Plea to DMs: Give backgrounds more functional weight

[PhoenixPhyre]

I want to start by relating an experience I had that made me think. I was DMing a short one-shot at a charity gaming event. Most of the players were entirely new and they were using WotC pregen characters. In the opening scenario, they were attacked by bandits, who I described (as a matter of flavor more than anything) as being "former soldiers turned mercenary/bandits." After about a round of combat where the party was quite successful, one of the new players spoke up. She was playing a human fighter, with the soldier (officer) background. She asked "It says I was an officer. Can I try to order these former soldiers to surrender? After all, I'd know how to command troops."

There's nothing on the character sheet that gives a "soldiers can command others to surrender, make a X check..." mechanical button. But the fiction was clear, and made sense. So I let her try--Charisma (Intimidation) IIRC. She partially succeeded and several surrendered.

That made me think that we, as DMs, often don't give enough mechanical weight to backgrounds and backstories. Maybe for fear of munchkinry, maybe because we forget, maybe because it doesn't have a "rule" associated with it. But I think it would help tremendously with people feeling that they don't have anything to contribute out of combat. If that soldier background person knows tactics and can more easily (lower DC or advantage or even auto-success as appropriate) convince a king to send armies than the con-man bard who doesn't know the terminology, or if the acolyte rogue knows where to look for hidden things in that ruined temple (after all, seen one temple, seen them all), or the outlander barbarian knows the ways to convince tribal warriors not to attack (a more universal sign language, common taboos, etc), they're more useful even without explicit mechanics.

Below I'm starting to brain-storm some possible "narrative features" for each of the PHB backgrounds to illustrate what I'm talking about. These are suggestions for things DMs can note when a character attempts an action, they are not intended as mechanical buttons the player can press. The actual mechanical weight depends on the circumstances--I'd start with advantage on a relevant check and go from there to degrees of success instead of possible failure or to automatic success as relevant.

Suggestions or additions are welcome.
----------------------------


Seen one temple...: You know your way around temples, since many religious architects think in similar patterns. You're better at finding things or noting things that are out of place.
Inured to long vigils: Many religious ceremonies require long hours of standing in place and doing the right thing at the right time. A childhood full of such things has left you practiced at tasks that take long hours of concentration and precise recall.
Practiced ritualist: You participated in so many religious rites that you can put together the pieces of ritual instructions more easily, even when they're not those of your own faith and even when parts are missing.
Brotherhood of faith: You know how to talk to religious people about religion-adjacent topics. This is most effective when they share your faith, but some of the patterns transfer to those of other faiths.
Generalist: At many small rural shrines, the acolytes are responsible for the daily upkeep of the area as well as normal farming or other duties. You have familiarity with many different tools, even if you don't have official proficiency.

[LudicSavant]

I want to start by relating an experience I had that made me think. I was DMing a short one-shot at a charity gaming event. Most of the players were entirely new and they were using WotC pregen characters. In the opening scenario, they were attacked by bandits, who I described (as a matter of flavor more than anything) as being "former soldiers turned mercenary/bandits." After about a round of combat where the party was quite successful, one of the new players spoke up. She was playing a human fighter, with the soldier (officer) background. She asked "It says I was an officer. Can I try to order these former soldiers to surrender? After all, I'd know how to command troops."

There's nothing on the character sheet that gives a "soldiers can command others to surrender, make a X check..." mechanical button. But the fiction was clear, and made sense. So I let her try--Charisma (Intimidation) IIRC. She partially succeeded and several surrendered.

I do stuff like this all the time at my table, and have done so in every edition (we didn't need an explicit backstory system to, you know, have backstories).

Having a list of ideas for newer DMs seems like it could be pretty useful for them, though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I do stuff like this all the time at my table, and have done so in every edition (we didn't need an explicit backstory system to, you know, have backstories).

Having a list of ideas for newer DMs seems like it could be pretty useful for them, though.

I think most good DMs do, but I fear that newer DMs or those who, for whatever reason, see the rules as restrictive rather than suggestive, tend to err on the side of less weight.

And everyone can use a reminder that there's more than just the explicit buttons to press.

But yes, brainstorming a list of suggestions was a major part of the point here. I'd love for others to contribute.

[Angelalex242]

Having the Noble background means a LOT in urban environments like Season 8's Waterdeep. It means very little elsewhere.

[Pleh]

I agree quite strongly.

In general, anyone should be able to make Persuasion checks where normally they couldn't IF they share a common backstory with their target.

If your background is Sailor, you should never have much trouble with Rope or balance checks on seaborn vessels except in extreme conditions. You can probably automatically identify North as long as you can see the stars (where most people might need to make a check if they can't see the sun). Maybe take that power a step further and say that you can make survival checks to discern true north even when the sky is overcast. The Outlander may have a similar ability.

I'd like to see Nobles be able to go anywhere in their own country (not necessarily their own family's jurisdiction) and be recognized instantly by anyone who sees their face unobscured. It sets up some great Robin of Locksley Wears a Hood to Sneak Around story.

[MaxWilson]

I want to start by relating an experience I had that made me think. I was DMing a short one-shot at a charity gaming event. Most of the players were entirely new and they were using WotC pregen characters. In the opening scenario, they were attacked by bandits, who I described (as a matter of flavor more than anything) as being "former soldiers turned mercenary/bandits." After about a round of combat where the party was quite successful, one of the new players spoke up. She was playing a human fighter, with the soldier (officer) background. She asked "It says I was an officer. Can I try to order these former soldiers to surrender? After all, I'd know how to command troops."

There's nothing on the character sheet that gives a "soldiers can command others to surrender, make a X check..." mechanical button. But the fiction was clear, and made sense. So I let her try--Charisma (Intimidation) IIRC. She partially succeeded and several surrendered.

That made me think that we, as DMs, often don't give enough mechanical weight to backgrounds and backstories.

I'm curious why your takeaway from this experience was aimed at DMs rather than players. Do you have some reason to think most DMs would have answered "No" to this question?

I'd frame this as a plea to players: please, please, think outside the box instead of just rolling attacks against everything you meet, and if there's something relevant in your background or recent history, please bring it to your DM's attention as you do so. If your DM is any good, you won't regret the attempt.

[Chronos]

I have found that in my group, the DMs (there are two who alternate) don't give enough weight to the background feature. Like, for instance, a Sage is supposed to, even if they don't know the answer to a question themself, to be able to have a pretty good idea who would. For all the times I asked that question with my Sage character, the answer was always "you don't know". I mean, I get that they don't want to give everything away for free, but the answer could have perfectly fairly been some guy in a city clear across the continent who'd be more trouble than it's worth to reach.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having the Noble background means a LOT in urban environments like Season 8's Waterdeep. It means very little elsewhere.

The bold is exactly the thing I want to abolish. A noble might be (not all, but some of):

Accustomed to command: You're used to being obeyed, and this comes across when talking to those of lesser station. You know how to phrase and pitch your demands so that people tend to obey before they start to think.
Accustomed to deception: You're used to playing politics and being around people who will try to use you for their own ends. You're better at ferreting out hidden motives.
Trained huntsman: Tracking dangerous prey, for you, is Tuesday.
A social butterfly: You're used to fitting in to the shifting court fashions. You can blend into a noble/wealthy crowd wherever you go.
Historian: You know all the local family lines--you can say exactly who is buried in that crypt and what kind of traps they'd use. When looking for the lost heir, you know where to look better than anyone.

Etc. All of these are useful in many areas, especially if you're not stuck to an adventure path or if the DM is willing to play off-book.

[Max_Killjoy]

I really like this sort of thing, with the right players.

But as you note, I think some GMs shy away because they've had a lot of experience with players trying to cheese this sort of thing. Instead of commanding the bandits to surrender after a round of combat that the PCs do well in, the player is trying to command them immediately, and not just to surrender... but command them to join assist the PCs in their larger mission... and get crappy about it when the GM says no after saying yes to some less ridiculous thing previously, because they think anything not on paper as a rule is free to be pushed over and over as there are no written limits.

[Unoriginal]

Being a noble means a lot, even in non-urban places or outside of your family's territory.

Nobility isn't just an honorific. It has weight even in foreign soil, as long as the people recognize the place you're from as a legitimate country.

[Zorrah]

I was actually thinking something along the lines of this for my Curse of Strahd character. One thing I do understand about Curse of Strahd is that it's one of the few where you regularly interact with the BBEG without actually fighting with him for a while. I did take the noble background because I want to play up that, "I am nobility too, we should be friends" (or at least frenemies as far as each of us knows). I think it could add an interesting layer to the narrative of the module if it flows anything I think like it will. I haven't read any spoilers on it really, so this is just something I wanted to play with, but also, I have played Neverwinter extensively and have played earlier edition Ravenloft modules.

[Sariel Vailo]

Entertainers take all sorts of shapes and skills.
Gladiator most people have heard of you and if persuaded correctly may even run away from you pr toward you.
Courtesan you are verry seductive and know how to ply your trade some verry tight lipped individuals may even loosen up to you.
Tavern bard though you have no real fame to your name you know just how to set the mood performances even bad ones have a way of making people like you maybe even talk to you.

[Jophiel]

I'm curious why your takeaway from this experience was aimed at DMs rather than players. Do you have some reason to think most DMs would have answered "No" to this question?
I've known numerous DMs who would be inclined to say "No". You don't know these soldiers, you weren't part of their command, they gave up soldiering for banditry, etc. It's easy to handwave a refusal if your inclination is "Well, the rules don't say you can do that".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've known numerous DMs who would be inclined to say "No". You don't know these soldiers, you weren't part of their command, they gave up soldiering for banditry, etc. It's easy to handwave a refusal if your inclination is "Well, the rules don't say you can do that".

Agreed.

And it also makes a difference behind the scenes--a DM who is aware of the backgrounds can do things like

* Give extra information (either on a successful check or just as "stuff the character would know").

