I also understand and agree that sometimes an argument just isn't going to be good enough because it is really just an absurd argument. But as an example - when the party has been hired by the town guard to solve a mystery, and has town guard credentials to prove it, when they show up an an NPC's estate and declare that they want to talk about a matter of great importance with the owner, would the butler just argue with the party because the PLAYER didn't role play it well enough to be convincing? In other words, no dice roll to determine how convincing the character is to the butler.
Having been a DM yourself, you know that die rolls are only called for when there is a chance to succeed. If there is some reason why the butler could never have said yes, or if the party didn't flash their credentials but just tried to bully their way in past a stuffy and highly officious butler, then I might not call for a roll. Die rolls are made when the outcome is in doubt, which occurs either because of something the PCs did in terms or RP, or because of the way the rules of the world work.
For example, in my Roman Empire campaign, I don't care how good you are at persuasion, if you don't have some sort of special status or permission, no amount of fast-talking is going to get you past the Praetorian Guard and into the throne room to have chat with Caesar. You'd need to be accompanied by a powerful Senator, or one of the Consuls, or have a letter from the governor of your province, or something along those lines. Without that, "I'm just gonna try to roll deception and get past the most powerful and intractable bodyguards to ever walk the earth" isn't going to cut it.
In between the obvious cases of a well-RPed, high-probability situation in which you should probably succeed without a roll, and the impossible/poor RP situation in which you should never have succeeded at this, there is a massive gray area big enough to drive the Death Star through, and that area is all GM call. Some GMs call for rolls pretty much everywhere in that gray area. Others only call for rolls in the exact center of it. Most of us are somewhere between those extremes.
But without auditing your sessions, or at least seeing your DM's side of it, I don't think any of us can say for sure, based on your characterization, whether we'd have called for rolls when you think they should be called for, or not. Clearly you think they should be called for, and if you were DM, you'd call for them. But would I? I'd have to see the actual session to answer that... and I am not going to be seeing your session.
You should definitely have a conversation with the DM or the players or both, depending on circumstances. For instance, your statement about "the crux of my party's frustration" makes it seem like you have talked to the other players and you are all frustrated. At this point it is time to approach the DM. Beyond that, I'm not sure any of us can give you good advice because we can't see the action situations in which you think a roll should be made and your DM doesn't.
Actually I think the OP should chat with the other players first. If the other players are OK with it then the OP needs to seriously think about what to do, since changing it might please the OP at the expense of the other players.
This is a cooperative enterprise. DM doesn't necessarily get to just "have their way" but the OP doesn't either.
I fully agree there. Also, putting the question on the table might also allow the table to put their finger on an actual issu underneath, sometimes maybe the roleplay that the DM expects might not be exactly the one that the players offer. I have seen this in the past, because there are lots of different styles of roleplaying for some just speaking a lot is enough, others expect a tone which is in more in line with the character or the situation, etc. If that happens to be the case, it's always better to air things up.
So I'm playing a bard in the group. We have a barbarian, a monk, a warlock, and a sorcerer. Me being me, I am comfortable role playing and have been told by our current DM that I am doing a good job at it - almost too good. He has asked me to try to help him facilitate role playing by the other players as a player and as a character - which I gladly accepted. This latest instance (which has brought me to the forum) occurred when our sorcerer was "leading" the party and doing all the talking. Being a sorcerer his character has a very high CHA, and I thought that the player did well role playing back and forth with the DM, but apparently the DM didn't think it was good enough from the player to get us where we wanted to go, but also didn't call for the character's ability to come into play - a dice roll for persuasion/intimidation.
I will definitely reach out to the other players in the party and see what they think of the social encounter from our last session without the DM in the chat. Thanks.
Also, I think this has been a great discussion (without bringing combat into it) because all I could find people talking about previously was about how the DM could get the players to role play more, nothing about how the role playing that was happening wasn't sufficient for the DM. Thanks for all of your ideas and the community conversation!!
So I'm playing a bard in the group. We have a barbarian, a monk, a warlock, and a sorcerer. Me being me, I am comfortable role playing and have been told by our current DM that I am doing a good job at it - almost too good. He has asked me to try to help him facilitate role playing by the other players as a player and as a character - which I gladly accepted. This latest instance (which has brought me to the forum) occurred when our sorcerer was "leading" the party and doing all the talking. Being a sorcerer his character has a very high CHA, and I thought that the player did well role playing back and forth with the DM, but apparently the DM didn't think it was good enough from the player to get us where we wanted to go, but also didn't call for the character's ability to come into play - a dice roll for persuasion/intimidation.
