I'm a DM and a player. I'm a player right now and that being said, I try VERY HARD not to "DM the DM" while I am a player; so I know the DM of the session/adventure/campaign has the right to DM how he/she wants to DM. Here's my rub:
Our DM loves the IDEA of a heavy role play campaign, so much so that social interactions very rarely involve rolls of the dice. The players (including me) in our group enjoy RPing (several of us have voices for our characters); however, not everyone that plays a bard is as silver-tongued in real life as they may have built their bard to be as a character. This has lead to our party not getting information out of NPC's that would have assisted us in encounters in later sessions, led to us having to strong arm NPC because we weren't convincing enough otherwise, and most recently almost got us into a fight against what would have been 9 guards (I don't know what their actual stats would have been, but I'm sure it wouldn't have been the 1/8 CR guard in the MM).
Just because a player isn't that great at coming up with a super convincing reason / argument / seduction on the spot doesn't mean that their character wouldn't be able to. Has anyone else run into this scenario and what did you do?
I treat it the way I would combat. Not every player is a great tactical thinker, but they’ve got to do their best anyway and see how it plays out. I would never require a player to speak their lines totally in-character; describing an abstract argument is enough for me. But if you really can’t think of anything, then... sorry, but I don’t believe in letting the dice play the game for you.
There’s only one thing you can do - other than walking away or simply playing along, of course - and that is having a conversation about this with your DM. I mean, you can stir up a rebellion with the other players or deliberately not roleplay at all anymore or other petty shenanigans, but if you want to try and fix this for real you have to talk it out. You have your arguments and your reasons, just explain how you feel and ask if your DM can adjust his style a bit. It’s a cooperative game, so work together.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I treat it the way I would combat. Not every player is a great tactical thinker, but they’ve got to do their best anyway and see how it plays out. I would never require a player to speak their lines totally in-character; describing an abstract argument is enough for me. But if you really can’t think of anything, then... sorry, but I don’t believe in letting the dice play the game for you.
Not to be a pain, but I assume you don’t take your players out into the yard and have everyone try to hit stuff (nevermind hit you) with sticks, right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I treat it the way I would combat. Not every player is a great tactical thinker, but they’ve got to do their best anyway and see how it plays out. I would never require a player to speak their lines totally in-character; describing an abstract argument is enough for me. But if you really can’t think of anything, then... sorry, but I don’t believe in letting the dice play the game for you.
Not to be a pain, but I assume you don’t take your players out into the yard and have everyone try to hit stuff (nevermind hit you) with sticks, right?
That’s not really relevant to my stated position. Hitting stuff with sticks is not playing the game. Deciding what your character says and does is.
I treat it the way I would combat. Not every player is a great tactical thinker, but they’ve got to do their best anyway and see how it plays out. I would never require a player to speak their lines totally in-character; describing an abstract argument is enough for me. But if you really can’t think of anything, then... sorry, but I don’t believe in letting the dice play the game for you.
Not to be a pain, but I assume you don’t take your players out into the yard and have everyone try to hit stuff (nevermind hit you) with sticks, right?
That’s not really relevant to my stated position. Hitting stuff with sticks is not playing the game. Deciding what your character says and does is.
Sure, but “I try to stick my sword into the gnoll, pointy end first” and “I try to convince the guard to let us in by putting on my most trustworthy face” feel more or less on par to me. The roleplaying part of combat is often pretty limited.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't require players to actually be convincing in any way, but they do have to present an argument or approach that seems reasonably likely to convince their target.
I think in the dynamic the OP has presented, there seems to be a lack of facilitation on the DMs part. Playing a character through its mechanics and interpreting some of those mechanics into "role playing" is a skill that I believe anyone can learn to do with the support of their fellow players and DM. The entertainment of the game is a mutual enjoyment of players and DM. Encouraging role playing is one thing. "Pushing" or insisting upon it and penalizing players who aren't up to the DM's dramatic standards ... well, maybe they're in a geography that's awash in players; but in areas where forming a group requires some labor or there's friend dynamics at play this DMs dramatic idiosyncrasies are not being met if they don't cultivate enjoyment at the table, so no one "wins" and the game suffers.
Especially for groups including new players, but even groups with OG players are best served with some sessions where the players and DM get to know how they all play. A DM may think they're a masterful role player as consequence of their arsenal of accents and rapid fire facial tics and gesticulations from a seat at table ... it's also likely the DMs players have gotten use to the DMs tells or otherwise have developed the skill to "read" their DM, and new players may be at something of a loss.
I check in with my players after or between every session, a sort of "we're all having fun, right?" check on the group. I've got some very observant players who are used to me, who I'll go to for a further check regarding their read on newer players (in Zoomspace it's hard to read everyone, so I welcome the other set of eyes watching how the newer players are reacting). It sounds like this table under discussion may need that, provide the DM some feedback and maybe as a table figure out how to foster the balance between rolling for it and role-playing that needs to be sorted out for every good game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It is very hard to put away the GM hat when you have been one, and "just play," but the first thing you need to do is try to do that. Your comment about the guards probably not being "the CR 1/8 guard from MM" is a great example of the type of thought you need to try very hard to avoid. I know it is difficult, but try not to let your knowledge of monsters and stats from the game come into your RP with your character.
