This is often demonstrated via ‘the Charisma Check problem’. Very, very few players, in real life, have the trained panache of a high-level bard. When they say they want to convince an NPC of something, or persuade their way past an obstacle, they object (often vociferously) when asked “Okay. How do you persuade them?” or “okay, what do you say?” These players point to the large Charisma score on their sheet and say “this character has much better Charisma than I do, I should be allowed to use their Charisma instead of my own – they say whatever would work, and we figure out if it happens with a die roll.” They wish to skip conversations, avoid pinning their own player-words on their character, and utilize the character’s numbers in lieu of their own conversational skills to try and Pass The Check.
In my eperience, the problem is the other way around (or at least, used to be).
When I started playing RPGs, there were many, many people who were good at persuasion and debate who would dump CHA, then give a well-reasoned and excellently argued speech, and get upset when the GM wouldn't have it work. The same went for real-world skills like survival, herbalism, science and so-on ("It doesn't matter if my character doesn't have survival skill, I've just told you how my character dresses and cooks the deer, so we all get a good night's camp.")
I've certainly seen both. And it seems like the popular solution is to hybridize the two, but I don't think that's ideal. Like instead of "alright, you took the right steps so don't even roll, you just succeed," it becomes "alright, you get advantage (or I'll lower the DC)." Well, okay, but we're still letting real life experience (and inexperience) affect the fiction. We're still letting the charming Bard perform worse because his player isn't charismatic. We're just kicking the can a few feet down the road.
Here's *my* solution, and I'll start by saying it's not at all popular, so I don't actually use it, but it makes sense. You have several people at the table with various backgrounds and knowledge. You should let everyone pool ideas together and attribute them to the character(s) who narratively should be having them. Encourage all players to give input on what the Bard might say. Maybe even the DM! Presumably leave it up to the Bard's player to choose, because someone has to. You still won't get perfect results, but four heads are better than one. This way if you've got a real life survivalist but she's not playing a Ranger, the actual Ranger character can still act appropriately and the survivalist doesn't have to hide her knowledge. No one I've played with likes this idea though. Theoretically it sounds fine but it feels bad, I guess.
That's really the thing, at the end of the day. Everybody wants to feel ownership over their decisions. It leads us to occasional disconnect and characters behaving out of character, but I guess it's worth it. Sure would be nice if it wasn't a problem though. I think there's value in trying to figure out a good solution.
Trust me. Other people play very differently, all the time. A good friend of mine DMs a lot in a pretty good-sized D&D Discord server; virtually all the players in that server substitute "can I make a [X] check?" for describing their actions. Hell, most of them don't even bother with the description; they just throw the dice and expect the DM to use whatever they rolled. If the roll goes poorly, the better among them will simply carry on as if nothing happened; the less talented will contrive reasons to keep trying the roll.
The correct answer to "can I make an [X] check?" is "I don't know, can you?". As a DM, if a player ever tried that on me, I'd ask them to tell me what they're actually doing, and wait for them to do so. If they can't handle obeying the DM, they need to not play ttrpgs, including D&D. The fundamental dice mechanic is the player tells the DM what they're trying to do, and the DM picks what rolls to make. PCs don't get to volunteer checks to the DM.
The correct answer to "can I make an [X] check?" is "I don't know, can you?". As a DM, if a player ever tried that on me, I'd ask them to tell me what they're actually doing, and wait for them to do so. If they can't handle obeying the DM, they need to not play ttrpgs, including D&D. The fundamental dice mechanic is the player tells the DM what they're trying to do, and the DM picks what rolls to make. PCs don't get to volunteer checks to the DM.
I think a happier table would avoid a DM using snide antagonism like "I don't know, can you?" and instead maturely follow the rest of the script where they simply say "Tell me what you want to do" with the DM then adjudicating what check, if any, will be made. "Obeying" the DM is off base criteria for a player. A DM facilitates the game, they don't dominate the game. I'm sensing this Angry DM guy cited at the start of this thread is one of those "your fun is wrong" types (I'm kinda hoping he's mostly caricature). Mind you, I'm not saying your fun is wrong, because I see no fun in the policing and law being laid down in this post. Unless conceiving of players "trying that on me" and schooling them into obedience is your idea of fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm an introvert. [REDACTED]. I love D&D because I can do things in the game that I could never in my wildest dreams do, but in the game, I can. I don't make check without asking. I try and describe my actions and hope the DM lets me make a check, and I am often diappointed. I love playing Bard, but my Charisma in real life is not exceptional. There I am. I've taken the ASIs to get a 20 Charisma. It's been a long journey. I tell the DM I would to sing a song and play my lute and hope the beauty of it all will make them feel that doing what I asked was the right thing to. I say "Would you please change your ruling about my friend you had thrown into the Dungeon?" The DM says "What did you sing?"
It's not like I have a clue. What do I do then? My character would absolutely known. I don't.
Disclaimer: I didn't read the article, I can't stand The Angry DM, she comes off as an immense asshat and I can't see why being angry (a negative emotion) is something to be proud of or revel in.
My opinion is the following:
I apparently belong to the roll-players per your definition. I absolutely think that my characters intelligence, charisma, wisdom scores should let me roll for solving puzzles or at least extract clues from a DM. IE. I ask the DM "My character is fairly intelligent, which clues would he be able to put together about the scene of the crime" DM: "roll an investigation check" - check passes DM: "You character notices a correlation between the burnt out candle and the way the wood has warped near the bookcase". I can then act on the clue that I've gotten and formulate my character's strategy as it was mentioned.
I generally like the way to divide with the character fetching information and executing plans, with the player formulating a strategy. I think that's how we largely do it. I just don't agree with the idea that the player should use her own intelligence or charisma in interactions, since if that's the case, then we can't really be our characters which might have better or worse stats in those aspects. We don't ask our players to do pushups either.
If it comes to the question "How do you want to try and persuade the guard?" it's a simply a matter of saying "I tell him a story about pork chops and how that relates to me urgently getting through the door with no time to show identification" DM: "roll persuade check". It can be a more direct conversation where the player takes over the character and actually speaks for the character, but I strongly oppose modifying the DC of any skill check based on the player "performance" in interactions, since then we're again in the territory where the player overrides the character's stats.
If I gotta warn you that i am Sir Wordsalot then I welcome you newcomer, to DDB!
I gotta say I am exceedingly lucky to not face these issues in home games with my friends. When I am DM the issue (almost) never comes up. Out of all of us, I am the one most likely to think in game terms like Ability Checks, etc. So I admit that occasionally I probably make the mistake when I’m in front of the screen rather than behind it. All of the others just think in character most of the time. Someone might say “I wanna check to see if it looks like they just left or if something happened?” The DM calls for the Check. Or one of us will be speaking in character* to an NPC and the DM might request a check.
Usually the only check that players specifically request to make for their characters is insight. IMO that makes sense for a player to declare. (IRL you know when you’re specifically trying to determine if you wanna call 🐂💩 on someone.) Occasionally players ask “can I make any kind of check for that?” Sometimes there is a short list of 2-3 potentially relevant skills added to the end as part of that question, but most of the time not. The overwhelming majority of the time player just speak in character and the DM asks for checks whenever they deem appropriate. Our main GM often just picks up or asks to see the character sheet, looks at the stats, and declares success or failure without even requiring a roll. He essentially runs almost everything except combat using passive scores whenever possible.
Yes, every once in a blue moon a smart player forgets their PC is Int and says something that might be out of character for their character. That’s a thing. It happened this past evening in fact. The player said something absolutely correct and completely in character for him, but he said it in Sir Kay’s voice.* As soon as I asked if his character actually said that he immediately understood and said yes. I called for a check to see if that PC had a moment of brilliance. He did not. We determined he was just repeating words he had heard but didn’t understand, and everyone pretended the actually correct thing was not. 🤷♂️
Honestly, this is another example of my philosophy that every TTRPG is played at a three-legged table. The “table” is that metaphorical space the party of players occupies. The three legs are Story, Game, and Interaction.
