As a reminder to some of the folks arguing against social/Charisma skills functioning akin to Mind Control: the DM decides when a player rolls a check. Not the player.
If, as per a prior example, the player walks up to an innkeeper and says "Hey, this is a nice inn! You should give it to me!", and rolls what he fondly imagines is a Persuasion check? The DM is perfectly entitled to respond "The jovial old innkeeper laughs off your demand, instead simply saying 'yes, it is nice, isn't it? Been in my family for five generations, I'm proud of what we've built here!'"
When the player tries to report their Persuasion attempt, you simply say "I didn't ask you for a Persuasion roll" and move on with the game. If they get snippy, explain that ability checks are for situations on the edge where both success and failure are possible, and stupid asks such as 'make the innkeeper give up his inn' are not worth dignifying with a roll. This is even more obvious when one spins it the other way - a DM with a player giving her guff can say:
"All right. The next time a beggar manages to roll a high Persuasion check when asking you for alms, you have to give up all of your gear and magical equipment to that beggar. What? You're outraged, your character would never do that no matter what a beggar rolled? I am in complete agreement, your character is a well-known miser and treasureholic. They'd never give a single copper piece to a beggar...just like an innkeeper whose entire livelihood is the inn that his family has built over generations would never give it up to a total stranger who walked in off the street and made silly little demands for it no matter what your shiny math rock there says. Now sit down, shut up, stop arguing with me, and remember that you roll when I dang well say you roll, not whenever you feel like poking holes in our story."
I think there are two sides to this. Please note that I am not trying to cause a blow up, tell you you are wrong in any way, or offend you in any fashion. With that said, I think if a player wants to roll something, then they should get to. That’s player agency in your story. You can chose to contest it, or let it happen. That’s your choice. But I think that letting players roll checks when they want to as long as they aren’t just continuing to roll until they succeed. Those are two entirely different things. But if you just say no unless you want them to roll then in my opinion that’s the crossed line between player freedom and railroading.
Not letting a player roll is not the same thing as not letting a character try something. The DMG does a decent job of explaining when rolls are appropriate. If the task is impossible, there shouldn’t be a roll. The character is welcome to try the thing, but the result is a foregone conclusion, and no roll can change it. That’s not denying agency, that’s respecting the fiction that the world and characters are more than just tools of the players’ whims.
I think there are two sides to this. Please note that I am not trying to cause a blow up, tell you you are wrong in any way, or offend you in any fashion. With that said, I think if a player wants to roll something, then they should get to. That’s player agency in your story.
Player agency is declaring what you want to try to do. That doesn't mean you get to roll -- what you want to do might not be possible, or it might require a different check than you think.
I think there are two sides to this. Please note that I am not trying to cause a blow up, tell you you are wrong in any way, or offend you in any fashion. With that said, I think if a player wants to roll something, then they should get to. That’s player agency in your story.
Player agency is declaring what you want to try to do. That doesn't mean you get to roll -- what you want to do might not be possible, or it might require a different check than you think.
agreed. players agency is to explain what they try to do. if they say i want to achieve X then they still need to explain how they think to go about doing that. and depending on the description the DM adjucates if it is possible or not. If it is possible the DM will say what rolls are acquired. If the Player demands to do X skill check and the DM deems that to be worthless. Then the player doesn't get to roll since the outcome is impossible to begin with. and by the rules... you don't roll if there is no point to it.
Players have the agency to try anything they want.
The DM is under no obligation to allow them to succeed at anything.
I think Characters usually have a reasonably good idea of what's possible, and what's not, and where the Player and their Character have different ideas, it's the job of the GM to nudge the Player: "actually, you know that you probably can't make that jump; it's at least twice as far as you've ever been able to jump before". No one actually believes it is realistic to be able to convince the King to hand over his Kingdom on a natural 20 Persuasion roll. To allow that sort of thing is to implicitly say to the Players: you have a 5% chance, with every attempt, to do absolutely anything in the world, no matter how silly, overblown, or improbable. Eat the sun, ski through a revolving door, jump over an ocean, swim through lava, etc.
If something is blatantly impossible, then if you want to let the Player roll, then sure. I'd rather not waste their time, and mine.
As for the OP question: yes, and no.