Hmmm, it's an interesting case, especially considering that you thought that the sorcerer did well. I can understand where you are getting from because if the DM wants more roleplay, you let the sorcerer do it (which is a kind of facilitation, I'm pretty sure you could have done it yourself), the sorcerer does well and still nothing happens without any explanation, it really looks like your DM is shooting himself in the foot.
I completely agree with BioWizard that some situations do not warrant any roll, there are just impossible. Actually, I use very few rolls myself as a DM anyway. But when there is a reason for which:
No rolls will be possible: I try and make the players understand why, being blocked by a praetorian guard is usually goo enough.
The player did well but still did not succeed: I at least give some indication as to what went wrong, in particular in the tone of the discussion, or by the arguments of the buttler.
But doing things the way they were done would just discourage the sorcerer to ever tried that again, which I think goes against what the DM wanted to achieve (on top of which there is my personal opinion that it's a game and the aim is not to teach the players anything or encourage them to do things that they would not necessarily find fun).
There might also be the fact that you set an example of really good roleplaying and that therefore the DM expects the same from other players, which is not really fair either.
In any case, worth discussing with the DM and the player of the sorcerer...
I totally agree with both of you. I've started a group chat with the other players...we'll see what they say and then if it merits a conversation with the DM one of us or all of us will make that happen.
Again - thanks to the entire community for the conversation.
I thought that the player did well role playing back and forth with the DM, but apparently the DM didn't think it was good enough from the player to get us where we wanted to go, but also didn't call for the character's ability to come into play - a dice roll for persuasion/intimidation.
Again be careful here. This sounds an awful lot like 'back seat DMing'. If you were the DM, you would have thought the RP was good enough to convince the NPC, at least to the point where a roll was possible. The DM did not see it that way. That is the DM's call.
Given what you have described (and taking into account we do not have the DM's side of this, nor anyone else's), I probably would have ruled more along the lines of how you would. But I recognize that it is not the only way to do things and again, this is a gray area, and up to the DM.
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 thought that the player did well role playing back and forth with the DM, but apparently the DM didn't think it was good enough from the player to get us where we wanted to go, but also didn't call for the character's ability to come into play - a dice roll for persuasion/intimidation.
Again be careful here. This sounds an awful lot like 'back seat DMing'. If you were the DM, you would have thought the RP was good enough to convince the NPC, at least to the point where a roll was possible. The DM did not see it that way. That is the DM's call.
Given what you have described (and taking into account we do not have the DM's side of this, nor anyone else's), I probably would have ruled more along the lines of how you would. But I recognize that it is not the only way to do things and again, this is a gray area, and up to the DM.
Very fair response. Ultimately its hard to know table dynamics from a few paragraphs vs. hours and hours of playtime.
I agree as well as I would likely have allowed them to roll albeit maybe with a bit higher DC.
For me, the DC is the DC, what reason would you have to change the DC ?
It's already debatable whether roleplaying should give you a modifier to the roll (roleplaying should be its own reward, for once, and on top of that it starts being unfair because what you are judging is not the performance of the character, but of the player, and that has to take into account personal facilities of the person), but why would it change the DC?
It's a litlle trickier than that in my opinion. Legend of the 5 Rings 5th ed deals with this in a more obvious way, but that's a different system. In a nutshell, players choose an approach when they use a skill - you could argue in an aggressive manner for instance, or a dogged manner, or maybe you're fawning a bit, or you go with a humourous attempt, etc - and NPCs have predetermined reactions to different approaches (approaches are associated with a ring, in order to avoid figuring something out for any of a thousand possible ways you could go about something) and the check might be harder or easier depending on the approach. D&D doesn't have nything like that, but I think the type of argument made and the behaviour that goes with it could justify different DCs (or circumstantial modifiers, whatever you want to call it). I get that the idea is that it's the character's ability to read a situation and act accordingly that should matter, not the player's, but a character's demeanor should come from the player's roleplaying - it shouldn't automatically be whatever's best for the situation at hand, and if the player is consistent about their roleplaying it arguably can't always be the best for all manner of situations.