I know, that's not your main point, but I think they are wrapped up together, because what you are describing is a particular choice of play style with D&D that seems not to be your cup of tea, in part because "that's not how I do it when I am DM." But the other DM may want a different style of game.
In particular, the decision of when to call for skill rolls is a highly individualized, personal one for each DM. There are plenty of times when I have watched one of the D&D shows when either I've muttered, "I'd call for a skill roll here," or, more often, the players are doing something completely ridiculous that should never have a chance to succeed and the DM allows a roll (and worse, a crit-success on a nat 20, which happens sometimes). So now you have a case in which a PC has RPed some lie completely unbelievable to an NPC that has been RPed as being intelligent, and nobody half-witted let alone intelligent would believe this obvious and blatant lie... and if I were DM, I would not allow a roll here because it was such a stupid thing to say. But the DM of the show calls for a roll and the player gets a nat 20 and everyone at the table cheers, and the DM has the NPC believe it. I sure didn't agree with that call as a DM (I also don't agree with allowing nat-20 skill checks to be auto-crit-successes either). But the thing is, they are having fun at their table, so that is what matters.
My point here is, that DM calls for skill checks when I wouldn't, or fails to call for them when I would; he allows nat-20 and nat-1 to be crit success and failures when I wouldn't. That's how he and his players want to play. It isn't how *I* want to play. It's a judgment call and it is personal - he isn't wrong to do it his way. But I wouldn't do it like that, because I have a different personal calibration for these things. Again, this is fun for his table, and that is all that counts.
Now, if nobody is having fun at your table because you guys want to make rolls and the DM is not permitting it, then it is time to have a conversation with the DM. It can be hard to bring this up and especially hard if you have been DM for a long time and you don't want to come off like you are "back seat DMing." I would talk to the other players and bring it up to the DM as a group, rather than you doing it by yourself. But e careful even so because you don't want the DM to feel like they are being attacked for their preferred DMing style. If you can phrase it like gee, we'd just like to roll some dice a little more often, maybe that would work. Rather than saying "you need to let us make skill checks."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
This is a great conversation, which most tables should have from time to time just to make sure everyone understands how this DM is going to play it.
I heard someone in Youtube space comment that in effect we often play Charisma backwards in D&D. I thought about it and they are right, but I think we should play it backwards.
In combat we say, I attack the Bugbear. You roll the dice, and based on the number with your modifiers, you "roleplay" the outcome. With Charisma, we often roleplay the encounter, and if the DM thinks a roll is called for, you roll the dice and see what the result is. So in effect we treat charisma backwards.
The way I like to handle it is to have the players roleplay the conversation and if I am pretty impressed with it, I will give them advantage on the roll. If I think it is crazy stupid approach, I might give them disadvantage. Execution of their roleplay probably has an effect on my decision, but I want them to do the roleplay for enjoyment and I'm trying not to "grade them" on their execution; things like using accents and stuff. So as the DM I have the DC of the problem and the ability to award advantage or disadvantage or leave it alone.
But Lyxen also makes a good point that should be considered at each table. My DM says I am the best RP guy at his table. What would happen if I dumped Chr on my next character? What if I dumped Intelligence or wisdom? I wouldn't be able to come up with these detailed plans so is the DM going to stop me saying "You're too stupid to do that."? Most players would feel their agency is being denied there. So coming up with the right answer is a bit of a challenge. As an aside, I don't think any character should come up with an Int or Wis of less than 10 because that would create these sort of problems for me as a DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I treat it the way I would combat. Not every player is a great tactical thinker, but they’ve got to do their best anyway and see how it plays out. I would never require a player to speak their lines totally in-character; describing an abstract argument is enough for me. But if you really can’t think of anything, then... sorry, but I don’t believe in letting the dice play the game for you.
Not to be a pain, but I assume you don’t take your players out into the yard and have everyone try to hit stuff (nevermind hit you) with sticks, right?
That’s not really relevant to my stated position. Hitting stuff with sticks is not playing the game. Deciding what your character says and does is.
Sure, but “I try to stick my sword into the gnoll, pointy end first” and “I try to convince the guard to let us in by putting on my most trustworthy face” feel more or less on par to me. The roleplaying part of combat is often pretty limited.
The problem is, sticking with that logic, why even leave either of those decisions to the player at all? Their character has separate intelligence and wisdom from the player, so why not roll to see what major decisions the characters make too?
