To help I would probably ban the social skills / abilities up front. That way players wont start making a character with the intent of making use of social interactions to drive gameplay. Also maybe explain to them that they are only going to be rewarded XP based on monster kills, dungeon rooms explored, gold collected or something's like this. That should help encourage the style of paly your going for. But sometimes as the DM you gotta just sit back and enjoy what the players are doing/creating on their own and kind of become the spectator. Gives yourself a break and can be very entertaining :)
I think it worth noting that the OP (who I'm presuming that your post is intended for) is writing from the perspective of a player and not a DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To help I would probably ban the social skills / abilities up front. That way players wont start making a character with the intent of making use of social interactions to drive gameplay. Also maybe explain to them that they are only going to be rewarded XP based on monster kills, dungeon rooms explored, gold collected or something's like this. That should help encourage the style of paly your going for. But sometimes as the DM you gotta just sit back and enjoy what the players are doing/creating on their own and kind of become the spectator. Gives yourself a break and can be very entertaining :)
Wow, I could not run fast enough or hard enough away from that game.
Even rolling max damage double crits is not as memorable as out of combat interactions with my players/GMs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
To help I would probably ban the social skills / abilities up front. That way players wont start making a character with the intent of making use of social interactions to drive gameplay. Also maybe explain to them that they are only going to be rewarded XP based on monster kills, dungeon rooms explored, gold collected or something's like this. That should help encourage the style of paly your going for. But sometimes as the DM you gotta just sit back and enjoy what the players are doing/creating on their own and kind of become the spectator. Gives yourself a break and can be very entertaining :)
When I see the Bard roll a 27 on Persuasion at 5th level with a +10 and the DM says "OK, that means you convince the king to change his wicked ways", you know social skills are hopelessly broken.
Nah, that's not a broken system, that's a player possibly abusing a DM's poor adjudication and interpretation of skill checks. I mean what's the Athletics version of that roll?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That's fair criticism. I have to ask though, did the Bard at lease have roll at disadvantage to "persuade" the King to basically unwrite their (non playing) character?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That's more an issue with the DM than the system itself. A simple persuasion roll shouldn't cause an evil king to repent any more than a nat 20 on athletics would let you pick up a mountain. Also, the player should never say 'I roll persuasion' The player should say what they want to do and the DM should decide if a persuasion roll is needed or even feasible. Charisma skills should be useful of course, but still with limitations.
That's more an issue with the DM than the system itself. A simple persuasion roll shouldn't cause an evil king to repent any more than a nat 20 on athletics would let you pick up a mountain. Also, the player should never say 'I roll persuasion' The player should say what they want to do and the DM should decide if a persuasion roll is needed or even feasible. Charisma skills should be useful of course, but still with limitations.
You are correct on all counts. But that is not how many new age players want to play. Remember, to them, all people are at the table are equal, and it is collaborative, so a player gets to choose what they want to do, when they want to it, and how that action will be interpreted.
Never run across a player like this on my end thankfully.
That's more an issue with the DM than the system itself. A simple persuasion roll shouldn't cause an evil king to repent any more than a nat 20 on athletics would let you pick up a mountain. Also, the player should never say 'I roll persuasion' The player should say what they want to do and the DM should decide if a persuasion roll is needed or even feasible. Charisma skills should be useful of course, but still with limitations.
You are correct on all counts. But that is not how many new age players want to play. Remember, to them, all people are at the table are equal, and it is collaborative, so a player gets to choose what they want to do, when they want to it, and how that action will be interpreted.
Lemme put a stop to this for just a moment here.
Old-guard players always get upset when somebody says the word 'grognard' and assumes all old players are grumpy gatekeeping curmudgeons who hate fun and haven't seen the sun in ten years. They're right to do so. Not every old player is a grognard, and painting them all with that brush is unfair and prone to provoking forum fights.
So is painting all 'new age' players with the brush of "touchy-feely hipster ****** with no idea how to play and more concerned with politics than with playing a fun game".
All people at the table are equal. The game is fundamentally collaborative. That does not mean the game is not D&D. The DM is not an Overlord granted supreme dominion of the other players. They are a player at the table like everybody else, simply with a different role within the game. The DM's agreed-upon task and role is to play the part of The World; the players do not get to control The World any more than the DM gets to control their characters. A player does indeed get to choose what they want to do and when they want to do it; that is what being a player means. Once they have acted, it is up to the DM to determine that action's degree of success and any consequences of that action. The DM gets to choose what they want The World to do, as The World is their character.
