For example: A PC has high enough charisma, and is actually making a good point in his RP, so the DM just accepts he convinced the NPC with his arguments instead of asking for a persuasion check. Would this be considered unfair, since the DM is personally evaluating the action instead of rolling dice? (And also considering some players are just better at roleplaying than others)
In my opinion, yes.
The character's skill level is the important determiner.
If a character has low charisma and diplomacy skills, but the players is a smooth-talking persuasive person, the character should still be failing a lot of persuasion attempts. When I started roleplaying (*cough* early 80s *cough*) our group had a hightly persuasive, manipulative player who always dumped charisma (or its equivalent) but always tried to get the GM to allow his attempts to succeed without roling because he came up with persuasive arguments. Sadly, if often succeeded (mostly because of GM fatigue and/or to just get him to shut up).
After all, we don't allow a player's skill in martial arts replace a character's unarmed combat bonus. Do we…?
Secret rolls are the way to go here whenever there is a chance of failure that might not be known.
i.e. Never show the players a roll when searching an area unless you want them to roll it over and over until they find something or roll a 20.
likewise, don’t show a persuasion or deception check. (I let the player roll, but hide the result behind a screen). Instead, I role play the result - “the king looks at you with growing trust..”. With this, I can set the DC lower because of a great role play from the player. I justify this as follows - it is difficult to convince the king (DC 20) but he is smart enough to listen. DC reflects how willing he is to take action based on what he heard. If he likes what he heard, he is still hesitant, but might be convinced (DC 15). If he loved the idea, he is much more willing (DC 10). The roll is his decision, not his willingness. (I can, and do, make the DC worse if the players do a bad job.)
A bit unconventional but has helped my table find the balance between a good story and luck of the draw. What o hate doing is cheating - the DC is set before the dice leaves the hand.
There are two things to be cautious of in this scenario. First, letting your players play their own attributes rather than their characters attributes. This happens most commonly where a gregarious player dumps Charisma or a clever player dumps Intelligence and then doesn’t downplay their natural abilities, essentially giving them a free pass on their dumped stats. Second is taking the random nature of the game out of the game. Dice rolls are unpredictable. This unpredictability can enhance the game and challenge peoples’ creativity. Even the suavest suave dude strikes out every now and then. The chance of a bad roll mimics this possibility. *Natural 1* Hmmm, what went wrong so that lovely and compelling argument didn’t gain any traction?
I don’t think either of these considerations have immediately negative repercussions, it’s more a matter of how you and your players feel about them. Just be aware that it can be very unfun to play alongside someone with a dumped charisma who happens to talk a good game IRL so ends up being the party leader instead of the resident bard, sorcerer or paladin—played by players who are not good talkers IRL but want to pretend otherwise for a few hours a week.
Lots of this. Do you let strong players skip out on Strength rolls? If the player is a amateur MMA fighter, does the character skip unarmed attack rolls? It is much easier to gloss over the mental rolls by letting a player who is good in those areas meta-talk around game mechanics, but it's very unfair.
It's also a open invitation to GM bias, and letting the player you like have more success solely because you (even if only subconsciously) like them. They coincidentally get more of those no-need-to-roll, or roll-with-advantage outcomes, because people are not perfect & are generally terrible at noticing thier own blindspots. And that can quickly turn into a game that no one else wants to be at.
P.S. If the player is a professional MMA fighter, then yes, they can skip any rolls they want to.
For example: A PC has high enough charisma, and is actually making a good point in his RP, so the DM just accepts he convinced the NPC with his arguments instead of asking for a persuasion check. Would this be considered unfair, since the DM is personally evaluating the action instead of rolling dice? (And also considering some players are just better at roleplaying than others)
This is perfectly fine. In fact, Ginny Di has a flowchart for this that I recommend highly. You read it clockwise from top left:
In your specific scenario, the player has already succeeded at step 1 (have they done enough to succeed without a roll), so there's no need to proceed to the other steps.
(BTW, this is one of the key things I dislike about Pathfinder 2e, because it tacitly encourages rolling more often than necessary due to its "crit success/crit fail" mechanic.)
I DMed a campaign for an eloquence bard who could not roll lower than a 21 on persuasion. I still asked for rolls.
