Skills used by players on other players.

[ClaytonCross]

As I said on the previous page, in that first case (negating the power of the player's choices when making his character) it's kind of mean, but it's not actually affecting player agency. Player agency is a matter of controlling what your character thinks and what actions he takes, not how successful he is at those actions.

I disagree. It is a players choice to be proficient in skills, to be stronger in aspects of their character's design. If you eliminate the effect of those choices you are in fact infringing on the players agency of their character by removing changing character personality at your whim.

Player: I want to be a master thief, so I am going to play rogue with a expertise in stealth and thieves tools.

GM: Sure, you auto-fail all your checks or have an abnormally high DC because I have decided your a horrible thief or I feel your being good at being stealthy separates you from the group and picking lock is too easy for you so I am going to disrespect and counter your choices and force your character to act and succeed as I deem not as you as a player choose, but I am not going to explain this to you with respect because its in the rules and part of your fun. I am just going to do it in secret and your party can laugh about how horrible a thief you are with out know its actually me being a GM controlling your player character but having you roll pointless roles to avoid conflict until you roll a natural 20 with a +9 and fail to open a basic lock.

I don't care what skill it is. This is GM meta-gaming control of Player characters and steeling players agency. I get your saying this is not "thought" but it is identity of the character which is just as much a player agency concern.

--

For part two with the Barbarian. I would have both players roll, but I would let the Barbarian player determine how a win or lose effects them. The skill still matters, the player can still lose the contest, but that doesn't mean the barbarian gives over his gold. The dice become a reference and the Barbarian player should attempt to role play that with how he feels his character should react, but that doesn't mean the Face can control the Barbarian or that the barbarian's player should completely ignore the strength of the Faces character's agreement. Perhaps, it spurs a desire to help in another way or perhaps a failure would have meant the barbarian punched in the face, but a success means the barbarian just laughs... so I half agree with you here in that Barbarian controls his character, I do think the dice should be rolled as a reference of skill / ability interactions.​

 

[5ekyu]

Sorry, but can you explain how characters do something without the players saying they do it?

To be frank, this and [MENTION=71699]clearstream[/MENTION]'s examples are "I want to be able to use the mechanics to he 100% sure, with no risk, that I can treat another as if tgey are bad."

Would you be okay with an insight check that, if failed, means you must 100% and with utter, unshakable conviction believe the other character is telling the truth? No, what insight represents is a risk free check to establish the proof to treat another as a bad actor, in this case a liar. That's not interesting enough for a roll.

"No, what insight represents is a risk free check to..."

5e PHB Ability Check Definition of failure...
"Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

The only ability checks that are "risk free" in a game following RAW basic definitions of success and failure in 5e are those the GM **chooses** to declare to be risk free.

 

[ClaytonCross]

To your bold, no, absolutely not. Your GM was indeed doing it wrong, but that doesn't mean that any asked for use of a skill requires a roll. Again, if you ask the king to give you his kingdom, do you get to roll for that and win? Nope, some things don't happen. This is why I follow [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s method of insisting on an approach and goal. Using that I determine if the outcome is automatically successful, impossible, or uncertain. If uncertain, I use the goal and approach to set DCs, using 10-15 as the baseline that requires good reason to exceed. But, I, as DM, only have authority over the entire game that's not the what the PCs think and want. So, when anything impinges on that, it's the player of that PC that gets to determine if a thing is successful, impossible, or uncertain, not me.
That said, your DM was doing it wrong. Your ability to act should not, in any way, impact how effective your character is. I have players that act almost all the time, and some that mostly use third person declarations. They all get the same chances at the table.

<y point was not "give players what they want when they succeed".​

That is not what I said. The player gets the roll 100% but the player making the check never determines the out come. The target does. So a request for the Kings land my never equal a King giving lands away however, a failure might insult the King starting a fight and a success might some how gain the admiration of the King resulting in an opportunity to gain favor or a prize. Recognizing a success doesn't mean giving the player exactly what they want any more than recognizing a failure doesn't have to always mean the player fails their intended goal. Example, a barbarian fails a strength test with a natural 1+5 on a DC10 check to open an old wooden door, perhaps you thought the test trivial and you would have auto succeeded the test so with a role you let the door open anyway but because of the failed roll they open the door with a knocking it off the hinges tripping over it and falling to the ground prone in front of the guard they were trying to surprise. They failed to get the surprise which was the intended goal but the actually succeeded in getting the door open which was the test. The Key is that they are allowed the test in which their selection of skills and attributes matters so that player agency for choice and character design impacts out comes

. The player choice to try to convince the King to do something stupid was a dangerous risk and for a less persuasive party member would likely end badly if sincere, while a per persuasive party member might role a success which would result a positive or at least not a bad out come. The player actually made two choices here one to risk insult to king and another to have a persuasive character who might get away with such things and playing that out is the role-playing part of this game. If an unskill player tries the same thing they have the agency to try but take on much higher risk, so even if the skill is not reflected in success it can still be reflected in risk mitigation, but a roll has to take place for that to work.​

 

[Guest 6801328]

I disagree. It is a players choice to be proficient in skills, to be stronger in aspects of their character's design. If you eliminate the effect of those choices you are in fact infringing on the players agency of their character by removing changing character personality at your whim.