* Change who gets talked to by NPCs and how the NPCs react to them. If an obviously common bard and a noble, although uncharismatic, fighter walk up to a noble estate in a status-conscious region, the guards are going to look to the fighter first and not pay as much attention to the bard despite the bard's higher Charisma.

* Let the character do more without needing a check. The idea of Sailors not needing to make as many Dexterity checks for unstable/slippery surfaces was brought up. Remember, the DM controls when a check is made, not the players. An entertainer (circus performer) might be able to do things with Acrobatics that others can't, because it's similar to a high-wire trick he used to do. Or a Sage might be able to decode that formula without much effort--he's seen things like that before and is familiar with the notation. A circus escape artist might be able to wriggle out of chains like Harry Houdini.

The point of this is to let people be awesome, even if they don't have mechanical buttons on their sheet. The DM orchestrates all of this and can use backgrounds to put certain people in the spotlight and make them feel important. Some of this is based on player prompting ("can I use..."), and some of it happens in the background.

The meta-idea is to engage the characters as if they were real people in the fiction, not as if they were mechanical playing pieces that have limited interaction capability. Is the party famous? Then people react to them differently than if they're infamous. Reputations matter. Backgrounds and histories matter. Both for good and for ill.

[Laserlight]

Having the Noble background means a LOT in urban environments like Season 8's Waterdeep. It means very little elsewhere.

It has been helpful in CoS. My DM decided that I was a countess a step or two higher in rank than Count Strahd. The Baron of Vallaki has been sucking up to me, and a couple of ghosts and wizards have recognized my House and heraldry.

But yeah, if we were transported to the Losr World and dodging dinosaurs and cavemen, it wouldn't be especially useful.

[Tanarii]

I would have set the DC as between Hard (20) or Very Hard (25). Probably 23, you'd need max starting Cha and incredible luck (roll a 20) to pull it off. But leaving some room for a greater chance for having the right skill prof.

Knowing how to command soldiers shouldn't let you get to talk down into surrender any soldiers-gone-deserter-gone-bandit you're already fighting. The best they can expect is a death sentence twice over, once for desertion, once for banditry. And they're in the middle of a fight already.

Convince/Trick them they're up against a trained combat force instead of easy merchant guard pickings, and they should flee immediately or die? Possible, and a former soldier might have a bonus over any other adventurer doing that.

Surrender to some random officer, probably not even of the same military, having no power to pardon their (multiple) crimes? No way. Not any more than any other adventurer.

Now if she had the power to pardon them for their crimes, that'd be a whole different matter.

[mephnick]

If only my players would remember what their Bond or Flaw is.

Me: *Sets up juicy decision leaning on player's flaw.*

Players: *Ignore completely*

Me: Hey, uh, you know your flaw is *insert exact thing they're staring at*

Player: Oh, is it? Right. I ignore it anyway.

Me: *gives up*

[CantigThimble]

I've known numerous DMs who would be inclined to say "No". You don't know these soldiers, you weren't part of their command, they gave up soldiering for banditry, etc. It's easy to handwave a refusal if your inclination is "Well, the rules don't say you can do that".

I also know plenty of players who where the interaction goes:

Player: I tell all the bandits to surrender because they're former soldiers and used to obeying orders. I get a 17, it's a DC 15 so that works!

DM: *Staring at the notes detailing how the bandits are secretly fanatical cultists who will fight to the death without question* It doesn't work, they continue fighting.

Player: But the book says that it does! Why did you even let me pick this background if you were just going to nerf all the features. I wish you would play by the rules.

DM: *Sigh*

[SpanielBear]

I would have set the DC as between Hard (20) or Very Hard (25). Probably 23, you'd need max starting Cha and incredible luck (roll a 20) to pull it off. But leaving some room for a greater chance for having the right skill prof.

Knowing how to command soldiers shouldn't let you get to talk down into surrender any soldiers-gone-deserter-gone-bandit you're already fighting. The best they can expect is a death sentence twice over, once for desertion, once for banditry. And they're in the middle of a fight already.

Convince/Trick them they're up against a trained combat force instead of easy merchant guard pickings, and they should flee immediately or die? Possible, and a former soldier might have a bonus over any other adventurer doing that.

Surrender to some random officer, probably not even of the same military, having no power to pardon their (multiple) crimes? No way. Not any more than any other adventurer.

Now if she had the power to pardon them for their crimes, that'd be a whole different matter.

Surrender themselves into the adventurers custody, yeah that might be a hard sell depending on local laws etc. But there might be more than just having them flee too-

- Appealing to them veteran to veteran to let the party pass

- Using your position as an officer to draw their ire and make them focus on you rather than a wounded companion.

- Recognise which old regiment they were from, and being able to therefore get a reward from them for disposing of the deserters after the fact.

My point is that I agree that certain options should be harder than others, but take each suggestion a player brings to the table on its own merits.

[HappyDaze]

The bold is exactly the thing I want to abolish. A noble might be (not all, but some of):

Accustomed to command: You're used to being obeyed, and this comes across when talking to those of lesser station. You know how to phrase and pitch your demands so that people tend to obey before they start to think.
Accustomed to deception: You're used to playing politics and being around people who will try to use you for their own ends. You're better at ferreting out hidden motives.
Trained huntsman: Tracking dangerous prey, for you, is Tuesday.
A social butterfly: You're used to fitting in to the shifting court fashions. You can blend into a noble/wealthy crowd wherever you go.
Historian: You know all the local family lines--you can say exactly who is buried in that crypt and what kind of traps they'd use. When looking for the lost heir, you know where to look better than anyone.

Etc. All of these are useful in many areas, especially if you're not stuck to an adventure path or if the DM is willing to play off-book.

The Background features are often based more upon what others recognize in you rather than what you're really capable of doing. If the noble is accustomed to command, he'll have Persuasion (the Background gives this), if he's a trained huntsman he'll have Nature and/or Survival, if he's a social butterfly he'll have various face skills, and if he's a historian he'll have History (which, again, the Background gives). If he lacks those skills, he lacks them. I don't have the background feature substitute for proficiencies.

[HappyDaze]

I want to start by relating an experience I had that made me think. I was DMing a short one-shot at a charity gaming event. Most of the players were entirely new and they were using WotC pregen characters. In the opening scenario, they were attacked by bandits, who I described (as a matter of flavor more than anything) as being "former soldiers turned mercenary/bandits." After about a round of combat where the party was quite successful, one of the new players spoke up. She was playing a human fighter, with the soldier (officer) background. She asked "It says I was an officer. Can I try to order these former soldiers to surrender? After all, I'd know how to command troops."

There's nothing on the character sheet that gives a "soldiers can command others to surrender, make a X check..." mechanical button. But the fiction was clear, and made sense. So I let her try--Charisma (Intimidation) IIRC. She partially succeeded and several surrendered.

That made me think that we, as DMs, often don't give enough mechanical weight to backgrounds and backstories. Maybe for fear of munchkinry, maybe because we forget, maybe because it doesn't have a "rule" associated with it. But I think it would help tremendously with people feeling that they don't have anything to contribute out of combat. If that soldier background person knows tactics and can more easily (lower DC or advantage or even auto-success as appropriate) convince a king to send armies than the con-man bard who doesn't know the terminology, or if the acolyte rogue knows where to look for hidden things in that ruined temple (after all, seen one temple, seen them all), or the outlander barbarian knows the ways to convince tribal warriors not to attack (a more universal sign language, common taboos, etc), they're more useful even without explicit mechanics.

Below I'm starting to brain-storm some possible "narrative features" for each of the PHB backgrounds to illustrate what I'm talking about. These are suggestions for things DMs can note when a character attempts an action, they are not intended as mechanical buttons the player can press. The actual mechanical weight depends on the circumstances--I'd start with advantage on a relevant check and go from there to degrees of success instead of possible failure or to automatic success as relevant.

Suggestions or additions are welcome.
----------------------------


Seen one temple...: You know your way around temples, since many religious architects think in similar patterns. You're better at finding things or noting things that are out of place.
Inured to long vigils: Many religious ceremonies require long hours of standing in place and doing the right thing at the right time. A childhood full of such things has left you practiced at tasks that take long hours of concentration and precise recall.
Practiced ritualist: You participated in so many religious rites that you can put together the pieces of ritual instructions more easily, even when they're not those of your own faith and even when parts are missing.
Brotherhood of faith: You know how to talk to religious people about religion-adjacent topics. This is most effective when they share your faith, but some of the patterns transfer to those of other faiths.
Generalist: At many small rural shrines, the acolytes are responsible for the daily upkeep of the area as well as normal farming or other duties. You have familiarity with many different tools, even if you don't have official proficiency.


The penalty for a soldier that turns to banditry is usually death. I don't think being able to make them surrender because they recognize your (former) rank makes a whole lot of sense. If anything, it probably should have given Disadvantage on the Persuasion skill to get them to surrender as they wold probably figure you'd be less lenient that non-soldiers.

[SpanielBear]

I also know plenty of players who where the interaction goes:

Player: I tell all the bandits to surrender because they're former soldiers and used to obeying orders. I get a 17, it's a DC 15 so that works!

DM: *Staring at the notes detailing how the bandits are secretly fanatical cultists who will fight to the death without question* It doesn't work, they continue fighting.

Player: But the book says that it does! Why did you even let me pick this background if you were just going to nerf all the features. I wish you would play by the rules.

DM: *Sigh*

Why are the players determining the DC? At all?


The penalty for a soldier that turns to banditry is usually death. I don't think being able to make them surrender because they recognize your (former) rank makes a whole lot of sense. If anything, it probably should have given Disadvantage on the Persuasion skill to get them to surrender as they wold probably figure you'd be less lenient that non-soldiers.

The OP did say the party had just had a good round of combat. Being in a position where instead of easily killing a bunch of nobodies, you now find yourself outmatched by a group that includes a professional soldier, who offers you the chance to surrender now and maybe live- I mean, you can always escape later.

It should be a hard sell, but in the circumstances not an impossible one imo.