This is me, a FNG who's been playing for less than five years and has never encountered D&D prior to 5e and Critical role. A 'New Age' Janey-come-lately who came in from Critical Role, puts on a funny voice for all my characters, and believes strongly in the benefits of bespoke character creation - the sort of player all the grognards insist is Destroying D&D Forever(TM). And yet, once I declare an action? I wait to see what the DM does with it, and then I deal with the consequences of my action. Good or bad, it will be what it is. I know how to play the game, and even as a transgender-adjacent with quite outspoken ideas on inclusiveness I neither play in nor run games that are nothing but shallow political statements.
That's more an issue with the DM than the system itself. A simple persuasion roll shouldn't cause an evil king to repent any more than a nat 20 on athletics would let you pick up a mountain. Also, the player should never say 'I roll persuasion' The player should say what they want to do and the DM should decide if a persuasion roll is needed or even feasible. Charisma skills should be useful of course, but still with limitations.
You are correct on all counts. But that is not how many new age players want to play. Remember, to them, all people are at the table are equal, and it is collaborative, so a player gets to choose what they want to do, when they want to it, and how that action will be interpreted.
I feel like that’s a real broad generalisation here. It’s not a new age thing. That’s a dm thing. Dms need to set boundaries and enforce when something isn’t feasible. The game is collaborative and players are all equal. They absolutely he only choose what to do BUT they do not get to choose how that action will be interpreted.
they are free to ask the question. But just because you are charismatic doesn’t mean any dm should let you brute force the king like that. As has been said before that’s a dm problem not standing his ground. Not a player problem for asking the question. And this is coming from a “new age” player.
can we stop giving trying to categorise problems with specific groups of people? Because it’s individual people who cause problems. Not groups. New and old age players BOTH have their share of problem players and dms. Let’s not tar the rest of us with that brush.
As a DM, I let my players roll CHA (Persuasion or Intimidation) a lot, and sometimes I abide by the results and sometimes I don't - at least not 100%. Case in point - players are getting framed for stealing a sword from the king. King sends his guard, lead by his personal bodyguard, to bring them in. Guard finds them at inn, has guard surround them and tells them they are under arrest. Now, this party has seen the King many times and have done great things for the kingdom, and they didn't steal the sword, so they are confused and angry. They realize they might be able to fight there way out of this but decide to persuade bodyguard to let them go - they are innocent. High CHA (P) roll happens. Now, this bodyguard is extremely loyal to the king and will do whatever he has to to protect him and the Royal family. No way he is letting the party walk. Instead, he just asks them to surrender their weapons and magical items and come along peacefully - no chains. Not his orders, as the King is PISSED, but he was persuaded they were innocent. I thought that was a good compromise...
This tangent in the thread got me to quip in another thread on the theme that persuasion is not dominate person though many players wield it that way if they're DMs, kinda like that icky rapey "I roll to seduce" Bard cliche.
On the other hand, DM spoilers for BG: DitA below:
BG: DitA big drama is resolved by a DC 25 persuasion check, that gets dropped 5 points per NPC enlisted to be present at the intervention with Zariel. I've never played this moment of the adventure, but given the discussion here it seems like not quite a slam dunk, but an easy free throw for a 13th level party with a Bard or any character with investment in CHR and persuasion skill. On the other hand, this is a scripted roll that's the capstone event where the PCs had to do a lot to earn the moment.
I think there is a problem with players dictating the outcome of social rolls, and calling for social rolls. The DM allows a roll if they see an opportunity. If the NPC king isn't already entertaining the party, the PC doesn't really have the opportunity for rhetoric. Even if the opportunity is granted, I see a more prudent DM at best giving pause to some aspect of their plan in regards the PC.
I'd also say if the players want to "game" social interaction, the DM ought to mini-game it (and the DMG frankly should have given some support in this regard). Negotiation isn't a hard structure to grasp and persuasion is a negotiation, not a command line. So I can see how the game can sort of allow Level Five Bard Wormtongues, I also see how a DM with a little though can put that in check and get the speechifying more in line with the possibilities of the game world.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Wysperra, I'm sure there are many that feel the same way as you, but social interactions or not for everyone. I know sometimes it's easy to derail the game with the social interactions and personally that's half the fun ;). Some DM's might put allot of time and effort setting up combat encounters, maps and other tactical stuff, so when it all goes to waste because the characters want to hangout or talk the big baddy into being their friend and join the party it can be a little disheartening for the DM. So there is something to be said for being flexible, everyone gets enjoyment from different aspects of the game.