Player: I want to be a master thief, so I am going to play rogue with a expertise in stealth and thieves tools.

GM: Sure, you auto-fail all your checks or have an abnormally high DC because I have decided your a horrible thief or I feel your being good at being stealthy separates you from the group and picking lock is too easy for you so I am going to disrespect and counter your choices and force your character to act and succeed as I deem not as you as a player choose, but I am not going to explain this to you with respect because its in the rules and part of your fun. I am just going to do it in secret and your party can laugh about how horrible a thief you are with out know its actually me being a GM controlling your player character but having you roll pointless roles to avoid conflict until you roll a natural 20 with a +9 and fail to open a basic lock.

I don't care what skill it is. This is GM meta-gaming control of Player characters and steeling players agency. I get your saying this is not "thought" but it is identity of the character which is just as much a player agency concern.

Yeah, but it's still not player agency. It's just the GM being a dick. Even if you disagree.

FWIW, player agency isn't just "thought" it's also action.

Loss of Player Agency:
"I will try to stealth."
"No, you wouldn't do that, you would do something else."

GM being a dick:
"I will try to stealth."
"You fail AGAIN. Ha!"

GM still just being a dick:
"I'm going to take Expertise in stealth."
"No, you're not allowed to do that in my game."

 

[Blue]

No, they are lying. Not everything is a skill use. In fact, nothing is. Skills are things that are used with ability checks to resolve uncertainty. Until the DM determines uncertainty and calls for a check, there's no skill use at all.

And, again, it's not the DM's job to narrate the PCs. That's, in fact, the one thing that isn't the DM's job. So, yes, you have the duty to narrate the scene, but not to narrate the player actions. If you have a player that likes to lie to other players and doesn't narrate appropriately for your table, that's a player problem, not a game problem. Discuss it at the table. Using game mechanics to correct social contract violations is not a good thing.



No, it doesn't, any more than it takes away the agency of other characters to not do the same to them. It's an area where the players maintain absolute agency -- only they can say what their character thinks about anything. Saying that another player cannot remove that agency means that the agency is lost is a very strange argument.

And, players are still able to read NPCs. Again, if you really like PVP action in your games, I'd suggest a different game that does that better, or importing different mechanics. Otherwise the specialization functions of D&D will always lead to unbalanced PVP. Further, if you honestly treat persuasion as a binary where it's just as likely to convince your friend to loan you a gp and convincing someone intent on harming you to stop, then there's a serious issue there.

For telling if another character is honest, no, I wouldn't allow rolling insight against them. That's between players and not my place as DM to say what you think about what. If an NPC is involved, I get a say if an declaration involves the NPC.

This sounds like it works fine at your table.

However, I have never come across anything like this in the rulebooks so unless you can provide a citation I'm going to consider it a house rule that some skills (and spells?) don't work depending on the combonation of who is listening and who is speaking. (Or can NPCs not use skills to determine anything about PCs either, leaving a DM to fiat everything?)

I'm glad it works for you, but that's not useful in a general discussion about the game since it doesn't apply.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Yeah, but it's still not player agency. It's just the GM being a dick. Even if you disagree.

FWIW, player agency isn't just "thought" it's also action.

Loss of Player Agency:
"I will try to stealth."
"No, you wouldn't do that, you would do something else."

GM being a dick:
"I will try to stealth."
"You fail AGAIN. Ha!"

GM still just being a dick:
"I'm going to take Expertise in stealth."
"No, you're not allowed to do that in my game."

The two are not mutually exclusive. Taking player agency is a dick move. But giving a player the impression that their stats matter but then ensuring they don't means that their decisions are being over ridden and are being made by the GM. The GM is controlling the actions of the player character and that is literally the definition of lose of agency.

The Player makes a choice, the GM takes that choice away.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This sounds like it works fine at your table.

However, I have never come across anything like this in the rulebooks so unless you can provide a citation I'm going to consider it a house rule that some skills (and spells?) don't work depending on the combonation of who is listening and who is speaking. (Or can NPCs not use skills to determine anything about PCs either, leaving a DM to fiat everything?)

I'm glad it works for you, but that's not useful in a general discussion about the game since it doesn't apply.

I'ts already been pointed out. The player determines what his character thinks.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

But a player saying "I'm going to try to persuade the NPC" or "I'm going to try to swim the river" or "I will try to identify that herb" are not making skill checks. They are declaring actions. The DM might, if he/she thinks the outcome is uncertain, ask for a skill check.

Likewise, if a player says, "I want to persuade the (player character) Barbarian to hand over all his gold" the correct response from the DM is, "Go ahead." In this case no dice are needed because the Barbarian's player can decide for himself what is persuasive and what isn't.