[qube]

Suggestions or additions are welcome.
hmmm ... how about making the background a skill as well, in whcih you are proficient.

From your example, Want to command the mercs? Make a soldier(cha) check.

it's a minor thing, but
from the mechanics point of view, it allows you to make a ability check with proficiency if it makes sense.
from a campaign creation / running sessions point of view, it reminds the creator/DM or even pro-active players to take into account backgrounds & use it.

[CantigThimble]

Why are the players determining the DC? At all?

Well, if you're saying there should be mechanics for it then there has to be some kind of rules determining when it works or doesnt, otherwise it's just flavor text.
Even if there's no fixed DCs and it's left vague, the players will use bardic inspiration/guidance/expertise/help to get a stupidly high roll and then you're in the same situation where players feel like you're changing the rules because 'their character sheet says so' but there's information they don't have.

Edit: Also, to be clear, I let players do stuff like this all the time, it's just that codifying it causes problems IME.

[Jophiel]

Well, if you're saying there should be mechanics for it then there has to be some kind of rules determining when it works or doesnt, otherwise it's just flavor text.
No one is calling for hard mechanics for it, just a reminder to DMs that background can be a way to let players influence the game and more meaningful than a couple extra proficiency and language skills.

It's also nice if it encourages background choices beyond "Which of these gives me Perception" or "I'll take this one for the thieves tools"

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, if you're saying there should be mechanics for it then there has to be some kind of rules determining when it works or doesnt, otherwise it's just flavor text.
Even if there's no fixed DCs and it's left vague, the players will use bardic inspiration/guidance/expertise/help to get a stupidly high roll and then you're in the same situation where players feel like you're changing the rules because 'their character sheet says so' but there's information they don't have.

Edit: Also, to be clear, I let players do stuff like this all the time, it's just that codifying it causes problems IME.

That's why I aimed this at DMs. I'm intentionally avoiding codifying anything. These aren't active buttons for the players to push, they're Aspects (a la Fate) that the DM can call on to bind the character into the world more effectively and make the player feel awesome. Most of this should be relatively transparent to the players.


hmmm ... how about making the background a skill as well, in whcih you are proficient.

From your example, Want to command the mercs? Make a soldier(cha) check.

it's a minor thing, but
from the mechanics point of view, it allows you to make a ability check with proficiency if it makes sense.
from a campaign creation / running sessions point of view, it reminds the creator/DM or even pro-active players to take into account backgrounds & use it.


As I said above, I specifically want to avoid mechanizing this directly. I want people to put down the sheet and play a character, rather than look for buttons they can push like a trained rat.

As a side note, that would be a CHA (soldier) check, not vice versa. There are no skill checks, only ability checks that allow one of several proficiencies to be applied.


The Background features are often based more upon what others recognize in you rather than what you're really capable of doing. If the noble is accustomed to command, he'll have Persuasion (the Background gives this), if he's a trained huntsman he'll have Nature and/or Survival, if he's a social butterfly he'll have various face skills, and if he's a historian he'll have History (which, again, the Background gives). If he lacks those skills, he lacks them. I don't have the background feature substitute for proficiencies.

I dislike this approach. It tells people that only the dots on their sheets are important. There are many things that ordinary people know even without "proficiency" in something. The noble might not be a full-on historian, but just out of sheer survival he knows the local nobility in and out. He may not be a professional hunter, but he's hunted these particular lands quite a bit. Proficiencies are broad but people know lots of things at a much more narrow level just from growing up a certain way. I grew up in potato farming country. Even though I have a black thumb and don't know much about farming in the abstract, I know quite a bit of the details about potatoes and the farming process because I grew up around it. Same with the law (my dad's a lawyer).

A former soldier, used to talking bluntly, will have more success talking to a particular NPC in my setting than a courtly bard, despite a great difference in numbers. That's because that NPC, a professional soldier himself, has no patience with flowery speech or fancy talk but responds well to blunt declarations and just the facts. Particularly religious people may be more approachable by a fellow religious man, even if the bard is more convincing in the abstract. The criminal may not know about the arcane traditions of MagicLand (not proficient in Arcana), but they might very well know that this particular kind of lock usually comes with a magical trap merely because they've seen it before or because they've engaged in shop talk about it

Boiling everything down to mechanics also encourages the party to act like a single-brained, multi-body entity. Only the Face talks to people. Only the Knowledge person tries INT checks. Etc. And that's bad play, in my opinion. It totally doesn't match the fiction.


As a matter of fact, the situation was more like this:

The "bandits" (conscript farmers who turned to banditry for survival in the aftermath of a war rather than deserters) thought they were ambushing a lightly-guarded merchant wagon as they slept. They instead had their ambush turned on them by a group of thoroughly-awake professional Crown Investigators sent to investigate strange occurrences in the area. That was shock #1.

Then they had a bad first round, with several being killed right off. Shock #2.

Then the soldier pulled the Drill Sargent routine--less a logical persuasion to get them to surrender than barking commands like she's expecting to be obeyed, triggering the training the soldiers (of the same country, mind) would have had. A decent roll* made several of them freeze in confusion, a couple of them run away, and one try to surrender.

It's less about talking as a soldier than talking like a soldier, talking in a way that a soldier would instinctively listen to.

* I intentionally low-balled the difficulty and did a graduated success model, although I don't remember the DCs. I try to encourage people to think outside the mechanics. Don't tell me what skill you're using, tell me what you're doing and let me worry about the mechanics.

[Tvtyrant]

I use a morale check system, which triggers on individuals when the players crit against them or threaten a rout whenever an enemy drops (they all make a check.) I would have had this force an impromptu morale check on each opponent, so the rules would be a little more regular then a one off save or die.

[CantigThimble]

No one is calling for hard mechanics for it, just a reminder to DMs that background can be a way to let players influence the game and more meaningful than a couple extra proficiency and language skills.

If you say so. But if that's the case then you aren't doing anything about this:


I've known numerous DMs who would be inclined to say "No". You don't know these soldiers, you weren't part of their command, they gave up soldiering for banditry, etc. It's easy to handwave a refusal if your inclination is "Well, the rules don't say you can do that".

Which is what I was replying to.

My point is that attempting to fix the problem of uncooperative DMs with rules is a bad idea.

[Darth Ultron]

I'd frame this as a plea to players: please, please, think outside the box instead of just rolling attacks against everything you meet, and if there's something relevant in your background or recent history, please bring it to your DM's attention as you do so. If your DM is any good, you won't regret the attempt.

I agree here. Too many players only play the game as pure, mindless, mechanical murderhobo combat.....and then whine and complain that the game is ''all about mechanical combat".

The Big Problem is a Player really needs Two Characters mechanically: One for combat, and one for other things. A character that can mechanical fight and mechanical do anything else is a lot of mechanics. 5E does not allow for non combat characters like 2E or 3E or PF.

Worse, D&D has always had hundreds of pages about mechanical combat, and like less then a dozen for mechanical anything else. And that is the Real Problem: mechanically you'd need hundreds of pages of mechanical non combat rules to make it worth it.

The Background mechanics would need to be Very Useful and Scale with levels. Though, this is the part where you'd need lots and lots of mechanical rules.

Really, this is just one of the things new DM just have to learn.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My point is that attempting to fix the problem of uncooperative DMs with rules is a bad idea.

Except that short-cutting the whole "rules are the only thing" attitude is the entire point of this plea. To remind those DMs that there's a whole fictional layer out there. To free them from the chains of the rule-book.

[Pelle]

I see the Background as an established state of the world fact, and try to use it as an excuse as much as possible to handwave things, grant automatic success or advantage, or a reason for giving specific players information. Fate Aspects are a good way of looking at it, I love those. My players aren't that good at leveraging them, though, which means that it relies on me remembering the details of all the PCs.

[Jophiel]

If you say so. But if that's the case then you aren't doing anything about this:

Which is what I was replying to.

My point is that attempting to fix the problem of uncooperative DMs with rules is a bad idea.
You misunderstood me. My point was that, yes, there are DMs who would refuse that because it's not in the rules and therefore I thought the OP was a useful reminder to DMs to move beyond the rules -- not to create new rules.

[Keravath]

I'm curious why your takeaway from this experience was aimed at DMs rather than players. Do you have some reason to think most DMs would have answered "No" to this question?

I'd frame this as a plea to players: please, please, think outside the box instead of just rolling attacks against everything you meet, and if there's something relevant in your background or recent history, please bring it to your DM's attention as you do so. If your DM is any good, you won't regret the attempt.

I've run into DMs who might not allow it ... however that is in the context of AL. Personally I would likely allow some sort of check since it might make sense in context. On the other hand, whether there is any remote chance of success depends on the circumstances.

The OP narrated the background of the bandits as ex-soldiers and mercenaries. However, if they are facing a death penalty for their past crimes then there would be ZERO chance of success when a person with a background commanding troops simply orders them to surrender. They would essentially be committing suicide by surrendering. It isn't going to happen no matter how convincing the character may seem. In fact, if they are deserters they might react extremely negatively to someone ordering them to surrender.

On the other hand, if the bandits haven't killed anyone, are perhaps desperate for food and can't find employment then maybe the character could convince them to put down their arms and direct them towards some sort of employment or other activity.

Basically, as soon as the OP narrated the generic bandits as ex-soldiers and mercenaries AND the player acted on that information ... the DM has to create a back story for the bandits so he can understand whether there is any possibility that convincing the bandits to surrender might remotely work and if so what sort of skill check should be required.

Depending on what sort of background story I came up with on the fly ... the player's action would have ZERO chance of success, some skill check to make, or will just be successful. However, the OPs story didn't go into the details of what backstory he created to allow a partial success .. maybe he thought that generic bandits might be convinced to generically surrender if the player rolled high enough. Which is a fine approach but doesn't really make logical sense ... unless there is some personal motivating factor for those who surrendered to make that a good decision for them.

[Darth Ultron]

Except that short-cutting the whole "rules are the only thing" attitude is the entire point of this plea. To remind those DMs that there's a whole fictional layer out there. To free them from the chains of the rule-book.