Not always. If the NPC would have been swayed by the bard's natural charisma and he made his case well, I just let him succeed. There were times, however, when I lowered the DC because of the bard's comments, and there were also times that the only reason I allowed a persuasion roll at all was because the bard was so persuasive. And it wasn't just him, either. If my other players said things that would make any reasonable person potentially change their minds, I tried to reward that with either success or improved chances of success pending dice rolls.
For example: A PC has high enough charisma, and is actually making a good point in his RP, so the DM just accepts he convinced the NPC with his arguments instead of asking for a persuasion check. Would this be considered unfair, since the DM is personally evaluating the action instead of rolling dice? (And also considering some players are just better at roleplaying than others)
I've debated this with a lot of different groups and tables, and the answer is never the same.
There was already a post about martial arts. I think that's a valid comparison. If there were a bodybuilder at my table playing a low STR character but then proceeded to literally lift my 10 foot solid wood table and go "See, I can do it therefore my character can". Ditto with dex based characters and good reflexes or a maybe a player trying to have their character win a drinking content by taking shot after shot in real life. Real life physical skills can't translate into the game due to the nature, but mental/social skills can.
I think good roleplaying is a fantastic skill, and I also don't always think its fair to those that can't really do that. If someone is playing a 18 CHA character with +8 persuasion at level 2? That character is pretty damn persuasive and they deserve to have the same ability to be as persuasive someone who is naturally persuasive, even if they are played by a complete knob who has zero real life social skills. That's the whole point of TTRPG, the character who can do things we can't. Yurei and I seem to agree a bit on this one. The stats are a starting point for what our characters do, but they aren't the end game. They should also represent certain boundaries. If my Fighter with a 10 charisma and no trained skills is giving a speech to the crowd to rile them up, roleplays a fantastic speech and then rolls a 2? Well, they got a 2. "The crowd hears the words, but they simply don't resonate the way you thought."
I don't like the Ginny chart because it essentially says you don't roll dice in a game that is dice based. That's the whole point. Make the argument, but then roll it out. Just because you were super eloquent and articulate doesn't mean you succeeded.
For example: A PC has high enough charisma, and is actually making a good point in his RP, so the DM just accepts he convinced the NPC with his arguments instead of asking for a persuasion check. Would this be considered unfair, since the DM is personally evaluating the action instead of rolling dice? (And also considering some players are just better at roleplaying than others)
I've debated this with a lot of different groups and tables, and the answer is never the same.
There was already a post about martial arts. I think that's a valid comparison. If there were a bodybuilder at my table playing a low STR character but then proceeded to literally lift my 10 foot solid wood table and go "See, I can do it therefore my character can". Ditto with dex based characters and good reflexes or a maybe a player trying to have their character win a drinking content by taking shot after shot in real life. Real life physical skills can't translate into the game due to the nature, but mental/social skills can.
I think good roleplaying is a fantastic skill, and I also don't always think its fair to those that can't really do that. If someone is playing a 18 CHA character with +8 persuasion at level 2? That character is pretty damn persuasive and they deserve to have the same ability to be as persuasive someone who is naturally persuasive, even if they are played by a complete knob who has zero real life social skills. That's the whole point of TTRPG, the character who can do things we can't. Yurei and I seem to agree a bit on this one. The stats are a starting point for what our characters do, but they aren't the end game. They should also represent certain boundaries. If my Fighter with a 10 charisma and no trained skills is giving a speech to the crowd to rile them up, roleplays a fantastic speech and then rolls a 2? Well, they got a 2. "The crowd hears the words, but they simply don't resonate the way you thought."
I don't like the Ginny chart because it essentially says you don't roll dice in a game that is dice based. That's the whole point. Make the argument, but then roll it out. Just because you were super eloquent and articulate doesn't mean you succeeded.
I get what you're saying; but I think we're more talking less about freeform role playing and more about using the character sheet mechanically to make presumptive successes or failures (or in the latter case admonishments of low possibilities but "you can certainly try" and allow rolls). Yurei sorta talks about this when she says folks confuse role playing with acting, which is analogous to your player saying if I can lift the keg my character can lift the keg (I believe only in the Morrow Project, does that idea actually reflect the rules). We're not necessarily, or even at all, talking about someone who can give an IRL Oscar nom worthy speech, we're rather talking about granting successes when a player is aware of what they're really good at it. As mentioned in the thread, prior editions had and many present players house rule "taking 10s", meaning a DM gives an idea of how much latitude a player should be granted in performing what they're good at. Ginny Di's platforming a chart that's predicated on the DM and table agreeing this sort of granting should take place for a more efficiently run, less bogged down game.