I'm all for allowing NPC, or even PC ability/skill roles to dictate the perception that the Character has: She seems sincere;that argument makes a lot of sense to you;you see the expression in his face and realize he's dead serious, and looking him over you think he can probably make good on that threat.
A Player who is a good role-player will take those and run with them. A Player who isn't role playing well could ignore that. I am - personally - not comfortable telling the Player what their Character is going to do.
However, I'm a big believer in having consequences fall out plausibly. If the NPC succeeded at Intimidation , and the Player decides to override the instincts of the Character, then I've got to decide if the NPC was bluffing or not ( probably not ), and sometime the NPC will make good on that threat. Sometimes the NPC is perfectly capable of kicking the Character's ass, the Character realizes it, the Player overrides the Character, and bad things happen to the Character. I have no issues mopping the floor with the Character at that point. That's on the Player.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
No issue, Squeegee. But as others said, what players have absolute freedom to do is act. They can describe their actions to me and as a DM I must accept those actions. I can offer counsel, say "that jump looks too far to you, never in your life have you considered a forty-foot gap jumpable" or "Growing up in this region, you know that Duke Maddboi is known for his temper and his intense dislike of disrespectful antics" - things a person's mind would supply in dangerous circumstances. I can even say "if you try and jump that gap, you're going to fall."
But if that player says "**** it, I do it anyways", then as a DM it's my job to adjudicate and narrate the results of their actions. Even if those results are plummeting to their death or being executed by royal guardsmen. A player can always tell me what they do. I will figure out the result of that Do-ing, which may or may not include a roll. The result may not be what the player wanted, but that is, as they say, how life do.
Players have the agency to try anything they want.
The DM is under no obligation to allow them to succeed at anything.
I think Characters usually have a reasonably good idea of what's possible, and what's not, and where the Player and their Character have different ideas, it's the job of the GM to nudge the Player: "actually, you know that you probably can't make that jump; it's at least twice as far as you've ever been able to jump before". No one actually believes it is realistic to be able to convince the King to hand over his Kingdom on a natural 20 Persuasion roll. To allow that sort of thing is to implicitly say to the Players: you have a 5% chance, with every attempt, to do absolutely anything in the world, no matter how silly, overblown, or improbable. Eat the sun, ski through a revolving door, jump over an ocean, swim through lava, etc.
If something is blatantly impossible, then if you want to let the Player roll, then sure. I'd rather not waste their time, and mine.
As for the OP question: yes, and no.
I'm all for allowing NPC, or even PC ability/skill roles to dictate the perception that the Character has: She seems sincere;that argument makes a lot of sense to you;you see the expression in his face and realize he's dead serious, and looking him over you think he can probably make good on that threat.
A Player who is a good role-player will take those and run with them. A Player who isn't role playing well could ignore that. I am - personally - not comfortable telling the Player what their Character is going to do.
However, I'm a big believer in having consequences fall out plausibly. If the NPC succeeded at Intimidation , and the Player decides to override the instincts of the Character, then I've got to decide if the NPC was bluffing or not ( probably not ), and sometime the NPC will make good on that threat. Sometimes the NPC is perfectly capable of kicking the Character's ass, the Character realizes it, the Player overrides the Character, and bad things happen to the Character. I have no issues mopping the floor with the Character at that point. That's on the Player.
I think that this was a way better way of expressing what I was trying to say. Just because Something won’t work doesn’t mean that the players can’t try. And maybe on a crit on either side of the spectrum, something fun happens.
As a reminder to some of the folks arguing against social/Charisma skills functioning akin to Mind Control: the DM decides when a player rolls a check. Not the player.
If, as per a prior example, the player walks up to an innkeeper and says "Hey, this is a nice inn! You should give it to me!", and rolls what he fondly imagines is a Persuasion check? The DM is perfectly entitled to respond "The jovial old innkeeper laughs off your demand, instead simply saying 'yes, it is nice, isn't it? Been in my family for five generations, I'm proud of what we've built here!'"