To help I would probably ban the social skills / abilities up front. That way players wont start making a character with the intent of making use of social interactions to drive gameplay. Also maybe explain to them that they are only going to be rewarded XP based on monster kills, dungeon rooms explored, gold collected or something's like this. That should help encourage the style of paly your going for. But sometimes as the DM you gotta just sit back and enjoy what the players are doing/creating on their own and kind of become the spectator. Gives yourself a break and can be very entertaining :)
I think it worth noting that the OP (who I'm presuming that your post is intended for) is writing from the perspective of a player and not a DM.
Thanks Linklite, I think I originally misread. I think OP could discuss those sort of ideas with the GM up front though. Maybe the GM can kind of reserve certain sessions that are focused on tactical play so the other players know that they should shy away from the RP a little on those times. It's hard to run a game that is going to please everyone every session but a good party can have open dialogue with each other and try to make sure each session pleases someone. Over the course of your campaign there should be something for everyone.
I've been a long-time player of D&D. I love the sense of adventure, the combat, the dungeon crawling, the fact that you can make a character however you wish (in mechanical terms). But One thing I have always struggled with is Role-Play. I really do not like to Role-Play; I never have, and more-than-likely never will (but if you do, that's completely A-Okay). To put it simply: I cannot put myself in another person's shoes AT ALL, even characters I create;I really try, but it always ends up being some reflection of what I-as-a-person would do in that situation.
This becomes a major problem in several of the groups I have been in the past. The Longer-Lasting groups I've been in do not place high priority on RP. But I find myself not getting along with players who do nothing but RP. I have had problems largely since other players get completely lost in-character, when I'm just trying to be a straight shooter and get to the next plot point the DM has in store; even when the group establishes methods to clarify RP & Player speak, they are too in-character to notice. And I've been kicked out of several groups simply because I'm not good with Role-Play; Which, by the way, I had established very well with that DM that it is something I struggle with, and when I was actually getting along well with the other players. Hell, that DM would only base XP on Roleplay, and would ALWAYS give me the lowest of the group despite my best efforts. Essentially, I have had ZERO positive experience with players who RP.
[EDIT: Just for clarification, I'm not 100% against RP, it's just low on the list of what I am looking for in a D&D campaign. I just am a very get-to-the-point kind of player who likes to see what happens next in the game's plot, whereas RPers always seem to me to essentially be (in movie terms) the annoying side-character who hogs the screen and brings the plot to a screeching halt. Also, I base my character creation on what class of character I wish to play.]
Am I doing something wrong, or is it I just got unlucky with other players? And how should I deal with those excessive Roleplayers?
My current campaign I have 8 players and none of them do what I would call deep dive roleplay, there are no long drawn out conversations round a fire, no deep and meaningful talks about parents, feelings and emotions. Most stuff is done in the 3rd person.
A couple of players will interact with me as I play NPC's but we are not talking 20 min conversations, usually we roleplay in the 3rd person, so the player will say my character will ask this, or do this, and I will then have them roll a dice against the stat to see how well that conversation went. They might tell me the information they are trying to get or a list of questions they want to ask, but we very rarely roleplay that out. Even character stuff like secrets, as and when it is important a player might say, "I would have told you all around a campfire about my mothers death and how I am hunting her killer several weeks ago, so you all know the importance of this information in game." The player has never mentioned it before, because we dont do chit chat :).
I would suggest you talk to your DM and players and explain that you will never "get into character" like that and if they engage you simply tell them, my character will give you this information. you can still be involved but you wont need to be in character all the time.
It's interesting to me how what you describe is actually fairly close to an example of play in the 1st edition AD&D DMG. Like, it's how role-playing was originally defined.
The concept of theatrical, in character role-playing is not new, but I think it's quite new for it to be the "main way" D&D culture defines role-playing and for there to be peer pressure to do it that way. Like I've always had one or two players in the group that did it this way, but I don't recall there ever being a sort of consensus that if you're not doing it "you need to improve your game" or "try it because it makes the game better". The drama nerds did it their way, the wargamer nerds did it their way.. both ways were considered role-playing, but only since the release of 5e and the Critical Role generations have I ever had players complain about it.