Maybe you'd just want a generic rule like ''pick one specific aspect that fits your background per level and you gain advantage when rolling for that effect..or a +2 bonus."

Or even go: For each plus of wisdom and intelligence allow the player to pick one boon related to their background and ability. Plus the player can select an boon per character level.

Let the boon be ''anything"...let the player be creative an pick something they both like and will use. And have the DM assign mechanics to it.

[Calimehter]

For the OP's example situation: I would have simply decided to roll a Morale check for the bad guys, and probably would have regardless of any of the player's backgrounds. Normally, such a check (assuming it failed or that the GM decided it would fail given the circumstances) would have resulted in a bunch of them fleeing, maybe one or two surrendering . . . you know, the sort of chaos one usually gets when one side's morale breaks.

With the player's declared action and how it meshes with their Soldier background, I would probably have ruled that she gets most or all of them to surrender in a cleaner and more orderly fashion than usual. Probably ask for a CHA check vs. DC, oh, say 10. The benefit is less mechanical in this case than it is story-based. They can now question the captives and possibly learn something from them regarding their primary mission (investigating strange events), and at least have the chance to try an get some other positive interactions out of them (assuming the PCs abide by the honorable surrender offered by the Soldier character).

I would also likely award an Inspiration Dice if they didn't already have one. I am still working on getting regular DM work, but my intention is to try to do so whenever a player brings their background/personality/flaw/bond into play of their own volition in a meaningful way.

[Unoriginal]

Surrender themselves into the adventurers custody, yeah that might be a hard sell depending on local laws etc. But there might be more than just having them flee too-

- Appealing to them veteran to veteran to let the party pass

- Using your position as an officer to draw their ire and make them focus on you rather than a wounded companion.

- Recognise which old regiment they were from, and being able to therefore get a reward from them for disposing of the deserters after the fact.

My point is that I agree that certain options should be harder than others, but take each suggestion a player brings to the table on its own merits.

Could get them to surrender by promising them clemency, that you can get from military authorities as a respected soldier.


The penalty for a soldier that turns to banditry is usually death. I don't think being able to make them surrender because they recognize your (former) rank makes a whole lot of sense. If anything, it probably should have given Disadvantage on the Persuasion skill to get them to surrender as they wold probably figure you'd be less lenient that non-soldiers.

The penalty for anyone that turns to banditry is usually death. Telling "I was officier, I know big wigs who can get you off more lightly" to people who are used to the system has a chance to work.

[EggKookoo]

I'm curious why your takeaway from this experience was aimed at DMs rather than players. Do you have some reason to think most DMs would have answered "No" to this question?

I'd frame this as a plea to players: please, please, think outside the box instead of just rolling attacks against everything you meet, and if there's something relevant in your background or recent history, please bring it to your DM's attention as you do so. If your DM is any good, you won't regret the attempt.

I agree that the primary responsibility to get this kind of ball rolling sits with the player(s). The DM has to be onboard with it as well but it's not the DM's job to proactively involve a PC's background all the time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree that the primary responsibility to get this kind of ball rolling sits with the player(s). The DM has to be onboard with it as well but it's not the DM's job to proactively involve a PC's background all the time.

Players need a reminder to try, but most players are more than willing to do things that give them advantages. DMs need the reminder to actually let things happen without being forced by specific rules.

And there's a lot of it that is purely on the DM--

* Who does the NPC talk to first? How do they react? How do the PCs fit into society? Are the common people looking up to them with fear? With awe? Do they care more about one PC than another?
* What do each of the PCs know without rolling for a given description?
* What avenues are even available? A criminal (rogue or not) will have different investigation avenues open than a noble, an acolyte, or a soldier. One big part of a DM's job in anything but the most open sandbox is to let the players know what the obvious options are. Just simply saying "what do you do" without giving guidance as to what's reasonable to do (you can try X, Y, or Z or think of something else) leaves a lot of parties stuck in analysis paralysis.

All of these depend at least a bit on background, and are completely in the DM's bailiwick. Passive "pure narrator" DMs turn a lot of groups cold (as do railroading DMs, but that's a separate conversation). The game is a conversation back and forth and the DM has a wider (not greater, just wider) sphere of responsibility) and so needs to know a lot more.

[EggKookoo]

* What avenues are even available? A criminal (rogue or not) will have different investigation avenues open than a noble, an acolyte, or a soldier. One big part of a DM's job in anything but the most open sandbox is to let the players know what the obvious options are. Just simply saying "what do you do" without giving guidance as to what's reasonable to do (you can try X, Y, or Z or think of something else) leaves a lot of parties stuck in analysis paralysis.

This brings up a thought I had the other day. One thing that I think gets overlooked a lot (and isn't mentioned in the core books anywhere) is that in addition to playing the NPCs, describing the environment, and generally owning everything outside the PCs, the DM also has some responsibility over the PCs' subconscious and intuition. It can be as simple as "You get a creeped-out feeling by the barkeep" or as complex as "You can tell by the workmanship that the lock is extremely well-built. You think maybe you could pick it but it wouldn't be easy, and something about it suggests it might be booby trapped to brick itself if you mess up."

I often tell my players what unbidden thoughts come to their PCs' minds, or even what biases they might have (those are typically imposed on us by upbringing and not something you're typically aware of until something prompts it to manifest). What the PC does in response to those thoughts is up to the player.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This brings up a thought I had the other day. One thing that I think gets overlooked a lot (and isn't mentioned in the core books anywhere) is that in addition to playing the NPCs, describing the environment, and generally owning everything outside the PCs, the DM also has some responsibility over the PCs' subconscious and intuition. It can be as simple as "You get a creeped-out feeling by the barkeep" or as complex as "You can tell by the workmanship that the lock is extremely well-built. You think maybe you could pick it but it wouldn't be easy, and something about it suggests it might be booby trapped to brick itself if you mess up."

I often tell my players what unbidden thoughts come to their PCs' minds, or even what biases they might have (those are typically imposed on us by upbringing and not something you're typically aware of until something prompts it to manifest). What the PC does in response to those thoughts is up to the player.

I agree. This idea also plays into the following (common) scenario:

A player states that they're going to do something that (with full context) is obviously doomed to failure. Swinging off a (non-existent) chandelier in the middle of the forest. Trying to reason with a FR gnoll. Casting hold person on an ooze. Etc.

Does the DM
a) narrate the (obvious) results and waste the player's "action" for something the character would know wouldn't work?
or
b) push back with something like "your character would know that wouldn't work because <reason>, do you want to do something else?" and thus let the player actually take an informed action.

The characters know a lot more about what's going on than the players do, since information transfer is so limited. The players only get the narration, which is limited in scope and much more abstracted than the actual sensory information the characters have, as well as all the built-up memory. Thus it's (in my opinion) the DM's responsibility to adjust for that, to remind players about things the characters would know that the players obviously don't. Or to clear up misunderstandings of the situation (ie the Dread Gazebo).

[Max_Killjoy]

Players need a reminder to try, but most players are more than willing to do things that give them advantages. DMs need the reminder to actually let things happen without being forced by specific rules.

And there's a lot of it that is purely on the DM--

* Who does the NPC talk to first? How do they react? How do the PCs fit into society? Are the common people looking up to them with fear? With awe? Do they care more about one PC than another?
* What do each of the PCs know without rolling for a given description?
* What avenues are even available? A criminal (rogue or not) will have different investigation avenues open than a noble, an acolyte, or a soldier. One big part of a DM's job in anything but the most open sandbox is to let the players know what the obvious options are. Just simply saying "what do you do" without giving guidance as to what's reasonable to do (you can try X, Y, or Z or think of something else) leaves a lot of parties stuck in analysis paralysis.

All of these depend at least a bit on background, and are completely in the DM's bailiwick. Passive "pure narrator" DMs turn a lot of groups cold (as do railroading DMs, but that's a separate conversation). The game is a conversation back and forth and the DM has a wider (not greater, just wider) sphere of responsibility) and so needs to know a lot more.

Setting aside the formal character creation element of D&D Backgrounds, this simply sounds like good GMing practices, to me.

Taking who the character is and where they come from into account is "best practice".

I scratch my head and wonder what the heck is going on when I see GMs say things like "and don't bother me with more than one paragraph about your character". As the GM, how am I supposed to help the player integrate this "person" into the "world" and give them a full grounding in it, with such a deliberate paucity of information.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Setting aside the formal character creation element of D&D Backgrounds, this simply sounds like good GMing practices, to me.

Taking who the character is and where they come from into account is "best practice".

I scratch my head and wonder what the heck is going on when I see GMs say things like "and don't bother me with more than one paragraph about your character". As the GM, how am I supposed to help the player integrate this "person" into the "world" and give them a full grounding in it, with such a deliberate paucity of information.

Agreed. But the Background game element is a nice, succinct, prepackaged encapsulation of how the character fit into the world before they became an adventurer. It's a useful shortcut that contains much of what's important. Often back stories contain lots of irrelevant information for the DM, even if it's relevant to the player. The Background is good (but not all encompassing) at picking out the important stuff.

[Max_Killjoy]

Agreed. But the Background game element is a nice, succinct, prepackaged encapsulation of how the character fit into the world before they became an adventurer. It's a useful shortcut that contains much of what's important. Often back stories contain lots of irrelevant information for the DM, even if it's relevant to the player. The Background is good (but not all encompassing) at picking out the important stuff.

I didn't intend to bash Backgrounds if that's how my first sentence came across.

Adding Backgrounds was a great thing for D&D, it's a good encouragement for players to look at characters as people who came from somewhere, not as playing pieces -- and it even says up front "you can also customize these".

[mephnick]

I scratch my head and wonder what the heck is going on when I see GMs say things like "and don't bother me with more than one paragraph about your character".

Because I don't care what happened to the characters in the past, outside of some major broad strokes. The game happens at the table. The story is what happens at the table. Literally no one else cares about your backstory because it didn't happen at the table and as a player an arc about a different character's backstory is my signal to tune out because it's literally meaningless to me. But if the backstory to that arc happened in a previous adventure at the table, then I'm invested.