Aside from that, there's the murky issue of whether characters, even if they do their best to tell lies in the most convincing manner or present their arguments in the most favourable way, should be considered to always come up with the best possible lie or the strongest possible argument. A player (and thus the character) may prefer to say something that's a harder sell for some reason or other: it should be harder to convince a guard to let the entire party (including a savage looking barbarian) in than gaining entrance for the sofisticated bard alone, and persuading someone not to start fighting could be easier if you put down your own weapons first, for instance. The player will have to weigh the longer odds vs splitting the party and being unarmed if a fight does break out respectively.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Very fair response. Ultimately its hard to know table dynamics from a few paragraphs vs. hours and hours of playtime.
Complete agreement there.
I agree as well as I would likely have allowed them to roll albeit maybe with a bit higher DC.
Can I ask "a higher DC than what ?"
For me, the DC is the DC, what reason would you have to change the DC ?
It's already debatable whether roleplaying should give you a modifier to the roll (roleplaying should be its own reward, for once, and on top of that it starts being unfair because what you are judging is not the performance of the character, but of the player, and that has to take into account personal facilities of the person), but why would it change the DC ?
And, in any case, it was apparently not a question of DC, the DM just choose to decide that they succeeded or not based on his own criteria, so I'm not even sure that there was a DC to start with.
DC change based on factors. Simple as that. Not sure why one would need to explain this as its "base" knowledge as you like to call it:
"For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class. The more difficult a task, the higher its DC. The Typical Difficulty Classes table shows the most common DCs."
The DM decides the DC at any point or can change it at any point. Simple as that. You can make a check harder by being a dick to the NPC. You can make it easier by having something they want. Not sure why this is even a question?
For me, the DC is the DC, what reason would you have to change the DC ?
It's already debatable whether roleplaying should give you a modifier to the roll (roleplaying should be its own reward, for once, and on top of that it starts being unfair because what you are judging is not the performance of the character, but of the player, and that has to take into account personal facilities of the person), but why would it change the DC?
It's a litlle trickier than that in my opinion. Legend of the 5 Rings 5th ed deals with this in a more obvious way, but that's a different system. In a nutshell, players choose an approach when they use a skill - you could argue in an aggressive manner for instance, or a dogged manner, or maybe you're fawning a bit, or you go with a humourous attempt, etc - and NPCs have predetermined reactions to different approaches (approaches are associated with a ring, in order to avoid figuring something out for any of a thousand possible ways you could go about something) and the check might be harder or easier depending on the approach. D&D doesn't have nything like that, but I think the type of argument made and the behaviour that goes with it could justify different DCs (or circumstantial modifiers, whatever you want to call it). I get that the idea is that it's the character's ability to read a situation and act accordingly that should matter, not the player's, but a character's demeanor should come from the player's roleplaying - it shouldn't automatically be whatever's best for the situation at hand, and if the player is consistent about their roleplaying it arguably can't always be the best for all manner of situations.
Actually, I'm absolutely fine with this, but I think that OptimusGrimus was speaking about something else entirely because that "tactics" aspect was never described, it seemed to be more about the level of performance of the player/character.
Aside from that, there's the murky issue of whether characters, even if they do their best to tell lies in the most convincing manner or present their arguments in the most favourable way, should be considered to always come up with the best possible lie or the strongest possible argument. A player (and thus the character) may prefer to say something that's a harder sell for some reason or other: it should be harder to convince a guard to let the entire party (including a savage looking barbarian) in than gaining entrance for the sofisticated bard alone, and persuading someone not to start fighting could be easier if you put down your own weapons first, for instance. The player will have to weigh the longer odds vs splitting the party and being unarmed if a fight does break out respectively.
Again, absolutely OK with this, adapting the DC with what the NPC thinks the PCs are actually demanding is fine.
But all the other circumstances and demands of the PCs being equal, there is still the question of the performance of the player doing the roleplaying, which for me should certainly not affect the DC and should not, in my opinion, affect the rolled result either.
I read it like “the DM is using roleplay to adjudicate whether a check succeeds or not; with such a system I would allow a second chance based on the dice if the ‘roleplay check’ failed but with a higher DC than if the player hadn’t already had a chance at success”. Regardless of whether any of us thinks the player’s performance should matter or not, at the table UzielThor plays at that’s how it’s done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Very fair response. Ultimately its hard to know table dynamics from a few paragraphs vs. hours and hours of playtime.
Complete agreement there.
I agree as well as I would likely have allowed them to roll albeit maybe with a bit higher DC.
Can I ask "a higher DC than what ?"
For me, the DC is the DC, what reason would you have to change the DC ?