It’s not really about decisions, it’s about execution. The player doesn’t roll to see if he attacks or if he negotiates, he just does. The difference is that for swinging a sword nobody ever asks the player to make an argument for success, it’s just a die roll to see if he hits or not; when negotiating, the player is usually asked to explain how he does that, what arguments he makes to win over the NPC. This can be very simple, just an out of character sentence, or very elaborate, with a lot if in-character roleplay, but either way it’s not just a roll of the dice that determines the outcome. And that’s fine, that’s as it should be as far as I’m concerned - I’m just saying, it’s not the same thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
In combat we say, I attack the Bugbear. You roll the dice, and based on the number with your modifiers, you "roleplay" the outcome. With Charisma, we often roleplay the encounter, and if the DM thinks a roll is called for, you roll the dice and see what the result is. So in effect we treat charisma backwards.
But is that really true? I mean, it depends on the table, I guess... and a lot of times my players in a long battle will just start saying "I attack X." But usually, they RP the attack, "I pull out another arrow and fire it at the bugbear," is RPing. And it is RPing *before* the roll. Then you make a roll to see if the attack hits or misses. Natural 1. The DM then narrates, "Your arrow whistles off past the bugbear and over the cliff -- you won't be able to retrieve that one." The player grumbles and marks off 1 arrow from their inventory.
And doesn't a Persuasion or Deception check work the same way? After all, you don't actually even have to say the words -- that is a stylistic choice by the player and/or the table. You could say, "I try to persuade the shop keeper to lower his prices," and the DM could say, "Make a persuasion check," followed by narrating the success or failure. Or you could say, "My friend, surely you have heard that my friends and I saved the town from zombies, goblins, and orcs. This was difficult work, but your shop is only standing because of our efforts. I believe you could lower your prices just a wee bit, now, couldn't you?" This is the Persuasion check equivalent of "I pull out an arrow and fire it."
Both are RP. Both happen before the roll. Then the roll tells you if you succeed or fail. Then the DM (rather than the player, at most tables) narrates the results of the roll.
Not everyone RPs combat, I guess... and usually the amount of RP you do in combat is reduced relative to the amount done in a conversation setting. But technically in D&D terms, both the battle AND the conversation are "encounters" and what you do before and after the roll are considered RP. If the amounts of differ between battle and convo, that is entirely a stylistic, not a mechanical, choice.
In combat we say, I attack the Bugbear. You roll the dice, and based on the number with your modifiers, you "roleplay" the outcome. With Charisma, we often roleplay the encounter, and if the DM thinks a roll is called for, you roll the dice and see what the result is. So in effect we treat charisma backwards.
But is that really true? I mean, it depends on the table, I guess... and a lot of times my players in a long battle will just start saying "I attack X." But usually, they RP the attack, "I pull out another arrow and fire it at the bugbear," is RPing. And it is RPing *before* the roll. Then you make a roll to see if the attack hits or misses. Natural 1. The DM then narrates, "Your arrow whistles off past the bugbear and over the cliff -- you won't be able to retrieve that one." The player grumbles and marks off 1 arrow from their inventory.
And doesn't a Persuasion or Deception check work the same way? After all, you don't actually even have to say the words -- that is a stylistic choice by the player and/or the table. You could say, "I try to persuade the shop keeper to lower his prices," and the DM could say, "Make a persuasion check," followed by narrating the success or failure. Or you could say, "My friend, surely you have heard that my friends and I saved the town from zombies, goblins, and orcs. This was difficult work, but your shop is only standing because of our efforts. I believe you could lower your prices just a wee bit, now, couldn't you?" This is the Persuasion check equivalent of "I pull out an arrow and fire it."
Both are RP. Both happen before the roll. Then the roll tells you if you succeed or fail. Then the DM (rather than the player, at most tables) narrates the results of the roll.
Not everyone RPs combat, I guess... and usually the amount of RP you do in combat is reduced relative to the amount done in a conversation setting. But technically in D&D terms, both the battle AND the conversation are "encounters" and what you do before and after the roll are considered RP. If the amounts of differ between battle and convo, that is entirely a stylistic, not a mechanical, choice.
The DMG suggests there’s a difference though, particularly in the “the role of the dice” section.
Moreover, I’d argue that reminding a shopkeep you saved the town and his shop in particular is different from saying you pull out an arrow. The former requires a minimum of creativity and comes down to using circumstances to best effect. The latter doesn’t require creativity and doesn’t hinge on circumstances other than not having run out of arrows. Most DMs - although they don’t have to - will set the Persuasion DC lower if a player makes a strong argument, and the DMG certainly suggests they can; no DM I ever met will lower the AC of a goblin because the player described his attack extra colorfully.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I treat it the way I would combat. Not every player is a great tactical thinker, but they’ve got to do their best anyway and see how it plays out. I would never require a player to speak their lines totally in-character; describing an abstract argument is enough for me. But if you really can’t think of anything, then... sorry, but I don’t believe in letting the dice play the game for you.
Not to be a pain, but I assume you don’t take your players out into the yard and have everyone try to hit stuff (nevermind hit you) with sticks, right?
That’s not really relevant to my stated position. Hitting stuff with sticks is not playing the game. Deciding what your character says and does is.