It doesn’t even occur to my friends not to play that way. We get so caught up in whatever is going on that we sortakinda forget that we’re playa game until the DM calls for a check and almost snaps us out of it. But that’s because for the most part our group is primarily balanced around “the story/narrative/RP.” We want to speak in character. Myself being something of an outlier, game mechanics like Ability Checks, and the numbers on the page are largely irrelevant. (I know their stats and proficiencies better than they do.) That’s because the group isn’t balanced around the “game/mechanics” leg much at all. And yea, we get sidetracked with OOC conversations and crosstalk a bit, at least 1ce/session. Some are more inclined than others. That’s because there’s certainly some table balance around the “social interaction” leg. But for the most part we’re all mostly simpatico so our table stays balanced. We might wobble a li’l bit, but we’re still standing going on 20 years together. (****! I’m old. 🤣😂🤣)
A player says “I want to make a persuasion check” and points to a number on their character sheet as if that’s all that matters. That tells me that player is personally balanced firmly over the “game/mechanics” leg. If everyone else at the table thinks that’s perfectly fine then that tells me that table is pretty well balanced. Why should they change?
If a player says “I want to make a persuasion check.” Then the DM sighs a little and asks “but what does your character say?” When that player points to a number and replies “whatever would work if I roll well.” If the DM’s eye twitches a little that tells me those two people should be sitting at different tables. Because that table isn’t “wobbling,” it’s rocking and likely gonna tip over any minute. It’s out of balance because the legs are different lengths and nobody can agree on which leg is out of whack because everyone thinks it’s the other person’s that’s wrong.
And if the whole group gets together once a week and they are all perfectly comfy spending 2 & 1/2 hours out of every 3-hour session mostly hanging out with friends and occasional a few minutes of D&D break out then they’re not wrong either. Why? Because that table is also still balanced, just over the “social/interaction” leg.
So I guess those are my thoughts on the subject. Neither way is wrong and nobody should need to adopt military training techniques to get every to play some way or another. That all sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Just find a table at which you can sit comfortably. Find a table that’s roughly balanced the same way you are. Or if your table has empty chairs and you offer those seats to people, don’t try to do anything to “make them” fit, it won’t work. The table will rock like crazy, and ultimately it will either tip over if the people making it rock don’t get up and go sit at tables that suit them better.
*(About half of us endeavor to change our vices in some way to delineate when the player is speaking vs. when the character is speaking. The other half of us do not. I only do it about half the time as a non-DM player since I am feeling more relaxed in that particular role. I do it more when DMing to help players recognize which NPC is saying what. (Gets rough with more than 2-3 NPCs in the same conversation with the party. Which is unfortunate since that’s when it is most helpful.) Because of that, onccasionally whoever is DM has to ask “Was that in character?” or “Was that out loud?” But most of the time we can all usually tell anyway because, well, I dunno why, we just can most of the time. 🤷♂️)
Consider this your “Sposta ‘Bout to Disagree with his Friend Yurei, FLC Interaction Time” warning point.
I’m sorry to say this ‘Rei, but I think you’re wrong. Like, super wrong. Like, really really wrong. Like, IMO, walk your 4 step process down a 2 step pier wrong. Those “roll players” aren’t “breaking” anything at any step, because they aren’t breaking anything at all. And those “steps” don’t matter one single iota if everyone at the table agrees on how to play and they’re all having fun. Let that player play how they want. If it bothers you, then don’t play with that person.
If the whole table is balanced around the “story/narrative” leg along with you, then that is the tables balance. If that other person is making tips like mad because they are so far passed the “game/mechanics” leg that they’re half over the edge, then they are unbalancing your table. IMO the best thing to do is let that player know it isn’t working out, suggest they find a table that enjoys the game close to the same way they do, and warmly and genuinely wish them the best of luck.
If they point to a number on the page and steam shoots out of your ears, look around. If everyone is looking at you with that “what a strange person” look on their faces, or instead purposefully avoiding looking at you at all, take the hint ‘Rei. That’s your clue that you’re the one unbalancing their table. Admit it’s simply not working out, let them know you are off to search for a table that plays more the way you want, and warmly and genuinely wish them the best of luck.
I know, you’re about to point out the challenges inherent with rural areas (longer distances between destinations, lower population, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.) Well then move to a more urban area with shorter distances and more selection if D&D is that important to you. Don’t want to? Then have needs must, play the way folks in your area like to play. Don’t want to? Well you know the old chestnut about “none” being better than “bad.” Ne?
Yes, you are absolutely entitled to live where you want. And yes, you’re absolutely entitled to play it how you want with people who play the same way. But if those two things are conflicting, then I suggest you OODA:
Observe the situation and realize you can’t have everything you want.
Orient yourself around that reality.
Decide which is more important to you, where you live or how likely you are to find a compatible table at which to sit.
And then Act on that decision.
Did that possibly annoy/irritate you my friend? Guess what. That’s ‘xactly how that “roll player” will feel after you told them their fun is wrong and they need to change how they fun to suit you
PS- Back in 2e during the ‘90s we made that distinction between “role players” and “roll players.” It isn’t anything new. It isn’t anything “growing” or “trending” either, you’re just new my friend. (Luv ya ghost *****, you know it. But it usually takes those who love us to tell us how we got it wrong.) You see this as a dilemma to solve. The only dilemma I see is incompatibility and tables that wobble too much. 🤷♂️
PPS- Lemme put it another way. If anyone ever came to my table and told me that how I was roleplaying any type of way like that and offered me an acronym to help me remember how to roleplay better; my very first words would be some variation of “this isn’t going to work out, you should find a different table more compatible with your style.” Whether or not I included the part about “wishing them luck,” as well as the number of "colorful metaphors” I chose to insert would depend on exactly how condescending they were. Not if they were condescending, that’s a given, it’s just a matter of degree at that point. And if I ever joined a table and somebody started suggesting an acronym to help me remember how to play my character better, my very next words would be some variation of “I don’t think this is gonna work out….”
If a player says “I want to make a persuasion check.” Then the DM sighs a little and asks “but what does your character say?” When that player points to a number and replies “whatever would work if I roll well.” If the DM’s eye twitches a little that tells me those two people should be sitting at different tables.
This. ^^^^
This is what I was trying to say on the previous page of this thread. Neither way of playing D&D is incorrect, but you have two fundamentally different approaches to the game, and these can be hard if not impossible to reconcile.
There are 3 basic ways to do something like "Persuasion" in an RPG:
1. Using direct quotes, say exactly the words that your character would use to make the case. "My friend guard, it is late, and you are looking quite tired. That sleeping bag over yonder next to the fire seems quite comfortable. Surely it will not harm anything if you just go over there and get a nice rest. I'll stay here and make sure nobody trespasses this section of the camp. There's a good lad."
2. Using a summary, briefly state the gist of the argument your character is using. "I tell the guard that if he looks tired, and if wants to get some sleep, I'll watch for him."
3. Using just rolls. "I want to persuade the guard to let me keep watch."
Each one is used by different tables. Sometimes, all 3 are used at the same table and nobody cares. Sometimes, the same player will use the 3 different forms at different times, and nobody minds. It really all depends on the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I like Angry's approach and it approximates how we do things at our table. Using Bio's categories, most of us generally do #2, but we do have someone often doing #3 and gets frustrated that they have to provide more information when they feel like they don't actually know any but their character would.
