D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Lanefan]

Not really. If the group automatically defaults to mechanical systems if those mechanical systems exist, then it's hardly a group that is intent on freeform play.

I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried as you're making it out to be.

All our lives and in every facet of life we're told that if there's a rule (or law) for something then we're expected to obey it; and this sinks in.

And so, often the only time people feel free to not follow rules is when there are no rules to follow. As soon as any rules appear then that lifetime of training kicks in and people (usually) start to follow those rules, whether they in fact want to or not.

 

[Maxperson]

I was asking if they provided a reason for the ruling, which they apparently did not. Your reason is, of course, valid as the subjective personal preference it is.

Page 6 of the PHB lays out the structure of how to play. At no point is the DM controlling the PCs.

Page 185 of the PHB: "The DM assumes the roles of any characters who are participating in the interaction that don't belong to another player at the table."

Page 186 of the PHB regarding social interactions - Ability Checks -

"In addition to roleplaying, ability checks are key in determining the outcome of an interaction.
Your roleplaying efforts can alter an NPC's attitude, but there might still be an element of chance in the situation. For example, your DM can call for a Charisma check at any point during an interaction if he or she wants the dice to play a role in determining an NPC's reactions. Other checks might be appropriate in certain situations, at your DM's discretion.
Pay attention to your skill proficiencies when thinking of how you want to interact with an NPC, and stack the deck in your favor by using an approach that relies on your best bonuses and skills."

The entirety of ability checks rules for social situations involve PCs affecting NPCs.

My reasoning is not based on subjective personal preference at all. Crawford's statement coupled with the rules for social interactions and the guidelines in the DMG pretty clearly show that the player is supposed to retain control over what his PC thinks, feels and does. The DM controls the NPCs. My reasoning is based on RAW + RAI only.

 

[GrimCo]

Yes, by RAW&RAI, ability and skill checks don't work on PCs in social situations. But, as always, you can talk to your group and if they are OK with it, then they work. There are some social interactions i would rather roll play than role play. NPC spy trying to seduce my PC character being just one example. Role playing it in character just makes me cringe.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried as you're making it out to be.

All our lives and in every facet of life we're told that if there's a rule (or law) for something then we're expected to obey it; and this sinks in.

And so, often the only time people feel free to not follow rules is when there are no rules to follow. As soon as any rules appear then that lifetime of training kicks in and people (usually) start to follow those rules, whether they in fact want to or not.

I'm not sure that really matters. In a game which repeatedly, many many times, rewards kit bashing and expects groups to make things their own, where the notion of DM Empowerment is KING, arguing that people will only follow what they actually want to do is if there is no opposition to it seems a bit ... cynical?

Like I said, if your preferences are so fragile that an OPTIONAL ruleset will result in no one following your preferences, then, well, perhaps they aren't quite as strong in their preferences as people are claiming.

See, my way, we both get what we want. I get a robust, detailed system that works for my table. You get what you want - free form to your hearts content. But, in your way, only you get what you want and I get thrown under the bus because, apparently, including what I want will result in no one actually wanting to play your style of play. And you're saying that's because people are wired to follow the rules? I'm gonna call shenanigans here.

 

[Hussar]

Which is fine, but for consistency* the PC shouldn't be able to do those things to the NPC either. And thus, as now nobody can use those rules, might as well chuck 'em out.

* - unless the specific intent is that PCs become special snowflakes simply due to the fact they have players attached; which, while it might work for some, is a complete non-starter for me.

Umm... welcome to D&D? This has been true since OD&D. PC's were never subject to NPC charisma checks for their reactions, nor were they ever subject to morale checks. D&D has never allowed social skills of any flavor to influence player characters in any edition.

Can you think of a single example in D&D where the rules allowed NPC's to dictate player actions? Outside of charm spells, I suppose, which have always been an exception.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, by RAW&RAI, ability and skill checks don't work on PCs in social situations. But, as always, you can talk to your group and if they are OK with it, then they work. There are some social interactions i would rather roll play than role play. NPC spy trying to seduce my PC character being just one example. Role playing it in character just makes me cringe.

Well sure! If everyone at the table agrees, the bard's rapier will detonate a nuclear blast the next time he hits with it. The rest of the group is going to buy really fast horses.

Nobody is arguing that the DM and/or group can't change it up. We're discussing what the rules say.

As for cringy roleplay, you can just say, "okay it works" or "she doesn't succeed no matter how hard she tries." No need for either cringy roleplay that makes you uncomfortable or choosing a roll to decide for you.

 

[Maxperson]

Umm... welcome to D&D? This has been true since OD&D. PC's were never subject to NPC charisma checks for their reactions, nor were they ever subject to morale checks. D&D has never allowed social skills of any flavor to influence player characters in any edition.

Can you think of a single example in D&D where the rules allowed NPC's to dictate player actions? Outside of charm spells, I suppose, which have always been an exception.

Right. The idea is that since the player only has his one character, he's 1) more invested in the character and what it does, and 2) has far more limited options than the DM. The DM controls everything else and isn't as invested in the NPCs, because they are essentially environment.

I think what @Lanefan is overlooking is that the way it currently works is what he says should happen. He says that what the works on the NPCs should work on the PCs. It does. The PCs can influence the NPCs via roleplay and ability checks to do things, and the NPCs can get the PCs to do the same exact things. It's only the methods that are different. One one hand there are mechanics, and on the other hand the player gets to decide based on his roleplay and knowledge of his character. Both sides are still capable achieving the same results.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The clear solution is to impalement a 4E style mark like system where you can either submit to the demand or suffer a penalty based on how high the NPC rolled (among other factors).

Oh, the dinner host rolled a nat 20! You can agree to eat soy sauce filled ice cream or take a -6 CHA penalty for the rest of night since you're such a mean jerk who won't even eat a bite of the desert they worked so hard to make!!

 

[GrimCo]

Well sure! If everyone at the table agrees, the bard's rapier will detonate a nuclear blast the next time he hits with it. The rest of the group is going to buy really fast horses.

Nobody is arguing that the DM and/or group can't change it up. We're discussing what the rules say.

As for cringy roleplay, you can just say, "okay it works" or "she doesn't succeed no matter how hard she tries." No need for either cringy roleplay that makes you uncomfortable or choosing a roll to decide for you.

For some reason, rules treat social conflict and physical conflict very differently. Let's be honest, most of the rules in phb are there for resolving physical conflicts (aka combat). If NPC wants to, he can attack PC with fists, weapons or spells all day long. But if he wants to "attack" him socially, then it's ether magic or try to role play. FE NPC can try to grapple pc. But it cant verbally grapple. It just doesn't make sense. ( From broader perspective, yes, i know, player agency, i get it ).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In my experience most people are reluctant to deviate from the rules written in the book, even if these rules go against their preferences. I complained about Exalted, and after one campaign with the second edition rules I basically rewrote all the powers and bunch of other stuff to be more of my liking. I have quite a bit of houserules for my D&D game. But most people don't do this. There are a ton of threads on this forum where people complain about some aspect of the game, but they still refuse to implement houserules or even official optional rules that would fix or alleviate the issue. They want the official rules to be changed to their liking. So yes, official rules is what most people will use, and if the discomfort gets too high, like with 4e, they just abandon the whole game rather than change the game.