It's already debatable whether roleplaying should give you a modifier to the roll (roleplaying should be its own reward, for once, and on top of that it starts being unfair because what you are judging is not the performance of the character, but of the player, and that has to take into account personal facilities of the person), but why would it change the DC ?
And, in any case, it was apparently not a question of DC, the DM just choose to decide that they succeeded or not based on his own criteria, so I'm not even sure that there was a DC to start with.
DC change based on factors. Simple as that. Not sure why one would need to explain this as its "base" knowledge as you like to call it:
"For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class. The more difficult a task, the higher its DC. The Typical Difficulty Classes table shows the most common DCs."
The DM decides the DC at any point or can change it at any point. Simple as that. You can make a check harder by being a dick to the NPC. You can make it easier by having something they want. Not sure why this is even a question?
It's what I thought, because for me this is not how the system works. The DC is based on the task to be done, which is (for example) "convincing the butler to let you in".
Being a dick to the NPC should not change the DC of the task in itself, it would give you a bonus or malus to the PC, or most probably give him disadvantage on completing the task.
The task does not vary, it's still "convincing the Butler", there are not two different tasks "convincing the butler by being nice" or "convincing the butler by being a dick". If you are a dick, you might get a -2, a -5 or disadvantage on your check, that's all.
Moreover, you were responding to this "Again be careful here. This sounds an awful lot like 'back seat DMing'. If you were the DM, you would have thought the RP was good enough to convince the NPC, at least to the point where a roll was possible. The DM did not see it that way. That is the DM's call. "
This has nothing to do with the type of attitude (nive/dick/whatever) of the PC trying to do the convincing, but to the quality of the roleplay, which for me certainly should not affect the DC, and (again YMMV here, but see all my previous posts) should not even affect the bonus/penalty on the dice roll.
No offense, but to me the difference between changing a DC or applying a modifier is an inconsequential technicality. The bottom line is that the chance of success changes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"Being a dick to the NPC should not change the DC of the task in itself, it would give you a bonus or malus to the PC, or most probably give him disadvantage on completing the task."
Basically changing the DC is actually a lighter version of this because depending on the DC you are setting DIS can basically make it impossible for them to do if its a difficult task.
Math is your friend here and actually just tweaking the DC is a better approach to create a "mild or moderate" challenge due to poor word choice. Its exactly within the realm of the DM and in fact encouraged as part of the Disadvantage rules you mentioned:
"Consider imposing disadvantage when …
Circumstances hinder success in some way.
Some aspect of the environment makes success less likely (assuming that aspect doesn’t already impose a penalty to the roll being made).
An element of the plan or description of an action makes success less likely."
All of this is totally within the expectations of the DM per the DMG and Basic rules.
I am simply offering a potential option to the group. 90% of social interactions in this game are nuanced enough that none of us can sit here and say with 100% certainty that every encounter "should do this or you are doing it wrong"
Sometimes making suggestions on how to run the game as part of a healthy group discussion is good. There is about a million different approaches between "healthy discussion" and "backseat DMing" so its not fair to say actively wanting to talk about rolling vs. not rolling is "Back seat DMing". It is definitely fair game if the group as a whole want to discuss it. If you find yourself in the minority then you either learn to live with it or move on from the group.
"This is why, if the attitude of the PC (independently of the roleplay) makes it harder to complete the task, rather than changing the DC, you should do as you wrote above and put disadvantage on the roll."
You claim to understand but then make this statement which seems to contradict your own thoughts....DIS swings much wider on its imposed penalty than by simply changing the DC around. Also by asking for them to roll with DIS it can create the opportunity for them to utilize class features/other effects that could modify the result.
For example...A clockwork sorcerer could use their ability:
"Your connection to the plane of absolute order allows you to equalize chaotic moments. When a creature you can see within 60 feet of you is about to roll a d20 with advantage or disadvantage, you can use your reaction to prevent the roll from being affected by advantage and disadvantage."
to simply cancel the DIS and poof...your change is gone. Nothing in the rules prohibits them from doing so and you have effectively tipped the hand that they did a bad job....vs. there could be situations where you do NOT want them to know ahead of time and simply modifying the DC allows you to do that.
A handwave of "its always better to roll disadvantage" is pretty silly.
No offense, but to me the difference between changing a DC or applying a modifier is an inconsequential technicality. The bottom line is that the chance of success changes.
Mathematically, it is the same thing only if you have bonuses and penalties (and assuming that there is no cap), but if you include the advantage/disadvantage mechanic on top of this, it does not work the same way statistically.
