Taking 20 Podcast - Ep 169 - Honor Among Thieves Review and Use of RPG Social Skills

Episode Date: April 2, 2023

In this episode I give a brief review of the new D&D movie Honor Among Thieves and talk about how DMs should not use social skills like persuasion, diplomacy, and intimidation to rob a player of agency over their character. #dnd #opendnd #Pathfinder #DMTips #persuasion #diplomacy #intimidation   Resources: Dungeons and Dragons:  Honor Among Thieves Startplaying.games Warhorn.net Looking for Players & Groups D&D Beyond board D&D Beyond Discord

This week on the Taking20 Podcast. Player agency is sacrosanct in RPGs, and players should feel like they have the right to decide how their characters are going to act in a given scenario. I think that PCs should never be able to use diplomacy, persuasion, or intimidation roles against other PCs. wherever you are thank you for listening to the taking 20 podcast episode 169 all about those rpg social skills and a review of honor among thieves this week's sponsor birds someone emailed me a bird pun this week but I just smiled because Toucan play at that game. I initially named this episode just Social Skills, and while I was researching, I realized,

wait a minute, if I just call it Social Skills, that could be Social Skills around the table, not necessarily within the game. I think it would be good to do an episode about Social Skills around a table, like when you're in an RPG group, but I am not qualified to discuss that topic. If I can find somebody who is qualified, then I might interview them as a topic for the future. Speaking of which, do you have a question or a topic idea for a future episode? If so, email me. Send me a message on Insta, Facebook, or send it to feedback at taking20podcast.com.

I was privileged enough to be invited to go see an early release of the new Dungeons & Dragons Honor Among Thieves movie last week. I am not going to spoil anything about the movie, but I do want to say five things about it very briefly. One, the movie is not a true-to-the- rules representation of what it feels like to play a role-playing game. There are a lot of action sequences and powers used that aren't strictly rules as written. If you go in expecting it to depict every D&D rule accurately, well, you're not going to have a fun time. To which I respond with bullet point number two, who gives a shit? The movie is fun and it gets more right than wrong.

There are plenty of Easter eggs to keep existing tabletop fans happy, and the movie feels like Forgotten Realms closer to The Princess Bride than Dungeons & Dragons movie that came out in the year 2000. If you're at all unsure, that's a very good thing. Three, the banter, the goofiness, and general ineptitude of most of the heroes does feel like you're sitting around the table with your friends, playing D&D, failing roles, and having to improvise your way out of crazy situations. It feels like it easily could be an adaptation of one of your crazy gaming sessions, and again, that's a very good thing. 4. I was a vociferous critic of Wizards of the Coast and

Hasbro for their licensing shenanigans earlier, but this movie at least feels like those behind and in front of the camera were all out in making the movie. It is a great homage to gaming in general. And five, there's a heartwarming cameo and a wonderful Easter egg in the arena for people who are paying attention. My wife, who does not play tabletop RPGs at all, but is absorbed quite a bit secondhand from her nerdy husband, recognized that arena Easter egg immediately and said I was bouncing in my chair when that scene happened. I have no memory of bouncing in my chair like that,

but that was probably because I was too busy acting out the Leonardo DiCaprio meme pointing at the screen. Yes, the movie is a MacGuffin chase. Yes, it plays on certain tropes. And yes, it takes liberties with what you can do with certain spells in D&D. But I was smiling throughout the movie, and I genuinely hope they make more RPG movies with this level of dedication. Even if you know nothing about Dungeons and Dragons or tabletop RPGs, it's something that you can enjoy. It's great for us grizzled veterans, and it's great for people who really don't know much about the genre. Speaking of which, if you are new to RPGs and this movie piqued your interest, if you'd like to experience a

tabletop role-playing game for yourself, reach out to me back at taking20podcast.com. I and I'm sure many others would love to help you find a game and introduce you to the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons, Pathfinder, and other game systems. Maybe hopefully give you a new hobby you can experience for the rest of your life. Even if you don't reach out to me, you can always head over to the D&D Beyond forums, the D&D Beyond Discord, Paizo forums, Pathfinder 2E Discord, StartPlaying.games, or Warhorn.net to find a game that you can enjoy locally or online. You can also visit your friendly local gaming store. I'm sure the people there would be happy to help you find a group to play with. I'll put a link to all those resources in the resources section for this episode,