It's entirely relevant. In the same way that playing a Monk shouldn't be limited to people who are actually good at martial arts, playing a high-charisma character shouldn't be limited to people who actually have high charisma themselves. Yes, it's better for the experience if they player offers up more than "I try to deceive the shopkeeper", but the player shouldn't be penalized for not being as gifted a liar as their character who's proficient in Deception.
I know of a roleplaying DM of a roleplaying party who requests the skill checks first on social interaction, gives the results, and then, asks the player to roleplay the successes or failures.
The roleplay is just flavor and not a requirement. The rolls are the requirement. Roleplaying a failure can be just as fun as roleplaying a success in a silly way.
Player: "Can I try to convince this guy to do it for me?" DM: "Roll your Persuasion." *success* DM: "You know the peach farmers pretty well and know how to talk to them and appeal to their arrogance." Player: "You do it." DM as farmer: "I think I'll do it." *and, while doing the work, the farmer proceeds to pass-ag berate the player's ability to do simple work*
Player: "I cast Tasha's Hideous Laughter." DM: "Unfortunately, they succeeded on the save. What did you say to them?" Player: "Hey! Hey, there! Hey! Hey! Hey, there!" DM As enemy: "WHAT?!" Player: "How do you make holy water?" Enemy: "..." Player: "You boil the hell out of it!" DM: "Being that Common isn't their first language, it might be that the translation doesn't work well with them." Another player: "It might actually work for once if you get new material, mate."
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.
Yes, it's better for the experience if they player offers up more than "I try to deceive the shopkeeper", but the player shouldn't be penalized for not being as gifted a liar as their character who's proficient in Deception.
In general, I agree with you.
However, there is always a balance between challenging the player, and challenging the PC. In no RPG that I have ever played, are all the challenges strictly for the PC -- the player is challenged as well.
In combat, your character, who is a veteran of many wars, might be smart enough to know "who is the right enemy to attack here?" But most tables do not have their character make some sort of "military knowledge" roll and then on success have the DM tell him which enemy to attack. Rather, as a player, you are expected to size up the situation and, knowing how the rules of the game work, attack the proper enemy. (Yes, I am sure some DMs allow rolls, but it is going to happen in the vast minority of cases.)
Similarly, when facing a puzzle of some sort, like a riddle, do DMs allow the player to say, "My high-INT wizard tries to figure out the puzzle" and then, if the roll succeeds, just let the party solve the riddle without the players actually doing any work? Again, I'm sure some DMs do, but I bet most DMs do not. You put the riddle in there to challenge the players, rather than the PCs, and rolling for it negates the point of even having a puzzle in the game.
At many tables, the DM describes the areas of a dungeon, and the players, if they want to keep track of things, are required to make their own personal map of the area. How many DMs give the PCs a survival check and if they succeed, draw that part of the map for them? Again, I am sure a few do. But traditionally, drawing the map correctly has been a challenge for the players, not the characters, and DMs allowed players to make mistakes, and didn't correct them, even if the characters might be "better at mapping" than the players.
My point here is -- it is a balancing act. Yes, the PC has skills and they should be able to use those skills. But some things are meant to be challenges to the players, rather than the PCs, and without those, the game just becomes die rolling. For example, what's the point of a murder mystery if at the site of the dead body, the high-INT player can say, "I investigate the crime and try to solve it," rolls Investigation, gets a success, and that's the end of the mystery? No, for such a case, the DM will want the players, as well as the PCs, to do the work of the mystery-solving.
Thus, as I say, it is a balancing act... how much do you let the players roll for vs. how much you make them do as players. And every table has this balance point at a different location. The OP's table needs to find that balance. Hopefully it will be located somewhere that makes both players and DM equally happy, but sometimes that won't be the case and you may need to switch DMs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I feel a bit too often DMs are afraid to try things as well...they establish what their "style" is and have a hard time deviating from it. I am guilty of it as anyone.
You could simply start the conversation with "I want to try to roll to see how well this next persuasion attempt goes and RP it from there"
Roll a persuasion attempt and if it is low then you can RP saying something a bit offputting or a bad joke to undercut your message. If you roll well then you could maybe ask for a bit of intuition on what would work best to persuade them. I know what most people would say here "But that is insight! Thats a different skill!"
I don't disagree but you could do an Insight (CHA) roll instead. That way you use some small talk/clever language to uncover a way in to convincing them.
I treat it the way I would combat. Not every player is a great tactical thinker, but they’ve got to do their best anyway and see how it plays out. I would never require a player to speak their lines totally in-character; describing an abstract argument is enough for me. But if you really can’t think of anything, then... sorry, but I don’t believe in letting the dice play the game for you.
Not to be a pain, but I assume you don’t take your players out into the yard and have everyone try to hit stuff (nevermind hit you) with sticks, right?
That’s not really relevant to my stated position. Hitting stuff with sticks is not playing the game. Deciding what your character says and does is.