The confusion at least partly stems from the 5e rules themselves. One of the major offenders is Investigation. Perception is is clearly Observe in a broad sense that covers all bases of collecting sensory information, but here comes Investigation which is also somehow "When you look around for clues..." If you try to resolve this conflict by focusing on the other half of Investigation - "and make deductions based on those clues" - this skill clearly and firmly puts you in "OK DM, tell me what my character thinks" territory. So one half of the skill is redundant, and the other half is something that many tables divorce from character skills entirely (and so it generally boils down to "roll whichever skill you're better at to look for stuff"). It just sends a very confusing message, and if the PHB addresses this separation of player/character knowledge and skill at all, I don't recall reading it.
I just had a thought. Intelligence is often used as a Dump Score. I have yet to game with someone honestly mentally challenged during a game but I have yet to see any player roleplay well the behavior I have observed in the real world. A score of 8 in Intelligence would be the rough equivalent of an 80 IQ. IQ tests don't tell you much beyond the fact that you're good at taking tests, but it's vaguely useful in any case as a rough category.
That's the problem when a player is more intelligent than their character, and it should also apply if the character is more intelligent than the player. There needs to be advantages when the character is more intelligent than the player, and disadvantages when they are not. I might even use that as a formal rule for checks. It seems rather logical. (Pure logic is of little use in fantasy games, but there is a logic to magic, it behaves in consistent ways, so it's still useful to some extent.)
Imagine my super-charismatic Bard rolling a Persuasion check 4 times, by using the Advantage they get as a base for having a higher score in Charisma than I have (approximately) and then spending a point of Inspiration, rolling 4 times, and taking the best. It's a pity Bards can't use their own Bardic Inspiration on themselves. I guess I'd need a back up singer who was a Bard.
There are 3 basic ways to do something like "Persuasion" in an RPG:
1. Using direct quotes, say exactly the words that your character would use to make the case. "My friend guard, it is late, and you are looking quite tired. That sleeping bag over yonder next to the fire seems quite comfortable. Surely it will not harm anything if you just go over there and get a nice rest. I'll stay here and make sure nobody trespasses this section of the camp. There's a good lad."
2. Using a summary, briefly state the gist of the argument your character is using. "I tell the guard that if he looks tired, and if wants to get some sleep, I'll watch for him."
3. Using just rolls. "I want to persuade the guard to let me keep watch."
Each one is used by different tables. Sometimes, all 3 are used at the same table and nobody cares. Sometimes, the same player will use the 3 different forms at different times, and nobody minds. It really all depends on the table.
*sigh* I'd like to get even that far.
I have players whose approach is, "I rolled 18, the guard goes away."
Seriously, all I need is "how". Is that so hard? Are you intimidating them ("Go away or I hurt you!"), bribing them ("Go away and I'll pay you."), smooth-talking them ("Go on, I won't tell anyone."), appealing to authority ("The watch captain told me to tell you to stand down."), pretending to be authority ("I am the new watch captain, I'm ordering you to stand down."), distracting them ("What was that noise?"), sneaking by them, incapacitating/killing them, or something else?
What I'd really, really like is for players to use found and/or researched things in their attempts, or to do some prepwork.
For example, pretending to be the watch captain by using the watch captain's badge you stole last scene.
For example, asking around "Hey, how likely are the guards in this city to take bribes?" before rocking up to a guard and attempting to bribe them.
For example, getting cleaned and changed into fine clothes before trying to get into a lords house (my players got genuinely annoyed when the butler wouldn't let a bunch of armoured, armed, dusty, sweaty, smelly adventurers in the house, sheesh).
I have players whose approach is, "I rolled 18, the guard goes away."
So here is a suggestion for you. It won't work for everyone, so it may not work for you. Probably wouldn't work for my group, but I'd probably try it.
Consider switching game systems -- to one that YOU know, but THEY do not. Often the reason players approach a game with pure die rolls is because they know the mechanics so well. They know that if they roll an 18 on their persuade skill the guard probably will go away. They know that the correct skill to use here is persuade, and they know which player has the highest chance of doing that.
Switching game systems -- and again, this is important -- to a system you know well but they do not, will mean that at least for a little while, they won't be able to act like this. Additionally, if it is a new game system, you might be able to convince them to respect the "traditional" play of the other system, and they'll not be in any position to argue with you. You could try Savage Worlds or Star Trek Adventures or Champions or Call of Cthulhu -- something completely different from D&D. Characters are made up differently, parameterized differently, and conceptualized differently in these other games. Combat is completely different. Skill use is completely different. In Call of Cthulhu, there is Charm, Persuade, and Fast Talk. This will throw off a player who is used to just Persuade. They also won't know a priori whether they need a regular, hard, or extreme success, because they will have no context from having played the game before. And so on.
I found this with Champions players -- they knew everything so much by rote that there was no mystery or challenge to it after a while. So we switched it up. We played Rolemaster. FASA's Star Trek RPG. These games shook things up and got them out of their ruts. They had no idea how things worked in RM so they had to basically RP it and let the GM (I was not the GM in this case) tell them what skill to roll and how to go about it.
It might not always work, but it's worth a shot if you really want to get them out of their rut.
However, keep in mind that what I'm calling a "rut" and you're unhappy about might be something the rest of the players are quite enjoying and you need to be prepared for that.
You also, of course, have a right to say, "If that's how you want to play D&D, find another DM." I probably would.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
There are 3 basic ways to do something like "Persuasion" in an RPG:
1. Using direct quotes, say exactly the words that your character would use to make the case. "My friend guard, it is late, and you are looking quite tired. That sleeping bag over yonder next to the fire seems quite comfortable. Surely it will not harm anything if you just go over there and get a nice rest. I'll stay here and make sure nobody trespasses this section of the camp. There's a good lad."
2. Using a summary, briefly state the gist of the argument your character is using. "I tell the guard that if he looks tired, and if wants to get some sleep, I'll watch for him."
3. Using just rolls. "I want to persuade the guard to let me keep watch."
Each one is used by different tables. Sometimes, all 3 are used at the same table and nobody cares. Sometimes, the same player will use the 3 different forms at different times, and nobody minds. It really all depends on the table.
*sigh* I'd like to get even that far.
I have players whose approach is, "I rolled 18, the guard goes away."
The first answer to all player issues is, "Talk to them."
The second answer is, "Use the same approach against them." If a player said that to me, I'd say, "The guard tells you to go jump in a lake." I roll a d20 behind the screen. "I rolled 18. Good luck drying out your spellbook."
I'm an introvert. [REDACTED]. I love D&D because I can do things in the game that I could never in my wildest dreams do, but in the game, I can. I don't make check without asking. I try and describe my actions and hope the DM lets me make a check, and I am often diappointed. I love playing Bard, but my Charisma in real life is not exceptional. There I am. I've taken the ASIs to get a 20 Charisma. It's been a long journey. I tell the DM I would to sing a song and play my lute and hope the beauty of it all will make them feel that doing what I asked was the right thing to. I say "Would you please change your ruling about my friend you had thrown into the Dungeon?" The DM says "What did you sing?"
It's not like I have a clue. What do I do then? My character would absolutely known. I don't.
I am totally fine with players asking me for a check. Especially with social checks, sometimes i forget. I am so inhabiting the NPC, that I just decide how they respond to your argument. Sometimes a badly-delivered argument will not convince me, and so I just say no. Ot the other way around. A well-delivered argument might convince me, and I forget to make you make a check which you might flub and fail even though it was a good negotiating strategy. I mean for Insight checks, it's really just a better shorthand to shout, "Insight check," when my NPC says something fishy. No need to be coy and say, "Do I believe he's telling the truth?" and wait for me to request the check you know is coming.
