Everything's fine here. We're all fine...how are you?" The guard is annoyed and askes for your operator's number...

Had Han made his bluff check in that scene, he may have said something clever and had the fore sight to look at a dead guard's ID tag so he could claim to be him. The "role" playing is in the player making decisions about what he wants his character to do and roughly how to go about it. The "roll" play uses the mechanics of the game to determine success. Generally though, I think players should have to just work it out themselves.

 

[Zerovoid]

I think suggesting that 100 bugbears kill each other while they're in the middle of a pitched battle with a dangerous foe is impossibly far from reasonable no matter how you word the question. This is not a subtle suggestion along the lines of "Let us mutually go loot treasure elsewhere." While convincing the bugbears that someone is stealing from them might work, that probably wouldn't be enough to make them break off their attack on you and attack their superiors. That isn't reasonable. In this situation, I would try something like, "We're all very dangerous, and killing is would be too costly for you, please give us the chance to surrender, and we'll all be better off."

I would also point out, dominate person, a higher level spell than suggestion, allows an extra save if you force the victim to attack their friends. Lastly, this seems like a clever tactic now, and you were probably looking for an out to avoid killing the whole party, but if it works once, it has to work everytime. Would you want your PC's opening up every fight with "Kill all your allies!" I know I wouldn't, and I don't think the spell was intended to be used this way.