It's entirely relevant. In the same way that playing a Monk shouldn't be limited to people who are actually good at martial arts, playing a high-charisma character shouldn't be limited to people who actually have high charisma themselves. Yes, it's better for the experience if they player offers up more than "I try to deceive the shopkeeper", but the player shouldn't be penalized for not being as gifted a liar as their character who's proficient in Deception.
Again, no. You’re conflating two different things and putting words in my mouth at the same time. “I try to deceive the shopkeeper” is absolutely not comparable to “I make an attack with my quarterstaff and then spend a ki to follow up with flurry of blows as a bonus action.”
”I try to deceive the shopkeeper” is on the level of “I engage in combat with the enemy.” If you want to start comparing things to “I attack the enemy with [specific weapon]” you need to start thinking “I tell the shopkeeper someone outside needs their help so I can look through the store unsupervised.”
Just as I would never play out a combat for you, I’m not going to make up what your character says for you. I will never expect a player to actually sell me their lie, but if they can’t even tell me what the lie is, they’re not going to be able to deceive anyone.
I treat it the way I would combat. Not every player is a great tactical thinker, but they’ve got to do their best anyway and see how it plays out. I would never require a player to speak their lines totally in-character; describing an abstract argument is enough for me. But if you really can’t think of anything, then... sorry, but I don’t believe in letting the dice play the game for you.
This. 100%.
If you want to talk your way past a guard, you don't have to be elegant in how you use your words or roleplay a world class leading acting performance, but there is a difference between...
I want to talk my way past the guards - persuasion check?
And...
I want to tell the guards that someone is being robbed around the corner and they need to go and check, in an effort to distract them.
The latter, no matter how much someone stutters over their words, can or can't do an accent, etc, would most likely result in me saying 'roll persuasion.'
The former would most likely make me say 'and how do you intend to talk your way past' in an effort to eek more info from them.
I treat it the way I would combat. Not every player is a great tactical thinker, but they’ve got to do their best anyway and see how it plays out. I would never require a player to speak their lines totally in-character; describing an abstract argument is enough for me. But if you really can’t think of anything, then... sorry, but I don’t believe in letting the dice play the game for you.
Not to be a pain, but I assume you don’t take your players out into the yard and have everyone try to hit stuff (nevermind hit you) with sticks, right?
That’s not really relevant to my stated position. Hitting stuff with sticks is not playing the game. Deciding what your character says and does is.
It's entirely relevant. In the same way that playing a Monk shouldn't be limited to people who are actually good at martial arts, playing a high-charisma character shouldn't be limited to people who actually have high charisma themselves. Yes, it's better for the experience if they player offers up more than "I try to deceive the shopkeeper", but the player shouldn't be penalized for not being as gifted a liar as their character who's proficient in Deception.
Again, no. You’re conflating two different things and putting words in my mouth at the same time. “I try to deceive the shopkeeper” is absolutely not comparable to “I make an attack with my quarterstaff and then spend a ki to follow up with flurry of blows as a bonus action.”
”I try to deceive the shopkeeper” is on the level of “I engage in combat with the enemy.” If you want to start comparing things to “I attack the enemy with [specific weapon]” you need to start thinking “I tell the shopkeeper someone outside needs their help so I can look through the store unsupervised.”
Just as I would never play out a combat for you, I’m not going to make up what your character says for you. I will never expect a player to actually sell me their lie, but if they can’t even tell me what the lie is, they’re not going to be able to deceive anyone.
Except what the character is saying is the functional equivalent to swinging a quarterstaff when you're in a social encounter vs. a combat encounter. So you're still asking the player to be good at something instead of the character, which is MY point. A player shouldn't be punished for trying to play a character who is good at stuff that they the player aren't good at. I do believe the player should try to do more than just say "I try to deceive the shopkeeper", but they shouldn't be punished for being less socially skilled than their character.
EDIT - And this is especially relevant since the OP mentioned that their DM tends to avoid dice-rolling in social encounters, relying on the players' performance rather than the character's abilities.
I'm a DM and a player. I'm a player right now and that being said, I try VERY HARD not to "DM the DM" while I am a player; so I know the DM of the session/adventure/campaign has the right to DM how he/she wants to DM. Here's my rub:
Our DM loves the IDEA of a heavy role play campaign, so much so that social interactions very rarely involve rolls of the dice. The players (including me) in our group enjoy RPing (several of us have voices for our characters); however, not everyone that plays a bard is as silver-tongued in real life as they may have built their bard to be as a character. This has lead to our party not getting information out of NPC's that would have assisted us in encounters in later sessions, led to us having to strong arm NPC because we weren't convincing enough otherwise, and most recently almost got us into a fight against what would have been 9 guards (I don't know what their actual stats would have been, but I'm sure it wouldn't have been the 1/8 CR guard in the MM).
Just because a player isn't that great at coming up with a super convincing reason / argument / seduction on the spot doesn't mean that their character wouldn't be able to. Has anyone else run into this scenario and what did you do?
I treat it the way I would combat. Not every player is a great tactical thinker, but they’ve got to do their best anyway and see how it plays out. I would never require a player to speak their lines totally in-character; describing an abstract argument is enough for me. But if you really can’t think of anything, then... sorry, but I don’t believe in letting the dice play the game for you.