Yes D&D is a "dice based" game, but most of the most recent popular TTRPGs also are and they make clear in their guidance that players should not be "rolling for everything." What's under discussion here is a practice that has existed in D&D officially in prior editions, and is commonly house ruled, and I agree does make for more efficient gaming.
Generally outside of combat (though I also use minion rules so there's a lot of granting of defeating certain types of enemies) or under duress or stressful situations, or we're in a downtime mini game a la some of the schemes in Xanathar's I don't ask for a lot of rolling. I will introduce rollings if we're at a particular lull in the game and I want either a critical success or a nat 1 complication (sorta One DnD modifications, nat 1s don't mean auto failure, but they do introduce complications, something I picked up from other diced base ttrpgs). Rolling should feel like an instrument of play not an impediment, and at least in my experience at various positions on the table, roll whenever a roll could be applicable tends to slow the roll of the game so to speak.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don't like the Ginny chart because it essentially says you don't roll dice in a game that is dice based. That's the whole point. Make the argument, but then roll it out. Just because you were super eloquent and articulate doesn't mean you succeeded.
I don't get that from the chart. It's not saying don't roll the dice; it's saying don't roll dice just to roll dice. The number that comes up should mean something
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't like the Ginny chart because it essentially says you don't roll dice in a game that is dice based. That's the whole point. Make the argument, but then roll it out. Just because you were super eloquent and articulate doesn't mean you succeeded.
That's not what it says at all (the very last step is "Roll!") What it's saying is that you shouldn't be calling for rolls willy-nilly, and the DMG says the exact same thing:
"Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:
Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?
If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate."
All she did was take that guidance and put it into a more visual format.
I don't like the Ginny chart because it essentially says you don't roll dice in a game that is dice based. That's the whole point. Make the argument, but then roll it out. Just because you were super eloquent and articulate doesn't mean you succeeded.
That's not what it says at all (the very last step is "Roll!") What it's saying is that you shouldn't be calling for rolls willy-nilly, and the DMG says the exact same thing:
"Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:
Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?
If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate."
All she did was take that guidance and put it into a more visual format.
Reading the chart... that's not what it's saying. It's basically saying "only roll if you have no other choice", the yes/no nature of it makes it far too black and white and incognisant of any nuance. It also misses out several questions that I'd employ.
The thread has talked about dumping Cha and relying on roleplay to cover up that weakness. This chart all but removes any downside to doing that, other than the player can't be lazy...and has to hog the spotlight in every social interaction rather than resolving it with a Cha roll. They reap the rewards while others take the costs.
The chart has some worthwhile questions on there. I probably ask myself most if not all of those questions before every roll. However, the yes/no nature and the rather limited scope of questions makes it far too one dimensional to be particularly useful as an MO. They're a list of questions you should bear in mind, not a decision tree.
Rolling should not be entirely removed by roleplay. My method encourages roleplay by using it to shape the roll and offers advantages if the players engage. They don't get to dump Cha though, because unless I actively want them to succeed or the task is routine (no, under normal circumstances you should not be making players roll to see if they can buy an ale from the barkeep), then their character's Cha will come in to play and be helpful.
Charisma isn't intended to be an Ability Score (and Proficiency, for that matter) tax for the socially anxious. It's a description of the capabilities of the character - having rolling merely be a last resort for when roleplaying isn't wanted or understood by the player turns it into a tax for those players because they actually.have to use it, unlike others.
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.
Rolling should not be entirely removed by roleplay.
I think different people might be reading the first step on the chart differently, because nowhere on there do I see it saying that pure roleplay should negate the need for a check
"Have the players done enough to succeed without a roll?" doesn't mean "Has the player given a compelling argument in place of a CHA check?", at least not to me. It means, "Have the players done enough in-game to make the check unnecessary?" It's less "big speech by the player instead of the character" and more "character has bribed their way out of needing a CHA check at all"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
For example: A PC has high enough charisma, and is actually making a good point in his RP, so the DM just accepts he convinced the NPC with his arguments instead of asking for a persuasion check. Would this be considered unfair, since the DM is personally evaluating the action instead of rolling dice? (And also considering some players are just better at roleplaying than others)
I do that kind of thing all the time when failure wouldn't serve a narrative purpose, or when a character is operating in their specific specialty (while an untrained character might still need to roll). The first option cuts down on slog and needless back and forth at the table over more trivial things, and the second option gives players the opportunity to feel special without the inherent risk of rolling a 1.
