Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DamionW" data-source="post: 2701464" data-attributes="member: 18649">I am aware that DnD isn't Monopoly, but I used the analogy to highlight several points:1.  DnD is a game, and all players are cooperating to enjoy themselves.  One player is granted by all of the other players more authority to arbitrate, but in the end, the DM is just another individual at the table playing the game.2.  Rules exist within the framework of a game in order to ensure all players are treated fairly by the other players.3.  The choice of words to express for your character is resultant of that player's style and proficiency at developing a chain of dialogue4.  The player's proficiency with verbal exchange, including intonation, pitch, pacing, facial expressions, body gestures and all other factors that contribute to the believability of a premise or falsehood does not directly correlate with the character's proficiency in the same areas.  Otherwise, there would be no need for a CHA score, a INT score or any other mental abilities because those come directly from the shared link with the player's knowledge and verbal prowess.5.  To reward that player's choice of words based on their proficiency in dialogue instead of their character's proficiency is a personal decision by the DM that they enjoyed the player's style of playing the game.  It is an arbitrary, biased award because it may not be equally distributed to every player; not every player has the same proficiency.6.  Thus it circumvents the rules and is an abuse by the person granted authority by the other players.If you don't like the social mechanics and hate being bogged down with dice rolling, here's an example of a way to still reduce the lack of fairness:  Include circumstance bonuses and have one side of the discussion Take 10.Say Joe the Fighter (CHA 10, Bluff 0) is trying to convince a guard to let him pass.  You RP the exchange as the guard (WIS 11, Sense Motive 0, for ex) and the in-character lie Joe's player gives seems somewhat plausible and you as DM think it could work.  Pick either the player or you to roll and assume the other side is taking 10 because they're not under pressure.  At that point, it becomes the equivalent of a coin flip or a d2 roll (10 Bluff vs. X Sense Motive or X Bluff vs. 10 Sense Motive.  If Joe fails, you can explain it off that the character was sweating to much or stumbled on some words that the player didn't.  If Joe's player  wants to avoid that next time, put at least a few ranks in bluff or stop using CHA as a dump stat.If Joe's player came up with a stupendous lie and an enjoyable table performance, you can still add a +2 to +4 circumstance bonus because you liked watching the player talk.  One side can still take 10, but if the other side rolls that 1 or that 20, as appropriate, Joe's out of luck.  At least it still isn't an auto-success just because you like how Joe's Player suddenly became a Level 3 abstraction of Joe.This process removes the possibility of DM bias to a specific player and a specific style of RPing they may possess.  The bottom line is if you just happen to believe the dialogue yourself based on the delivery and want the NPC to act as if they believe automatically, you're forgetting one thing.  This is an area where Joe is weaker than Joe's player.  Joe might be able to kill hundreds of orcs and the player couldn't hold his own in a streetfight, but the player trumps Joe in lying because the player designed Joe by definition to be less persuasive than he is.I'm not claiming one is more correct.  I'm claiming one is more prone to bias because it stops examining the character's capabilities and starts relying solely on the player's capabilities.  Even this is fine, everyone is entitled to play the game the way they like.  I just urge if you have new players as a DM that it should be made clear, up front, that you are expecting the authority from the players to decide what's believable in game based on how believable the players are meta-game.  If you wait until it arises in the course of the plot, that's too late.  It is as Voadam's example of deciding you don't want ranger's to have spells, but you wait until the ranger PC is at 4th level to spring it on them.</blockquote>

Verification