There’s only one thing you can do - other than walking away or simply playing along, of course - and that is having a conversation about this with your DM. I mean, you can stir up a rebellion with the other players or deliberately not roleplay at all anymore or other petty shenanigans, but if you want to try and fix this for real you have to talk it out. You have your arguments and your reasons, just explain how you feel and ask if your DM can adjust his style a bit. It’s a cooperative game, so work together.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Not to be a pain, but I assume you don’t take your players out into the yard and have everyone try to hit stuff (nevermind hit you) with sticks, right?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That’s not really relevant to my stated position. Hitting stuff with sticks is not playing the game. Deciding what your character says and does is.
Sure, but “I try to stick my sword into the gnoll, pointy end first” and “I try to convince the guard to let us in by putting on my most trustworthy face” feel more or less on par to me. The roleplaying part of combat is often pretty limited.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't require players to actually be convincing in any way, but they do have to present an argument or approach that seems reasonably likely to convince their target.
I think in the dynamic the OP has presented, there seems to be a lack of facilitation on the DMs part. Playing a character through its mechanics and interpreting some of those mechanics into "role playing" is a skill that I believe anyone can learn to do with the support of their fellow players and DM. The entertainment of the game is a mutual enjoyment of players and DM. Encouraging role playing is one thing. "Pushing" or insisting upon it and penalizing players who aren't up to the DM's dramatic standards ... well, maybe they're in a geography that's awash in players; but in areas where forming a group requires some labor or there's friend dynamics at play this DMs dramatic idiosyncrasies are not being met if they don't cultivate enjoyment at the table, so no one "wins" and the game suffers.
Especially for groups including new players, but even groups with OG players are best served with some sessions where the players and DM get to know how they all play. A DM may think they're a masterful role player as consequence of their arsenal of accents and rapid fire facial tics and gesticulations from a seat at table ... it's also likely the DMs players have gotten use to the DMs tells or otherwise have developed the skill to "read" their DM, and new players may be at something of a loss.
I check in with my players after or between every session, a sort of "we're all having fun, right?" check on the group. I've got some very observant players who are used to me, who I'll go to for a further check regarding their read on newer players (in Zoomspace it's hard to read everyone, so I welcome the other set of eyes watching how the newer players are reacting). It sounds like this table under discussion may need that, provide the DM some feedback and maybe as a table figure out how to foster the balance between rolling for it and role-playing that needs to be sorted out for every good game.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It is very hard to put away the GM hat when you have been one, and "just play," but the first thing you need to do is try to do that. Your comment about the guards probably not being "the CR 1/8 guard from MM" is a great example of the type of thought you need to try very hard to avoid. I know it is difficult, but try not to let your knowledge of monsters and stats from the game come into your RP with your character.
I know, that's not your main point, but I think they are wrapped up together, because what you are describing is a particular choice of play style with D&D that seems not to be your cup of tea, in part because "that's not how I do it when I am DM." But the other DM may want a different style of game.
In particular, the decision of when to call for skill rolls is a highly individualized, personal one for each DM. There are plenty of times when I have watched one of the D&D shows when either I've muttered, "I'd call for a skill roll here," or, more often, the players are doing something completely ridiculous that should never have a chance to succeed and the DM allows a roll (and worse, a crit-success on a nat 20, which happens sometimes). So now you have a case in which a PC has RPed some lie completely unbelievable to an NPC that has been RPed as being intelligent, and nobody half-witted let alone intelligent would believe this obvious and blatant lie... and if I were DM, I would not allow a roll here because it was such a stupid thing to say. But the DM of the show calls for a roll and the player gets a nat 20 and everyone at the table cheers, and the DM has the NPC believe it. I sure didn't agree with that call as a DM (I also don't agree with allowing nat-20 skill checks to be auto-crit-successes either). But the thing is, they are having fun at their table, so that is what matters.
My point here is, that DM calls for skill checks when I wouldn't, or fails to call for them when I would; he allows nat-20 and nat-1 to be crit success and failures when I wouldn't. That's how he and his players want to play. It isn't how *I* want to play. It's a judgment call and it is personal - he isn't wrong to do it his way. But I wouldn't do it like that, because I have a different personal calibration for these things. Again, this is fun for his table, and that is all that counts.
Now, if nobody is having fun at your table because you guys want to make rolls and the DM is not permitting it, then it is time to have a conversation with the DM. It can be hard to bring this up and especially hard if you have been DM for a long time and you don't want to come off like you are "back seat DMing." I would talk to the other players and bring it up to the DM as a group, rather than you doing it by yourself. But e careful even so because you don't want the DM to feel like they are being attacked for their preferred DMing style. If you can phrase it like gee, we'd just like to roll some dice a little more often, maybe that would work. Rather than saying "you need to let us make skill checks."
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
This is a great conversation, which most tables should have from time to time just to make sure everyone understands how this DM is going to play it.
