D&D General Your thoughts on "Social Combat" systems

[CleverNickName]

Woops, wrong thread.

 

[robus]

There have been literally hundreds of pages of discussion/debate in this forum about whether the DM in 5e is empowered to tell a player what his/her character thinks/believes/feels.

Indeed, in fact, here is a classic that you kicked off

D&D 5E - Persuade, Intimidate, and Deceive used vs. PCs

Scenarios: Player: "I think he's lying." DM: "Roll Insight." Player: "Um...4." DM: "He rolls Deception 12. So you believe him." Player: "Do you mean I can't tell if he's lying, or that I actually believe him?" DM: "You believe him; his Deception was higher than your Insight." DM: "The guard...

www.enworld.org

 

[Asisreo]

Indeed, in fact, here is a classic that you kicked off

D&D 5E - Persuade, Intimidate, and Deceive used vs. PCs

Scenarios: Player: "I think he's lying." DM: "Roll Insight." Player: "Um...4." DM: "He rolls Deception 12. So you believe him." Player: "Do you mean I can't tell if he's lying, or that I actually believe him?" DM: "You believe him; his Deception was higher than your Insight." DM: "The guard...

www.enworld.org

I think NPC's shouldn't ever have their persuading/convincing/deceiving conversations under any dice roll ever. The reason is because it isn't ever up to random chance whether a character trusts, believes, or understands the NPC's words.

Dice rolls are for uncertainties and randomness. We are uncertain whether a character hits another effectively when we make an attack roll, that's why its there. However, we do not make characters roll to walk every foot because we are certain they can do so. Obviously all players want to avoid harmful effects, so when a mage casts fireball on your PC your question to the DM is "Can I dodge?" Well, the DM knows some attacks should land but he doesn't know how often and how hard. Therefore he rolls dice.

A conversation with a PC doesn't have this uncertainty. The player can almost always decide whether he trusts an NPC. Sometimes they don't, though, which calls for a Wisdom/Insight check.

This check is for players who are asking the DM for more clarity. It doesn't have to be a contest but it very well might if the NPC is trying to deceive. However, insight does not tell you whether your character believes the NPC. It tells the player the impression the NPC gives off, to make a more informed choice.

If the NPC wins, they give off a trustworthy vibe. If they lose, something feels off. This will obviously tip the player's choice one way or the other but they can still choose to ignore their own "gut feelings" to be more rational or paranoid.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Indeed, in fact, here is a classic that you kicked off

D&D 5E - Persuade, Intimidate, and Deceive used vs. PCs

Scenarios: Player: "I think he's lying." DM: "Roll Insight." Player: "Um...4." DM: "He rolls Deception 12. So you believe him." Player: "Do you mean I can't tell if he's lying, or that I actually believe him?" DM: "You believe him; his Deception was higher than your Insight." DM: "The guard...

www.enworld.org

Don't forget my classic "5 Int Genius" thread, from which I got myself banned.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think NPC's shouldn't ever have their persuading/convincing/deceiving conversations under any dice roll ever. The reason is because it isn't ever up to random chance whether a character trusts, believes, or understands the NPC's words.

Dice rolls are for uncertainties and randomness. We are uncertain whether a character hits another effectively when we make an attack roll, that's why its there. However, we do not make characters roll to walk every foot because we are certain they can do so. Obviously all players want to avoid harmful effects, so when a mage casts fireball on your PC your question to the DM is "Can I dodge?" Well, the DM knows some attacks should land but he doesn't know how often and how hard. Therefore he rolls dice.

A conversation with a PC doesn't have this uncertainty. The player can almost always decide whether he trusts an NPC. Sometimes they don't, though, which calls for a Wisdom/Insight check.

This check is for players who are asking the DM for more clarity. It doesn't have to be a contest but it very well might if the NPC is trying to deceive. However, insight does not tell you whether your character believes the NPC. It tells the player the impression the NPC gives off, to make a more informed choice.

If the NPC wins, they give off a trustworthy vibe. If they lose, something feels off. This will obviously tip the player's choice one way or the other but they can still choose to ignore their own "gut feelings" to be more rational or paranoid.

Yes, this is an excellent point. And while the thread is flagged as general D&D, not just 5e, it's worth noting that the 5e rules are very explicit about this: dice rolling, specifically ability checks, are to resolve uncertainty when there's a consequence to failure.

If I state "My character believes X" then there is no uncertainty.

Unless, of course, the DM states, "No, your character does not necessarily believe that." But I think a lot of us would never return to that table. And some of might up and leave then and there.

 

[iserith]

Yes, this is an excellent point. And while the thread is flagged as general D&D, not just 5e, it's worth noting that the 5e rules are very explicit about this: dice rolling, specifically ability checks, are to resolve uncertainty when there's a consequence to failure.

If I state "My character believes X" then there is no uncertainty.

Unless, of course, the DM states, "No, your character does not necessarily believe that." But I think a lot of us would never return to that table. And some of might up and leave then and there.

It would definitely be awkward, but I'm sure my Int-5 Sherlock Holmes character will figure out a solution!

 

[zarionofarabel]

"You cannot have your character think or feel anything but X," is a reduction in agency.

I disagree. Having one hundred percent control over what a PC thinks or feels is not the same thing as being able to make meaningful choices that affect the narrative.

THE kind? There's only one kind? Interesting assertion.

Players who have raised concerns with such mechanics in games in my presence were either past victims of abusive relationships, or well acquainted with people who were victims. There's this thing called empathy...

So, maybe what you describe isn't the whole story there.

Well, I don't run therapy sessions, if I was interested in doing that I would have gone to school to be a psychologist. I also happen to be very empathetic, at least all the people I know in real life tell me that, I have a knack for understanding how people feel, apparently.

If I am running a game that has charm mechanics and a potential player told me they didn't want to play in a game that included such things, I would invite them to not play in my game. Same goes for any other subject or rules. If the game I'm running features physical combat on a regular basis, or even wholesale slaughter as D&D does, and the player was not comfortable with such things, they would be invited to not play.

I'm not running a game for the whole world, just the players in the game I am running. Sorry if you took offense to my comments about players I am not interested in accommodating, but that's life. We all have the ability to say no to something or someone. As stated earlier, I'm not interested in running therapy sessions, unless the potential players are willing to pay me psychologist money, then I might give it a go!

 

[zarionofarabel]

The rest of your reply was needless snark and general rudeness, and insults to people who play differently from you, so I won’t engage with it, but this is just such a disingenuous, absurd, thing to say.

There is an obvious difference between not having any decisions to make, and the game mechanics making the characters decisions for them.

So you assert that any way to play a RPG that is different than how you play is objectively wrong, but I'm the one who is snarky about people who play differently than I do. Too funny! Are you a comedian?!?

Also, a PC dying is the system asserting how a PC can proceed within the narrative. Sorry if you don't like that people not you like things you don't like, but that's life, you should deal with it.

 

[iserith]

I agree that if the game clearly states the result of a mechanic compels you to have the character think or act a certain way, then that's what you should do if you agreed to play the game. There's room for objection and negotiation here, of course, depending on the circumstances, but if the game says I have to act like I believe the lying NPC because I failed a check or something, that's what I'll do if I agreed to play the game.

The issue then becomes whether the game actually says or intends this and, where D&D 5e is concerned for example, it seems like a lot of people are confused about what an ability check means in this regard.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In D&D 5e I would rule that a character failing an insight check against NPC's deception check merely means that the character didn't notice any signs of lying. It doesn't necessarily mean that the character believes the NPC; that's for the player to decide.