I’m not sure I follow, to be honest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"In any case, nowhere in the rules does it say that the plan or the description done by the player changes the DC, which was the essence of my comment."
It doesn't need to...the DM has the discretion to do whatever they feel like with the DC as they please. No need to put that in as its completely up to them what the DC is.
"Where did I ever say that ? Who's silly to write it ?"
You have an extremely short memory:
"This is why, if the attitude of the PC (independently of the roleplay) makes it harder to complete the task, rather than changing the DC, you should do as you wrote above and put disadvantage on the roll."
- Lyxen 2 hours ago
You constantly make very firm assertations on what "should" be done with no wiggle room for anything else and then claim you never said it. You literally said that you should just put Disadvantage on the roll....Mean what you say and say what you mean.
Of course, the DM can do as he pleases, however, the RAW, since you want to come down to it, does NOT say this, contrary to what you have been hanging on from the start, it does NOT say to adjust the DC because of the way the players plan or execute the task, it says to adjust the roll.
The DMG says to adjust tracking DCs, not rolls, based on circumstances. It also says to adjust the difficulty of interaction checks, not rolls, based on the attitude of the creature interacted with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Of course, the DM can do as he pleases, however, the RAW, since you want to come down to it, does NOT say this, contrary to what you have been hanging on from the start, it does NOT say to adjust the DC because of the way the players plan or execute the task, it says to adjust the roll.
The DMG says to adjust tracking DCs, not rolls, based on circumstances. It also says to adjust the difficulty of interaction checks, not rolls, based on the attitude of the creature interacted with.
To debate whether to add 1 to the roll or deduct 1 from the DC is to argue "Toe-May-Toe and Toe-Mah-Toe" Also sounds like RAW may vary depending on source? Results are the same and the DM can claim his/her "God chair" at any time, so....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
"In any case, nowhere in the rules does it say that the plan or the description done by the player changes the DC, which was the essence of my comment."
It doesn't need to...the DM has the discretion to do whatever they feel like with the DC as they please. No need to put that in as its completely up to them what the DC is.
Of course, the DM can do as he pleases, however, the RAW, since you want to come down to it, does NOT say this, contrary to what you have been hanging on from the start, it does NOT say to adjust the DC because of the way the players plan or execute the task, it says to adjust the roll.
Once more there is not two different tasks with different DCs depending as to how the PCs do the task, which is why it's silly to change the DC.
[snip]
I cut out the strawmanning part, not useful for anyone at this stage. Just because I advise you (you SHOULD) to follow what you have posted 2 hours ago and are apparently unable to remember, does not mean that I would always do it that way.
Lol all I did was quote you and you literally keep saying not to do anything but what you say they should do. It's just your comments on it..... I'm not sure what to say other than maybe get better at communicating your thoughts?
Agreed advice has been rendered and up to them how to proceed.
"So yes, the DM could be a complete b....d and, having not set the DC openly... decide to mentally increase the DC"
At that point, I would argue that it is not necessarily the same task anymore, so changing the DC is perfectly acceptable.
Let's say someone said they wanted to talk their way past the guards at a secure building. The DM knows this is an important building and the guards are unlikely to let anyone in, even with some fast talking, so provisionally sets a DC of 20.
Then, through role play, the player mentions the name of a high ranking official. The guards know that this official often seems people on errands like this, and they are more afraid of the consequences of updating the official than of darling in their duty to guard the building.
This is no longer the same task. They have ginger from generically trying to convince the guards to let them past to trying to convince the guards that said official sent them, so the DM changes the DC to 15 or less, or even rules that it's an automatic success.
On the other hand, if they had mentioned the name of a particularly weak or hated official or officer (or one who doesn't exist or has died), again, the task is no longer the same, and there would be nothing wrong with the DM increasing the DC to 25 or 30, or just ruling that they have automatically failed.
If you want to go by RAW: "For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class."
If the DM has not yet called for an ability check, he doesn't have to have a DC set. Personally, I wouldn't call for an ability check until after any RP was done, so any DC I had in my head would be completely provisional and not set before that point. However, once I had called for the ability check, that check would be made at that DC no matter what the player tries to RP: Play "stops" until the check is made.
This is not much different to a player wishing to move a heavy boulder. It's really heavy, so you decide it will require a strength check, and that it would be a DC of 15. However, before you call for the roll, the player mentions that he will use a block & tackle, or maybe a lever, to accomplish this. Pushing a massive rock along the ground is not the same as using a tool to move it, and the same DC does not apply.