I heard someone in Youtube space comment that in effect we often play Charisma backwards in D&D. I thought about it and they are right, but I think we should play it backwards.
In combat we say, I attack the Bugbear. You roll the dice, and based on the number with your modifiers, you "roleplay" the outcome. With Charisma, we often roleplay the encounter, and if the DM thinks a roll is called for, you roll the dice and see what the result is. So in effect we treat charisma backwards.
The way I like to handle it is to have the players roleplay the conversation and if I am pretty impressed with it, I will give them advantage on the roll. If I think it is crazy stupid approach, I might give them disadvantage. Execution of their roleplay probably has an effect on my decision, but I want them to do the roleplay for enjoyment and I'm trying not to "grade them" on their execution; things like using accents and stuff. So as the DM I have the DC of the problem and the ability to award advantage or disadvantage or leave it alone.
But Lyxen also makes a good point that should be considered at each table. My DM says I am the best RP guy at his table. What would happen if I dumped Chr on my next character? What if I dumped Intelligence or wisdom? I wouldn't be able to come up with these detailed plans so is the DM going to stop me saying "You're too stupid to do that."? Most players would feel their agency is being denied there. So coming up with the right answer is a bit of a challenge. As an aside, I don't think any character should come up with an Int or Wis of less than 10 because that would create these sort of problems for me as a DM.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
It’s not really about decisions, it’s about execution. The player doesn’t roll to see if he attacks or if he negotiates, he just does. The difference is that for swinging a sword nobody ever asks the player to make an argument for success, it’s just a die roll to see if he hits or not; when negotiating, the player is usually asked to explain how he does that, what arguments he makes to win over the NPC. This can be very simple, just an out of character sentence, or very elaborate, with a lot if in-character roleplay, but either way it’s not just a roll of the dice that determines the outcome. And that’s fine, that’s as it should be as far as I’m concerned - I’m just saying, it’s not the same thing.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
But is that really true? I mean, it depends on the table, I guess... and a lot of times my players in a long battle will just start saying "I attack X." But usually, they RP the attack, "I pull out another arrow and fire it at the bugbear," is RPing. And it is RPing *before* the roll. Then you make a roll to see if the attack hits or misses. Natural 1. The DM then narrates, "Your arrow whistles off past the bugbear and over the cliff -- you won't be able to retrieve that one." The player grumbles and marks off 1 arrow from their inventory.
And doesn't a Persuasion or Deception check work the same way? After all, you don't actually even have to say the words -- that is a stylistic choice by the player and/or the table. You could say, "I try to persuade the shop keeper to lower his prices," and the DM could say, "Make a persuasion check," followed by narrating the success or failure. Or you could say, "My friend, surely you have heard that my friends and I saved the town from zombies, goblins, and orcs. This was difficult work, but your shop is only standing because of our efforts. I believe you could lower your prices just a wee bit, now, couldn't you?" This is the Persuasion check equivalent of "I pull out an arrow and fire it."
Both are RP. Both happen before the roll. Then the roll tells you if you succeed or fail. Then the DM (rather than the player, at most tables) narrates the results of the roll.
Not everyone RPs combat, I guess... and usually the amount of RP you do in combat is reduced relative to the amount done in a conversation setting. But technically in D&D terms, both the battle AND the conversation are "encounters" and what you do before and after the roll are considered RP. If the amounts of differ between battle and convo, that is entirely a stylistic, not a mechanical, choice.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The DMG suggests there’s a difference though, particularly in the “the role of the dice” section.
Moreover, I’d argue that reminding a shopkeep you saved the town and his shop in particular is different from saying you pull out an arrow. The former requires a minimum of creativity and comes down to using circumstances to best effect. The latter doesn’t require creativity and doesn’t hinge on circumstances other than not having run out of arrows. Most DMs - although they don’t have to - will set the Persuasion DC lower if a player makes a strong argument, and the DMG certainly suggests they can; no DM I ever met will lower the AC of a goblin because the player described his attack extra colorfully.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It's entirely relevant. In the same way that playing a Monk shouldn't be limited to people who are actually good at martial arts, playing a high-charisma character shouldn't be limited to people who actually have high charisma themselves. Yes, it's better for the experience if they player offers up more than "I try to deceive the shopkeeper", but the player shouldn't be penalized for not being as gifted a liar as their character who's proficient in Deception.
I know of a roleplaying DM of a roleplaying party who requests the skill checks first on social interaction, gives the results, and then, asks the player to roleplay the successes or failures.
The roleplay is just flavor and not a requirement. The rolls are the requirement. Roleplaying a failure can be just as fun as roleplaying a success in a silly way.
Player: "Can I try to convince this guy to do it for me?"
DM: "Roll your Persuasion."
*success*
DM: "You know the peach farmers pretty well and know how to talk to them and appeal to their arrogance."
Player: "You do it."
DM as farmer: "I think I'll do it." *and, while doing the work, the farmer proceeds to pass-ag berate the player's ability to do simple work*
Player: "I cast Tasha's Hideous Laughter."