With your song scenario, I think you did it just right. You described, without acting out, exactly how your player was trying to persuade. If the DM decides that what you're trying to persuade is something the NPC would ever consider doing, then they should ask for a Persuasion check. (In this case, I don't know. If your friend was caught red-handed doing a murder, I doubt you'd change the king's mind.)
However, I do think I'd want to know what you sang, just for funsies. It wouldn't necessarily have to affect the DC. You can literally sing, "I'm a little teapot," badly. Or you can just describe the subject matter of the song, rather than compose music and lyrics on the spot.
You can even do this after the roll and after the outcome is decided. Sometimes this can be fun, even for players who are charismatic. If they roll low, now they get to ham it up and role-play a very clumsy oafish character. Role-playing after the roll is, in general, a good way to have the fun of role-playing without anxiety it will affect your in-game results. It can encourage introverted players to practice and improve their real-life charisma, without setting them back in the game. And of course, the D&D table should be a "safe space" where if there's any laughing at your performance, it's laughing with you.
There’s a concept, originally invented by Air Force military commanders, called the OODA loop. It stands for “Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.” The loop breaks down how one turns information into action – they Observe something, they Orient themselves around that information, they Decide how to proceed, and then they finally Act. This is a super useful concept for this discussion because each step in the OODA loop lies solely within the domain of either the Player or the Character, and yet the entire loop is required to get anything done. The character and the player have to work together to complete the loop and play the game.
The first step of the loop - ‘Observe’ - belongs strictly to the character. The character interacts with the world, they perceive it, and they obtain information about their surroundings and situation. This information is fed back into their brain – the one they share with their player, remember – and the loop moves to the next step.
‘Orient’ belongs strictly to the player. The player takes in the information their character obtained and interprets it to create a mental image of their situation. Once oriented, the player understands what’s happening in the world (ideally, at least), and moves to the next step.
‘Decide’ also belongs strictly to the player. Once oriented, the player must decide how to proceed and what to do with the information they’ve obtained to move towards their desired result. This is one of the contentious points, specifically the one that stymies/vexes ‘Roll Players’, but more on that below. Regardless – once a decision is made, the loop moves to the next step.
The final step of the loop, ‘Act’, belongs strictly to the character. The player’s decision from the last step is fed back through the misty gates of fantasy to the character, and they execute the decision made by their shared brain to the best of their abilities. Whether that means die rolls are involved is another matter, but the character is what determines the success of the action, not the player. This is the other contentious point in the loop, and the one that vexes ‘Skinsuit’ players. Again, more on that below.
I like this breakdown.
I will say that I would allow a feedback loop between player and DM for Observe and Orient, because the DM can never give a complete and accurate description of the scenario. In some cases, a player will Orient out loud, and it will be clear to the DM that they have misinterpreted the description in a way that can only be because they misunderstood the facts. Then the DM should rewind to the Observe step and give some clarification. In some cases, the player will not Orient out loud and will jump straight to Decide, but the decision is impossible or abjectly foolish given then facts. Then also the DM should rewind.
Example:
DM: There is a window on the far wall.
Player: I climb through the window.
DM: Actually, the window is 30 feet up the sheer wall. Are you sure you want to do that?
The DM is intervening a little in the Decide step, doing part of it for the player. But it seems likely that the player assumed the window was at ground level. The DM provides additional information they overlooked in the initial description.
I suppose I could have told the DM at that point that I was singing "Locked in Folsom Prison" by Johnny Cash, but it might have been kind of immersion breaking, and they might not like Country. I got asked, and my mind went blank. I wonder about how they would have reacted to the answer; "A Song" or "A song about nice people getting let out of jail."
Here's a scenario from last night's game. The players wanted a wizard professor to accompany them to a location. I knew he would be pretty reluctant, as he was quite busy, but not dead-set against it. So I asked for a Persuasion check. The player rolled pretty high; I think it was above 20. I decided that was a success, and I started to role-play the response. The professor hemmed and hawed and complained about how busy he was. The player unfortunately interrupted and negotiated himself down. He changed his request, saying that they didn't need him to come now, but that if they got to the location and found that they needed him, they could contact him and he would join them.
That request would have been a slightly lower DC, like maybe 18. The NPC would have taken either offer with the player's roll, but since there were two on the table, he took the one he preferred.
So, the nature of the request, along with the evidence the players presented for why it would align with the NPCs interest determined the DC, and the die roll and character's modifier determined if it was passed.
I suppose I could have told the DM at that point that I was singing "Locked in Folsom Prison" by Johnny Cash, but it might have been kind of immersion breaking, and they might not like Country. I got asked, and my mind went blank. I wonder about how they would have reacted to the answer; "A Song" or "A song about nice people getting let out of jail."
It depends on the expectations of the table. In my groups we like to take the plot seriously, but it's not taboo to interject a real-world reference from time to time for comic relief.
A compromise is to say you're singing, "Locked in Faerun Prison" by Johnny Goldpiece. In the game world, there must be numerous popular songs, and your character would know one appropriate to the situation. But the DM has not done so much worldbuilding that they have provided you with a packet listing all the popular songs in world by genre. So you assume that a song exists with a similar theme to one you, the player, knows. You explain to the DM and other players what the song is like by analogy to the real-world song. It's not that you're saying Johnny Cash exists in the game world, but some Man in Black does.
I honestly think, "A song about nice people getting out of jail," is fine, and better than nothing. It's easy for the DM and other players to fill in details with their imagination about a wrongfully accused person and the loved ones they're parted from.
You can even do this after the roll and after the outcome is decided. Sometimes this can be fun, even for players who are charismatic. If they roll low, now they get to ham it up and role-play a very clumsy oafish character. Role-playing after the roll is, in general, a good way to have the fun of role-playing without anxiety it will affect your in-game results. It can encourage introverted players to practice and improve their real-life charisma, without setting them back in the game. And of course, the D&D table should be a "safe space" where if there's any laughing at your performance, it's laughing with you.
HIGHLY recommend this. For players and DMs alike. You eliminate the "great speech, but it doesn't work for because reasons" issue, and you also get to cut out some tedium. As a bonus, you get to turn Insight into an active skill, rather than treating it like a passive skill but paradoxically still rolling it! Check it out:
Scenario 1 - The old way DM: The vampire leans dramatically against the wall and sighs. "I'm not evil, darling. Come on, now. I haven't ever hurt anyone. Why are you wasting my time with this?" [Rolls Deception, or maybe doesn't bother.] Player: Seems fishy. Can I roll Insight on this guy? DM: Sure. Player: [Rolls] 19. Nice. DM: [Maybe rolls Deception now.] Yeah, something seems off about his statement. [Invents what that thing was, even though that part is past.] You feel like he rolled his eyes just so he wouldn't have to look at you directly. Player: Yep. I don't trust him. DM: And? Player: I guess we don't know he's guilty, but he's sure being shady. What can we do? Anybody got Zone of Truth? Everybody: Nope. Player: Guess we'll beat the truth out of him then.
Scenario 2 - Roll first, then narrate DM: [Rolls Deception, compares to passive Insight.] The vampire hesitates a moment, then tosses his hair back and rolls his eyes. "I'm not evil, darling. I haven't ever hurt anyone. I mean, not on purpose. Or, you know, not much. Why are you wasting my time with this?" He's trying to lead your attention away from his face with dramatic gestures. Player: This guy sounds really evasive. DM: He certainly does. What do you want to do about it? Player: I want to press him further. Ask him directly about the murder, and get a look at his eyes when he reacts. DM: Alright. Go ahead and roll Insight. Player: [Rolls high.] So I grab his attention by flashing the steel of my blade in its sheath, and I say, like, "you might want to take this a little more seriously. Look at me. A man died today." And I stare right at him so I can see what he does.
