D&D 5E Tabletop Rules and Guidelines

[Saeviomagy]

I very much agree with that approach if for no other reason that it supports player control over their own characters. With an alternate approach where the die result determines the outcome instead if the quality of the attempt, you can end up in a situation where one player through PC action and good rolling can compel another PC into such things as a sexual/romantic relationship, which is just begging for all kinds of hard feelings and awkwardness if the player of that PC isn't into it.

But also it kind of reduces social interactions to "make the roll, get the desired outcome", which trivializes the social pillar and creates scenarios where only the party face speaks. If the persuasion roll happens and the guard says "ok, I accept that you may be a polymorphed silver dragon and therefore cannot lie, but I still have to stand here and guard this door", then it means more antics are required.

 

[MechaPilot]

But also it kind of reduces social interactions to "make the roll, get the desired outcome", which trivializes the social pillar and creates scenarios where only the party face speaks. If the persuasion roll happens and the guard says "ok, I accept that you may be a polymorphed silver dragon and therefore cannot lie, but I still have to stand here and guard this door", then it means more antics are required.

I agree that the trivialization of the social pillar is also an undesirable outcome. However, I think it's a lesser issue than the potential problems between players.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Numbers 3 & 4 taken together are baffling.

" Roll for initiative monkey boys! Hey, close that book ya scalawag!"

" Your turn Presto, what do you do?"

" Um, I cast a spell."

" What spell worm?"

" Uh,..(opens book) How about...."

" CLOSE THAT BOOK MONKEY BOY!!"

" Uh...I'll dodge."

I like players to decide their actions quickly too, which is why I am ever so grateful when players look up their spell and know what they want to cast BEFORE their turn.

 

[S'mon]

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.

It's not exactly the same, but a GM can say that NPC X is not persuadable by your Persuasion check, or make it DC 30 (same thing) if circumstances warrant. If a PC rolls high against a PC (as happened IMC last session* - tiefling half-succubus attempting to seduce Barbarian) then I'll say "She seems very... persuasive... What do you want to do?"

*http://smonscurseofthecrimsonthrone.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/ep-4-rss-9-1014712-gray-maidens.html

 

[iserith]

I very much agree with that approach if for no other reason that it supports player control over their own characters. With an alternate approach where the die result determines the outcome instead if the quality of the attempt, you can end up in a situation where one player through PC action and good rolling can compel another PC into such things as a sexual/romantic relationship, which is just begging for all kinds of hard feelings and awkwardness if the player of that PC isn't into it.

But also it kind of reduces social interactions to "make the roll, get the desired outcome", which trivializes the social pillar and creates scenarios where only the party face speaks. If the persuasion roll happens and the guard says "ok, I accept that you may be a polymorphed silver dragon and therefore cannot lie, but I still have to stand here and guard this door", then it means more antics are required.

As I play it, the DM calls for a check only when he or she thinks the outcome of the player's stated approach for the character is uncertain. So as a player, you strive to remove that uncertainty (if you can) by applying player skill so you don't have to roll. This means anyone can be successful in a social interaction challenge, not just the "party face." The character's ability scores, skills, and resources (e.g. Inspiration) are just there for backup in case your best effort falls short of automatic success.

If I ask for that check, something's going to happen on a success or failure. The character will either achieve his or her goal, fail to achieve it, make progress toward achieving it with a setback, or achieve it a cost. I can't see any value in asking for a check when I know the stated approach to the goal will not succeed.

The most skillful approach a player can take in my view is to engage the NPC in conversation with a goal of determining his or her characteristics (traits, ideals, bonds, flaws, needs, desires, secret agendas, etc.), then using that information to deceive, intimidate, or persuade the NPC into doing what the character wants. This two-step approach is easy for anyone to follow, even if the player isn't naturally a "talker." All he or she need do listen to what the DM is saying and a state a coherent goal and approach that speaks to what is already established - just like any other kind of challenge in the game.

As for PC to PC social interaction, since the DM cannot determine how a player's character thinks or acts, I do not believe the DM can establish uncertainty and call for a check when it comes to a PC trying to manipulate another PC. Since the DM does determine how an NPC thinks and acts, then obviously it works differently.

 

[robus]

It's not exactly the same, but a GM can say that NPC X is not persuadable by your Persuasion check

Thanks for the clarification, but then why was a persuasion check asked for? Or did the PC roll in hopes that it would be useful?

 

[S'mon]

Thanks for the clarification, but then why was a persuasion check asked for? Or did the PC roll in hopes that it would be useful?

Yeah. Actually I have a GM who chided me for not using my interpersonal skills - I would say stuff - trying to persuade, intimidate etc - then he'd ignore me. It turns out I should have been saying "I use Intimidate!"

 

[Saeviomagy]

As I play it, the DM calls for a check only when he or she thinks the outcome of the player's stated approach for the character is uncertain. So as a player, you strive to remove that uncertainty (if you can) by applying player skill so you don't have to roll. This means anyone can be successful in a social interaction challenge, not just the "party face." The character's ability scores, skills, and resources (e.g. Inspiration) are just there for backup in case your best effort falls short of automatic success.

But most importantly you also frame those goals differently. Your players state a change to the world that they wish to create that is inclusive of the actions of their target. My player state a change to the world that they wish to create, and maybe the target goes along with that.

As for PC to PC social interaction, since the DM cannot determine how a player's character thinks or acts, I do not believe the DM can establish uncertainty and call for a check when it comes to a PC trying to manipulate another PC. Since the DM does determine how an NPC thinks and acts, then obviously it works differently.

The DM (or the dice) determine what a player's character thinks or does all the time. That said, I treat social skills against PCs the same as against NPCs: they represent a change to the world that does not include the actions of the target. If you lie to an NPC, he can still choose how to act even if he believes you think your lie is true. The same goes for a PC.

 

[iserith]

But most importantly you also frame those goals differently. Your players state a change to the world that they wish to create that is inclusive of the actions of their target. My player state a change to the world that they wish to create, and maybe the target goes along with that.

I'm not sure I understand you here. Would you clarify, perhaps with an example if necessary?

The DM (or the dice) determine what a player's character thinks or does all the time.

I disagree. I think the dice determine the outcome of an action to think or do something, but that's all. So if I try to recall lore on a subject based on my sagely studies and the outcome is uncertain in the eyes of the DM*, an ability check will resolve whether or not I can recall that lore (for example). If I try to convince the guard to let me pass by lying to him about who I work for and the outcome is uncertain in the eyes of the DM*, an ability check will resolve whether or not the guard buys my story and lets me pass. The dice aren't determining what I think or do here, just what the result of my declared actions are.

* If the DM thinks that the action is so free of conflict and stress that it can't fail or is so impossible or inappropriate that it can't succeed, then there is no uncertainty and thus no ability check.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yeah. Actually I have a GM who chided me for not using my interpersonal skills - I would say stuff - trying to persuade, intimidate etc - then he'd ignore me. It turns out I should have been saying "I use Intimidate!"

This is sad. Actual dialogue is fun. The thought of a DM who discourages it makes me cry.