The war gamers want to move the elements of the story along, primarily encounters, while the drama students/ wanna be actors think that their chars ARE the story elements. No one cares War gamers do not care about the grandmother of some char, or the love interest of a char, except that char. If someone enjoys that kind of thing, then go watch a soap opera find a DM (and players) that enjoy character-driven stories and games more than strategy-focused combat scenarios. There are all sorts of different types of tables out there.
It's interesting to me how what you describe is actually fairly close to an example of play in the 1st edition AD&D DMG. Like, it's how role-playing was originally defined.
The concept of theatrical, in character role-playing is not new, but I think it's quite new for it to be the "main way" D&D culture defines role-playing and for there to be peer pressure to do it that way. Like I've always had one or two players in the group that did it this way, but I don't recall there ever being a sort of consensus that if you're not doing it "you need to improve your game" or "try it because it makes the game better". The drama nerds did it their way, the wargamer nerds did it their way.. both ways were considered role-playing, but only since the release of 5e and the Critical Role generations have I ever had players complain about it.
The war gamers want to move the elements of the story along, primarily encounters, while the drama students/ wanna be actors think that their chars ARE the story elements. No one cares War gamers do not care about the grandmother of some char, or the love interest of a char, except that char. If someone enjoys that kind of thing, then go watch a soap opera find a DM (and players) that enjoy character-driven stories and games more than strategy-focused combat scenarios. There are all sorts of different types of tables out there.
FTFY ;)
Exactly. Also, character driven/heavy RP games are not all about sitting around a campfire taking turns expositing about your backstory or one character talking to one npc for a half hour without any of the other players being able to chime in. Rather, a skilled DM will weave the characters individual goals and backstory into the greater campaign so these elements arise naturally.
The PCs are not 'the story' but they are the main characters in said story of these games. The importance of combat varies. In the games run in my friend group, generally there are fewer encounters in quantity but they each tend to be more difficult and impactful to compensate.
It's fine to be a wargamer, but it's also fine to focus more on character. So long as the people at table is having fun there's no such thing as a 'wrong' way to play.
It's interesting to me how what you describe is actually fairly close to an example of play in the 1st edition AD&D DMG. Like, it's how role-playing was originally defined.
The concept of theatrical, in character role-playing is not new, but I think it's quite new for it to be the "main way" D&D culture defines role-playing and for there to be peer pressure to do it that way. Like I've always had one or two players in the group that did it this way, but I don't recall there ever being a sort of consensus that if you're not doing it "you need to improve your game" or "try it because it makes the game better". The drama nerds did it their way, the wargamer nerds did it their way.. both ways were considered role-playing, but only since the release of 5e and the Critical Role generations have I ever had players complain about it.
The war gamers want to move the elements of the story along, primarily encounters, while the drama students/ wanna be actors think that their chars ARE the story elements. No one cares War gamers do not care about the grandmother of some char, or the love interest of a char, except that char. If someone enjoys that kind of thing, then go watch a soap opera find a DM (and players) that enjoy character-driven stories and games more than strategy-focused combat scenarios. There are all sorts of different types of tables out there.
FTFY ;)
Exactly. Also, character driven/heavy RP games are not all about sitting around a campfire taking turns expositing about your backstory or one character talking to one npc for a half hour without any of the other players being able to chime in. Rather, a skilled DM will weave the characters individual goals and backstory into the greater campaign so these elements arise naturally.
The PCs are not 'the story' but they are the main characters in said story of these games. The importance of combat varies. In the games run in my friend group, generally there are fewer encounters in quantity but they each tend to be more difficult and impactful to compensate.
It's fine to be a wargamer, but it's also fine to focus more on character. So long as the people at table is having fun there's no such thing as a 'wrong' way to play.
Exactly this! People make this discussion so complex and seem to want to put either side down like that does any good.
it’s a spectrum. Work out where people fall on the war game/roleplay axis and decide if that works for you. If yes, awesome, if not new table.
My current campaign I have 8 players and none of them do what I would call deep dive roleplay, there are no long drawn out conversations round a fire, no deep and meaningful talks about parents, feelings and emotions. Most stuff is done in the 3rd person.
A couple of players will interact with me as I play NPC's but we are not talking 20 min conversations, usually we roleplay in the 3rd person, so the player will say my character will ask this, or do this, and I will then have them roll a dice against the stat to see how well that conversation went. They might tell me the information they are trying to get or a list of questions they want to ask, but we very rarely roleplay that out. Even character stuff like secrets, as and when it is important a player might say, "I would have told you all around a campfire about my mothers death and how I am hunting her killer several weeks ago, so you all know the importance of this information in game." The player has never mentioned it before, because we dont do chit chat :).
