I have a power-hungry PC with the heart of most of the party that picked up a magic staff. I have a cleric that wants to your the line of lawful good. The power-hungry PC looted a magic staff. The cleric wants to present it to the local villagers. The PHPC wants to keep it for himself. They're resting in a hut in the village.
The PHPC messaged me on Discord and said he wants to sneak away from the group and attune to the item. The rest of the group is doing menial work around town to help the villagers. Should I have the group roll perception or something to see if anyone notices PHPC trying to attune?
Also, I made a bit of a misstep in giving PHPC the magic item. Everyone was rushing for the item so I had them roll dex to see who got there first. PHPC rolled persuasion to tell everyone to step away. He Nat 20'd so I have him the item. The cleric, who is the only real opposition to PHPC's power grabs, messaged me on Discord later to say I shouldn't negate player autonomy so easily with a dice roll. I agree however I don't want to change the situation now.
I think the cleric will be happy with the end result because in order for PHPC to wield the item he'll have to make friendly with the cleric.
Stealth vs Passive Perceptions is absolutely best for this, so the other players don't know that there's something going on that they're potentially missing.
Also, I made a bit of a misstep in giving PHPC the magic item. Everyone was rushing for the item so I had them roll dex to see who got there first. PHPC rolled persuasion to tell everyone to step away. He Nat 20'd so I have him the item. The cleric, who is the only real opposition to PHPC's power grabs, messaged me on Discord later to say I shouldn't negate player autonomy so easily with a dice roll. I agree however I don't want to change the situation now.
All the other suggestions are fine, but remember that social skills are not to be used between players' characters, this is really important.
I disagree with that.
The more important note is that nat 20s are only automatically successful on Attack rolls, not Ability Checks.
Also, I made a bit of a misstep in giving PHPC the magic item. Everyone was rushing for the item so I had them roll dex to see who got there first. PHPC rolled persuasion to tell everyone to step away. He Nat 20'd so I have him the item. The cleric, who is the only real opposition to PHPC's power grabs, messaged me on Discord later to say I shouldn't negate player autonomy so easily with a dice roll. I agree however I don't want to change the situation now.
All the other suggestions are fine, but remember that social skills are not to be used between players' characters, this is really important.
I disagree with that.
The more important note is that nat 20s are only automatically successful on Attack rolls, not Ability Checks.
I agree with Sposta, nothing says social skills can’t be used amongst the party, but also want to say that social skills used amongst party members should definitely also be discussed in a session 0...it’s a great way to instantly cause discord in the group (I’ve seen players leave because this wasn’t discussed beforehand and they felt cheated when it happened)
Well, we'll have to disagree then, both the stealth check and the nat20 things are technicalities. whereas allowing some players to use their character's capabilities to shut down other players is a sure way to generate disagreement at a table.
A DM can use it with his NPCs to provide information to the players (your character finds him very convincing, he looks very intimidating, as far as you can tell he is telling the truth), but it should not be used to shut them down and/or dictate their actions. And it is even worse if players are allowed to use this against each other.
Agreed. No dice roll should take away player autonomy, unless it is a spell like dominate person or geas. The whole point of DnD is the fact that you are in control.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Social skills vs PCs is fine, but the PCs decide what a given roll actually means. Deception beating insight only means you can't tell that they're lying, it doesn't mean you believe them. A strong persuasion check means you made a very good convincing argument for your side, it doesn't mean you persuaded people.
Social skills vs PCs is fine, but the PCs decide what a given roll actually means. Deception beating insight only means you can't tell that they're lying, it doesn't mean you believe them. A strong persuasion check means you made a very good convincing argument for your side, it doesn't mean you persuaded people.
YES! and then you actually have to rp the argument, or the roll is void.....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Well, we'll have to disagree then, both the stealth check and the nat20 things are technicalities. whereas allowing some players to use their character's capabilities to shut down other players is a sure way to generate disagreement at a table.
A DM can use it with his NPCs to provide information to the players (your character finds him very convincing, he looks very intimidating, as far as you can tell he is telling the truth), but it should not be used to shut them down and/or dictate their actions. And it is even worse if players are allowed to use this against each other.
Well, a certain amount of maturity is expected. I don’t mind when things go against my PC. The point isn’t to win, it’s to have fun telling a story together. Most of my best stories IRL are the ones where things went wrong.
Denying Opposed Ability Checks between PCs feels like another form of “plot armor” to me. After all, if I can reasonably expect a Player to roleplay out their PC loosing a contested Social Skill Ability Check against one of my NPCs, why should it be any different against another PC? I mean, I’m a player at the same table with them, so what’s the real difference? In fact, as the DM I wield a certain amount of power and omniscience and I run those NPCs. At least when it’s between two PCs, you know it’s fair.