Now, that player might decide the outcome is uncertain and say, "Gimme a roll." But that's totally up to him/her. No, that's not in the rules, but the player is free to use whatever criteria they want.

I think that is in the rules. The big rules, that is, the ones that underpin almost all RPGs, the ones that rulebooks are often really bad at explaining (D&D, I'm looking at you).

Namely:

How To Run an RPG

0. GM describes the scene.
1. Players state their goal and approach.
2. GM and players determines the result of the attempted actions.
2a. If the result is uncertain, use dice or some other randomiser.
3. GM and players narrate the outcome (results, costs and consequences).


In the case above, it went something like this.

1. Player A states their goal (get character B to help defend the town) and their approach (reasonable discussion and diplomacy).
2. Player B determines the result of the action, since they control character B.
2a. Player B might call for a CHA check from player A, but it is their call, not player A's.
3. Player B narrates the results (character B either helps or doesn't), costs (probably nothing more than a little time) and consequences (perhaps character B is a bit resentful of character A).

 

[Guest 6801328]

The GM is controlling the actions of the player character and that is literally the definition of lose of agency.

I'm sorry, but your examples are not "controlling the actions of the player character". If I put all my resources into being the most Persuasive character in town, and the DM will not allow the the king be persuaded to give way all his treasure, he didn't "control my actions". He only controlled their effect.

It's not loss of player agency if the guards don't let you into see the king.

It's not loss of player agency if the king's wizard attacks you before you can try.

It's not loss of player agency if it turns out the king is dead.

And it's not loss of player agency if he says "There is no DC. It's just not possible."

It is only loss of player agency if you get to the throne room, the king is sitting there listening to you, and the DM interrupts and says, "Your character wouldn't do that. You may not even try."

I do understand what you are complaining about. And I'm not saying it's a good thing. But you are using the wrong terminology for it.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I'm sorry, but your examples are not "controlling the actions of the player character". If I put all my resources into being the most Persuasive character in town, and the DM will not allow the the king be persuaded to give way all his treasure, he didn't "control my actions". He only controlled their effect.

It's not loss of player agency if the guards don't let you into see the king.

It's not loss of player agency if the king's wizard attacks you before you can try.

It's not loss of player agency if it turns out the king is dead.

And it's not loss of player agency if he says "There is no DC. It's just not possible."

It is only loss of player agency if you get to the throne room, the king is sitting there listening to you, and the DM interrupts and says, "Your character wouldn't do that. You may not even try."

I do understand what you are complaining about. And I'm not saying it's a good thing. But you are using the wrong terminology for it.

Your ignoring my argument and making it something I never said. I never said, the players should get what ever they want or that the impacted NPC/Player should have to obey the players whim. I said their should be a role and it should have an impact on the effect. Your agreement is take the far extreme that I already said in multiple posts is too far because when used against a target player would mean trading one lose of agency for another.

"There is no DC. It's just not possible." is lose of agency because your denying the attempt that is no different from "It's not loss of player agency if the guards don't let you into see the king." Its literally the same thing. If you want to make an task impossible … ok, but you then apply an effect on skill test failure and skill test success in which they might achieve a partial goal even if they stated goal is impossible. I the example of the king and the money I already said I would "not allow the the king be persuaded to give way all his treasure" but I would require a test, I would punish a failure and I would reward a success based on the skill used. If that failure would be death and the reward be that King laughs and continues on his way allowing a better than normal result, or perhaps an opportunity to get a quest from the king for having a pear if they rolled really well, that's fine as long as if another player tried it the options would be the same and the skills the player choose have an impact on that roll, the player gets to try what he wants and I don't disregard their choices as a player for their character. An auto fail, is "Your character wouldn't do that. You may not even try." but its masked in conflict avoidance because when a GM is stealing player agency but doesn't want to admit to the crime out loud at risk of scrutiny from their entire D&D group. I have seen this first hand where an GM autofails an attempt at something the player rolls a natural 20 with a +15 and fails the test that was fez able to complete then the whole group complains about what a dick the GM is after the game. Its okay for the GM to make things impossible but its not ok for the GM to deny a Player character skills entirely. Those are very close but not the same.

I had a character with high perception and we had GM who like ambushes who autofailed 100% of my spot checks so that he could trigger ambushes right on top of us and we are surprised. The group stopped him after a few session and said "look he is the party scout, that is yet another awesome roll that resulted in not spotting anyone and ambushers right on top of us with a surprise round, stop metagaming already!" He admitted to doing it for "Narrative" but as we pointed out that's not D&D as group story teliing its railroading. He could still do ambushes but with a character on active lookout that character should get a role and with a success some level of result from that skill. If an ambush is needed for the party narratively, It can still happen just let the scout know at the last second so that one party member does not get "surprised" and it triggers before he can want the part. That is something. But nullifying party member skills drives GMs to railroading taking away player agency for what they want to happen instead of playing together. D&D is not GM story time, its a group game.