I would suggest you talk to your DM and players and explain that you will never "get into character" like that and if they engage you simply tell them, my character will give you this information. you can still be involved but you wont need to be in character all the time.
It's interesting to me how what you describe is actually fairly close to an example of play in the 1st edition AD&D DMG. Like, it's how role-playing was originally defined.
The concept of theatrical, in character role-playing is not new, but I think it's quite new for it to be the "main way" D&D culture defines role-playing and for there to be peer pressure to do it that way. Like I've always had one or two players in the group that did it this way, but I don't recall there ever being a sort of consensus that if you're not doing it "you need to improve your game" or "try it because it makes the game better". The drama nerds did it their way, the wargamer nerds did it their way.. both ways were considered role-playing, but only since the release of 5e and the Critical Role generations have I ever had players complain about it.
I have DM'd groups that wanted that immersive experiance, they would turn up wearing something to represent their character (sometimes fully cosplaying). This was not DnD but a different system and was in the mid 2000's, I have also DM's groups who just wanted to hit and kill things (again not DnD) 5th Ed is the first version of DnD I have ever played, for reasons, but I agree the way we play is probably the way most parties play. My current campaign, despite it being that 3rd person approach has been a challenge in some ways because the adventure right now is centred on an aboleth slowly mind controlling a town. So NPC's have changed in terms of personality during the game. Getting that across in a way that is subtle enough to have the players know something is up without initially making it obvious what it was may well have been easier to do in the first person, but, it would also have made our games drag out. I think that is another thing to realise as a DM, with 8 players that immersive roleplaying inherently slows the game down and while it can be fun many players and groups do want to progress the story and feel they are achieving something, and 4 hours online is not a lot of time with 8.
So to the OP I suppose the main thing to take from all of this is that your way of playing is perfectly valid.
Been playing just as long as you. I have seen such tables. There are definitely players like that. As a DM, one of the real challenges is identifying which type of player is which at a table and playing to each accordingly. Even seen entire tables that prefer just pure RP. At higher levels, campaigns traditionally lean political/pure RP simply because of escalating power scale making conventional combat more and more difficult to DM to.
At least in my experience.
Thankfully, most tables are mixed and work like that.
Don't get me wrong, I have played at pure RP tables, I run one, but we play Vampire The Masquerade. These players would never willingly enter a D&D game because they understand what its about, most of them have read the Players Handbook. I have also played at pure tactical tables, I have had a Battletech crew for the better part of 20 years, but none of those guys would ever want to play D&D because of all the role-playing silliness.
When someone enters a D&D game, in my experience it's always someone who expects the blending of the two, it's what draws them to fantasy stories and a fantasy game that lets you re-create them. I can't imagine how or why someone would read a players handbook and then join a game based on that with an assumption that it will be only combat or all story.
I mean if you like pure tactical games and don't care about story, I can't think of a worse choice than D&D, especially 5e.. like 4e maybe but 5e? Why? And if you like pure story games just for the drama, after reading the players guide, how on earth would you come to the conclusion that D&D is exclusively about role-playing? The game comes with a 350 page book of monsters for the sole purpose of fighting them.
It's really strange to me, it's like going to see Die Hard but you don't like gun violence, just a fan of Christmas movies. I get that it features Christmas.. but its not really the main thing here.
Just came down to this comment after responding to your other one and my experiance is much that same, that RP heavy group, was a Vampire table, I also ran Legend of the 5 rings 1st edition, which by necessity is RP heavy, mainly because combat is deadly, not DnD get me up deadly but really, there is no resurrection death is death and one hit can kill deadly. Strangely Cyberpunk also lends itself to RP heavy games, again the healing mechanic takes real in game time (days or weeks to recover from gun shots etc). So players learn to pick there moments when it comes to combat, lots of scouting, planning, infiltrating, bribing etc to get into the right position with the right kit to do the job. I also used to do some larping (Vampire as a player, and a fantasy system as an organiser/DM equivalent)
I came to 5th edition because I had a group who wanted to play a fantasy wizard and dragons type game, but I had no idea how long it would last and 5th ed was a nice simple game to get my head around, and i figured after 20 odd years I should probably say I had played/run the godfather of TTRPG's at least once. I also looked at other systems but they seemed far to rules heavy, especially around magic some of them where a little over the top, which might seem nuts coming from someone for whom Mage is the best all time RPG system. I will admit I also watched a bit of Acquisitions Incorporated and the dreaded critical role which gave me an insight into how DnD could be run in a non combat heavy way with some humour injected along the way. But my experiance also made sure I was well aware that my table would not be almost crying around the table over some impactful emotional moment.