except for your friendly local game store. I'm not psychic. I don't know where you're listening from. That you'll have to find on your own. Originally, this entire episode was written about RPG social skills. And you know what? I haven't picked a fight in a while, so I think it's time to take on a topic that creates a deep division among DMs and players. How social skills. And you know what? I haven't picked a fight in a while, so I think it's time to take on a topic that creates a deep division among DMs and players. How social skills like persuasion, diplomacy, and intimidation work and what they can and can't do. So let's define social skills. In Pathfinder 2nd Edition, there are the skills of intimidation and diplomacy. They are both charisma-based skills. In 5th edition, there's

intimidation and persuasion, which are both charisma checks. If we look at the description from the books, 5th edition has this to say about persuasion. When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM may ask you to make a charisma persuasion check. Typically, use persuasion when acting in good faith to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiate peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a group of townsfolk. With regard to intimidation,

the fifth edition book says that when you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM may ask you to make a charisma intimidation check. Pathfinder second edition has some common language between those skills as well. It says something like your influence on NPCs is measured with a set of attitudes that reflect how they view your character. Those skills in the core rulebook, diplomacy and intimidation, explicitly state that they cannot be used by PCs on PCs.

Now, the 5th edition rule doesn't explicitly state that, that it shouldn't be used on PCs, but Pathfinder 2nd edition does. I believe that rules as intended, even 5e skills aren't meant to be used on player characters, and I want to make my case for that. First off, one of the core tenets of RPGs is that players have agency over their character. Now, what does agency mean? There are multiple aspects to player agency, but the critical part for our discussion is that it means that the player makes decisions and choices directly for their characters. The choices the player makes on behalf of the character should be the single most important factor in determining what that character does. For example,

if I as a player say that my character will sneak in the bushes to try to get a jump on the orc raiding party that he spotted up ahead in the road, that should be what my character does unless it's impossible in the game world. It should be my choice whether my character sneaks in the bushes or just rests by the road whistling nonchalantly, waiting for the orcs to come by, clueless about what violence is about to come their way. In another example, if I want my fighter to close to melee with the manticore to protect my friend's squishier characters from being torn to shreds, if that's what I declare I want to do,

I should be able to do it as long as it's within the rules of the game. I have movement speed and so forth. Third example. An NPC tells me something that my character knows for a fact is not true. It contradicts what my character experienced the previous night. The sheriff says that Trina started the bar fight when I was there, and it was Gorlock instead. My character should have the right to deny what they're saying is true

and maybe even confront the sheriff about their motive, offer to testify in a trial, maybe about Trina's innocence. Now, you may be listening, saying, of course, Jeremy, that's what RPG is, you big blunderbuss. Now, first off, I'm not a large-caliber, flared-muzzled firearm. Thank you very much. And secondly, there's no reason to resort to name-calling. Let's just keep things civil. If the DM in the above example said, you can't sneak in the bushes, or you have to stay away from the manticore, or that I can't challenge the sheriff

about what they said, I as a player should be able to ask, why? Maybe I misunderstood, and there are no bushes. Maybe we're in scrublands and the plant growth beside the road is sparse and low. Maybe there's a cliff between me and the manticore. Maybe I'm bound, gagged, and can't talk to the sheriff. Okay, my bad, I didn't know that. However, if they say I can't do those things, and there's not a good reason why in-game world, then the GM is robbing me of my player agency. The DM should not demand a certain action of my character, and if that's not what I want my character to do, I shouldn't have

