5 ms·

Shrug. I think it’s a bad practice. People can have a lot of fun regardless of course. It is most “bad” for things like perception, and persuasion. In D&D speci

Shrug. I think it’s a bad practice. People can have a lot of fun regardless of course. It is most “bad” for things like perception, and persuasion. In D&D specifically it creates awkward scenarios where one player is very good at things that come up all the time and has a high chance of succeeding at things unless he rolls truly terribly. In my experience players have an moment of confusion and then elation when they ask an NPC to do something, grab dice to roll persuasion, and then the DM tells them to put the dice down because the NPC just agrees with their line of thinking without a number telling them to. But yes it is all subjective.

dcow 4y ago
> It is most “bad” for things like perception, and persuasion. In D&D specifically it creates awkward scenarios where one player is very good at things that come up all the time and has a high chance of succeeding at things unless he rolls truly terribly. But, what's the point of the traits in the first place if everyone is equally good at figuring stuff out and sweet talking because there are no checks? How is it awkward when one player is better than others at a specific task because of their stats? That just seems like role playing basics to me... I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong perhaps you've DM'd some campaigns where players don't like the imbalance. A good DM reads the party, of course. And I'm not saying there isn't flexibility in when a check makes sense and when it doesn't. Nobody likes things to be overbearing either. But there's got to be some reason for the stats, right? I mean the same doesn't really make sense for combat. You wouldn't generally give an enemy advantage rolling against a high AC party member just to even out the damage, would you? Otherwise AC doesn't mean anything. (Not saying you can't make up a reason for an enemy to have inspiration to try an land a hit on the tank for fun, but the idea with a higher AC is that you get hit less often.)
- fauxpause_ 4y ago
  You’re not equally good at things. But you only roll for things that matter. Persuasion is the worst offender because rookie DMs use dice to replace actual role play. And it makes their npcs into props that are largely controlled by the party face. Persuasion checks should be used when the party is actually persuading someone to do something that they don’t want to do. Terrible DMs treat it as mind control because your silly min max bars had 20 CHA and expertise. Less experienced DMs use it as a crutch. The bare minimum thing DMs ought to do is realize the the difficulty of a persuasion check should depend on the baseline persuasiveness of the argument. If the party is making an excellent point, the check should be very easy. If the party makes no point and just asks the NPC to do something unreasonable, it should be basically impossible. If this isn’t the case, NPCs feel very stupid. There’s no particular reason for it to be a skill at all tbh. It is just more interesting to roleplay.
  - TheCleric 4y ago
    What I dislike about this way of doing things is you've moved the game mechanic into real life. It's not good enough for the character to persuade, now the player must persuade. Are you also going to make me stab someone to see if I'm a good fighter? The whole point (for me) of RPGs is to have fun playing a character who isn't me, and has different strengths than me. When I DM, if someone wants to roleplay, they can. If they just want to generally describe their desired course of action, they can. The dice will decide the outcome.
    - fauxpause_ 4y ago
      That is why persuasion is not a good thing to resolve with stats. Because you’re playing a role playing game. You inevitably have to come up with an argument to engage in persuasion. “Hey guard, give me the keys” Is not an argument that works ever. “Hey guard, give me the keys so I can save your friend” is a substantially different scenario. “Hey guard, give me the keys because we’re lifelong friends, and I’m going to save your friend, and you’ll probably die otherwise, and you owe me a debt, and because I have a solid reputation for keeping promises” is even more so. If we’re already in agreement that version 1 should be all but impossible, 2 is plausible, and 3 is narratively obvious then what’s the point of the dice? If you roll poorly are you just forgetting to say those things in 3? Because that’s just a dumb way to take agency away from the player. Persuasion isn’t meant to replace the merit of the argument. It’s meant to affect the articulation of it. But charismatic people aren’t mind controllers.
      - TheCleric 4y ago
        No, this is where we disagree. It should suffice it to say that the player can say "I would like to attempt to convince the guard to give me his keys." THEY don't have to come up with the reason. THEY don't have to be persuasive. Just their character. > Because that’s just a dumb way to take agency away from the player. It's not taking away agency, it's allowing for the random element that is inherent to the game. If the player is a lawyer by trade, but their character has the charisma of a rock, why should they gain some sort of advantage that another player wouldn't have? Explain to me the difference between these two things: 1) Allow a character to succeed on a persuasion check because their player can personally, in real life, come up with a good argument. vs. 2) Allow a character to succeed on a strength check because their player can personally, in real life, bench press 300 pounds. In other words, why should a player's "real life" stats have an effect on their character's in game ability?
Aeolun 4y ago
I think that there’s a lot of value in NPC’s not doing irrational things just because of dice rolls. You might need a dice roll to convince them to do something crazy (get the guards to attack a dragon), but not for something normal (apprehend the thief). I’m a big fan of passive perception too, where based on their scores some characters will notice stuff, and other characters will not. It’s certainly never as random as D&D makes it out to be, but I guess that’s kind of the charm. I just can’t stand it.