Context is important. Convincing the mayor that the sheriff's a lizard person in disguise? That's a roll. Convincing the barmaid that the lizard tooth on your belt is a dragon fang to impress her? Sure, you can have that.
Knowing when to ask for a roll as a DM is almost as important as knowing what to roll. If you examine each situation as they come, you'll realize not all of them merit one.
Rolling should not be entirely removed by roleplay.
I think different people might be reading the first step on the chart differently, because nowhere on there do I see it saying that pure roleplay should negate the need for a check
"Have the players done enough to succeed without a roll?" doesn't mean "Has the player given a compelling argument in place of a CHA check?", at least not to me. It means, "Have the players done enough in-game to make the check unnecessary?" It's less "big speech by the player instead of the character" and more "character has bribed their way out of needing a CHA check at all"
It asks "have the players done enough". Whether the check is necessary because success should have been assured by the character's previous actions (as well as other reasons like the simplicity of the task, etc) is asked by question 3 (is failure plausible?). I mean, it would be ironic if a decision tree intended to rid the game of redundant actions had itself redundant decisions in it, bit still. Question 1 (as you parse it) would just be a subset of question 3. To be honest, it's just very awkwardly and poorly phrased if it were intended to mean "Do the circumstances require a roll?", which is what in reality you're parsing it to mean.
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.
Rolling should not be entirely removed by roleplay.
I think different people might be reading the first step on the chart differently, because nowhere on there do I see it saying that pure roleplay should negate the need for a check
"Have the players done enough to succeed without a roll?" doesn't mean "Has the player given a compelling argument in place of a CHA check?", at least not to me. It means, "Have the players done enough in-game to make the check unnecessary?" It's less "big speech by the player instead of the character" and more "character has bribed their way out of needing a CHA check at all"
It asks "have the players done enough". Whether the check is necessary because success should have been assured by the character's previous actions (as well as other reasons like the simplicity of the task, etc) is asked by question 3 (is failure plausible?). I mean, it would be ironic if a decision tree intended to rid the game of redundant actions had itself redundant decisions in it, bit still. Question 1 (as you parse it) would just be a subset of question 3. To be honest, it's just very awkwardly and poorly phrased if it were intended to mean "Do the circumstances require a roll?", which is what in reality you're parsing it to mean.
I don't see "have the players done enough in-game to make the check unnecessary?" as equivalent to "is failure possible?" at all. The former is rooted in player decisions; the latter is rooted in DM decisions. If the DM decides a door is merely stuck and only requires a bit of a push to force open, that's step 3, not a subset of step 1
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Rolling should not be entirely removed by roleplay.
I think different people might be reading the first step on the chart differently, because nowhere on there do I see it saying that pure roleplay should negate the need for a check
"Have the players done enough to succeed without a roll?" doesn't mean "Has the player given a compelling argument in place of a CHA check?", at least not to me. It means, "Have the players done enough in-game to make the check unnecessary?" It's less "big speech by the player instead of the character" and more "character has bribed their way out of needing a CHA check at all"
It asks "have the players done enough". Whether the check is necessary because success should have been assured by the character's previous actions (as well as other reasons like the simplicity of the task, etc) is asked by question 3 (is failure plausible?). I mean, it would be ironic if a decision tree intended to rid the game of redundant actions had itself redundant decisions in it, bit still. Question 1 (as you parse it) would just be a subset of question 3. To be honest, it's just very awkwardly and poorly phrased if it were intended to mean "Do the circumstances require a roll?", which is what in reality you're parsing it to mean.
I don't see "have the players done enough in-game to make the check unnecessary?" as equivalent to "is failure possible?" at all. The former is rooted in player decisions; the latter is rooted in DM decisions. If the DM decides a door is merely stuck and only requires a bit of a push to force open, that's step 3, not a subset of step 1
Please give an example of where "the players have done enough to make the check unnecessary" but failure isn't plausible?