I always try and advise anyone who has only ever played 1 system, get out, play something different. I have been telling DnD players now for a few years to try something other then the D20 system, 7th Sea is my go to suggestion for a dice mechanic that is just so very different, but the same can be said for getting into systems that put different emphasis on RP etc. If your used to a system that emphasises the term DM/GM, try a system that talks about sotry tellers.
I find it funny that one of the OP's complaints is that the role players are effectively slowing down the game play with their antics. Fair enough. Though it's been many years since I've played or DM'd on a regular basis, I've encountered players who role played well, but also knew how to keep the ball rolling. I've also met players who wanted nothing to do with the role playing aspect of it, and were there for the snacks, the dice rolling, and for the gathering of points and stuff. Some of those "I'm here for the battles and treasure" players were known to be just as distracted, and as distracting, as some role players I met.
I think either style of play can bog down a game. It comes down to how well the players can focus on the game action in front of them, versus how much time of the session they spend outside that sphere.
*Takes selfie and texts to friends currently elsewhere, "Gaming with the fellas, here. What are you doing?"*
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think it worth noting that the OP (who I'm presuming that your post is intended for) is writing from the perspective of a player and not a DM.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Wow, I could not run fast enough or hard enough away from that game.
Even rolling max damage double crits is not as memorable as out of combat interactions with my players/GMs.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Nah, that's not a broken system, that's a player possibly abusing a DM's poor adjudication and interpretation of skill checks. I mean what's the Athletics version of that roll?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That's fair criticism. I have to ask though, did the Bard at lease have roll at disadvantage to "persuade" the King to basically unwrite their (non playing) character?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That's more an issue with the DM than the system itself. A simple persuasion roll shouldn't cause an evil king to repent any more than a nat 20 on athletics would let you pick up a mountain. Also, the player should never say 'I roll persuasion' The player should say what they want to do and the DM should decide if a persuasion roll is needed or even feasible. Charisma skills should be useful of course, but still with limitations.
Never run across a player like this on my end thankfully.
Lemme put a stop to this for just a moment here.
Old-guard players always get upset when somebody says the word 'grognard' and assumes all old players are grumpy gatekeeping curmudgeons who hate fun and haven't seen the sun in ten years. They're right to do so. Not every old player is a grognard, and painting them all with that brush is unfair and prone to provoking forum fights.
So is painting all 'new age' players with the brush of "touchy-feely hipster ****** with no idea how to play and more concerned with politics than with playing a fun game".
All people at the table are equal. The game is fundamentally collaborative. That does not mean the game is not D&D. The DM is not an Overlord granted supreme dominion of the other players. They are a player at the table like everybody else, simply with a different role within the game. The DM's agreed-upon task and role is to play the part of The World; the players do not get to control The World any more than the DM gets to control their characters. A player does indeed get to choose what they want to do and when they want to do it; that is what being a player means. Once they have acted, it is up to the DM to determine that action's degree of success and any consequences of that action. The DM gets to choose what they want The World to do, as The World is their character.
This is me, a FNG who's been playing for less than five years and has never encountered D&D prior to 5e and Critical role. A 'New Age' Janey-come-lately who came in from Critical Role, puts on a funny voice for all my characters, and believes strongly in the benefits of bespoke character creation - the sort of player all the grognards insist is Destroying D&D Forever(TM). And yet, once I declare an action? I wait to see what the DM does with it, and then I deal with the consequences of my action. Good or bad, it will be what it is. I know how to play the game, and even as a transgender-adjacent with quite outspoken ideas on inclusiveness I neither play in nor run games that are nothing but shallow political statements.
Scale back the grump a little please, Baron.
Please do not contact or message me.