dcow 4y ago

> It is most “bad” for things like perception, and persuasion. In D&D specifically it creates awkward scenarios where one player is very good at things that come up all the time and has a high chance of succeeding at things unless he rolls truly terribly. But, what's the point of the traits in the first place if everyone is equally good at figuring stuff out and sweet talking because there are no checks? How is it awkward when one player is better than others at a specific task because of their stats? That just seems like role playing basics to me... I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong perhaps you've DM'd some campaigns where players don't like the imbalance. A good DM reads the party, of course. And I'm not saying there isn't flexibility in when a check makes sense and when it doesn't. Nobody likes things to be overbearing either. But there's got to be some reason for the stats, right? I mean the same doesn't really make sense for combat. You wouldn't generally give an enemy advantage rolling against a high AC party member just to even out the damage, would you? Otherwise AC doesn't mean anything. (Not saying you can't make up a reason for an enemy to have inspiration to try an land a hit on the tank for fun, but the idea with a higher AC is that you get hit less often.)

fauxpause_ 4y ago
You’re not equally good at things. But you only roll for things that matter. Persuasion is the worst offender because rookie DMs use dice to replace actual role play. And it makes their npcs into props that are largely controlled by the party face. Persuasion checks should be used when the party is actually persuading someone to do something that they don’t want to do. Terrible DMs treat it as mind control because your silly min max bars had 20 CHA and expertise. Less experienced DMs use it as a crutch. The bare minimum thing DMs ought to do is realize the the difficulty of a persuasion check should depend on the baseline persuasiveness of the argument. If the party is making an excellent point, the check should be very easy. If the party makes no point and just asks the NPC to do something unreasonable, it should be basically impossible. If this isn’t the case, NPCs feel very stupid. There’s no particular reason for it to be a skill at all tbh. It is just more interesting to roleplay.
- TheCleric 4y ago
  What I dislike about this way of doing things is you've moved the game mechanic into real life. It's not good enough for the character to persuade, now the player must persuade. Are you also going to make me stab someone to see if I'm a good fighter? The whole point (for me) of RPGs is to have fun playing a character who isn't me, and has different strengths than me. When I DM, if someone wants to roleplay, they can. If they just want to generally describe their desired course of action, they can. The dice will decide the outcome.
  - fauxpause_ 4y ago
    That is why persuasion is not a good thing to resolve with stats. Because you’re playing a role playing game. You inevitably have to come up with an argument to engage in persuasion. “Hey guard, give me the keys” Is not an argument that works ever. “Hey guard, give me the keys so I can save your friend” is a substantially different scenario. “Hey guard, give me the keys because we’re lifelong friends, and I’m going to save your friend, and you’ll probably die otherwise, and you owe me a debt, and because I have a solid reputation for keeping promises” is even more so. If we’re already in agreement that version 1 should be all but impossible, 2 is plausible, and 3 is narratively obvious then what’s the point of the dice? If you roll poorly are you just forgetting to say those things in 3? Because that’s just a dumb way to take agency away from the player. Persuasion isn’t meant to replace the merit of the argument. It’s meant to affect the articulation of it. But charismatic people aren’t mind controllers.
    - TheCleric 4y ago
      No, this is where we disagree. It should suffice it to say that the player can say "I would like to attempt to convince the guard to give me his keys." THEY don't have to come up with the reason. THEY don't have to be persuasive. Just their character. > Because that’s just a dumb way to take agency away from the player. It's not taking away agency, it's allowing for the random element that is inherent to the game. If the player is a lawyer by trade, but their character has the charisma of a rock, why should they gain some sort of advantage that another player wouldn't have? Explain to me the difference between these two things: 1) Allow a character to succeed on a persuasion check because their player can personally, in real life, come up with a good argument. vs. 2) Allow a character to succeed on a strength check because their player can personally, in real life, bench press 300 pounds. In other words, why should a player's "real life" stats have an effect on their character's in game ability?

Aeolun 4y ago

I think that there’s a lot of value in NPC’s not doing irrational things just because of dice rolls. You might need a dice roll to convince them to do something crazy (get the guards to attack a dragon), but not for something normal (apprehend the thief). I’m a big fan of passive perception too, where based on their scores some characters will notice stuff, and other characters will not. It’s certainly never as random as D&D makes it out to be, but I guess that’s kind of the charm. I just can’t stand it.