Side note: At least in my groups, this is the way saving throws almost always happen. Example: DM: As you open the door, I need everyone in this line to make a Dex save. Everyone: [Rolls high.] DM: A deafening clatter, as roughly three dozen crossbow bolts smash into the wall behind you. You managed to duck just in time.
Disclaimer: I didn't read the article, I can't stand The Angry DM, she comes off as an immense asshat and I can't see why being angry (a negative emotion) is something to be proud of or revel in.
I think it's a style, or what writers call voice. It's an exaggeration of being opinionated to the point of being a dick, to establish that she's unapologetically opinionated. But yeah I find it hard to read. When you say everything you're sincere about in a sarcastic way and everything sarcastic as if you're deadly serious, it can be hard to tell which is which, and that's not the reader's fault.
My opinion is the following:
I apparently belong to the roll-players per your definition. I absolutely think that my characters intelligence, charisma, wisdom scores should let me roll for solving puzzles or at least extract clues from a DM. IE. I ask the DM "My character is fairly intelligent, which clues would he be able to put together about the scene of the crime" DM: "roll an investigation check" - check passes DM: "You character notices a correlation between the burnt out candle and the way the wood has warped near the bookcase". I can then act on the clue that I've gotten and formulate my character's strategy as it was mentioned.
I generally like the way to divide with the character fetching information and executing plans, with the player formulating a strategy. I think that's how we largely do it. I just don't agree with the idea that the player should use her own intelligence or charisma in interactions, since if that's the case, then we can't really be our characters which might have better or worse stats in those aspects. We don't ask our players to do pushups either.
To take it to an extreme, suppose you create a character with a high Int score who's supposed to be a brilliant battle strategist. Can you simply ask the DM what's the best action for you to take in combat, roll an Int check with your galaxy brain modifier, and have them play your character in combat? I mean to be honest, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it, if a player finds the combat rules daunting, but enjoys social encounters and exploration. But you get the most out of the game if you participate using your brain in all aspects of the game.
A previous reply mentioned the idea of putting your heads together. I think this is a good way to play a character more intelligent than yourself. It might even be a way to play a character more intelligent than anyone at the table. Together you might come up with better ideas than any of you would have alone. Then you just role play as if it was all the wizard's idea, if you want. I don't find that totally necessary. The outcome is the same if the batbarian comes up with an uncharacteristically clever idea.
However, most of the time the DM will be no better tactician than the player, in which case, no matter how good the roll, the DM might simply have no better advice to give. Most of the time, combat is simply combat and there is no 'better tactic' available.
This is quite correct.
Additionally I will add 2 other things:
1. The DM will rarely have as good an idea of everything your PC can do as you have. You only have one character sheet to worry about, and you spend the whole session, every session, hip-deep in what your character can and can't do. You know which spells you have prepared (the DM probably won't remember that for multiple spellcasters in a party), and of the spells you have prepared, you've probably carefully read all the text and know exactly how they work, whereas the DM may not be as familiar with them (because, again, there are so many spells and few DMs will know them all by heart). You know all of your special abilities and how they work. The DM probably read up on the mechanics of your character, but not having personally used those abilities in combat, may not be clear on the most effective way to use those abilities. And you're going to have a much better idea of what's in your character's inventory that might be useful. For example, I've given out a bunch of potions in my campaign, most of which the party has kept and not used yet. I know which potions are still out there (I have a list) but I long ago lost track of who has the Potion of Giant Strength and who has the Potion of Invisibility and so on. So a DM may be ill-equipped to tell you the best tactic to use with your PC.
2. The DM is one person. Parties are usually groups of people. The odds are, you and your fellow players have already out-thought the DM tactically, just by weight of numbers. It's highly unlikely the DM is going to be able to come up with a tactic for the party that is better than the players as a group could come up with. 4 or 5 brains are better than one.
Now yes, the DM does know what the monsters can do and might know a tactic that could hamstring what the monsters are doing, but odds are, once the party observes the monsters doing something, because of 1 and 2 above, the DM is unlikely to come up with a better idea than your party will.
I've certainly seen both. And it seems like the popular solution is to hybridize the two, but I don't think that's ideal. Like instead of "alright, you took the right steps so don't even roll, you just succeed," it becomes "alright, you get advantage (or I'll lower the DC)." Well, okay, but we're still letting real life experience (and inexperience) affect the fiction. We're still letting the charming Bard perform worse because his player isn't charismatic. We're just kicking the can a few feet down the road.
Here's *my* solution, and I'll start by saying it's not at all popular, so I don't actually use it, but it makes sense. You have several people at the table with various backgrounds and knowledge. You should let everyone pool ideas together and attribute them to the character(s) who narratively should be having them. Encourage all players to give input on what the Bard might say. Maybe even the DM! Presumably leave it up to the Bard's player to choose, because someone has to. You still won't get perfect results, but four heads are better than one. This way if you've got a real life survivalist but she's not playing a Ranger, the actual Ranger character can still act appropriately and the survivalist doesn't have to hide her knowledge. No one I've played with likes this idea though. Theoretically it sounds fine but it feels bad, I guess.
That's really the thing, at the end of the day. Everybody wants to feel ownership over their decisions. It leads us to occasional disconnect and characters behaving out of character, but I guess it's worth it. Sure would be nice if it wasn't a problem though. I think there's value in trying to figure out a good solution.
The correct answer to "can I make an [X] check?" is "I don't know, can you?". As a DM, if a player ever tried that on me, I'd ask them to tell me what they're actually doing, and wait for them to do so. If they can't handle obeying the DM, they need to not play ttrpgs, including D&D. The fundamental dice mechanic is the player tells the DM what they're trying to do, and the DM picks what rolls to make. PCs don't get to volunteer checks to the DM.
I think a happier table would avoid a DM using snide antagonism like "I don't know, can you?" and instead maturely follow the rest of the script where they simply say "Tell me what you want to do" with the DM then adjudicating what check, if any, will be made. "Obeying" the DM is off base criteria for a player. A DM facilitates the game, they don't dominate the game. I'm sensing this Angry DM guy cited at the start of this thread is one of those "your fun is wrong" types (I'm kinda hoping he's mostly caricature). Mind you, I'm not saying your fun is wrong, because I see no fun in the policing and law being laid down in this post. Unless conceiving of players "trying that on me" and schooling them into obedience is your idea of fun.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm an introvert. [REDACTED]. I love D&D because I can do things in the game that I could never in my wildest dreams do, but in the game, I can. I don't make check without asking. I try and describe my actions and hope the DM lets me make a check, and I am often diappointed. I love playing Bard, but my Charisma in real life is not exceptional. There I am. I've taken the ASIs to get a 20 Charisma. It's been a long journey. I tell the DM I would to sing a song and play my lute and hope the beauty of it all will make them feel that doing what I asked was the right thing to. I say "Would you please change your ruling about my friend you had thrown into the Dungeon?" The DM says "What did you sing?"
It's not like I have a clue. What do I do then? My character would absolutely known. I don't.
<Insert clever signature here>
Disclaimer: I didn't read the article, I can't stand The Angry DM, she comes off as an immense asshat and I can't see why being angry (a negative emotion) is something to be proud of or revel in.
My opinion is the following:
I apparently belong to the roll-players per your definition. I absolutely think that my characters intelligence, charisma, wisdom scores should let me roll for solving puzzles or at least extract clues from a DM. IE. I ask the DM "My character is fairly intelligent, which clues would he be able to put together about the scene of the crime" DM: "roll an investigation check" - check passes DM: "You character notices a correlation between the burnt out candle and the way the wood has warped near the bookcase". I can then act on the clue that I've gotten and formulate my character's strategy as it was mentioned.