Plus, your backstory just isn't that important to killing monsters in a forest and exploring dungeons and getting crushed by traps. You know, DnD. If you want to explore character backstory then pick a more narrative game. DnD doesn't give a **** about your backstory, despite them shoving background tables into the newest edition.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Because I don't care what happened to the characters in the past, outside of some major broad strokes. The game happens at the table. The story is what happens at the table. Literally no one else cares about your backstory because it didn't happen at the table and as a player an arc about a different character's backstory is my signal to tune out because it's literally meaningless to me. But if the backstory to that arc happened in a previous adventure at the table, then I'm invested.

Plus, your backstory just isn't that important to killing monsters in a forest and exploring dungeons and getting crushed by traps. You know, DnD. If you want to explore character backstory then pick a more narrative game. DnD doesn't give a **** about your backstory, despite them shoving background tables into the newest edition.

Welcome to modern editions? This idea that D&D is only dungeon crawls without any broader context died...Well...I'm not sure it was ever a thing outside of very particular tables.

Characters are people in a world. That's why we call it role play--you're playing the role of another character. And how the person fits into that world is vital to doing this well.

[Unoriginal]

The Xanathar's has additional tables and ideas to expand one's background. I've never seen them used by a gaming group, but they're pretty fun and interesting. Also show us things like "what happens when you go on an adventure before lvl 1" ( answered: mostly various kinds of wounds and scars, unless you're really lucky).

[Tanarii]

Because I don't care what happened to the characters in the past, outside of some major broad strokes. The game happens at the table. The story is what happens at the table. Literally no one else cares about your backstory because it didn't happen at the table and as a player an arc about a different character's backstory is my signal to tune out because it's literally meaningless to me. But if the backstory to that arc happened in a previous adventure at the table, then I'm invested.Exactly. Anything that didn't happen at the table either doesn't matter, or has massively depreciated value to anyone else except the player. Backstories and stuff before the game has almost no value, except to the player or as a DM adventure hook.

I don't have the time to deal with twenty to thirty new back-stories a month. Keep that crap to yourself and give me a single sentence Bond to use as my DM hook.

Edit: this is why I love 5e backgrounds and the 5e personality system. It gives players and DMs the tools they need to make multidimensional characters, but in a useful manner. Unlike backstories, which are only useful to players that are budding writers.

[mephnick]

Welcome to modern editions? This idea that D&D is only dungeon crawls without any broader context died....

Did it? Because, mechanically, DnD is still very much a dungeon crawl resource attrition game. All the reward systems in the game are still focused around killing monsters and surviving dungeons. It literally doesn't care about your backstroy because there are no meaningful mechanics or systems that reward having a backstory. So, yeah, I'd say the player with the 2 page backstory isn't engaging with the system properly.

Dungeon World cares about your backstory. You get rewarded mechanically for exploring it. DnD doesn't and, hopefully, never will. That's not what DnD is about.

[Unoriginal]

D&D exists beyond the mechanics.

I'm not in favor of overly long backstories for characters, but I'm even less in favor of pretending D&D 5e is just "let's go murder some NPCs in a cave for no reason" simulator.

[MaxWilson]

I really like this sort of thing, with the right players.

But as you note, I think some GMs shy away because they've had a lot of experience with players trying to cheese this sort of thing. Instead of commanding the bandits to surrender after a round of combat that the PCs do well in, the player is trying to command them immediately, and not just to surrender... but command them to join assist the PCs in their larger mission... and get crappy about it when the GM says no after saying yes to some less ridiculous thing previously, because they think anything not on paper as a rule is free to be pushed over and over as there are no written limits.

FWIW, my experience is that when the DM says no to a big request like "we ask them to join us on our quest and never ever betray us" (e.g. DM: "they are clearly not trustworthy and you can tell that would be a bad idea, at best useless and at worst dangerous") after saying yes to other requests like "I command them to throw down their weapons and surrender," players take it pretty well. Being reasonable builds credibility with your players.

[MaxWilson]

The penalty for a soldier that turns to banditry is usually death. I don't think being able to make them surrender because they recognize your (former) rank makes a whole lot of sense. If anything, it probably should have given Disadvantage on the Persuasion skill to get them to surrender as they wold probably figure you'd be less lenient that non-soldiers.

Remember, the bandits in this example are overmatched and losing. This is about turning "we kill them to the last man" into "I tell them forcefully and truthfully in their own idiom that they just bit off way more than they can chew and to DROP IT RIGHT NOW."

I frankly don't regard surrender in this situation as unreasonable, though flight is reasonable too if it looks possible. Bandits don't go into banditry because of their steely wills and fearless determination. They want something, and it isn't ignominious death.

[EggKookoo]

I return to my Batman example for backstories.

Batman's Background is: "A criminal murdered my parents in an alley. Therefore I've dedicated my life to fighting violent crime using whatever means necessary, to the limit of becoming a criminal myself."

Batman's Background is not: "A criminal murdered my parents in an alley. Therefore I've dedicated my life to finding that criminal and I have compiled a robust dossier on who he is, where he's been, his criminal activities, and everything else I can. I will do anything to follow a lead pointing at him, dragging my friends along whether they want to go or not, or even leaving them behind. I have little passion for doing anything else."

The difference is the first example is broad enough to let the DM weave Batman's Background info the campaign narrative. Batman will aggressively go after those he deems "criminals," which can often steer the party, but isn't so one-track-minded that he can't do anything else. As long as Batman can contextualize what the party is doing as "fighting crime" he'll put his full effort into it and feel satisfied (but never satiated) that he's fulfilling his purpose. It's easy to keep that Background "alive" in the ongoing, real-time play of the game.

The second example is the PC wanting to control the narrative so that the DM has to build encounters around their backstory. This hogs the party's activities for the benefit of Batman's player. Further, it creates the impression that what happened before the game is more (or even as) important than the ongoing gameplay itself. That Background doesn't serve playing, it mires it.

A lot of DM's resist long, detailed backstories because they feel they need to incorporate everything into the campaign. It puts a lot of focus on what happened before, rather than how to play the character now. It's bad enough when only one player at the table does this...

[MaxWilson]

I also know plenty of players who where the interaction goes:

Player: I tell all the bandits to surrender because they're former soldiers and used to obeying orders. I get a 17, it's a DC 15 so that works!

DM: *Staring at the notes detailing how the bandits are secretly fanatical cultists who will fight to the death without question* It doesn't work, they continue fighting.

Player: But the book says that it does! Why did you even let me pick this background if you were just going to nerf all the features. I wish you would play by the rules.

DM: *Sigh*

DM: "you're right, and in your experience that would normally work. Something is strange about this situation. As the bandits continue to press the attack despite their hopeless situation, something you see behind their eyes makes you a little uneasy and a chill of premonition goes up your spine. Something ain't right about these bandits."

It is the DM's job to give the players all the appropriate information. You are their *only* window into the events of the game world. When in doubt, tell them too much rather than too little.

[Jophiel]

D&D exists beyond the mechanics.

I'm not in favor of overly long backstories for characters, but I'm even less in favor of pretending D&D 5e is just "let's go murder some NPCs in a cave for no reason" simulator.
The way I see it is: I want to know why your character is risking their lives stabbing kobolds in a cave. But also realize that if your current life choices are stabbing kobolds in a cave, you probably don't have a rich ten page life story I need to know about, either.

[MaxWilson]

The way I see it is: I want to know why your character is risking their lives stabbing kobolds in a cave. But also realize that if your current life choices are stabbing kobolds in a cave, you probably don't have a rich ten page life story I need to know about, either.

That is .sig-worthy. :)

[EggKookoo]

The way I see it is: I want to know why your character is risking their lives stabbing kobolds in a cave. But also realize that if your current life choices are stabbing kobolds in a cave, you probably don't have a rich ten page life story I need to know about, either.

I don't mind the 10-page treatises. I just need to distill them down into something that can be used at the table rather than just being some (arguably interesting) trivia about your character.

How did this backstory make you who you are right now? How did it change you? What does it mean in the present?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't need long back stories either. The player might want them so they can ground their character's actions, but the DM doesn't need most of it at all.

One thing a backstory isn't is a guarantee of future actions. Yes, your parents were murdered. But no, you don't get to dictate the future events.

The best back stories are developed in concert with the DM or the group. If everyone buys into everyone else's story, then things work smoothly.

But a background is both more and less than a backstory. It's more focused on the intersection between the character and the world than the details of the character's motivation.

[Darth Ultron]

Does the DM
a) narrate the (obvious) results and waste the player's "action" for something the character would know wouldn't work?
or
b) push back with something like "your character would know that wouldn't work because <reason>, do you want to do something else?" and thus let the player actually take an informed action.


A. It's really the only way to go. To do B is a bad idea. To tell a player, no matter how nicely you sugar cover it, that they are dumb is never a good idea. And it's worse when the poor clueless player just comes up with bad idea after bad idea after bad idea...and the DM has to say ''sorry, no. Your smart character knows that won't work dumb player" over and over and over again.

It's always better to let a player try and automatically fail. At least they get the satisfaction of trying. It's not a waste of time to try anything.


Welcome to modern editions? This idea that D&D is only dungeon crawls without any broader context died...Well...I'm not sure it was ever a thing outside of very particular tables.


Except, oddly, the D&D rules have never caught up with this idea. 500 pages of pure Combat/Action Adventure Rules....and like 5 pages of anything else.

[EggKookoo]

A. It's really the only way to go. To do B is a bad idea. To tell a player, no matter how nicely you sugar cover it, that they are dumb is never a good idea. And it's worse when the poor clueless player just comes up with bad idea after bad idea after bad idea...and the DM has to say ''sorry, no. Your smart character knows that won't work dumb player" over and over and over again.

It's always better to let a player try and automatically fail. At least they get the satisfaction of trying. It's not a waste of time to try anything.