DM: "Unfortunately, they succeeded on the save. What did you say to them?"
Player: "Hey! Hey, there! Hey! Hey! Hey, there!"
DM As enemy: "WHAT?!"
Player: "How do you make holy water?"
Enemy: "..."
Player: "You boil the hell out of it!"
DM: "Being that Common isn't their first language, it might be that the translation doesn't work well with them."
Another player: "It might actually work for once if you get new material, mate."
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.
In general, I agree with you.
However, there is always a balance between challenging the player, and challenging the PC. In no RPG that I have ever played, are all the challenges strictly for the PC -- the player is challenged as well.
In combat, your character, who is a veteran of many wars, might be smart enough to know "who is the right enemy to attack here?" But most tables do not have their character make some sort of "military knowledge" roll and then on success have the DM tell him which enemy to attack. Rather, as a player, you are expected to size up the situation and, knowing how the rules of the game work, attack the proper enemy. (Yes, I am sure some DMs allow rolls, but it is going to happen in the vast minority of cases.)
Similarly, when facing a puzzle of some sort, like a riddle, do DMs allow the player to say, "My high-INT wizard tries to figure out the puzzle" and then, if the roll succeeds, just let the party solve the riddle without the players actually doing any work? Again, I'm sure some DMs do, but I bet most DMs do not. You put the riddle in there to challenge the players, rather than the PCs, and rolling for it negates the point of even having a puzzle in the game.
At many tables, the DM describes the areas of a dungeon, and the players, if they want to keep track of things, are required to make their own personal map of the area. How many DMs give the PCs a survival check and if they succeed, draw that part of the map for them? Again, I am sure a few do. But traditionally, drawing the map correctly has been a challenge for the players, not the characters, and DMs allowed players to make mistakes, and didn't correct them, even if the characters might be "better at mapping" than the players.
My point here is -- it is a balancing act. Yes, the PC has skills and they should be able to use those skills. But some things are meant to be challenges to the players, rather than the PCs, and without those, the game just becomes die rolling. For example, what's the point of a murder mystery if at the site of the dead body, the high-INT player can say, "I investigate the crime and try to solve it," rolls Investigation, gets a success, and that's the end of the mystery? No, for such a case, the DM will want the players, as well as the PCs, to do the work of the mystery-solving.
Thus, as I say, it is a balancing act... how much do you let the players roll for vs. how much you make them do as players. And every table has this balance point at a different location. The OP's table needs to find that balance. Hopefully it will be located somewhere that makes both players and DM equally happy, but sometimes that won't be the case and you may need to switch DMs.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I feel a bit too often DMs are afraid to try things as well...they establish what their "style" is and have a hard time deviating from it. I am guilty of it as anyone.
You could simply start the conversation with "I want to try to roll to see how well this next persuasion attempt goes and RP it from there"
Roll a persuasion attempt and if it is low then you can RP saying something a bit offputting or a bad joke to undercut your message. If you roll well then you could maybe ask for a bit of intuition on what would work best to persuade them. I know what most people would say here "But that is insight! Thats a different skill!"
I don't disagree but you could do an Insight (CHA) roll instead. That way you use some small talk/clever language to uncover a way in to convincing them.
Again, no. You’re conflating two different things and putting words in my mouth at the same time. “I try to deceive the shopkeeper” is absolutely not comparable to “I make an attack with my quarterstaff and then spend a ki to follow up with flurry of blows as a bonus action.”
”I try to deceive the shopkeeper” is on the level of “I engage in combat with the enemy.” If you want to start comparing things to “I attack the enemy with [specific weapon]” you need to start thinking “I tell the shopkeeper someone outside needs their help so I can look through the store unsupervised.”
Just as I would never play out a combat for you, I’m not going to make up what your character says for you. I will never expect a player to actually sell me their lie, but if they can’t even tell me what the lie is, they’re not going to be able to deceive anyone.
This. 100%.
If you want to talk your way past a guard, you don't have to be elegant in how you use your words or roleplay a world class leading acting performance, but there is a difference between...
I want to talk my way past the guards - persuasion check?
And...
I want to tell the guards that someone is being robbed around the corner and they need to go and check, in an effort to distract them.
The latter, no matter how much someone stutters over their words, can or can't do an accent, etc, would most likely result in me saying 'roll persuasion.'
The former would most likely make me say 'and how do you intend to talk your way past' in an effort to eek more info from them.
Except what the character is saying is the functional equivalent to swinging a quarterstaff when you're in a social encounter vs. a combat encounter. So you're still asking the player to be good at something instead of the character, which is MY point. A player shouldn't be punished for trying to play a character who is good at stuff that they the player aren't good at. I do believe the player should try to do more than just say "I try to deceive the shopkeeper", but they shouldn't be punished for being less socially skilled than their character.
EDIT - And this is especially relevant since the OP mentioned that their DM tends to avoid dice-rolling in social encounters, relying on the players' performance rather than the character's abilities.