I'm confused by your statement. If a player has made a check unnecessary, it's because they've made failure either implausible or undesirable (from the DM perspective). If it's undesirable (Eg failure screws the game or the results not significant, then that's not about the players "doing enough".
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.
Rolling should not be entirely removed by roleplay.
I think different people might be reading the first step on the chart differently, because nowhere on there do I see it saying that pure roleplay should negate the need for a check
"Have the players done enough to succeed without a roll?" doesn't mean "Has the player given a compelling argument in place of a CHA check?", at least not to me. It means, "Have the players done enough in-game to make the check unnecessary?" It's less "big speech by the player instead of the character" and more "character has bribed their way out of needing a CHA check at all"
It asks "have the players done enough". Whether the check is necessary because success should have been assured by the character's previous actions (as well as other reasons like the simplicity of the task, etc) is asked by question 3 (is failure plausible?). I mean, it would be ironic if a decision tree intended to rid the game of redundant actions had itself redundant decisions in it, bit still. Question 1 (as you parse it) would just be a subset of question 3. To be honest, it's just very awkwardly and poorly phrased if it were intended to mean "Do the circumstances require a roll?", which is what in reality you're parsing it to mean.
I don't see "have the players done enough in-game to make the check unnecessary?" as equivalent to "is failure possible?" at all. The former is rooted in player decisions; the latter is rooted in DM decisions. If the DM decides a door is merely stuck and only requires a bit of a push to force open, that's step 3, not a subset of step 1
Please give an example of where "the players have done enough to make the check unnecessary" but failure isn't plausible?
I'm confused by your statement. If a player has made a check unnecessary, it's because they've made failure either implausible or undesirable (from the DM perspective).
I literally did earlier in the thread. Here, I'll provide examples for each step:
"Offer sufficient bribe to NPC" - step 1 satisfied as PC actions have negated the need for a check
"Jump to ledge 50 feet above with no magic or other assistance" - step 2 satisfied as action impossible
"Door merely stuck and just needs a decent shove to open" - step 3 satisfied as failure isn't plausible
"Bard playing lute for party around campfire" - step 4 satisfied as there's no consequence for playing badly (although if you wanted there to be a possible consequence, like the rest of the party ragging on the bard if they sound awful or a broken lute string or something, then you would have them make the check)
Step 5 is the trickiest one, but might be something like "Party must traverse narrow ledge over thousand-foot drop to get to BBEG" - step 5 satisfied as having a character die falling just before the final fight would be hella anticlimactic and sucky. Maybe, if you know the party has countermeasures like feather fall, you have them roll since the consequence then is just a burned spell slot, but if not it's better to just narrate the scene dramatically and move on
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I literally did earlier in the thread. Here, I'll provide examples for each step:
"Offer sufficient bribe to NPC" - step 1 satisfied as PC actions have negated the need for a check.
In other words, player agency has made.failure implausible. If I bribe the guard enough that they're happy to do it, then failure is implausible. If it is plausible, for example, the bribe is large enough that they'd consider doing it but it's not large enough that they'd definitely do it, then you roll.
In that situation, if it renders the check unnecessary, it's because failure is implausible. That's why I'm confused; in how you're interpreting the question if failure is plausible, it would pass Q1 anyway, if failure is implausible it would fail Q3 anyway and render Q1 moot.
How Q3 is restricted to DM decisions is also unclear; it just says that failure is implausibke - that can be due to DM decisions (too low a DC, for example) or player agency (they bribe the guard into ignoring what they're doing).
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.
Rolling should not be entirely removed by roleplay.
I don't think this is what the chart does.
Here are two questions people who play RPG's tend to disagree on: - If something is impossible and they absolutely cannot succeed regardless of the roll - should the DM make them roll. So yesterday I was DMing and they wanted to search for trap doors. As DM I knew there were no trap doors to be found. It was impossible to find any trap doors because there were none. Two different camps of DM's will disagree if I should have made them roll a search for traps. I personally only tend to do this if the players are metagaming far to much, to mess with their minds.
- If something is automatic and cannot fail, should a roll be required? My players are at a store and there is something for sale with the price listed next to it. The players offer the price listed. Should they have to roll a persuasion? Of course not - the shopkeeper listed a price and the players accepted - so success is automatic.