When the player tries to report their Persuasion attempt, you simply say "I didn't ask you for a Persuasion roll" and move on with the game. If they get snippy, explain that ability checks are for situations on the edge where both success and failure are possible, and stupid asks such as 'make the innkeeper give up his inn' are not worth dignifying with a roll. This is even more obvious when one spins it the other way - a DM with a player giving her guff can say:
"All right. The next time a beggar manages to roll a high Persuasion check when asking you for alms, you have to give up all of your gear and magical equipment to that beggar. What? You're outraged, your character would never do that no matter what a beggar rolled? I am in complete agreement, your character is a well-known miser and treasureholic. They'd never give a single copper piece to a beggar...just like an innkeeper whose entire livelihood is the inn that his family has built over generations would never give it up to a total stranger who walked in off the street and made silly little demands for it no matter what your shiny math rock there says. Now sit down, shut up, stop arguing with me, and remember that you roll when I dang well say you roll, not whenever you feel like poking holes in our story."
PCs try and persuade the shopkeeper to sell them an item at a discount, sometimes i let them roll, usually ill set a DC rather then an opposed roll for a random shop. but if they are up against the merchant they have been seeking because he had magical items? you bet the NPC rolls back, he might even be good at it considering it is his profession and he is apparently doing well, sometimes resulting in "your negotiation didn't go well, and he is now raising the price seeing as how you where so interested"
intimidation? i dont particularly use, though i will twist it about and say "the guard is big burly and could probably take you in a fight" if the player want to roll insight im good with that and will respond according to the roll from "you get the feeling this guard is well trained and could probably take you" "this guy is trying to intimidate you, hard to gauge who will win, but he will try" to "this guy is full of it, he talk a big game, but you think you could take him" what ever is appropriate sometimes the PCs take a hint and i suppose i intimidated them, sometimes they call the bluff and we get a fight
as for seduction, i have stolen a line from a DM i had who started off saying, before we even made characters, "this is an asexual world as far as the characters are concerned. Im here to run the world you live in, not romance you." im happy with just cutting that out and not dealing with it. im up front with it, and it has not yet been a problem.
more direct opposed rolls, like insight against deception, "you get the feeling they are lying" "if they are lying they are better at it then you are" sometimes the players know that they are being lied to, they snuck in yesterday and know that the guy does not have a dragon, but the fact that he says he does and the cant tell he is lying, gives them an idea of what caliber of adversary they are dealing with. as long as your not having an NPC lie it all works itself out nicely. in the other direction i will point "you do realize you are now lieng to this guy, either roll deception or rephrase that, sometimes dice happen, sometimes the player realizes what they where about to say and goes either more tactful or flat out truthful. if i feel they are pushing the envelope ill roll myself an insight and the NPC might call them out on there careful selection of words.
PCs try and persuade the shopkeeper to sell them an item at a discount, sometimes i let them roll, usually ill set a DC rather then an opposed roll for a random shop. but if they are up against the merchant they have been seeking because he had magical items? you bet the NPC rolls back, he might even be good at it considering it is his profession and he is apparently doing well, sometimes resulting in "your negotiation didn't go well, and he is now raising the price seeing as how you where so interested"
intimidation? i dont particularly use, though i will twist it about and say "the guard is big burly and could probably take you in a fight" if the player want to roll insight im good with that and will respond according to the roll from "you get the feeling this guard is well trained and could probably take you" "this guy is trying to intimidate you, hard to gauge who will win, but he will try" to "this guy is full of it, he talk a big game, but you think you could take him" what ever is appropriate sometimes the PCs take a hint and i suppose i intimidated them, sometimes they call the bluff and we get a fight
as for seduction, i have stolen a line from a DM i had who started off saying, before we even made characters, "this is an asexual world as far as the characters are concerned. Im here to run the world you live in, not romance you." im happy with just cutting that out and not dealing with it. im up front with it, and it has not yet been a problem.
more direct opposed rolls, like insight against deception, "you get the feeling they are lying" "if they are lying they are better at it then you are" sometimes the players know that they are being lied to, they snuck in yesterday and know that the guy does not have a dragon, but the fact that he says he does and the cant tell he is lying, gives them an idea of what caliber of adversary they are dealing with. as long as your not having an NPC lie it all works itself out nicely. in the other direction i will point "you do realize you are now lieng to this guy, either roll deception or rephrase that, sometimes dice happen, sometimes the player realizes what they where about to say and goes either more tactful or flat out truthful. if i feel they are pushing the envelope ill roll myself an insight and the NPC might call them out on there careful selection of words.
