D&D 5E Tabletop Rules and Guidelines

[robus]

Social checks against PCs are identical to social checks against NPCs. They are not attempts to mind control your opponent. There's a spell for that. Sometimes people are easy to persuade. Sometimes people are not going to listen to you even with a confirmed crit and double proficiency bonuses.

Social checks against PCs are quite different than social checks against NPCs. The PC has a player behind it. That player has a say in how they react to a social interaction surely? Do you let the dice overrule an unwilling player? Do you call it bad roleplaying if they don't allow themselves to be persuaded by a dice roll?

I'm seeking clarity on how it can be the same.

 

[Sunseeker]

Huh. Well, I trust you understand that while I respect your desire to run your table that way, you should respect my desire to never, ever, ever want to play at that table. Different playstyles and all that.

If interaction between players consisted of, "I attempt to persuade Rolf the Half-Wit Barbarian to attack the dragon. (Roll skill check to determine how awesome my persuasion is.)," then that would be a bridge too far in roleplaying v. rollplaying. YMMV.

It doesn't bother me if you don't like that. It's more to allow for the fact that not every player is as great with words as their character is and I see no benefit in telling people who lack the words IRL, that their characters must summarily lack the words in game. It is also, to an extent an effect to help mitigate highly charismatic/intelligent players playing very low charismatic, unintelligent characters. And mind you, players don't have to roll dice against each other in social situations if they don't want to. Actions in the game must be bound to the metrics of the game. If we start allowing people to ignore their character's skills and stats in favor of what they actually know IRL, we are losing something important in the game. Even if it fuzzy at times, there must be a line between players and characters.

The idea is not to just say "I attempt to argue in favor of our objectives *dice roll*". The idea is to create a middle ground that aids people who can't formulate a great argument but statistically their character should be able to and restrains people who can, but whose characters shouldn't. It also, to some extent, saves time too.

Just because people have different strengths and desires in roleplaying, doesn't mean that I want to be at a table where my social interactions with other party members involves dice.

It's statements like these I want to preface my response with "no offense intended" but I suspect that even if I did, offense would either be taken, or I would have intended it.

So here it is: That is incredibly black-and-white. And honestly, I wouldn't want such an attitude at my table either. Players at my table need to be willing to adapt, adjust and sometimes do things they don't enjoy for the betterment of everyones gameplay. I'll readily admit that everyone is going to draw a line somewhere and that's fine. I draw my line at rape and sexual assault. I probably wouldn't want to play in a Game of Thrones TTRPG. However, I find the argument that you don't want to roll dice in a game that involves rolling dice as a primary resolution mechanic when you are attempting to resolve a situation, regardless of if it is PC-NPC or PC-PC to be absolutely absurd. Rolling to see how well your argument sounded in character or how your character reacted to it is completely optional. YOU don't have to do it, your argument is then just as good as you are able to make it, or not make it.

So, yeah, I view PCs and NPCs differently. Both are nominally free-willed, but PCs are, in fact, controlled by players. In a game. NPCs are "free-willed," but to the extent that they are controlled by the DM, the DM must, to a certain extent, allow the dice to inform and constrain his decision.

Inform? Sure. Constrain? Possibly. Control? Out of the question. Sometimes NPCs don't even make "reaction" checks. I know exactly how they would respond to certain actions and statements by the players and that is exactly how they will respond.

 

[Sunseeker]

Social checks against PCs are quite different than social checks against NPCs. The PC has a player behind it. That player has a say in how they react to a social interaction surely? Do you let the dice overrule an unwilling player? Do you call it bad roleplaying if they don't allow themselves to be persuaded by a dice roll?

I'm seeking clarity on how it can be the same.

No, see what you're missing is that just like players, I don't allow NPCs to be controlled by good social checks. I am not using the dice to determine the effect an argument has on a PC or NPC. I am using the dice to determine the quality of the argument the PC or NPC just made, often in lieu of excessive exposition and simply add a few statements "He seems to make a very convincing argument for you helping him on the cheap." or "He really bumbles over his words when trying to express why this is so important."

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sunseeker]

But yeah, that would be a deal-breaker for me. No worries- diversity in playstyles is a good thing. But I think it is worth noting that your position is neither inarguable, nor universal.

I don't recall saying that it was. I do realize I have an exceptionally low tolerance for black-and-whiteism.

 

[robus]

No, see what you're missing is that just like players, I don't allow NPCs to be controlled by good social checks. I am not using the dice to determine the effect an argument has on a PC or NPC. I am using the dice to determine the quality of the argument the PC or NPC just made, often in lieu of excessive exposition and simply add a few statements "He seems to make a very convincing argument for you helping him on the cheap." or "He really bumbles over his words when trying to express why this is so important."