So it really depends on the details of the OP - was the PC trying to persuade the guard to do something that was the guard's duty anyway and made complete sense? For example, the player says: "Good Sir, I saw some dark clad figures sneaking around the back gate. Could you send some guards to investigate?" The guard's reaction will not really have anything to do with the persuasive powers of the PC, but on the city watch's available resources. Just like IRL if I dial 911 I don't have to use persuasion to get anyone to come out. The 911 dispatcher will establish a priority for the call based on their own internal code system and police will respond when they have the resources. This might be 5 minutes in one city or 2 hours in another - but it has nothing to do with me persuading the dispatcher. Response is automatic.
I literally did earlier in the thread. Here, I'll provide examples for each step:
"Offer sufficient bribe to NPC" - step 1 satisfied as PC actions have negated the need for a check.
In other words, player agency has made.failure implausible
And player agency has nothing to do with step 3
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In my opinion, yes.
The character's skill level is the important determiner.
If a character has low charisma and diplomacy skills, but the players is a smooth-talking persuasive person, the character should still be failing a lot of persuasion attempts. When I started roleplaying (*cough* early 80s *cough*) our group had a hightly persuasive, manipulative player who always dumped charisma (or its equivalent) but always tried to get the GM to allow his attempts to succeed without roling because he came up with persuasive arguments. Sadly, if often succeeded (mostly because of GM fatigue and/or to just get him to shut up).
After all, we don't allow a player's skill in martial arts replace a character's unarmed combat bonus. Do we…?
Secret rolls are the way to go here whenever there is a chance of failure that might not be known.
i.e. Never show the players a roll when searching an area unless you want them to roll it over and over until they find something or roll a 20.
likewise, don’t show a persuasion or deception check. (I let the player roll, but hide the result behind a screen). Instead, I role play the result - “the king looks at you with growing trust..”. With this, I can set the DC lower because of a great role play from the player. I justify this as follows - it is difficult to convince the king (DC 20) but he is smart enough to listen. DC reflects how willing he is to take action based on what he heard. If he likes what he heard, he is still hesitant, but might be convinced (DC 15). If he loved the idea, he is much more willing (DC 10). The roll is his decision, not his willingness. (I can, and do, make the DC worse if the players do a bad job.)
A bit unconventional but has helped my table find the balance between a good story and luck of the draw. What o hate doing is cheating - the DC is set before the dice leaves the hand.
Lots of this. Do you let strong players skip out on Strength rolls? If the player is a amateur MMA fighter, does the character skip unarmed attack rolls? It is much easier to gloss over the mental rolls by letting a player who is good in those areas meta-talk around game mechanics, but it's very unfair.
It's also a open invitation to GM bias, and letting the player you like have more success solely because you (even if only subconsciously) like them. They coincidentally get more of those no-need-to-roll, or roll-with-advantage outcomes, because people are not perfect & are generally terrible at noticing thier own blindspots. And that can quickly turn into a game that no one else wants to be at.
P.S. If the player is a professional MMA fighter, then yes, they can skip any rolls they want to.
This is perfectly fine. In fact, Ginny Di has a flowchart for this that I recommend highly. You read it clockwise from top left:
In your specific scenario, the player has already succeeded at step 1 (have they done enough to succeed without a roll), so there's no need to proceed to the other steps.
(BTW, this is one of the key things I dislike about Pathfinder 2e, because it tacitly encourages rolling more often than necessary due to its "crit success/crit fail" mechanic.)
I DMed a campaign for an eloquence bard who could not roll lower than a 21 on persuasion. I still asked for rolls.
Not always. If the NPC would have been swayed by the bard's natural charisma and he made his case well, I just let him succeed. There were times, however, when I lowered the DC because of the bard's comments, and there were also times that the only reason I allowed a persuasion roll at all was because the bard was so persuasive. And it wasn't just him, either. If my other players said things that would make any reasonable person potentially change their minds, I tried to reward that with either success or improved chances of success pending dice rolls.
I've debated this with a lot of different groups and tables, and the answer is never the same.
There was already a post about martial arts. I think that's a valid comparison. If there were a bodybuilder at my table playing a low STR character but then proceeded to literally lift my 10 foot solid wood table and go "See, I can do it therefore my character can". Ditto with dex based characters and good reflexes or a maybe a player trying to have their character win a drinking content by taking shot after shot in real life. Real life physical skills can't translate into the game due to the nature, but mental/social skills can.
