This depends on the table and their own rules honestly. In my DM’s table we go for a contested roll of deception/insight between our players or between NPCs. Now this might not be RAW, but we do it that way and we like it since it creates funny and interesting scenarios.
And for the RPG horror stories bit, I don’t think that if the DM is trying to force something that they’ll just obey the dice blindly if they aren’t in their favour. They’re just gonna turn around and say “oh no, you didn’t pass the DC / my NPC also has +30 to his persuasion, you lose.”
If you didn’t think it through and thus suffer from skill issues.
And there are of course good stories to tell with it, like in this secret traitor situation, and good players will apply circumstantial bonuses fairly.
Like perhaps that paladin doesn’t WANT to believe their comrade is a murderer.
Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be aware that another player can’t force you into simple contested rolls on the nature of reality that you can’t possibly contest, ever.
Hell, even if they’re right! You can play a completely deluded madman that looks at a windmill, hears an NPC tell him the absolute, objective truth that it is a windmill, and decides it’s a giant instead.
I mean, that’s why in any such contested roll between PCs you should have both parties agree to the roll and just see how the dice land? And if they don’t agree to it, they’re free to roleplay it how they wish to. That’s how we do it at least.
I don’t see why you have to call someone’s preference on how to play a “skill issue” though.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but from their response and seeing this situation happen so often it sure doesn’t seem like the players are aware that all skill checks have inherently circumstantial difficulties.
Simple roll vs roll contests just tend to be the default of players that haven’t read the rules for these circumstances, something about the way the game is set up just doesn’t clue players into that fact.
Maybe it’s just that players simply aren’t primed to accept that they can set their own DC bonus and it’s not even metagaming? It’s basically the only circumstance that they can. It’s probably a good DM habit to get into, come to think. “What’s your character’s willingness to believe this” type prompting.
Those circumstancial bonuses or penalties are given by the DM. If the DM doesn’t inform the players what they are for the current situation, thats the fault of the DM, not the players. It also still is just a d20+bonuses. Those circumstantial things are part of the bonuses applied to the roll.
Where are you getting that players set the DC themselves? It’s set like everything else: By rolling the dice and applying all applicable bonuses and penalties. Now, I still play 3.5 and the rules for bluff vs sense motive are quite clear in the book that the player using sense motive has to just get a higher score than the bluff score. It does not at all differentiate between NPCs or PCs. And why should it? It already makes sense where the DC is coming from.
The DM sets the mental circumstances for their characters and you set yours.
Your character is not summed in its entirety by their skill bonuses, and the DM by definition does not know your character better than the person playing them.
That character, like any other person, can refuse to believe something they don’t want to believe, for whatever reason makes sense to them.
For example, they could ignore someone telling them an objective truth they could easily verify themselves by reading the relevant portion of the DMG.
I still would like to know what relevant portion of the DMG you are referring. I know of no such table for any kind of “mental circumstances” or anything close to what you’re describing. It sounds like homebrew stuff or confusion with some rules regarding psyonic abilities.
The multiple sections where it says the DM doesn’t control the PCs and describes the mechanics and reasons to roll skill checks in the first place.
Having a section describing how to do a contested roll isn’t the same thing as saying that is how you handle all player vs player skill checks, and it assumes you know that circumstances should affect the rolls beyond the numbers on your character sheet.
Tbf 5.0 is actually pretty bad about splitting up this information between the PHB and DMG, and assuming players have a better grasp of the whole picture than it should.
For example, in that Contested Roll section, it has this paragraph:
“Both participants in a contest make ability checks appropriate to their efforts. They apply all appropriate bonuses and penalties, but instead of comparing the total to a DC, they compare the totals of their two checks. The participant with the higher check total wins the contest. That character or monster either succeeds at the action or prevents the other one from succeeding.”
It assumes you know this has to be used with the sections describing things like environmental and attitude bonuses, and the sections on player agency and cooperative play, or for that matter NPC attitude tiers and how those specifically work with Deception and Persuasion, but it’s easy to gloss over that line and think it simply refers to a character stat line.
It also assumes you know that rolling that as contest was an option and not a requirement in the first place.
The DM isn’t controlling the players. The player of the paladin is choosing to use sense motive against my bluff checks.
Again, any circumstancial penalties or bonuses that are not inherent on your sheet are typically given by the DM. Such as you entering a room that has some kind of field or obstacle that imposes a penalty or confers a buff. It does not mean that a player can say “I have a super high iron will and so I get a +40 to any mind affecting spells!”