It's a judgment call, of course. You need to have some inkling of sociability to understand when the player is determined to try an action or feeling around to figure out if it's a smart thing to do.

If my player says "I do the thing!" I usually just let them.

If my player says "Does it look to me like I could do the thing?" I slide over to more of a B response.


Except, oddly, the D&D rules have never caught up with this idea. 500 pages of pure Combat/Action Adventure Rules....and like 5 pages of anything else.

Part of that is because combat is relatively easy to quantify. Most of the roleplaying (in the sense of social interactions, clue analysis, and things like that) falls back on a kind of "just do what works for you" mechanism.

[Darth Ultron]

If my player says "Does it look to me like I could do the thing?" I slide over to more of a B response.

Far too many players try the tricky exploit of asking the DM if something Will automatically work before they try it, and only do it once the DM says "yes". It's popular with Buddy DMs and most Casual Games.




Part of that is because combat is relatively easy to quantify. Most of the roleplaying (in the sense of social interactions, clue analysis, and things like that) falls back on a kind of "just do what works for you" mechanism.

Well, I'm no ''amazing" game writer ...but I could scribble out some rules on my Denny's Napkin. Like how about add a Mental AC. And Social Thrust (''attack") and Mental Points(''hit points") and Mental Sap(''damage'). So if you want to say convince a guard you'd have to roll a social thrust vs his mental ac, and do enough sap to make his mental points zero and change his mind.

[EggKookoo]

Far too many players try the tricky exploit of asking the DM if something Will automatically work before they try it, and only do it once the DM says "yes". It's popular with Buddy DMs and most Casual Games.

I rarely just say "yes." It usually is something like "you think so." You could be wrong...


Well, I'm no ''amazing" game writer ...but I could scribble out some rules on my Denny's Napkin. Like how about add a Mental AC. And Social Thrust (''attack") and Mental Points(''hit points") and Mental Sap(''damage'). So if you want to say convince a guard you'd have to roll a social thrust vs his mental ac, and do enough sap to make his mental points zero and change his mind.

That's cool, actually. I often thought MMOs like WoW should make crafting work like combat, where you have to basically "fight" the materials into the item. But I think those things only work if you're willing to accept the metaphors. Whereas combat is at least somewhat more literal (even if it's also loaded up with abstractions). It seems like it's easier to get people to buy into quirky combat mechanics than quirky social interaction mechanics.

And of course wait until the literalist players get ahold of that and ask what a "social thrust" looks like.

[The Aboleth]

In the opening scenario, they were attacked by bandits, who I described (as a matter of flavor more than anything) as being "former soldiers turned mercenary/bandits." After about a round of combat where the party was quite successful, one of the new players spoke up. She was playing a human fighter, with the soldier (officer) background. She asked "It says I was an officer. Can I try to order these former soldiers to surrender? After all, I'd know how to command troops."

There's nothing on the character sheet that gives a "soldiers can command others to surrender, make a X check..." mechanical button. But the fiction was clear, and made sense. So I let her try--Charisma (Intimidation) IIRC. She partially succeeded and several surrendered.


This is one of my favorite parts of being a DM--seeing the players think out-of-the-box and coming up with creative solutions utilizing every aspect of their character sheets (class, race, background, equipment lists, etc.). I particularly like when--as you describe in the part I bolded above--they take my "fluff" and run with it.

A favorite DM moment of mine was when the players were attempting to convince a Storm Giant to let them into an ancient stronghold the Giant was protecting (so the players could search for a powerful artifact). The conversation wasn't going badly, but they were still having difficulty convincing the Storm Giant to let them pass. All of a sudden, the female dwarven fighter said, "Hey, I have 'heraldic sign on my shield of a Storm Giant' on my character sheet, can that help here at all?" It was one of those "example" fluff things from the PHB the player had picked because it had sounded cool to them, and I had completely forgotten about it (as had the rest of the party). So I said, "It might. Never hurts to try." I rolled for the Giant to see if they recognized the sign, rolled fairly high, and on the spot came up with the story that the Giant recognized the sign as belonging to the fighter's great-great-great grandmother who was renowned amongst Storm Giants for helping to single-handedly defend a fledgling Giant community from 100 raiding Orcs way back in the day. As a mechanical benefit, I granted Advantage on the party's next persuasion check, and loe and behold they succeeded.

As far as backgrounds themselves go, I regularly tweak them if I feel like they need a mechanical boost. Example: Anyone who picks the Sage background gets a +2 to Charisma checks amongst "learned individuals." Since the players who typically pick the Sage background in my groups are Wizards with low Charisma anyway, it's not a game-breaking tweak but it still lets the players use the background in a way that makes mechanical sense.

[LudicSavant]

I rarely just say "yes." It usually is something like "you think so." You could be wrong...



That's cool, actually. I often thought MMOs like WoW should make crafting work like combat, where you have to basically "fight" the materials into the item. But I think those things only work if you're willing to accept the metaphors. Whereas combat is at least somewhat more literal (even if it's also loaded up with abstractions). It seems like it's easier to get people to buy into quirky combat mechanics than quirky social interaction mechanics.

And of course wait until the literalist players get ahold of that and ask what a "social thrust" looks like.

If you want to look for compelling examples of "social encounters" in video gaming, I suggest Deus Ex Human Revolution, where critics regularly referred to its social encounters as "the real boss fights" and similar such accolades.

[HappyDaze]

Remember, the bandits in this example are overmatched and losing. This is about turning "we kill them to the last man" into "I tell them forcefully and truthfully in their own idiom that they just bit off way more than they can chew and to DROP IT RIGHT NOW."

I frankly don't regard surrender in this situation as unreasonable, though flight is reasonable too if it looks possible. Bandits don't go into banditry because of their steely wills and fearless determination. They want something, and it isn't ignominious death.

When:

FIGHT = CERTAIN DEATH
SURRENDER = CERTAIN DEATH
FLEE = SOME CHANCE OF SURVIVAL

Then there is really only one option.

[PhoenixPhyre]

When:

FIGHT = CERTAIN DEATH
SURRENDER = CERTAIN DEATH
FLEE = SOME CHANCE OF SURVIVAL

Then there is really only one option.

But the point was that surrender, in this circumstance, wasn't certain death. She was promising to spare them (or at least making that a possibility) if they surrendered.

[Tanarii]

But the point was that surrender, in this circumstance, wasn't certain death. She was promising to spare them (or at least making that a possibility) if they surrendered.
Did she have the authority to do that? Or does spare in the case effectively equate to fleeing, meaning "let you go after you stop attacking us"?

Possibly a small improvement in that the PCs are implying or even promising* they wont shoot them in the back as they go?

If so, theres no reason any other adventurer couldn't have made the same offer, with the same chance of success.

*although anyone with experience with PCs should take that promisr with a large spoonful of salt.

[MaxWilson]

When:

FIGHT = CERTAIN DEATH
SURRENDER = CERTAIN DEATH
FLEE = SOME CHANCE OF SURVIVAL

Then there is really only one option.

And that's why WWII-era Jews and POWs, when ordered by Nazis to dig their own graves, staged mass break-outs and fled in all directions, because even a small chance of escape is better than the certainty of being murdered.

Wait, what do you mean they didn't do that?

Anyway, I don't accept your premise that the bandits would necessarily associate surrender with certain death.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Did she have the authority to do that? Or does spare in the case effectively equate to fleeing, meaning "let you go after you stop attacking us"?

Possibly a small improvement in that the PCs are implying or even promising* they wont shoot them in the back as they go?

If so, theres no reason any other adventurer couldn't have made the same offer, with the same chance of success.

*although anyone with experience with PCs should take that promisr with a large spoonful of salt.

It's not about authority (although she did have that authority as a Crown Investigator). It's not even about substance. In that situation, logical thought is (I judged) not going to be the first reaction. They're not coldly calculating the odds, they're reacting based on instinct, conditioning, training, and habit.

It's about style and approach. How you phrase an offer/demand/suggestion matters as much as the logic. Soldiers are conditioned to obey officers. So an officer, speaking as officers do, carries more emotional weight than some random joe talking street slang. If it had been professional thieves, I'd have done the same for a Criminal. In a parley with aristocrats, a Noble doing the talking would carry more weight than an Outlander. In a merchant situation, a Guild Merchant would be more successful than a Hermit.

Every task needs at least two things to be able to resolve:

* An intent. Here, the intent was to get them to flee, surrender, or at least mill about in confusion. Any background can have this intent.
* An approach. Since I don't require people to say exact wording, here's where backgrounds matter. A soldier, speaking to soldiers, will phrase things differently than a criminal speaking to criminals (or to soldiers).

Anyone could have made that particular demand. But the difficulty (either as advantage/disadvantage or as a numerical shift in the DC) will change.

And anyway, you're too fixated on that particular example. It merely prompted me to think about the role of backgrounds in play. It, by itself, is meaningless other than as a spark. It was the "My character comes from a X background, can I use that to Y" comment from a new player who knew nothing of the mechanics of the game that's the core of the spark.

[Max_Killjoy]

Because I don't care what happened to the characters in the past, outside of some major broad strokes. The game happens at the table. The story is what happens at the table. Literally no one else cares about your backstory because it didn't happen at the table and as a player an arc about a different character's backstory is my signal to tune out because it's literally meaningless to me. But if the backstory to that arc happened in a previous adventure at the table, then I'm invested.

Plus, your backstory just isn't that important to killing monsters in a forest and exploring dungeons and getting crushed by traps. You know, DnD. If you want to explore character backstory then pick a more narrative game. DnD doesn't give a **** about your backstory, despite them shoving background tables into the newest edition.


Did it? Because, mechanically, DnD is still very much a dungeon crawl resource attrition game. All the reward systems in the game are still focused around killing monsters and surviving dungeons. It literally doesn't care about your backstroy because there are no meaningful mechanics or systems that reward having a backstory. So, yeah, I'd say the player with the 2 page backstory isn't engaging with the system properly.