I disagree with your third paragraph but everyone has their own style of play and it’s totally cool the way you do it.
All of the social skills are innately made for player use. DM sets a DC for example when he wants a player make a Charisma (Persuasion) check depending on NPC attitude against a PC. Persuasing for a discount from a shopkeeper would be DC15 Charisma Check for example.
Actually, as a DM, I do make some rules about what PCs are allowed to do. If it's something that will harass/traumatize/intimidate another player (like, the real person in the room), I say no, that's not happening. Likewise, if a player found something I did upsetting, we'd fix it. The game is never more important than the people playing.
I taught myself to DM out of books rather than go to game shops to play and learn, cause I wanted avoid that kind of treatment. It's awful to hear some of the horror stories, like some people who have posted here.
(I also run fairly family friendly games, but everyone has always agreed to that beforehand, so I don't consider that "forcing the players.")
Actually, as a DM, I do make some rules about what PCs are allowed to do. If it's something that will harass/traumatize/intimidate another player (like, the real person in the room), I say no, that's not happening. Likewise, if a player found something I did upsetting, we'd fix it. The game is never more important than the people playing.
I taught myself to DM out of books rather than go to game shops to play and learn, cause I wanted avoid that kind of treatment. It's awful to hear some of the horror stories, like some people who have posted here.
(I also run fairly family friendly games, but everyone has always agreed to that beforehand, so I don't consider that "forcing the players.")
You are the DM you set the rules. If players want to PvP instead of DD then look for new players.
I think there are two sides to this. Please note that I am not trying to cause a blow up, tell you you are wrong in any way, or offend you in any fashion. With that said, I think if a player wants to roll something, then they should get to. That’s player agency in your story. You can chose to contest it, or let it happen. That’s your choice. But I think that letting players roll checks when they want to as long as they aren’t just continuing to roll until they succeed. Those are two entirely different things. But if you just say no unless you want them to roll then in my opinion that’s the crossed line between player freedom and railroading.
Not letting a player roll is not the same thing as not letting a character try something. The DMG does a decent job of explaining when rolls are appropriate. If the task is impossible, there shouldn’t be a roll. The character is welcome to try the thing, but the result is a foregone conclusion, and no roll can change it. That’s not denying agency, that’s respecting the fiction that the world and characters are more than just tools of the players’ whims.
Player agency is declaring what you want to try to do. That doesn't mean you get to roll -- what you want to do might not be possible, or it might require a different check than you think.
agreed. players agency is to explain what they try to do. if they say i want to achieve X then they still need to explain how they think to go about doing that. and depending on the description the DM adjucates if it is possible or not. If it is possible the DM will say what rolls are acquired. If the Player demands to do X skill check and the DM deems that to be worthless. Then the player doesn't get to roll since the outcome is impossible to begin with. and by the rules... you don't roll if there is no point to it.
Players have the agency to try anything they want.
The DM is under no obligation to allow them to succeed at anything.
I think Characters usually have a reasonably good idea of what's possible, and what's not, and where the Player and their Character have different ideas, it's the job of the GM to nudge the Player: "actually, you know that you probably can't make that jump; it's at least twice as far as you've ever been able to jump before". No one actually believes it is realistic to be able to convince the King to hand over his Kingdom on a natural 20 Persuasion roll. To allow that sort of thing is to implicitly say to the Players: you have a 5% chance, with every attempt, to do absolutely anything in the world, no matter how silly, overblown, or improbable. Eat the sun, ski through a revolving door, jump over an ocean, swim through lava, etc.
If something is blatantly impossible, then if you want to let the Player roll, then sure. I'd rather not waste their time, and mine.
As for the OP question: yes, and no.
I'm all for allowing NPC, or even PC ability/skill roles to dictate the perception that the Character has: She seems sincere; that argument makes a lot of sense to you; you see the expression in his face and realize he's dead serious, and looking him over you think he can probably make good on that threat.
A Player who is a good role-player will take those and run with them. A Player who isn't role playing well could ignore that. I am - personally - not comfortable telling the Player what their Character is going to do.