I'd just let the group roleplay it out and give their arguments in character (preferably letting the whole party of characters give their say). Maybe propose a group vote as to where the staff should go? Either way I am very against PvP or social rolls between players, but it really depends on the overall players' experience and their enjoyment.
Atuning to the item doesnt in any way protect the item from being attuned to someone else. Your PH character has to sleep sometime. The item can just as easily be stolen back from them and someone in the village could then attune to it.
The more important note is that nat 20s are only automatically successful on Attack rolls, not Ability Checks.
New DM here. Slightly off topic from current discussion but I have a quick question on this point. I understand how the rule works here but my question is, as a practical matter, would you have the player even roll if a nat 20 would be unsuccessful? I see how with something like an opposed check you could roll a nat 20 and still lose, due to the other side also rolling high and having a better ability modifier, etc. But for something like a regular ability check, would you have them roll?
Maybe if it's something the PC does not realize is impossible given their skills, you go ahead and let them try? Or, maybe they could succeed with a nat 20 and using another boost like a bardic inspiration? But I feel like most players wouldn't use an inspiration if they just rolled a nat 20. My default so far has been just to tell them "it's not possible" if the DC is so high such that a nat 20 would be a fail. I feel like my players would be upset if they rolled a 20 and then failed, no matter what language I used to describe how difficult it was going to be. Curious how others handle that.
Atuning to the item doesnt in any way protect the item from being attuned to someone else. Your PH character has to sleep sometime. The item can just as easily be stolen back from them and someone in the village could then attune to it.
This is exactly what I was going to mention... just because he attuned to it doesn't mean they cleric can't take it away and give it to someone else. Attuning to it doesn't make it mjolnir and the PHPC Thor.
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.
What is the magic staff? What is the alignment of the PHPC? Do they know what its stats are yet?
Attunement pre-requisites and curses can both be used to let the Wizard "succeed" in the subterfuge, while still not getting away with the plot. If the item turns out to be cursed, the Cleric might be relived that they didn't give it to the villagers.
However, as others have pointed out, player autonomy and healthy interplayer relationships are both important. No matter how you resolve this particular event, the players need to be able to manage their own dynamics. A player who is RPing an anti-social character needs to be self-aware of how that affects other people and compensate for that by showing vulnerability elsewhere and creating opportunities for other players to shine.
For example, Sam Riegel of Critical Role, plays Nott, a goblin rogue kleptomaniac who steals from NPCs, Players, and Guests alike. However, Nott has strong values that the other players can discover and interact with to influence Nott's behavior. The other cast members can appeal to Nott's vices and virtues to make her anti-social behavior endearing, rather than a pain in the ass.
It is valuable to encourage players to establish character-to-character relationships before Session 1, so that they have someone who can provide balance when their in-character behavior might cross over a line.
Would you have the player even roll if a nat 20 would be unsuccessful? I see how with something like an opposed check you could roll a nat 20 and still lose, due to the other side also rolling high and having a better ability modifier, etc. But for something like a regular ability check, would you have them roll?
"You Can Always Try".
If success is impossible, you should make it clear, so that their expectations are managed if a Nat 20 does show up. However, you could still let them roll to achieve partial success.
For example, if a bard wants to seduce a dragon, a Nat 20 could mean that the dragon flirts with the bard, rather than simply killing them outright. The dragon is entertained, not seduced, and that may provide appropriate opportunities, and a fun story.
The rule of thumb for improv is "Yes, and..." or "No, but..."
Not everything works out the way the players may want, but their efforts can always be meaningful. Sometimes the thrill of "success" is in realizing how much you risked and survived.
So, I had PHPC roll for stealth to sneak outside and attune to the item and he failed against the whole party's passive perception. Do I announce to the group that they all just caught him trying to sneak out the back with the magic item?
I have a power-hungry PC with the heart of most of the party that picked up a magic staff. I have a cleric that wants to your the line of lawful good. The power-hungry PC looted a magic staff. The cleric wants to present it to the local villagers. The PHPC wants to keep it for himself. They're resting in a hut in the village.
The PHPC messaged me on Discord and said he wants to sneak away from the group and attune to the item. The rest of the group is doing menial work around town to help the villagers. Should I have the group roll perception or something to see if anyone notices PHPC trying to attune?
You could, or you could have the Wizard roll Stealth against their Passive Perception.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Also, I made a bit of a misstep in giving PHPC the magic item. Everyone was rushing for the item so I had them roll dex to see who got there first. PHPC rolled persuasion to tell everyone to step away. He Nat 20'd so I have him the item. The cleric, who is the only real opposition to PHPC's power grabs, messaged me on Discord later to say I shouldn't negate player autonomy so easily with a dice roll. I agree however I don't want to change the situation now.
I think the cleric will be happy with the end result because in order for PHPC to wield the item he'll have to make friendly with the cleric.
Stealth vs Passive Perceptions is absolutely best for this, so the other players don't know that there's something going on that they're potentially missing.