I feel like at this point it's arguing for arguing's sake. Just say that at one table you would give disadvantage while at the other it would be higher DC and be done with it.
I've seen someone ask why do we accept a declaration "I walk stealthily to the merchant's house" but do not accept "I try to deceive the guard".
The difference is practicality. D&D is in it's core a game of words. We speak about our actions and we speak as our characters. It is infinitely easier to say which lie we try to sell the guard than for the DM to whip out a 3D map of the whole town with ALL the guards with their cones of sight and patrol routes and say to the player "tell me where you are going".
This is why it is not unreasonable to ask the player what lie exactly are they trying to tell but it is unreasonable to demand that they know exactly which route to take while stealthing when we usually don't give them a full map with all streets and guard posts anyway.
They can say something super clever that will give them advantage or something so incredibly stupid that no roll will be granted. This is part of the game and part of making awesome memories at the table. But like mentioned before, making a distinction from player's skill would mean that their tone of voice, the cadence, face mimics and general flow will not be taken into consideration. That is what Persuasion roll takes care of.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Having been a DM yourself, you know that die rolls are only called for when there is a chance to succeed. If there is some reason why the butler could never have said yes, or if the party didn't flash their credentials but just tried to bully their way in past a stuffy and highly officious butler, then I might not call for a roll. Die rolls are made when the outcome is in doubt, which occurs either because of something the PCs did in terms or RP, or because of the way the rules of the world work.
For example, in my Roman Empire campaign, I don't care how good you are at persuasion, if you don't have some sort of special status or permission, no amount of fast-talking is going to get you past the Praetorian Guard and into the throne room to have chat with Caesar. You'd need to be accompanied by a powerful Senator, or one of the Consuls, or have a letter from the governor of your province, or something along those lines. Without that, "I'm just gonna try to roll deception and get past the most powerful and intractable bodyguards to ever walk the earth" isn't going to cut it.
In between the obvious cases of a well-RPed, high-probability situation in which you should probably succeed without a roll, and the impossible/poor RP situation in which you should never have succeeded at this, there is a massive gray area big enough to drive the Death Star through, and that area is all GM call. Some GMs call for rolls pretty much everywhere in that gray area. Others only call for rolls in the exact center of it. Most of us are somewhere between those extremes.
But without auditing your sessions, or at least seeing your DM's side of it, I don't think any of us can say for sure, based on your characterization, whether we'd have called for rolls when you think they should be called for, or not. Clearly you think they should be called for, and if you were DM, you'd call for them. But would I? I'd have to see the actual session to answer that... and I am not going to be seeing your session.
You should definitely have a conversation with the DM or the players or both, depending on circumstances. For instance, your statement about "the crux of my party's frustration" makes it seem like you have talked to the other players and you are all frustrated. At this point it is time to approach the DM. Beyond that, I'm not sure any of us can give you good advice because we can't see the action situations in which you think a roll should be made and your DM doesn't.
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.
So I'm playing a bard in the group. We have a barbarian, a monk, a warlock, and a sorcerer. Me being me, I am comfortable role playing and have been told by our current DM that I am doing a good job at it - almost too good. He has asked me to try to help him facilitate role playing by the other players as a player and as a character - which I gladly accepted. This latest instance (which has brought me to the forum) occurred when our sorcerer was "leading" the party and doing all the talking. Being a sorcerer his character has a very high CHA, and I thought that the player did well role playing back and forth with the DM, but apparently the DM didn't think it was good enough from the player to get us where we wanted to go, but also didn't call for the character's ability to come into play - a dice roll for persuasion/intimidation.
I will definitely reach out to the other players in the party and see what they think of the social encounter from our last session without the DM in the chat. Thanks.
Also, I think this has been a great discussion (without bringing combat into it) because all I could find people talking about previously was about how the DM could get the players to role play more, nothing about how the role playing that was happening wasn't sufficient for the DM. Thanks for all of your ideas and the community conversation!!
I totally agree with both of you. I've started a group chat with the other players...we'll see what they say and then if it merits a conversation with the DM one of us or all of us will make that happen.
Again - thanks to the entire community for the conversation.
Again be careful here. This sounds an awful lot like 'back seat DMing'. If you were the DM, you would have thought the RP was good enough to convince the NPC, at least to the point where a roll was possible. The DM did not see it that way. That is the DM's call.
Given what you have described (and taking into account we do not have the DM's side of this, nor anyone else's), I probably would have ruled more along the lines of how you would. But I recognize that it is not the only way to do things and again, this is a gray area, and up to the DM.