Dungeon World cares about your backstory. You get rewarded mechanically for exploring it. DnD doesn't and, hopefully, never will. That's not what DnD is about.

You say that like only "narrative" games care about role-playing, or depth of character, or integrating the character with the setting, or encouraging the player to think of their character as a "person-who-could-be-real" instead of as a plastic playing piece in a very detailed "board game", or... lots of stuff that I'm pretty sure isn't restricted to "nar".

And I'm pretty sure that the system doesn't have to reward backstory or background, or any form of character depth, for those things to matter.

[mephnick]

Well, I'm no ''amazing" game writer ...but I could scribble out some rules on my Denny's Napkin.

Don't bother. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of RPGs with social, political and role-playing conflict mechanics that enhance those aspects of those systems. Because those systems care about that stuff.

Saying "We don't need rules for stuff outside combat, that's why they aren't there" is just a lazy defense of a system that doesn't care about those things, from misguided players trying to warp a system into handling things it isn't designed for. If there aren't mechanical systems or reward structures for certain modes of play, it's not important to the system or those who designed it. If they were important, they would have had design devoted to them.

[mephnick]

And I'm pretty sure that the system doesn't have to reward backstory or background, or any form of character depth, for those things to matter.

"Reward users for things you want them to use in your system" is literally step 1 of game design.

[Tanarii]

* An intent. Here, the intent was to get them to flee, surrender, or at least mill about in confusion. Any background can have this intent.
* An approach. Since I don't require people to say exact wording, here's where backgrounds matter. A soldier, speaking to soldiers, will phrase things differently than a criminal speaking to criminals (or to soldiers).

This here is how you ground a solid argument. :smallamused: Agreed with your basis, and now I see where you're coming from now.

Of course, if the DC is 23 (for sake of argument), granting advantage on it for background as an office talking to soldiers may not matter. Depends on the characters base modifier.

Making it DC 23 (or even DC Nope) for most characters, and DC 15 or even DC 10 for an officer talking to soldiers, is a whole 'nother can of worms to open. Some DMs and players think that makes perfect sense, others can't stand that kinds of thing.

Edit: personally I try to avoid stealth bonuses via differing DCs for different characters as a general rule. But I've still used it as a tool from time to time. Most commonly in conjunction with a player willingly saying their PC would be worse than so-and-so or they don't know jack squat about such-and-such. So in theory I should be open to the reverse, right? :smallyuk: at myself haha

[Max_Killjoy]

"Reward users for things you want them to use in your system" is literally step 1 of game design.

The "all games are about systemic rewards" fallacy. Not sure it has a formal name, but I see it come up a lot in RPG discussions.

[Marcloure]

The "all games are about systemic rewards" fallacy. Not sure it has a formal name, but I see it come up a lot in RPG discussions.

I mean, if I only ever hand out XP per creatures killed, why would she try to make the bandits surrender, instead of rightfully killing them? A game where progress is given exclusively through murder says a lot about what the game wants you to do, which is not D&D case.

============================

About the OP post, I too think this is more of a player-related tip. I mean, it's up to the players to think what is their position and what is the position of what they are facing, and what actions can be made around that.

I as a DM have no obligation to think what your Soldier background means to these bandits up until you ask it, then I might make an evaluation of the situation. I'll think about "how much these random bandits fear or loathe authority" and, by personal preference, if I cannot find a specific reason to turn the request, I'll usually accept it.

Of course, if we are talking about a anarchic punk group the answer is thought beforehand, but that is not the case for most "random stuff". That is why when I design anything, be it a city, a region or an encounter, I focus more on what these guys are than on how they interact with the players. If I know the former well, I can presumably come up with coherent responses for the actions and ideas of my players.

[Sindal]

The TL:DR
To be honest this is a two way street sorta deal and should be general notice of considerance for everyone rather than a plea.

For dms,
Sure, you can try and expand a bit on backgrounds. But really in practice, all this really means is being open to suggestion on something the player wants to do. Ya know, he thing your supposed to be doing anyway. Sure they could notice a few things easier but you typically already get this: the proficiencies you get from a background. Unless you are physcially inserting their backstory to haunt them, you cant prepare for it in a traditional sense. If you think the suggestion is fine, cool and work with. If you dont,give them a suitable explanation why it doesnt work. Anyone whos being unreasonable is being unreasonable.

You can throw some fun easter eggs in there to make things interesting and encourage them to engage each other if ya like. A merchant npc recognises you. A guild member gives a plot hook etc. The mechanical outcomes need to apply to whats happening and hard and fast rule around it seems silly when it could just be:

"What happens is up to the dms discretion and you make an educated decision"

If your ginna be an asshat dm then thats the problem, not backgrounds.

For players:
Decide how much your backstory matters to you and care appropriately. No really. You're part of this story, its up to you to lean on the kind of chracter you are. The dm isnt playing your character. You are. Its up to you to ask if you can parley because of associations you had in the past. Its up to you to enquire with local groups and npcs about ongoings because you grew up doing that. Its up to you to get panic attacks at seeing certain things for flavour. Your background is something you act on because its made you who you are, not somehing someone else absolutely has to sprinkle in to make you feel relevant.

If you play your character like your class and not your background (rawr im a paladin. I used to be a cook but now SMITE EVIL) there is absolutely no reason for a dm to care about your backstory or the intricacies it may have. Because you dont.

If your an entertainer and you make a habbit of asking if you can busk for money, congrats your doing the thing. If your a cloistered scholar and you often spend down time reading or reseaching, woo the story checks out.

Heaven forbid your background is a secret and 'too painful to discuss' because your dm can do very little with something you are actively trying to hide. Then its really up to you to make it matter.

[Tanarii]

Heaven forbid your background is a secret and 'too painful to discuss' because your dm can do very little with something you are actively trying to hide. Then its really up to you to make it matter.I had a player that rolled a Vengeance Paladin who's "parents were killed by vampires, and now I'm out to get vengeance."

After I got down laughing inside at the cliche, I realized he made the perfect backstory. Big fat plot hook if I wanted it, summed up in a single sentence 5e-style Bond. Better than any two paragraph backstory.

Now if only the character hadn't been named Vlad Darkshadow or some such. That almost pushed me over the edge into laughing out loud. :smallamused:

[EggKookoo]

I had a player that rolled a Vengeance Paladin who's "parents were killed by vampires, and now I'm out to get vengeance."

After I got down laughing inside at the cliche, I realized he made the perfect backstory. Big fat plot hook if I wanted it, summed up in a single sentence 5e-style Bond. Better than any two paragraph backstory.

IMO cliches get a bad rap. A cliche is only as bad as how it's pulled off. You could tell a great, imaginative, unexpected story with that. The trick is to understand that it's only the starting point, and take it in a new direc...


Now if only the character hadn't been named Vlad Darkshadow or some such. That almost pushed me over the edge into laughing out loud. :smallamused:

Ok. Never mind.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm very strongly of the "character creation as collaboration" school of play, so hidden backgrounds aren't a thing for me. In fact, character creation tends to be a narrative process that only later gets turned into mechanics and character sheets. The mechanics are how certain parts of the character are represented to the game level, they're not the character itself. They're subordinate to the actual person of which the parts they represent are mere facets/aspects.

By the end of the process, I know at least the following:
* Where they came from (in the world).
* Who they were before they were an adventurer.
* Why (broad strokes) they became an adventurer.
* (ideally) What their "retirement target" is, if any. That is, what event or achievement would induce the character to retire.
* The presence or absence of major foes, political or racial or otherwise.

Yes, this gets summed up for ease of use in the background/personality/ideal/bond/flaw notation, but the rest is important. For example (using my setting):

A scion of a landed noble (phreya, roughly count-level) of the Southern District of the Stone Throne will have a different interaction with the world than a scion of Clan Anu of the Remnant Dynasty. And the "noble-equivalent" (high-ranking guild scion) of the Council Lands will be even more different. All of those have the Noble background, but you get three very different characters.

[Chaosmancer]

I also know plenty of players who where the interaction goes:

Player: I tell all the bandits to surrender because they're former soldiers and used to obeying orders. I get a 17, it's a DC 15 so that works!

DM: *Staring at the notes detailing how the bandits are secretly fanatical cultists who will fight to the death without question* It doesn't work, they continue fighting.

Player: But the book says that it does! Why did you even let me pick this background if you were just going to nerf all the features. I wish you would play by the rules.

DM: *Sigh*

If they roll well, give them something, perhaps a clue about that death cult thing.

Sometimes players just need to feel like their check revealed some information for the party


A. It's really the only way to go. To do B is a bad idea. To tell a player, no matter how nicely you sugar cover it, that they are dumb is never a good idea. And it's worse when the poor clueless player just comes up with bad idea after bad idea after bad idea...and the DM has to say ''sorry, no. Your smart character knows that won't work dumb player" over and over and over again.

It's always better to let a player try and automatically fail. At least they get the satisfaction of trying. It's not a waste of time to try anything.


Well... Don't tell them they are dumb then as you explain why it wouldn't work?

I've quite often had to tell people that the rules don't allow something to happen (recently trying to use various effects on an invisible imp) and I've found players are more frustrated by doing something stupid and wasting their turn than suggesting something that wouldn't work.

Funny enough, I've had quite a few players who are happier too seem like they don't know what they are doing than make it seem like their character is clueless.


To the OP's point, I agree there are things you can do, but I also agree that players need to do things to trigger the response. Like, I had a guy with the sailor background in a steampunk "never seen the surface" game. They came across some old maps, and the sailor wanted to identify them. It was incredibly difficult, but with the inclusion of the mountain players new about, he actually was able to cross compare them with the star charts they were used to using. It was a cool little side quest for them.

[JackPhoenix]

A. It's really the only way to go. To do B is a bad idea. To tell a player, no matter how nicely you sugar cover it, that they are dumb is never a good idea. And it's worse when the poor clueless player just comes up with bad idea after bad idea after bad idea...and the DM has to say ''sorry, no. Your smart character knows that won't work dumb player" over and over and over again.