This depends on the table and their own rules honestly. In my DM’s table we go for a contested roll of deception/insight between our players or between NPCs. Now this might not be RAW, but we do it that way and we like it since it creates funny and interesting scenarios.
And for the RPG horror stories bit, I don’t think that if the DM is trying to force something that they’ll just obey the dice blindly if they aren’t in their favour. They’re just gonna turn around and say “oh no, you didn’t pass the DC / my NPC also has +30 to his persuasion, you lose.”
Sure, you can agree to anything.
If you didn’t think it through and thus suffer from skill issues.
And there are of course good stories to tell with it, like in this secret traitor situation, and good players will apply circumstantial bonuses fairly.
Like perhaps that paladin doesn’t WANT to believe their comrade is a murderer.
Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be aware that another player can’t force you into simple contested rolls on the nature of reality that you can’t possibly contest, ever.
Hell, even if they’re right! You can play a completely deluded madman that looks at a windmill, hears an NPC tell him the absolute, objective truth that it is a windmill, and decides it’s a giant instead.
I mean, that’s why in any such contested roll between PCs you should have both parties agree to the roll and just see how the dice land? And if they don’t agree to it, they’re free to roleplay it how they wish to. That’s how we do it at least.
I don’t see why you have to call someone’s preference on how to play a “skill issue” though.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but from their response and seeing this situation happen so often it sure doesn’t seem like the players are aware that all skill checks have inherently circumstantial difficulties.
Simple roll vs roll contests just tend to be the default of players that haven’t read the rules for these circumstances, something about the way the game is set up just doesn’t clue players into that fact.
Maybe it’s just that players simply aren’t primed to accept that they can set their own DC bonus and it’s not even metagaming? It’s basically the only circumstance that they can. It’s probably a good DM habit to get into, come to think. “What’s your character’s willingness to believe this” type prompting.
Those circumstancial bonuses or penalties are given by the DM. If the DM doesn’t inform the players what they are for the current situation, thats the fault of the DM, not the players. It also still is just a d20+bonuses. Those circumstantial things are part of the bonuses applied to the roll.
Where are you getting that players set the DC themselves? It’s set like everything else: By rolling the dice and applying all applicable bonuses and penalties. Now, I still play 3.5 and the rules for bluff vs sense motive are quite clear in the book that the player using sense motive has to just get a higher score than the bluff score. It does not at all differentiate between NPCs or PCs. And why should it? It already makes sense where the DC is coming from.
The DM sets the mental circumstances for their characters and you set yours.
Your character is not summed in its entirety by their skill bonuses, and the DM by definition does not know your character better than the person playing them.
That character, like any other person, can refuse to believe something they don’t want to believe, for whatever reason makes sense to them.
For example, they could ignore someone telling them an objective truth they could easily verify themselves by reading the relevant portion of the DMG.
I still would like to know what relevant portion of the DMG you are referring. I know of no such table for any kind of “mental circumstances” or anything close to what you’re describing. It sounds like homebrew stuff or confusion with some rules regarding psyonic abilities.
The multiple sections where it says the DM doesn’t control the PCs and describes the mechanics and reasons to roll skill checks in the first place.
Having a section describing how to do a contested roll isn’t the same thing as saying that is how you handle all player vs player skill checks, and it assumes you know that circumstances should affect the rolls beyond the numbers on your character sheet.
Tbf 5.0 is actually pretty bad about splitting up this information between the PHB and DMG, and assuming players have a better grasp of the whole picture than it should.
For example, in that Contested Roll section, it has this paragraph:
“Both participants in a contest make ability checks appropriate to their efforts. They apply all appropriate bonuses and penalties, but instead of comparing the total to a DC, they compare the totals of their two checks. The participant with the higher check total wins the contest. That character or monster either succeeds at the action or prevents the other one from succeeding.”
It assumes you know this has to be used with the sections describing things like environmental and attitude bonuses, and the sections on player agency and cooperative play, or for that matter NPC attitude tiers and how those specifically work with Deception and Persuasion, but it’s easy to gloss over that line and think it simply refers to a character stat line.
It also assumes you know that rolling that as contest was an option and not a requirement in the first place.
The DM isn’t controlling the players. The player of the paladin is choosing to use sense motive against my bluff checks.
Again, any circumstancial penalties or bonuses that are not inherent on your sheet are typically given by the DM. Such as you entering a room that has some kind of field or obstacle that imposes a penalty or confers a buff. It does not mean that a player can say “I have a super high iron will and so I get a +40 to any mind affecting spells!”