However, I'm a big believer in having consequences fall out plausibly. If the NPC succeeded at Intimidation , and the Player decides to override the instincts of the Character, then I've got to decide if the NPC was bluffing or not ( probably not ), and sometime the NPC will make good on that threat. Sometimes the NPC is perfectly capable of kicking the Character's ass, the Character realizes it, the Player overrides the Character, and bad things happen to the Character. I have no issues mopping the floor with the Character at that point. That's on the Player.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
No issue, Squeegee. But as others said, what players have absolute freedom to do is act. They can describe their actions to me and as a DM I must accept those actions. I can offer counsel, say "that jump looks too far to you, never in your life have you considered a forty-foot gap jumpable" or "Growing up in this region, you know that Duke Maddboi is known for his temper and his intense dislike of disrespectful antics" - things a person's mind would supply in dangerous circumstances. I can even say "if you try and jump that gap, you're going to fall."
But if that player says "**** it, I do it anyways", then as a DM it's my job to adjudicate and narrate the results of their actions. Even if those results are plummeting to their death or being executed by royal guardsmen. A player can always tell me what they do. I will figure out the result of that Do-ing, which may or may not include a roll. The result may not be what the player wanted, but that is, as they say, how life do.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think that this was a way better way of expressing what I was trying to say. Just because Something won’t work doesn’t mean that the players can’t try. And maybe on a crit on either side of the spectrum, something fun happens.
Hmm. You raise some good points.
PCs try and persuade the shopkeeper to sell them an item at a discount, sometimes i let them roll, usually ill set a DC rather then an opposed roll for a random shop. but if they are up against the merchant they have been seeking because he had magical items? you bet the NPC rolls back, he might even be good at it considering it is his profession and he is apparently doing well, sometimes resulting in "your negotiation didn't go well, and he is now raising the price seeing as how you where so interested"
intimidation? i dont particularly use, though i will twist it about and say "the guard is big burly and could probably take you in a fight" if the player want to roll insight im good with that and will respond according to the roll from "you get the feeling this guard is well trained and could probably take you" "this guy is trying to intimidate you, hard to gauge who will win, but he will try" to "this guy is full of it, he talk a big game, but you think you could take him" what ever is appropriate sometimes the PCs take a hint and i suppose i intimidated them, sometimes they call the bluff and we get a fight
as for seduction, i have stolen a line from a DM i had who started off saying, before we even made characters, "this is an asexual world as far as the characters are concerned. Im here to run the world you live in, not romance you." im happy with just cutting that out and not dealing with it. im up front with it, and it has not yet been a problem.
more direct opposed rolls, like insight against deception, "you get the feeling they are lying" "if they are lying they are better at it then you are" sometimes the players know that they are being lied to, they snuck in yesterday and know that the guy does not have a dragon, but the fact that he says he does and the cant tell he is lying, gives them an idea of what caliber of adversary they are dealing with. as long as your not having an NPC lie it all works itself out nicely.
in the other direction i will point "you do realize you are now lieng to this guy, either roll deception or rephrase that, sometimes dice happen, sometimes the player realizes what they where about to say and goes either more tactful or flat out truthful. if i feel they are pushing the envelope ill roll myself an insight and the NPC might call them out on there careful selection of words.
I disagree with your third paragraph but everyone has their own style of play and it’s totally cool the way you do it.
All of the social skills are innately made for player use. DM sets a DC for example when he wants a player make a Charisma (Persuasion) check depending on NPC attitude against a PC. Persuasing for a discount from a shopkeeper would be DC15 Charisma Check for example.
DM tells when players get to roll, always.
Actually, as a DM, I do make some rules about what PCs are allowed to do. If it's something that will harass/traumatize/intimidate another player (like, the real person in the room), I say no, that's not happening. Likewise, if a player found something I did upsetting, we'd fix it. The game is never more important than the people playing.
I taught myself to DM out of books rather than go to game shops to play and learn, cause I wanted avoid that kind of treatment. It's awful to hear some of the horror stories, like some people who have posted here.
(I also run fairly family friendly games, but everyone has always agreed to that beforehand, so I don't consider that "forcing the players.")
You are the DM you set the rules. If players want to PvP instead of DD then look for new players.