I feel like that’s a real broad generalisation here. It’s not a new age thing. That’s a dm thing. Dms need to set boundaries and enforce when something isn’t feasible. The game is collaborative and players are all equal. They absolutely he only choose what to do BUT they do not get to choose how that action will be interpreted.
they are free to ask the question. But just because you are charismatic doesn’t mean any dm should let you brute force the king like that. As has been said before that’s a dm problem not standing his ground. Not a player problem for asking the question. And this is coming from a “new age” player.
can we stop giving trying to categorise problems with specific groups of people? Because it’s individual people who cause problems. Not groups. New and old age players BOTH have their share of problem players and dms. Let’s not tar the rest of us with that brush.
As a DM, I let my players roll CHA (Persuasion or Intimidation) a lot, and sometimes I abide by the results and sometimes I don't - at least not 100%. Case in point - players are getting framed for stealing a sword from the king. King sends his guard, lead by his personal bodyguard, to bring them in. Guard finds them at inn, has guard surround them and tells them they are under arrest. Now, this party has seen the King many times and have done great things for the kingdom, and they didn't steal the sword, so they are confused and angry. They realize they might be able to fight there way out of this but decide to persuade bodyguard to let them go - they are innocent. High CHA (P) roll happens. Now, this bodyguard is extremely loyal to the king and will do whatever he has to to protect him and the Royal family. No way he is letting the party walk. Instead, he just asks them to surrender their weapons and magical items and come along peacefully - no chains. Not his orders, as the King is PISSED, but he was persuaded they were innocent. I thought that was a good compromise...
This tangent in the thread got me to quip in another thread on the theme that persuasion is not dominate person though many players wield it that way if they're DMs, kinda like that icky rapey "I roll to seduce" Bard cliche.
On the other hand, DM spoilers for BG: DitA below:
BG: DitA big drama is resolved by a DC 25 persuasion check, that gets dropped 5 points per NPC enlisted to be present at the intervention with Zariel. I've never played this moment of the adventure, but given the discussion here it seems like not quite a slam dunk, but an easy free throw for a 13th level party with a Bard or any character with investment in CHR and persuasion skill. On the other hand, this is a scripted roll that's the capstone event where the PCs had to do a lot to earn the moment.
I think there is a problem with players dictating the outcome of social rolls, and calling for social rolls. The DM allows a roll if they see an opportunity. If the NPC king isn't already entertaining the party, the PC doesn't really have the opportunity for rhetoric. Even if the opportunity is granted, I see a more prudent DM at best giving pause to some aspect of their plan in regards the PC.
I'd also say if the players want to "game" social interaction, the DM ought to mini-game it (and the DMG frankly should have given some support in this regard). Negotiation isn't a hard structure to grasp and persuasion is a negotiation, not a command line. So I can see how the game can sort of allow Level Five Bard Wormtongues, I also see how a DM with a little though can put that in check and get the speechifying more in line with the possibilities of the game world.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Wysperra, I'm sure there are many that feel the same way as you, but social interactions or not for everyone. I know sometimes it's easy to derail the game with the social interactions and personally that's half the fun ;). Some DM's might put allot of time and effort setting up combat encounters, maps and other tactical stuff, so when it all goes to waste because the characters want to hangout or talk the big baddy into being their friend and join the party it can be a little disheartening for the DM. So there is something to be said for being flexible, everyone gets enjoyment from different aspects of the game.
I think it worth noting that the OP (who I'm presuming that your post is intended for) is writing from the perspective of a player and not a DM.
Thanks Linklite, I think I originally misread. I think OP could discuss those sort of ideas with the GM up front though. Maybe the GM can kind of reserve certain sessions that are focused on tactical play so the other players know that they should shy away from the RP a little on those times. It's hard to run a game that is going to please everyone every session but a good party can have open dialogue with each other and try to make sure each session pleases someone. Over the course of your campaign there should be something for everyone.
My current campaign I have 8 players and none of them do what I would call deep dive roleplay, there are no long drawn out conversations round a fire, no deep and meaningful talks about parents, feelings and emotions. Most stuff is done in the 3rd person.
A couple of players will interact with me as I play NPC's but we are not talking 20 min conversations, usually we roleplay in the 3rd person, so the player will say my character will ask this, or do this, and I will then have them roll a dice against the stat to see how well that conversation went. They might tell me the information they are trying to get or a list of questions they want to ask, but we very rarely roleplay that out. Even character stuff like secrets, as and when it is important a player might say, "I would have told you all around a campfire about my mothers death and how I am hunting her killer several weeks ago, so you all know the importance of this information in game." The player has never mentioned it before, because we dont do chit chat :).