It's always better to let a player try and automatically fail. At least they get the satisfaction of trying. It's not a waste of time to try anything.

So you can make fun of the character as well as the player and making them both look dumb?

How about instead of assuming the player coming up with something that wouldn't work is because the player is dumb, you assume it's because the player does not have the same knowledge as the character?

If I remind the player his character knows FR gnolls (to go back to the example from the post you're quoting) are near-mindless, bloodthirsty monsters who can't be negotiated with so he can make informed decision before he sends his PC to talk to them isn't "suger covering the player's stupidity". It means we (he as a player and me as the GM) are operating on different assumptions. Perhaps the player isn't familiar with the new fluff painting gnolls as bloodthirsty near-demons. Perhaps he played in a different game where the gnolls were open to negotiation, and thinks it'll work the same here. Perhaps he knows Znir pact gnolls from Eberron. But the character would know the gnolls' reputation, and wouldn't go talk to them if he knew he'll most likely get eaten. Or perhaps he thinks they can be redeemed and goes there anyway, even after knowing their reputation. But the player would be making informed decision, instead of getting his character killed and eaten, because "it's better to let the player try and automatically fail" even if the GM (and the character) knows it's a bad idea.

[Darth Ultron]

Well... Don't tell them they are dumb then as you explain why it wouldn't work?

My point is more that no matter what you say, even if you go the route of telling the player they are super smart, once you get to the part where you tell them not to do something dumb...they will get the feeling of being dumb, no matter what you do.



I've quite often had to tell people that the rules don't allow something to happen (recently trying to use various effects on an invisible imp) and I've found players are more frustrated by doing something stupid and wasting their turn than suggesting something that wouldn't work.

Well, being frustrated is normal for a dumb player. They will be just as frustrated when they say (dumbest thing ever) and the DM just says "sigh, no, you know that won't work" or..maybe worse..."sorry, dude, page 33 of the rules says you can't do that".


So you can make fun of the character as well as the player and making them both look dumb?

How about instead of assuming the player coming up with something that wouldn't work is because the player is dumb, you assume it's because the player does not have the same knowledge as the character?

Well, looks are subjective.

It's true that just about always the character knows more then the player. The fictional character has much more worldly experience and common sense then the player.

[EggKookoo]

My point is more that no matter what you say, even if you go the route of telling the player they are super smart, once you get to the part where you tell them not to do something dumb...they will get the feeling of being dumb, no matter what you do.

I fail to see the problem of telling a player that their Very Dumb Idea is a Very Dumb Idea. Honestly I usually don't have to -- another player is more than willing to pipe up.

In my experience, players don't get unhappy and dissatisfied when their dumb ideas are labeled as such. They get unhappy and dissatisfied when their smart ideas aren't labeled as such.

[Max_Killjoy]

If your impulse is to belittle, demean, and insult your players, if what you enjoy most about DMing is making your players feel smaller or leave the table... then don't DM (not directed at you, ChrisBasken).

Instead of saying "that's a dumb idea"... say, in some sort of productive shorthand, "your character, being a person present in this moment, who grew up in this world, and has some experience in these things, would have the following information that you as a player don't have, and might lead you to reconsider your decision here."

[Tanarii]

Instead of saying "that's a dumb idea"... say, in some sort of productive shorthand, "your character, being a person present in this moment, who grew up in this world, and has some experience in these things, would have the following information that you as a player don't have, and might lead you to reconsider your decision here."
Wow. That's, like, the opposite extreme. If someone's that sensitive you need all that, is it even possible to shorthand it without them getting offended?

Clearly this is a case of Socially Inept DM vs Special Snowflake Players here. :smallamused:

[Trustypeaches]

It has been helpful in CoS. My DM decided that I was a countess a step or two higher in rank than Count Strahd. The Baron of Vallaki has been sucking up to me, and a couple of ghosts and wizards have recognized my House and heraldry.

But yeah, if we were transported to the Losr World and dodging dinosaurs and cavemen, it wouldn't be especially useful.I feel like everyone in Barovia would’ve long since stopped caring about Noble traditions and ranks outside of Barovia and come to accept it means jack to them.

[Max_Killjoy]

Wow. That's, like, the opposite extreme. If someone's that sensitive you need all that, is it even possible to shorthand it without them getting offended?

Clearly this is a case of Socially Inept DM vs Special Snowflake Players here. :smallamused:

Or maybe I was laying it out in detail for those reading the thread so there could be no mistake, since these forums are full of people who are damned determined to read everything in the very worst way possible...

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

See, I don't automatically assume that just because the player suggested a bad idea means the player is dumb. Perhaps the player misses a crucial piece of information the character would have. Perhaps I haven't explained things properly as a GM, which led the player to wrong assumptions. Perhaps they weren't paying attention during the scene description. Perhaps the player IS aware that it is a bad idea, but the character would do it anyway. Perhaps the player is tired after 12 hour workshift and isn't thinking as clearly as normal. Perhaps the player said the first thing that came to their mind without thinking it through fully. And yeah, perhaps the idea is just plain dumb.

I don't know which one is it. I can't read their minds. But I'd rather do the equivalent of the good ol' "are you sure?" then letting them try the thing I know can't work and make them fail automatically just because I'm afraid to make them feel dumb. Because if they try, fail and find out they never had a chance in the first place, they'll feel dumb anyway, and I'll look like an anus for not warning them even if I... and their character... knew the idea can't work. And as I don't automatically assume the players are dumb, I expect they'll find out.

Giving the players more information before they commit to a decision is never a bad thing in my book.

Of course, there's a place for the former approach too, but there's a difference between letting the player cast Charm Person on disguised vampire and automatically fail when the character had no idea it's a vampire, and letting the player go talk with a pack of gnolls alone when the character should be aware of gnoll nature.


I feel like everyone in Barovia would’ve long since stopped caring about Noble traditions and ranks outside of Barovia and come to accept it means jack to them.

What, just because they've been cut off from the rest of the world for the last 400 or so years?

[Darth Ultron]

Wow. That's, like, the opposite extreme. If someone's that sensitive you need all that, is it even possible to shorthand it without them getting offended?

My point. For a lot of players, you can't say anything to them except "Yes!" or they will get offended.


snip

I find it much better to just let the player do or try whatever they want, even if it ''wastes" their turn.

Recent example: dragon is attacking the town, and player wants their character to ''throw my great sword at the flying dragon and hit it in the heart!". This is impossible by physics, common sense and the game rules. But I just let the player ''try". The character ''throws" the great sword...and it lands in the grass about a foot away from the character, never coming close to the dragon.

Does the player feel dumb afterwards....maybe, guess you'd need to read his mind

[JakOfAllTirades]

My point. For a lot of players, you can't say anything to them except "Yes!" or they will get offended.



I find it much better to just let the player do or try whatever they want, even if it ''wastes" their turn.

Recent example: dragon is attacking the town, and player wants their character to ''throw my great sword at the flying dragon and hit it in the heart!". This is impossible by physics, common sense and the game rules. But I just let the player ''try". The character ''throws" the great sword...and it lands in the grass about a foot away from the character, never coming close to the dragon.

Does the player feel dumb afterwards....maybe, guess you'd need to read his mind

You use this DM-ing style with novice players, they'll all rage-quit after spending an hour or so wasting all their actions because they're trying to learn the play the game and you're screwing them over instead of helping. Seriously, at some point Wheaton's Law has to be invoked... like immediately after the DM pulls a jerk move like this, or right after anyone suggests it's a good idea.

[cesius]

My experience and practice as a DM and player:

1) Determine PC intent. What is their/your overall goal? Get pass the bandits.
2) Consider methods of execution, start by looking at points of intersection. The bandits appear to be ex-soldiers and I'm an ex-soldier. Can I try to talk them down?
3) (As DM) Determine if the method execution has a chance of success and if yes, set a DC. V1: They're deserters, but you do have actual connections to the people in charge, DC 20. V2: They're deserters and you were just rank-and-file, DC 25. V3: They're fanatics pretending to be deserters to discredit the army; see 4.
4a) If the method of execution has no chance of success because of missing information, determine (or ask the DM if you're the player) if the
character would know or see something about the situation that the player doesn't. Maybe that requires a different roll, maybe it doesn't. V1: Player needs to make an Wisdom(Intelligence) or Intelligence(Insight) to see that the bandits aren't acting or moving like soldiers or their equipment doesn't match up in some important way. V2: The 'bandits' are well-funded and clearly not using army standard-issue or scavenged weapons.
4b) Determine how the interference to any possibility to success could make itself known; this is effectively a new 1 with the intent of: "I want to know why that didn't work when it should have." And yeah, sometimes that concludes with beating them up and interrogating them afterward.


If there aren't mechanical systems or reward structures for certain modes of play, it's not important to the system or those who designed it. If they were important, they would have had design devoted to them.
Inspiration. D&D 5e, a little something for everyone, but not enough to fully satisfy or alienate a particular player-type.

[EggKookoo]

You use this DM-ing style with novice players, they'll all rage-quit after spending an hour or so wasting all their actions because they're trying to learn the play the game and you're screwing them over instead of helping. Seriously, at some point Wheaton's Law has to be invoked... like immediately after the DM pulls a jerk move like this, or right after anyone suggests it's a good idea.

This specific example is probably harmless. The player had to know it wasn't likely to succeed. I mean unless it's a kid with no concept of how much of anything functions, in which case honestly I'd probably let the sword hit the dragon but try to communicate that it won't work a second time.

It's more problematic when the action being attempted or the info being asked about is more esoteric, and lives in that fuzzy area between player knowledge and PC knowledge. "Do I shake the chieftan's hand?" isn't entirely unreasonable to ask, and a good DM will decipher that the player is asking if their character has any info or knowledge about personal contact taboos and protocol relating to the NPC. That could call for some kind of Int check, or if the DM deems that it's common enough knowledge it might just be a simple yes/no. Or it might be a measured "maybe but you're not completely sure" response.