I generally like the way to divide with the character fetching information and executing plans, with the player formulating a strategy. I think that's how we largely do it. I just don't agree with the idea that the player should use her own intelligence or charisma in interactions, since if that's the case, then we can't really be our characters which might have better or worse stats in those aspects. We don't ask our players to do pushups either.
If it comes to the question "How do you want to try and persuade the guard?" it's a simply a matter of saying "I tell him a story about pork chops and how that relates to me urgently getting through the door with no time to show identification" DM: "roll persuade check". It can be a more direct conversation where the player takes over the character and actually speaks for the character, but I strongly oppose modifying the DC of any skill check based on the player "performance" in interactions, since then we're again in the territory where the player overrides the character's stats.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
If I gotta warn you that i am Sir Wordsalot then I welcome you newcomer, to DDB!
I gotta say I am exceedingly lucky to not face these issues in home games with my friends. When I am DM the issue (almost) never comes up. Out of all of us, I am the one most likely to think in game terms like Ability Checks, etc. So I admit that occasionally I probably make the mistake when I’m in front of the screen rather than behind it. All of the others just think in character most of the time. Someone might say “I wanna check to see if it looks like they just left or if something happened?” The DM calls for the Check. Or one of us will be speaking in character* to an NPC and the DM might request a check.
Usually the only check that players specifically request to make for their characters is insight. IMO that makes sense for a player to declare. (IRL you know when you’re specifically trying to determine if you wanna call 🐂💩 on someone.) Occasionally players ask “can I make any kind of check for that?” Sometimes there is a short list of 2-3 potentially relevant skills added to the end as part of that question, but most of the time not. The overwhelming majority of the time player just speak in character and the DM asks for checks whenever they deem appropriate. Our main GM often just picks up or asks to see the character sheet, looks at the stats, and declares success or failure without even requiring a roll. He essentially runs almost everything except combat using passive scores whenever possible.
Yes, every once in a blue moon a smart player forgets their PC is Int and says something that might be out of character for their character. That’s a thing. It happened this past evening in fact. The player said something absolutely correct and completely in character for him, but he said it in Sir Kay’s voice.* As soon as I asked if his character actually said that he immediately understood and said yes. I called for a check to see if that PC had a moment of brilliance. He did not. We determined he was just repeating words he had heard but didn’t understand, and everyone pretended the actually correct thing was not. 🤷♂️
Honestly, this is another example of my philosophy that every TTRPG is played at a three-legged table. The “table” is that metaphorical space the party of players occupies. The three legs are Story, Game, and Interaction.
It doesn’t even occur to my friends not to play that way. We get so caught up in whatever is going on that we sortakinda forget that we’re playa game until the DM calls for a check and almost snaps us out of it. But that’s because for the most part our group is primarily balanced around “the story/narrative/RP.” We want to speak in character. Myself being something of an outlier, game mechanics like Ability Checks, and the numbers on the page are largely irrelevant. (I know their stats and proficiencies better than they do.) That’s because the group isn’t balanced around the “game/mechanics” leg much at all. And yea, we get sidetracked with OOC conversations and crosstalk a bit, at least 1ce/session. Some are more inclined than others. That’s because there’s certainly some table balance around the “social interaction” leg. But for the most part we’re all mostly simpatico so our table stays balanced. We might wobble a li’l bit, but we’re still standing going on 20 years together. (****! I’m old. 🤣😂🤣)
A player says “I want to make a persuasion check” and points to a number on their character sheet as if that’s all that matters. That tells me that player is personally balanced firmly over the “game/mechanics” leg. If everyone else at the table thinks that’s perfectly fine then that tells me that table is pretty well balanced. Why should they change?
If a player says “I want to make a persuasion check.” Then the DM sighs a little and asks “but what does your character say?” When that player points to a number and replies “whatever would work if I roll well.” If the DM’s eye twitches a little that tells me those two people should be sitting at different tables. Because that table isn’t “wobbling,” it’s rocking and likely gonna tip over any minute. It’s out of balance because the legs are different lengths and nobody can agree on which leg is out of whack because everyone thinks it’s the other person’s that’s wrong.
And if the whole group gets together once a week and they are all perfectly comfy spending 2 & 1/2 hours out of every 3-hour session mostly hanging out with friends and occasional a few minutes of D&D break out then they’re not wrong either. Why? Because that table is also still balanced, just over the “social/interaction” leg.
So I guess those are my thoughts on the subject. Neither way is wrong and nobody should need to adopt military training techniques to get every to play some way or another. That all sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Just find a table at which you can sit comfortably. Find a table that’s roughly balanced the same way you are. Or if your table has empty chairs and you offer those seats to people, don’t try to do anything to “make them” fit, it won’t work. The table will rock like crazy, and ultimately it will either tip over if the people making it rock don’t get up and go sit at tables that suit them better.
*(About half of us endeavor to change our vices in some way to delineate when the player is speaking vs. when the character is speaking. The other half of us do not. I only do it about half the time as a non-DM player since I am feeling more relaxed in that particular role. I do it more when DMing to help players recognize which NPC is saying what. (Gets rough with more than 2-3 NPCs in the same conversation with the party. Which is unfortunate since that’s when it is most helpful.) Because of that, onccasionally whoever is DM has to ask “Was that in character?” or “Was that out loud?” But most of the time we can all usually tell anyway because, well, I dunno why, we just can most of the time. 🤷♂️)
Consider this your “Sposta ‘Bout to Disagree with his Friend Yurei, FLC Interaction Time” warning point.
I’m sorry to say this ‘Rei, but I think you’re wrong. Like, super wrong. Like, really really wrong. Like, IMO, walk your 4 step process down a 2 step pier wrong. Those “roll players” aren’t “breaking” anything at any step, because they aren’t breaking anything at all. And those “steps” don’t matter one single iota if everyone at the table agrees on how to play and they’re all having fun. Let that player play how they want. If it bothers you, then don’t play with that person.
If the whole table is balanced around the “story/narrative” leg along with you, then that is the tables balance. If that other person is making tips like mad because they are so far passed the “game/mechanics” leg that they’re half over the edge, then they are unbalancing your table. IMO the best thing to do is let that player know it isn’t working out, suggest they find a table that enjoys the game close to the same way they do, and warmly and genuinely wish them the best of luck.
If they point to a number on the page and steam shoots out of your ears, look around. If everyone is looking at you with that “what a strange person” look on their faces, or instead purposefully avoiding looking at you at all, take the hint ‘Rei. That’s your clue that you’re the one unbalancing their table. Admit it’s simply not working out, let them know you are off to search for a table that plays more the way you want, and warmly and genuinely wish them the best of luck.
I know, you’re about to point out the challenges inherent with rural areas (longer distances between destinations, lower population, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.) Well then move to a more urban area with shorter distances and more selection if D&D is that important to you. Don’t want to? Then have needs must, play the way folks in your area like to play. Don’t want to? Well you know the old chestnut about “none” being better than “bad.” Ne?
Yes, you are absolutely entitled to live where you want. And yes, you’re absolutely entitled to play it how you want with people who play the same way. But if those two things are conflicting, then I suggest you OODA:
Did that possibly annoy/irritate you my friend? Guess what. That’s ‘xactly how that “roll player” will feel after you told them their fun is wrong and they need to change how they fun to suit you
PS- Back in 2e during the ‘90s we made that distinction between “role players” and “roll players.” It isn’t anything new. It isn’t anything “growing” or “trending” either, you’re just new my friend. (Luv ya ghost *****, you know it. But it usually takes those who love us to tell us how we got it wrong.) You see this as a dilemma to solve. The only dilemma I see is incompatibility and tables that wobble too much. 🤷♂️
PPS- Lemme put it another way. If anyone ever came to my table and told me that how I was roleplaying any type of way like that and offered me an acronym to help me remember how to roleplay better; my very first words would be some variation of “this isn’t going to work out, you should find a different table more compatible with your style.” Whether or not I included the part about “wishing them luck,” as well as the number of "colorful metaphors” I chose to insert would depend on exactly how condescending they were. Not if they were condescending, that’s a given, it’s just a matter of degree at that point. And if I ever joined a table and somebody started suggesting an acronym to help me remember how to play my character better, my very next words would be some variation of “I don’t think this is gonna work out….”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This. ^^^^
This is what I was trying to say on the previous page of this thread. Neither way of playing D&D is incorrect, but you have two fundamentally different approaches to the game, and these can be hard if not impossible to reconcile.