I would suggest you talk to your DM and players and explain that you will never "get into character" like that and if they engage you simply tell them, my character will give you this information. you can still be involved but you wont need to be in character all the time.
FTFY ;)
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Exactly. Also, character driven/heavy RP games are not all about sitting around a campfire taking turns expositing about your backstory or one character talking to one npc for a half hour without any of the other players being able to chime in. Rather, a skilled DM will weave the characters individual goals and backstory into the greater campaign so these elements arise naturally.
The PCs are not 'the story' but they are the main characters in said story of these games. The importance of combat varies. In the games run in my friend group, generally there are fewer encounters in quantity but they each tend to be more difficult and impactful to compensate.
It's fine to be a wargamer, but it's also fine to focus more on character. So long as the people at table is having fun there's no such thing as a 'wrong' way to play.
Exactly this! People make this discussion so complex and seem to want to put either side down like that does any good.
it’s a spectrum. Work out where people fall on the war game/roleplay axis and decide if that works for you. If yes, awesome, if not new table.
all styles are valid here
I have DM'd groups that wanted that immersive experiance, they would turn up wearing something to represent their character (sometimes fully cosplaying). This was not DnD but a different system and was in the mid 2000's, I have also DM's groups who just wanted to hit and kill things (again not DnD) 5th Ed is the first version of DnD I have ever played, for reasons, but I agree the way we play is probably the way most parties play. My current campaign, despite it being that 3rd person approach has been a challenge in some ways because the adventure right now is centred on an aboleth slowly mind controlling a town. So NPC's have changed in terms of personality during the game. Getting that across in a way that is subtle enough to have the players know something is up without initially making it obvious what it was may well have been easier to do in the first person, but, it would also have made our games drag out. I think that is another thing to realise as a DM, with 8 players that immersive roleplaying inherently slows the game down and while it can be fun many players and groups do want to progress the story and feel they are achieving something, and 4 hours online is not a lot of time with 8.
So to the OP I suppose the main thing to take from all of this is that your way of playing is perfectly valid.
Just came down to this comment after responding to your other one and my experiance is much that same, that RP heavy group, was a Vampire table, I also ran Legend of the 5 rings 1st edition, which by necessity is RP heavy, mainly because combat is deadly, not DnD get me up deadly but really, there is no resurrection death is death and one hit can kill deadly. Strangely Cyberpunk also lends itself to RP heavy games, again the healing mechanic takes real in game time (days or weeks to recover from gun shots etc). So players learn to pick there moments when it comes to combat, lots of scouting, planning, infiltrating, bribing etc to get into the right position with the right kit to do the job. I also used to do some larping (Vampire as a player, and a fantasy system as an organiser/DM equivalent)
I came to 5th edition because I had a group who wanted to play a fantasy wizard and dragons type game, but I had no idea how long it would last and 5th ed was a nice simple game to get my head around, and i figured after 20 odd years I should probably say I had played/run the godfather of TTRPG's at least once. I also looked at other systems but they seemed far to rules heavy, especially around magic some of them where a little over the top, which might seem nuts coming from someone for whom Mage is the best all time RPG system. I will admit I also watched a bit of Acquisitions Incorporated and the dreaded critical role which gave me an insight into how DnD could be run in a non combat heavy way with some humour injected along the way. But my experiance also made sure I was well aware that my table would not be almost crying around the table over some impactful emotional moment.
I always try and advise anyone who has only ever played 1 system, get out, play something different. I have been telling DnD players now for a few years to try something other then the D20 system, 7th Sea is my go to suggestion for a dice mechanic that is just so very different, but the same can be said for getting into systems that put different emphasis on RP etc. If your used to a system that emphasises the term DM/GM, try a system that talks about sotry tellers.
I find it funny that one of the OP's complaints is that the role players are effectively slowing down the game play with their antics. Fair enough. Though it's been many years since I've played or DM'd on a regular basis, I've encountered players who role played well, but also knew how to keep the ball rolling. I've also met players who wanted nothing to do with the role playing aspect of it, and were there for the snacks, the dice rolling, and for the gathering of points and stuff. Some of those "I'm here for the battles and treasure" players were known to be just as distracted, and as distracting, as some role players I met.
I think either style of play can bog down a game. It comes down to how well the players can focus on the game action in front of them, versus how much time of the session they spend outside that sphere.
*Takes selfie and texts to friends currently elsewhere, "Gaming with the fellas, here. What are you doing?"*