I am one with the Force. The Force is with me.
I disagree with that.
The more important note is that nat 20s are only automatically successful on Attack rolls, not Ability Checks.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I agree with Sposta, nothing says social skills can’t be used amongst the party, but also want to say that social skills used amongst party members should definitely also be discussed in a session 0...it’s a great way to instantly cause discord in the group (I’ve seen players leave because this wasn’t discussed beforehand and they felt cheated when it happened)
Agreed. No dice roll should take away player autonomy, unless it is a spell like dominate person or geas. The whole point of DnD is the fact that you are in control.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Social skills vs PCs is fine, but the PCs decide what a given roll actually means. Deception beating insight only means you can't tell that they're lying, it doesn't mean you believe them. A strong persuasion check means you made a very good convincing argument for your side, it doesn't mean you persuaded people.
YES! and then you actually have to rp the argument, or the roll is void.....
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Well, a certain amount of maturity is expected. I don’t mind when things go against my PC. The point isn’t to win, it’s to have fun telling a story together. Most of my best stories IRL are the ones where things went wrong.
Denying Opposed Ability Checks between PCs feels like another form of “plot armor” to me. After all, if I can reasonably expect a Player to roleplay out their PC loosing a contested Social Skill Ability Check against one of my NPCs, why should it be any different against another PC? I mean, I’m a player at the same table with them, so what’s the real difference? In fact, as the DM I wield a certain amount of power and omniscience and I run those NPCs. At least when it’s between two PCs, you know it’s fair.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'd just let the group roleplay it out and give their arguments in character (preferably letting the whole party of characters give their say). Maybe propose a group vote as to where the staff should go? Either way I am very against PvP or social rolls between players, but it really depends on the overall players' experience and their enjoyment.
Atuning to the item doesnt in any way protect the item from being attuned to someone else. Your PH character has to sleep sometime. The item can just as easily be stolen back from them and someone in the village could then attune to it.
New DM here. Slightly off topic from current discussion but I have a quick question on this point. I understand how the rule works here but my question is, as a practical matter, would you have the player even roll if a nat 20 would be unsuccessful? I see how with something like an opposed check you could roll a nat 20 and still lose, due to the other side also rolling high and having a better ability modifier, etc. But for something like a regular ability check, would you have them roll?
Maybe if it's something the PC does not realize is impossible given their skills, you go ahead and let them try? Or, maybe they could succeed with a nat 20 and using another boost like a bardic inspiration? But I feel like most players wouldn't use an inspiration if they just rolled a nat 20. My default so far has been just to tell them "it's not possible" if the DC is so high such that a nat 20 would be a fail. I feel like my players would be upset if they rolled a 20 and then failed, no matter what language I used to describe how difficult it was going to be. Curious how others handle that.
This is exactly what I was going to mention... just because he attuned to it doesn't mean they cleric can't take it away and give it to someone else. Attuning to it doesn't make it mjolnir and the PHPC Thor.
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.
What is the magic staff? What is the alignment of the PHPC? Do they know what its stats are yet?
Attunement pre-requisites and curses can both be used to let the Wizard "succeed" in the subterfuge, while still not getting away with the plot. If the item turns out to be cursed, the Cleric might be relived that they didn't give it to the villagers.
However, as others have pointed out, player autonomy and healthy interplayer relationships are both important. No matter how you resolve this particular event, the players need to be able to manage their own dynamics. A player who is RPing an anti-social character needs to be self-aware of how that affects other people and compensate for that by showing vulnerability elsewhere and creating opportunities for other players to shine.
For example, Sam Riegel of Critical Role, plays Nott, a goblin rogue kleptomaniac who steals from NPCs, Players, and Guests alike. However, Nott has strong values that the other players can discover and interact with to influence Nott's behavior. The other cast members can appeal to Nott's vices and virtues to make her anti-social behavior endearing, rather than a pain in the ass.
It is valuable to encourage players to establish character-to-character relationships before Session 1, so that they have someone who can provide balance when their in-character behavior might cross over a line.
"You Can Always Try".
If success is impossible, you should make it clear, so that their expectations are managed if a Nat 20 does show up. However, you could still let them roll to achieve partial success.
For example, if a bard wants to seduce a dragon, a Nat 20 could mean that the dragon flirts with the bard, rather than simply killing them outright. The dragon is entertained, not seduced, and that may provide appropriate opportunities, and a fun story.
The rule of thumb for improv is "Yes, and..." or "No, but..."
Not everything works out the way the players may want, but their efforts can always be meaningful. Sometimes the thrill of "success" is in realizing how much you risked and survived.
So, I had PHPC roll for stealth to sneak outside and attune to the item and he failed against the whole party's passive perception. Do I announce to the group that they all just caught him trying to sneak out the back with the magic item?
I would have him describe what he is doing and then have them hear or see him doing it.
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.