There are 3 basic ways to do something like "Persuasion" in an RPG:
1. Using direct quotes, say exactly the words that your character would use to make the case. "My friend guard, it is late, and you are looking quite tired. That sleeping bag over yonder next to the fire seems quite comfortable. Surely it will not harm anything if you just go over there and get a nice rest. I'll stay here and make sure nobody trespasses this section of the camp. There's a good lad."
2. Using a summary, briefly state the gist of the argument your character is using. "I tell the guard that if he looks tired, and if wants to get some sleep, I'll watch for him."
3. Using just rolls. "I want to persuade the guard to let me keep watch."
Each one is used by different tables. Sometimes, all 3 are used at the same table and nobody cares. Sometimes, the same player will use the 3 different forms at different times, and nobody minds. It really all depends on the table.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I like Angry's approach and it approximates how we do things at our table. Using Bio's categories, most of us generally do #2, but we do have someone often doing #3 and gets frustrated that they have to provide more information when they feel like they don't actually know any but their character would.
The confusion at least partly stems from the 5e rules themselves. One of the major offenders is Investigation. Perception is is clearly Observe in a broad sense that covers all bases of collecting sensory information, but here comes Investigation which is also somehow "When you look around for clues..." If you try to resolve this conflict by focusing on the other half of Investigation - "and make deductions based on those clues" - this skill clearly and firmly puts you in "OK DM, tell me what my character thinks" territory. So one half of the skill is redundant, and the other half is something that many tables divorce from character skills entirely (and so it generally boils down to "roll whichever skill you're better at to look for stuff"). It just sends a very confusing message, and if the PHB addresses this separation of player/character knowledge and skill at all, I don't recall reading it.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I just had a thought. Intelligence is often used as a Dump Score. I have yet to game with someone honestly mentally challenged during a game but I have yet to see any player roleplay well the behavior I have observed in the real world. A score of 8 in Intelligence would be the rough equivalent of an 80 IQ. IQ tests don't tell you much beyond the fact that you're good at taking tests, but it's vaguely useful in any case as a rough category.
That's the problem when a player is more intelligent than their character, and it should also apply if the character is more intelligent than the player. There needs to be advantages when the character is more intelligent than the player, and disadvantages when they are not. I might even use that as a formal rule for checks. It seems rather logical. (Pure logic is of little use in fantasy games, but there is a logic to magic, it behaves in consistent ways, so it's still useful to some extent.)
Imagine my super-charismatic Bard rolling a Persuasion check 4 times, by using the Advantage they get as a base for having a higher score in Charisma than I have (approximately) and then spending a point of Inspiration, rolling 4 times, and taking the best. It's a pity Bards can't use their own Bardic Inspiration on themselves. I guess I'd need a back up singer who was a Bard.
<Insert clever signature here>
*sigh* I'd like to get even that far.
I have players whose approach is, "I rolled 18, the guard goes away."
Seriously, all I need is "how". Is that so hard? Are you intimidating them ("Go away or I hurt you!"), bribing them ("Go away and I'll pay you."), smooth-talking them ("Go on, I won't tell anyone."), appealing to authority ("The watch captain told me to tell you to stand down."), pretending to be authority ("I am the new watch captain, I'm ordering you to stand down."), distracting them ("What was that noise?"), sneaking by them, incapacitating/killing them, or something else?
What I'd really, really like is for players to use found and/or researched things in their attempts, or to do some prepwork.
For example, pretending to be the watch captain by using the watch captain's badge you stole last scene.
For example, asking around "Hey, how likely are the guards in this city to take bribes?" before rocking up to a guard and attempting to bribe them.
For example, getting cleaned and changed into fine clothes before trying to get into a lords house (my players got genuinely annoyed when the butler wouldn't let a bunch of armoured, armed, dusty, sweaty, smelly adventurers in the house, sheesh).
So here is a suggestion for you. It won't work for everyone, so it may not work for you. Probably wouldn't work for my group, but I'd probably try it.
Consider switching game systems -- to one that YOU know, but THEY do not. Often the reason players approach a game with pure die rolls is because they know the mechanics so well. They know that if they roll an 18 on their persuade skill the guard probably will go away. They know that the correct skill to use here is persuade, and they know which player has the highest chance of doing that.
Switching game systems -- and again, this is important -- to a system you know well but they do not, will mean that at least for a little while, they won't be able to act like this. Additionally, if it is a new game system, you might be able to convince them to respect the "traditional" play of the other system, and they'll not be in any position to argue with you. You could try Savage Worlds or Star Trek Adventures or Champions or Call of Cthulhu -- something completely different from D&D. Characters are made up differently, parameterized differently, and conceptualized differently in these other games. Combat is completely different. Skill use is completely different. In Call of Cthulhu, there is Charm, Persuade, and Fast Talk. This will throw off a player who is used to just Persuade. They also won't know a priori whether they need a regular, hard, or extreme success, because they will have no context from having played the game before. And so on.
I found this with Champions players -- they knew everything so much by rote that there was no mystery or challenge to it after a while. So we switched it up. We played Rolemaster. FASA's Star Trek RPG. These games shook things up and got them out of their ruts. They had no idea how things worked in RM so they had to basically RP it and let the GM (I was not the GM in this case) tell them what skill to roll and how to go about it.
It might not always work, but it's worth a shot if you really want to get them out of their rut.
However, keep in mind that what I'm calling a "rut" and you're unhappy about might be something the rest of the players are quite enjoying and you need to be prepared for that.
You also, of course, have a right to say, "If that's how you want to play D&D, find another DM." I probably would.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The first answer to all player issues is, "Talk to them."
The second answer is, "Use the same approach against them." If a player said that to me, I'd say, "The guard tells you to go jump in a lake." I roll a d20 behind the screen. "I rolled 18. Good luck drying out your spellbook."
I am totally fine with players asking me for a check. Especially with social checks, sometimes i forget. I am so inhabiting the NPC, that I just decide how they respond to your argument. Sometimes a badly-delivered argument will not convince me, and so I just say no. Ot the other way around. A well-delivered argument might convince me, and I forget to make you make a check which you might flub and fail even though it was a good negotiating strategy. I mean for Insight checks, it's really just a better shorthand to shout, "Insight check," when my NPC says something fishy. No need to be coy and say, "Do I believe he's telling the truth?" and wait for me to request the check you know is coming.
With your song scenario, I think you did it just right. You described, without acting out, exactly how your player was trying to persuade. If the DM decides that what you're trying to persuade is something the NPC would ever consider doing, then they should ask for a Persuasion check. (In this case, I don't know. If your friend was caught red-handed doing a murder, I doubt you'd change the king's mind.)
However, I do think I'd want to know what you sang, just for funsies. It wouldn't necessarily have to affect the DC. You can literally sing, "I'm a little teapot," badly. Or you can just describe the subject matter of the song, rather than compose music and lyrics on the spot.
