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
How not? You're guy bribed a guard with such a large sum that they'd not consider refusing your request. That's made failure implausible.
For some reason, you've added on to that question to define it as not relating to player agency...but player agency, their choices, a massive factor in that. Can a player request land off a king? Whether that's granted depends on the temperament of the king (DM decisions), whether the players are of high enough standing to make the request, beggars no but mighty heroes of the land yes (players decisions and agency) and the circumstances of the request.
Whether success or failure of an action is plausible is dependent on both.
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.
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)
Well, it is the DM's job to make judgements of players' words and actions within the game. It certainly could motivate players to try harder with their RP. On the other hand, it would certainly favour some players and characters over others (though you could do similar things for creativity in non-RP skills or even combat, for example). Perhaps a good middle ground (and this is what I often do) might be to lower the DC of a check and/or give advantage in in these circumstances?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
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)
My table has introverts and extroverts. My primary concern is that the extroverts shouldn't always get free advantage on everything just because they like to act. The introverts are just as good at getting into character and making the decisions their characters would make (THAT is roleplaying, not using a funny accent and archaic language), so that is what I reward. Particularly clever or creative solutions are great and I'll lower the DC a bit for those, but what I expressly reward is acting as your character might.
Part of this is presentation too. You don't introduce riddles in your dungeon to challenge the characters, you do it to challenge the players. Discrete, group-focused challenges like this can provide a chance for players to be rewarded for their own feats without it blending into the rest of the game or leaving certain players at a constant disadvantage.
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
How not? You're guy bribed a guard with such a large sum that they'd not consider refusing your request.
Step 3 is the stuck door...
Question 3 is about plausibility, and plausibility can involve factors of agency. Anything that can properly dismissed at Q1 can be dismissed at Q3 as well, rendering Q1 redundant.
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.
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)
That’s not unfair at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
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)
At my tables, yeah, that's reasonable as all hell. But it depends on how important role playing is to the game.
I reward "heroic" stuff -- and this might count if the larger circumstance was big. I would probably do exactly that -- but my players know each other and have a long time of playing. So they get it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
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 think I would need more specifics. In my mind it has more to do with the logical conclusion of the guard than the RP ability. For example, In an evil city it's probably not that difficult to convince a guard to give a prisoner a bit of extra punishment. In a good city it's probably not difficult to convince a guard to respect a prisoner's humanity. So no rolls for those opposite situations. But if the PC wanted a good guard to torture a prisoner or "look the other way" or conversely wanted an evil guard to treat a prisoner humanely - both these would require pretty difficult roles regardless of RP. It isn't the action of the players that is releant to roll or not roll - it's the actual in-game reality.
Let's take an example of a merchant - a good merchant would be inclined to give alms to the poor and if they do this daily and the RP is good, sure - no roll required to convince the good merchant to give more. On the other hand an evil merchant who regularly kicks beggars probably wouldn't need much convincing to kick a beggar - it's what he normally does and it makes sense to him. So if a player comes up with a good RP why the evil merchant should kick a specific beggar, sure no roll required. But try to convince him to give charitably - that would require a very difficult roll. If someone wants to RP something literally impossible - sorry, no roll. It's impossible. As in one of the examples above - a peasant just isn't going to convince a King to give them land and title no matter how good the RP or roll is - unless the party has rescued the Kingdom AND it is legal and normal to do so in that kingdom.
I've seen a DM give a success instead of inspiration in situations where the action had limited effect but also make that same person roll in a later situation that affected the encounter's progression. "It works." versus "I'm gonna need a roll for this."
Sometimes, the roll comes first and the roleplay comes after the result. "So... (after a Nat 1 and still a failure after bonuses) how does that look when you do that?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How not? You're guy bribed a guard with such a large sum that they'd not consider refusing your request. That's made failure implausible.
For some reason, you've added on to that question to define it as not relating to player agency...but player agency, their choices, a massive factor in that. Can a player request land off a king? Whether that's granted depends on the temperament of the king (DM decisions), whether the players are of high enough standing to make the request, beggars no but mighty heroes of the land yes (players decisions and agency) and the circumstances of the request.
Whether success or failure of an action is plausible is dependent on both.
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.
Well, it is the DM's job to make judgements of players' words and actions within the game. It certainly could motivate players to try harder with their RP. On the other hand, it would certainly favour some players and characters over others (though you could do similar things for creativity in non-RP skills or even combat, for example). Perhaps a good middle ground
(and this is what I often do) might be to lower the DC of a check and/or give advantage in in these circumstances?
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieStep 3 is the stuck door...
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)
My table has introverts and extroverts. My primary concern is that the extroverts shouldn't always get free advantage on everything just because they like to act. The introverts are just as good at getting into character and making the decisions their characters would make (THAT is roleplaying, not using a funny accent and archaic language), so that is what I reward. Particularly clever or creative solutions are great and I'll lower the DC a bit for those, but what I expressly reward is acting as your character might.
Part of this is presentation too. You don't introduce riddles in your dungeon to challenge the characters, you do it to challenge the players. Discrete, group-focused challenges like this can provide a chance for players to be rewarded for their own feats without it blending into the rest of the game or leaving certain players at a constant disadvantage.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Question 3 is about plausibility, and plausibility can involve factors of agency. Anything that can properly dismissed at Q1 can be dismissed at Q3 as well, rendering Q1 redundant.
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.
deleted because this whole argument has become ridiculous
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 unfair at all.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
At my tables, yeah, that's reasonable as all hell. But it depends on how important role playing is to the game.
I reward "heroic" stuff -- and this might count if the larger circumstance was big. I would probably do exactly that -- but my players know each other and have a long time of playing. So they get it.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I think I would need more specifics. In my mind it has more to do with the logical conclusion of the guard than the RP ability. For example, In an evil city it's probably not that difficult to convince a guard to give a prisoner a bit of extra punishment. In a good city it's probably not difficult to convince a guard to respect a prisoner's humanity. So no rolls for those opposite situations. But if the PC wanted a good guard to torture a prisoner or "look the other way" or conversely wanted an evil guard to treat a prisoner humanely - both these would require pretty difficult roles regardless of RP.
It isn't the action of the players that is releant to roll or not roll - it's the actual in-game reality.
Let's take an example of a merchant - a good merchant would be inclined to give alms to the poor and if they do this daily and the RP is good, sure - no roll required to convince the good merchant to give more. On the other hand an evil merchant who regularly kicks beggars probably wouldn't need much convincing to kick a beggar - it's what he normally does and it makes sense to him. So if a player comes up with a good RP why the evil merchant should kick a specific beggar, sure no roll required. But try to convince him to give charitably - that would require a very difficult roll.
If someone wants to RP something literally impossible - sorry, no roll. It's impossible. As in one of the examples above - a peasant just isn't going to convince a King to give them land and title no matter how good the RP or roll is - unless the party has rescued the Kingdom AND it is legal and normal to do so in that kingdom.
I've seen a DM give a success instead of inspiration in situations where the action had limited effect but also make that same person roll in a later situation that affected the encounter's progression. "It works." versus "I'm gonna need a roll for this."
Sometimes, the roll comes first and the roleplay comes after the result. "So... (after a Nat 1 and still a failure after bonuses) how does that look when you do that?"
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.