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.
Very fair response. Ultimately its hard to know table dynamics from a few paragraphs vs. hours and hours of playtime.
I agree as well as I would likely have allowed them to roll albeit maybe with a bit higher DC.
It's a litlle trickier than that in my opinion. Legend of the 5 Rings 5th ed deals with this in a more obvious way, but that's a different system. In a nutshell, players choose an approach when they use a skill - you could argue in an aggressive manner for instance, or a dogged manner, or maybe you're fawning a bit, or you go with a humourous attempt, etc - and NPCs have predetermined reactions to different approaches (approaches are associated with a ring, in order to avoid figuring something out for any of a thousand possible ways you could go about something) and the check might be harder or easier depending on the approach. D&D doesn't have nything like that, but I think the type of argument made and the behaviour that goes with it could justify different DCs (or circumstantial modifiers, whatever you want to call it). I get that the idea is that it's the character's ability to read a situation and act accordingly that should matter, not the player's, but a character's demeanor should come from the player's roleplaying - it shouldn't automatically be whatever's best for the situation at hand, and if the player is consistent about their roleplaying it arguably can't always be the best for all manner of situations.
Aside from that, there's the murky issue of whether characters, even if they do their best to tell lies in the most convincing manner or present their arguments in the most favourable way, should be considered to always come up with the best possible lie or the strongest possible argument. A player (and thus the character) may prefer to say something that's a harder sell for some reason or other: it should be harder to convince a guard to let the entire party (including a savage looking barbarian) in than gaining entrance for the sofisticated bard alone, and persuading someone not to start fighting could be easier if you put down your own weapons first, for instance. The player will have to weigh the longer odds vs splitting the party and being unarmed if a fight does break out respectively.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
DC change based on factors. Simple as that. Not sure why one would need to explain this as its "base" knowledge as you like to call it:
"For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class. The more difficult a task, the higher its DC. The Typical Difficulty Classes table shows the most common DCs."
The DM decides the DC at any point or can change it at any point. Simple as that. You can make a check harder by being a dick to the NPC. You can make it easier by having something they want. Not sure why this is even a question?
I read it like “the DM is using roleplay to adjudicate whether a check succeeds or not; with such a system I would allow a second chance based on the dice if the ‘roleplay check’ failed but with a higher DC than if the player hadn’t already had a chance at success”. Regardless of whether any of us thinks the player’s performance should matter or not, at the table UzielThor plays at that’s how it’s done.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
No offense, but to me the difference between changing a DC or applying a modifier is an inconsequential technicality. The bottom line is that the chance of success changes.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"Being a dick to the NPC should not change the DC of the task in itself, it would give you a bonus or malus to the PC, or most probably give him disadvantage on completing the task."
Basically changing the DC is actually a lighter version of this because depending on the DC you are setting DIS can basically make it impossible for them to do if its a difficult task.
Math is your friend here and actually just tweaking the DC is a better approach to create a "mild or moderate" challenge due to poor word choice. Its exactly within the realm of the DM and in fact encouraged as part of the Disadvantage rules you mentioned:
"Consider imposing disadvantage when …
All of this is totally within the expectations of the DM per the DMG and Basic rules.
I am simply offering a potential option to the group. 90% of social interactions in this game are nuanced enough that none of us can sit here and say with 100% certainty that every encounter "should do this or you are doing it wrong"
Sometimes making suggestions on how to run the game as part of a healthy group discussion is good. There is about a million different approaches between "healthy discussion" and "backseat DMing" so its not fair to say actively wanting to talk about rolling vs. not rolling is "Back seat DMing". It is definitely fair game if the group as a whole want to discuss it. If you find yourself in the minority then you either learn to live with it or move on from the group.
"This is why, if the attitude of the PC (independently of the roleplay) makes it harder to complete the task, rather than changing the DC, you should do as you wrote above and put disadvantage on the roll."
You claim to understand but then make this statement which seems to contradict your own thoughts....DIS swings much wider on its imposed penalty than by simply changing the DC around. Also by asking for them to roll with DIS it can create the opportunity for them to utilize class features/other effects that could modify the result.
For example...A clockwork sorcerer could use their ability:
"Your connection to the plane of absolute order allows you to equalize chaotic moments. When a creature you can see within 60 feet of you is about to roll a d20 with advantage or disadvantage, you can use your reaction to prevent the roll from being affected by advantage and disadvantage."
to simply cancel the DIS and poof...your change is gone. Nothing in the rules prohibits them from doing so and you have effectively tipped the hand that they did a bad job....vs. there could be situations where you do NOT want them to know ahead of time and simply modifying the DC allows you to do that.