You can even do this after the roll and after the outcome is decided. Sometimes this can be fun, even for players who are charismatic. If they roll low, now they get to ham it up and role-play a very clumsy oafish character. Role-playing after the roll is, in general, a good way to have the fun of role-playing without anxiety it will affect your in-game results. It can encourage introverted players to practice and improve their real-life charisma, without setting them back in the game. And of course, the D&D table should be a "safe space" where if there's any laughing at your performance, it's laughing with you.
I like this breakdown.
I will say that I would allow a feedback loop between player and DM for Observe and Orient, because the DM can never give a complete and accurate description of the scenario. In some cases, a player will Orient out loud, and it will be clear to the DM that they have misinterpreted the description in a way that can only be because they misunderstood the facts. Then the DM should rewind to the Observe step and give some clarification. In some cases, the player will not Orient out loud and will jump straight to Decide, but the decision is impossible or abjectly foolish given then facts. Then also the DM should rewind.
Example:
DM: There is a window on the far wall.
Player: I climb through the window.
DM: Actually, the window is 30 feet up the sheer wall. Are you sure you want to do that?
The DM is intervening a little in the Decide step, doing part of it for the player. But it seems likely that the player assumed the window was at ground level. The DM provides additional information they overlooked in the initial description.
I suppose I could have told the DM at that point that I was singing "Locked in Folsom Prison" by Johnny Cash, but it might have been kind of immersion breaking, and they might not like Country. I got asked, and my mind went blank. I wonder about how they would have reacted to the answer; "A Song" or "A song about nice people getting let out of jail."
<Insert clever signature here>
Here's a scenario from last night's game. The players wanted a wizard professor to accompany them to a location. I knew he would be pretty reluctant, as he was quite busy, but not dead-set against it. So I asked for a Persuasion check. The player rolled pretty high; I think it was above 20. I decided that was a success, and I started to role-play the response. The professor hemmed and hawed and complained about how busy he was. The player unfortunately interrupted and negotiated himself down. He changed his request, saying that they didn't need him to come now, but that if they got to the location and found that they needed him, they could contact him and he would join them.
That request would have been a slightly lower DC, like maybe 18. The NPC would have taken either offer with the player's roll, but since there were two on the table, he took the one he preferred.
So, the nature of the request, along with the evidence the players presented for why it would align with the NPCs interest determined the DC, and the die roll and character's modifier determined if it was passed.
It depends on the expectations of the table. In my groups we like to take the plot seriously, but it's not taboo to interject a real-world reference from time to time for comic relief.
A compromise is to say you're singing, "Locked in Faerun Prison" by Johnny Goldpiece. In the game world, there must be numerous popular songs, and your character would know one appropriate to the situation. But the DM has not done so much worldbuilding that they have provided you with a packet listing all the popular songs in world by genre. So you assume that a song exists with a similar theme to one you, the player, knows. You explain to the DM and other players what the song is like by analogy to the real-world song. It's not that you're saying Johnny Cash exists in the game world, but some Man in Black does.
I honestly think, "A song about nice people getting out of jail," is fine, and better than nothing. It's easy for the DM and other players to fill in details with their imagination about a wrongfully accused person and the loved ones they're parted from.
HIGHLY recommend this. For players and DMs alike. You eliminate the "great speech, but it doesn't work for because reasons" issue, and you also get to cut out some tedium. As a bonus, you get to turn Insight into an active skill, rather than treating it like a passive skill but paradoxically still rolling it! Check it out:
Scenario 1 - The old way
DM: The vampire leans dramatically against the wall and sighs. "I'm not evil, darling. Come on, now. I haven't ever hurt anyone. Why are you wasting my time with this?" [Rolls Deception, or maybe doesn't bother.]
Player: Seems fishy. Can I roll Insight on this guy?
DM: Sure.
Player: [Rolls] 19. Nice.
DM: [Maybe rolls Deception now.] Yeah, something seems off about his statement. [Invents what that thing was, even though that part is past.] You feel like he rolled his eyes just so he wouldn't have to look at you directly.
Player: Yep. I don't trust him.
DM: And?
Player: I guess we don't know he's guilty, but he's sure being shady. What can we do? Anybody got Zone of Truth?
Everybody: Nope.
Player: Guess we'll beat the truth out of him then.
Scenario 2 - Roll first, then narrate
DM: [Rolls Deception, compares to passive Insight.] The vampire hesitates a moment, then tosses his hair back and rolls his eyes. "I'm not evil, darling. I haven't ever hurt anyone. I mean, not on purpose. Or, you know, not much. Why are you wasting my time with this?" He's trying to lead your attention away from his face with dramatic gestures.
Player: This guy sounds really evasive.
DM: He certainly does. What do you want to do about it?
Player: I want to press him further. Ask him directly about the murder, and get a look at his eyes when he reacts.
DM: Alright. Go ahead and roll Insight.
Player: [Rolls high.] So I grab his attention by flashing the steel of my blade in its sheath, and I say, like, "you might want to take this a little more seriously. Look at me. A man died today." And I stare right at him so I can see what he does.
Side note: At least in my groups, this is the way saving throws almost always happen. Example:
DM: As you open the door, I need everyone in this line to make a Dex save.
Everyone: [Rolls high.]
DM: A deafening clatter, as roughly three dozen crossbow bolts smash into the wall behind you. You managed to duck just in time.
I think it's a style, or what writers call voice. It's an exaggeration of being opinionated to the point of being a dick, to establish that she's unapologetically opinionated. But yeah I find it hard to read. When you say everything you're sincere about in a sarcastic way and everything sarcastic as if you're deadly serious, it can be hard to tell which is which, and that's not the reader's fault.
To take it to an extreme, suppose you create a character with a high Int score who's supposed to be a brilliant battle strategist. Can you simply ask the DM what's the best action for you to take in combat, roll an Int check with your galaxy brain modifier, and have them play your character in combat? I mean to be honest, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it, if a player finds the combat rules daunting, but enjoys social encounters and exploration. But you get the most out of the game if you participate using your brain in all aspects of the game.
A previous reply mentioned the idea of putting your heads together. I think this is a good way to play a character more intelligent than yourself. It might even be a way to play a character more intelligent than anyone at the table. Together you might come up with better ideas than any of you would have alone. Then you just role play as if it was all the wizard's idea, if you want. I don't find that totally necessary. The outcome is the same if the batbarian comes up with an uncharacteristically clever idea.
This is quite correct.
Additionally I will add 2 other things:
1. The DM will rarely have as good an idea of everything your PC can do as you have. You only have one character sheet to worry about, and you spend the whole session, every session, hip-deep in what your character can and can't do. You know which spells you have prepared (the DM probably won't remember that for multiple spellcasters in a party), and of the spells you have prepared, you've probably carefully read all the text and know exactly how they work, whereas the DM may not be as familiar with them (because, again, there are so many spells and few DMs will know them all by heart). You know all of your special abilities and how they work. The DM probably read up on the mechanics of your character, but not having personally used those abilities in combat, may not be clear on the most effective way to use those abilities. And you're going to have a much better idea of what's in your character's inventory that might be useful. For example, I've given out a bunch of potions in my campaign, most of which the party has kept and not used yet. I know which potions are still out there (I have a list) but I long ago lost track of who has the Potion of Giant Strength and who has the Potion of Invisibility and so on. So a DM may be ill-equipped to tell you the best tactic to use with your PC.
2. The DM is one person. Parties are usually groups of people. The odds are, you and your fellow players have already out-thought the DM tactically, just by weight of numbers. It's highly unlikely the DM is going to be able to come up with a tactic for the party that is better than the players as a group could come up with. 4 or 5 brains are better than one.
Now yes, the DM does know what the monsters can do and might know a tactic that could hamstring what the monsters are doing, but odds are, once the party observes the monsters doing something, because of 1 and 2 above, the DM is unlikely to come up with a better idea than your party will.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.