I think good roleplaying is a fantastic skill, and I also don't always think its fair to those that can't really do that. If someone is playing a 18 CHA character with +8 persuasion at level 2? That character is pretty damn persuasive and they deserve to have the same ability to be as persuasive someone who is naturally persuasive, even if they are played by a complete knob who has zero real life social skills. That's the whole point of TTRPG, the character who can do things we can't. Yurei and I seem to agree a bit on this one. The stats are a starting point for what our characters do, but they aren't the end game. They should also represent certain boundaries. If my Fighter with a 10 charisma and no trained skills is giving a speech to the crowd to rile them up, roleplays a fantastic speech and then rolls a 2? Well, they got a 2. "The crowd hears the words, but they simply don't resonate the way you thought."
I don't like the Ginny chart because it essentially says you don't roll dice in a game that is dice based. That's the whole point. Make the argument, but then roll it out. Just because you were super eloquent and articulate doesn't mean you succeeded.
I get what you're saying; but I think we're more talking less about freeform role playing and more about using the character sheet mechanically to make presumptive successes or failures (or in the latter case admonishments of low possibilities but "you can certainly try" and allow rolls). Yurei sorta talks about this when she says folks confuse role playing with acting, which is analogous to your player saying if I can lift the keg my character can lift the keg (I believe only in the Morrow Project, does that idea actually reflect the rules). We're not necessarily, or even at all, talking about someone who can give an IRL Oscar nom worthy speech, we're rather talking about granting successes when a player is aware of what they're really good at it. As mentioned in the thread, prior editions had and many present players house rule "taking 10s", meaning a DM gives an idea of how much latitude a player should be granted in performing what they're good at. Ginny Di's platforming a chart that's predicated on the DM and table agreeing this sort of granting should take place for a more efficiently run, less bogged down game.
Yes D&D is a "dice based" game, but most of the most recent popular TTRPGs also are and they make clear in their guidance that players should not be "rolling for everything." What's under discussion here is a practice that has existed in D&D officially in prior editions, and is commonly house ruled, and I agree does make for more efficient gaming.
Generally outside of combat (though I also use minion rules so there's a lot of granting of defeating certain types of enemies) or under duress or stressful situations, or we're in a downtime mini game a la some of the schemes in Xanathar's I don't ask for a lot of rolling. I will introduce rollings if we're at a particular lull in the game and I want either a critical success or a nat 1 complication (sorta One DnD modifications, nat 1s don't mean auto failure, but they do introduce complications, something I picked up from other diced base ttrpgs). Rolling should feel like an instrument of play not an impediment, and at least in my experience at various positions on the table, roll whenever a roll could be applicable tends to slow the roll of the game so to speak.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don't get that from the chart. It's not saying don't roll the dice; it's saying don't roll dice just to roll dice. The number that comes up should mean something
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That's not what it says at all (the very last step is "Roll!") What it's saying is that you shouldn't be calling for rolls willy-nilly, and the DMG says the exact same thing:
"Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:
If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate."
All she did was take that guidance and put it into a more visual format.
Reading the chart... that's not what it's saying. It's basically saying "only roll if you have no other choice", the yes/no nature of it makes it far too black and white and incognisant of any nuance. It also misses out several questions that I'd employ.
The thread has talked about dumping Cha and relying on roleplay to cover up that weakness. This chart all but removes any downside to doing that, other than the player can't be lazy...and has to hog the spotlight in every social interaction rather than resolving it with a Cha roll. They reap the rewards while others take the costs.
The chart has some worthwhile questions on there. I probably ask myself most if not all of those questions before every roll. However, the yes/no nature and the rather limited scope of questions makes it far too one dimensional to be particularly useful as an MO. They're a list of questions you should bear in mind, not a decision tree.
Rolling should not be entirely removed by roleplay. My method encourages roleplay by using it to shape the roll and offers advantages if the players engage. They don't get to dump Cha though, because unless I actively want them to succeed or the task is routine (no, under normal circumstances you should not be making players roll to see if they can buy an ale from the barkeep), then their character's Cha will come in to play and be helpful.
Charisma isn't intended to be an Ability Score (and Proficiency, for that matter) tax for the socially anxious. It's a description of the capabilities of the character - having rolling merely be a last resort for when roleplaying isn't wanted or understood by the player turns it into a tax for those players because they actually.have to use it, unlike others.
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.