A handwave of "its always better to roll disadvantage" is pretty silly.
I’m not sure I follow, to be honest.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"In any case, nowhere in the rules does it say that the plan or the description done by the player changes the DC, which was the essence of my comment."
It doesn't need to...the DM has the discretion to do whatever they feel like with the DC as they please. No need to put that in as its completely up to them what the DC is.
"Where did I ever say that ? Who's silly to write it ?"
You have an extremely short memory:
"This is why, if the attitude of the PC (independently of the roleplay) makes it harder to complete the task, rather than changing the DC, you should do as you wrote above and put disadvantage on the roll."
- Lyxen 2 hours ago
You constantly make very firm assertations on what "should" be done with no wiggle room for anything else and then claim you never said it. You literally said that you should just put Disadvantage on the roll....Mean what you say and say what you mean.
I think the practical advice to the OP has been rendered.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The DMG says to adjust tracking DCs, not rolls, based on circumstances. It also says to adjust the difficulty of interaction checks, not rolls, based on the attitude of the creature interacted with.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To debate whether to add 1 to the roll or deduct 1 from the DC is to argue "Toe-May-Toe and Toe-Mah-Toe" Also sounds like RAW may vary depending on source? Results are the same and the DM can claim his/her "God chair" at any time, so....
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Lol all I did was quote you and you literally keep saying not to do anything but what you say they should do. It's just your comments on it..... I'm not sure what to say other than maybe get better at communicating your thoughts?
Agreed advice has been rendered and up to them how to proceed.
"So yes, the DM could be a complete b....d and, having not set the DC openly... decide to mentally increase the DC"
At that point, I would argue that it is not necessarily the same task anymore, so changing the DC is perfectly acceptable.
Let's say someone said they wanted to talk their way past the guards at a secure building. The DM knows this is an important building and the guards are unlikely to let anyone in, even with some fast talking, so provisionally sets a DC of 20.
Then, through role play, the player mentions the name of a high ranking official. The guards know that this official often seems people on errands like this, and they are more afraid of the consequences of updating the official than of darling in their duty to guard the building.
This is no longer the same task. They have ginger from generically trying to convince the guards to let them past to trying to convince the guards that said official sent them, so the DM changes the DC to 15 or less, or even rules that it's an automatic success.
On the other hand, if they had mentioned the name of a particularly weak or hated official or officer (or one who doesn't exist or has died), again, the task is no longer the same, and there would be nothing wrong with the DM increasing the DC to 25 or 30, or just ruling that they have automatically failed.
If you want to go by RAW: "For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class."
If the DM has not yet called for an ability check, he doesn't have to have a DC set. Personally, I wouldn't call for an ability check until after any RP was done, so any DC I had in my head would be completely provisional and not set before that point. However, once I had called for the ability check, that check would be made at that DC no matter what the player tries to RP: Play "stops" until the check is made.
This is not much different to a player wishing to move a heavy boulder. It's really heavy, so you decide it will require a strength check, and that it would be a DC of 15. However, before you call for the roll, the player mentions that he will use a block & tackle, or maybe a lever, to accomplish this. Pushing a massive rock along the ground is not the same as using a tool to move it, and the same DC does not apply.
I feel like at this point it's arguing for arguing's sake. Just say that at one table you would give disadvantage while at the other it would be higher DC and be done with it.
I've seen someone ask why do we accept a declaration "I walk stealthily to the merchant's house" but do not accept "I try to deceive the guard".
The difference is practicality. D&D is in it's core a game of words. We speak about our actions and we speak as our characters. It is infinitely easier to say which lie we try to sell the guard than for the DM to whip out a 3D map of the whole town with ALL the guards with their cones of sight and patrol routes and say to the player "tell me where you are going".
This is why it is not unreasonable to ask the player what lie exactly are they trying to tell but it is unreasonable to demand that they know exactly which route to take while stealthing when we usually don't give them a full map with all streets and guard posts anyway.
They can say something super clever that will give them advantage or something so incredibly stupid that no roll will be granted. This is part of the game and part of making awesome memories at the table. But like mentioned before, making a distinction from player's skill would mean that their tone of voice, the cadence, face mimics and general flow will not be taken into consideration. That is what Persuasion roll takes care of.