Interesting, I guess I thought it was normal to use the dice to determine whether a wavering NPC is persuaded or not. If the NPC isn't wavering then what's the point of the roll. And surely the "quality" of the argument is really the determining factor in whether the NPC is persuaded or not. And thus it's the same result in the end is it not?

I'm not sure I get the distinction you're making.

If the PC is persuadable (i.e some objection they have is surmountable with the right argument) either the PC makes a slam-dunk argument requiring no roll (the NPC is a coward and the PC just threatened to kill him - no roll needed as the NPC says yes to anything to save their scrawny neck) or the argument is good but the DM is not sure it's good enough - leave it to the dice.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ChrisCarlson]

It doesn't bother me if you don't like that. It's more to allow for the fact that not every player is as great with words as their character is and I see no benefit in telling people who lack the words IRL, that their characters must summarily lack the words in game.

You don't just let the one player tell the other how their character's words should be interpreted? You make the dice inform each other?

Like, instead of: "My wizard tells your barbarian to go eff off, but in a joking way. Cuz we're buds who can talk to each other like that."

You prefer: "My wizard tells your barbarian to go eff off," <rolls low on required intimidate check> "but I guess in a joking way. Cuz evidently we're buds who can talk to each other like that?" <whew...sheepishly grinning under a thin layer of nervous sweat>

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I don't recall saying that it was. I do realize I have an exceptionally low tolerance for black-and-whiteism.

Would you go so far as to say you have a very black-and-white opinion of black-and-white opinions?

 

[Bacon Bits]

Hey guys, I'm running a campaign and my table has come up with a few guidelines to keep the sessions running smoothly. Some of these came about from specific instances of trouble that just needed to be rectified and prevented in the future and some came from othe DMs' tips. I wanted to hear what kind of rules or guidelines you guys use at your tables too or give me your thoughts on mine.

Here's mine:

1. No rolling dice against other PCs. Interactions between PCs must be role played.
2. No dice shall be rolled unless the DM calls for a roll.
3. No books shall be open during combat
4. PCs have 1-3 seconds after the DM asks "what do you do" to decide on a course of action or they lose their turn to indecision and simply take the Dodge action
5. The DM's rulings are final.
6. Try to keep distractions such as side tangents to a minimum.

1. Eh... this doesn't happen all that often. However, it runs into the problem of character knowledge vs player knowledge. I wouldn't use it as a solid rule. Messing with other characters is fairly verboten at our tables anyhow.

2. In most games I play in the only roll players can call for directly is an initiative roll. Everything else is asking. "I try to climb the ledge. Should I roll Atheletics?" "Can I try to use my Stonecunning to better understand the nature of the pillar?" "I'm going to try to hide in the shadows in the alley. Let me know if you want a Stealth check."

3. This requires a level of knowledge most players simply don't have and is pretty punishing for spellcasters (IMX, it's not the spellcasters you need to worry about in 5e). Spellcasting characters have good memories. Players are just normal humans. It also strikes me as something that will encourage players to mis-remember rules in their favor.

4. Again, this requires a level of knowledge most players simply don't have. You'll run into a situation where the Ogre casts a net on the Wizard who happens to have next initiative. Then you'll ask what he does, and he'll say, "I don't know, as a player I don't know what actions my character is capable of doing while restrained."

5. "... but we can discuss rulings after the session has completed." If you're not willing to be reasonable or accept that you make mistakes, you're not going to be very popular.

6. Agreed. We used to ban cell phones at the table, but then a) most everybody got wives and kids, and b) most everybody got 5e character sheet apps. We still try to minimize diversions. Unless it's the playoffs the TV gets shut off, for example.

We tried a lot of these types of rules before, especially under 4e where we'd often find that combat would run for several hours and people were tired of it by the end. The changes did improve the pace of the game, but it left everyone feeling like they were at a business meeting instead of a roleplaying game. We decided that we didn't want the game to supersede relaxing and having fun. The primary reason we were at the table was to relax and have fun. Playing D&D helped that, but if it meant we didn't have fun then that had to go. It's eventually why we switched back to 3.5 until 5e came out.

Now, if the problem you have is that a player is ignoring the DM when you ask, then, 3 and 4 might do something. However, I don't think that they'll actually work. You're not going to find a mechanical fix to a player problem. Instead, say their name, and then start counting down from 3. When you hit one, if they're still ignoring you, say, "You do nothing," and move on to the next initiative. If they keep doing it after you do that a couple times, just skip them and stop calling on them. If they bitch when they find out three turns later, you say, "Respect is a two-way street. I'm running a game for you, and you're not respecting that." It's important to note, however, that if the player is actively engaged and paying attention but momentarily distracted or looking something up in the PHB, then do not do this.