I think different people might be reading the first step on the chart differently, because nowhere on there do I see it saying that pure roleplay should negate the need for a check
"Have the players done enough to succeed without a roll?" doesn't mean "Has the player given a compelling argument in place of a CHA check?", at least not to me. It means, "Have the players done enough in-game to make the check unnecessary?" It's less "big speech by the player instead of the character" and more "character has bribed their way out of needing a CHA check at all"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I do that kind of thing all the time when failure wouldn't serve a narrative purpose, or when a character is operating in their specific specialty (while an untrained character might still need to roll). The first option cuts down on slog and needless back and forth at the table over more trivial things, and the second option gives players the opportunity to feel special without the inherent risk of rolling a 1.
Context is important. Convincing the mayor that the sheriff's a lizard person in disguise? That's a roll. Convincing the barmaid that the lizard tooth on your belt is a dragon fang to impress her? Sure, you can have that.
Knowing when to ask for a roll as a DM is almost as important as knowing what to roll. If you examine each situation as they come, you'll realize not all of them merit one.
It asks "have the players done enough". Whether the check is necessary because success should have been assured by the character's previous actions (as well as other reasons like the simplicity of the task, etc) is asked by question 3 (is failure plausible?). I mean, it would be ironic if a decision tree intended to rid the game of redundant actions had itself redundant decisions in it, bit still. Question 1 (as you parse it) would just be a subset of question 3. To be honest, it's just very awkwardly and poorly phrased if it were intended to mean "Do the circumstances require a roll?", which is what in reality you're parsing it to mean.
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.
I don't see "have the players done enough in-game to make the check unnecessary?" as equivalent to "is failure possible?" at all. The former is rooted in player decisions; the latter is rooted in DM decisions. If the DM decides a door is merely stuck and only requires a bit of a push to force open, that's step 3, not a subset of step 1
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Please give an example of where "the players have done enough to make the check unnecessary" but failure isn't plausible?
I'm confused by your statement. If a player has made a check unnecessary, it's because they've made failure either implausible or undesirable (from the DM perspective). If it's undesirable (Eg failure screws the game or the results not significant, then that's not about the players "doing enough".
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.
I literally did earlier in the thread. Here, I'll provide examples for each step:
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Only replace a die roll with RP for the "grovel, cower, beg" action
In other words, player agency has made.failure implausible. If I bribe the guard enough that they're happy to do it, then failure is implausible. If it is plausible, for example, the bribe is large enough that they'd consider doing it but it's not large enough that they'd definitely do it, then you roll.
In that situation, if it renders the check unnecessary, it's because failure is implausible. That's why I'm confused; in how you're interpreting the question if failure is plausible, it would pass Q1 anyway, if failure is implausible it would fail Q3 anyway and render Q1 moot.
How Q3 is restricted to DM decisions is also unclear; it just says that failure is implausibke - that can be due to DM decisions (too low a DC, for example) or player agency (they bribe the guard into ignoring what they're doing).
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.
I don't think this is what the chart does.
Here are two questions people who play RPG's tend to disagree on:
- If something is impossible and they absolutely cannot succeed regardless of the roll - should the DM make them roll. So yesterday I was DMing and they wanted to search for trap doors. As DM I knew there were no trap doors to be found. It was impossible to find any trap doors because there were none. Two different camps of DM's will disagree if I should have made them roll a search for traps. I personally only tend to do this if the players are metagaming far to much, to mess with their minds.
- If something is automatic and cannot fail, should a roll be required? My players are at a store and there is something for sale with the price listed next to it. The players offer the price listed. Should they have to roll a persuasion? Of course not - the shopkeeper listed a price and the players accepted - so success is automatic.
So it really depends on the details of the OP - was the PC trying to persuade the guard to do something that was the guard's duty anyway and made complete sense?
For example, the player says: "Good Sir, I saw some dark clad figures sneaking around the back gate. Could you send some guards to investigate?" The guard's reaction will not really have anything to do with the persuasive powers of the PC, but on the city watch's available resources. Just like IRL if I dial 911 I don't have to use persuasion to get anyone to come out. The 911 dispatcher will establish a priority for the call based on their own internal code system and police will respond when they have the resources. This might be 5 minutes in one city or 2 hours in another - but it has nothing to do with me persuading the dispatcher. Response is automatic.
And player agency has nothing to do with step 3
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)