to. DMs, this is a balancing act, and it's hard to keep this right all the time. Sometimes we aren't descriptive enough and our players declare something that simply isn't possible, or they make assumptions about the scene that simply aren't true. I sneak in the bushes in an area where there are no bushes. Maybe I as a DM used the wrong word from behind the screen or forgot to mention that most of the bushes are really threadbare and sparse. That's okay. Simply apologize to the player, correct their misconception, and allow them to make a different decision, because Terry and the elf would know that there aren't any freaking bushes to hide in. Sometimes players metagame. They'll suddenly say, I'm checking every five feet for traps, and if you gave them truth serum, they would tell you it was because they saw the DM open the rulebook to the trap section. Or maybe one player tells

the other ones, hey, everybody switch to psychic damage because we're attacking a flunk, even though there is no way Earl Bob Jimmy Joe the Barbarian with an intelligence of four could possibly pass a check to know that. In those cases, yes, my beloved DMs, you're well within the right to ask Earl Bob's player, why is this character suddenly doing that? However, GMs, if you want to simply say no because they're trying to do something you don't want them to do, you are denying player agency. You can't use acid on the hinges because they're recessed into the wall. Yeah, that's it. That's the reason. You have to try to bash it down. You're taking away actions and player choices because it's convenient for you, not because of any in-game reason, and that, frankly, is wrong.

So they came up with a clever way to bypass the trap, lure the owlbear out of the wilderness, and make their check to know that a fire elemental will take more damage from cold. Congratulations! Good thinking by the players. Award them XP and move on. Remember, you are playing the antagonists, but you shouldn't be antagonistic towards players. I guess I can sum up this previous point by saying, barring magical compulsion like suggestion and charm spells,

player agency is sacrosanct in RPGs and players should feel like they have the right to decide how their characters are going to act in a given scenario. If you want to absolutely control all the choices that the characters make, get out from behind the screen and go write a novel. But Jeremy, what does this have to do with diplomacy, intimidation, and other social skills? I'm glad you asked, and thank you for not name-calling this time. Sure thing, Fopdoodle. Wait, Fop? What'd you call me? Fopdoodle? I gotta look that one up. Oh, haha, Vane Simpleton. Too bad you're just a voice in my head and I have all the agency over choosing what I do. I go some weird places when I'm recording. I'm not sure it's a

good thing or a bad thing. Here's the crux of why I think social skills should not be used to mandate character actions, because doing so violates that player's agency over their character. So let's start with the most important point I want to make with PC on PC social skills. I think that PCs should never be able to use diplomacy, persuasion, or intimidation roles against other PCs. A high diplomacy role by the character Selex against the character Stricker should not absolutely require that Stricker like Selex or follows Selex's commands or automatically be predisposed to what Selex wants to do. Stricker's player makes that determination, not an arbitrary die roll.

Some DMs out there that are listening believe it should, that Selex made a high persuasion check on Stricker and that means Selex's player can tell Stricker's player what Stricker's player thinks. Respectfully, I think that's wrong. One of my favorite tactics in a debate is to argue the other side of things. Suppose I do allow diplomacy or persuasion check to work character against character. Why wouldn't I, as a player, build a maxed-out charisma character

that could demand anything that character wanted from the rest of the party? Hey everybody, I want your share of the loot. Ooh, that's a 33 on my diplomacy check. And thank you. And thank you. And oh, thank you. Oh, no, you can't hold back. I made my check. Thank you so much. Now I'm rich. Let's head over to the next dungeon poppers and get me some more money. Oh, wait, you want your treasure back? Make a roll a 15 persuasion? Get that weak shit out of here. Your treasure is mine now. What happens amongst the players around the table at this point? There would be hurt feelings, frustration, and one player gets to have fun at the expense of another, or maybe even multiple others, or maybe even everybody.

That is not a good dynamic at your table. Even during the difficult times, the trying times, the make this saving throw or you've stepped on a trap times, everyone should be working together for the enjoyment of everyone around the table. Allowing one PC to mind control the others simply because of skill checks creates an us versus them dynamic, or maybe us versus that one person dynamic among your players, and that's generally not a good thing. Finally, my argument against PC on PC social skills is this. Let's make a dangerous assumption that we are all characters in an RPG called real life. My first comment about this RPG is that the class system sucks. Losing weight should be easier. Also, I think the butt should be further away from the genitals. I mean, it's like having a toxic waste dump next to the playground. Sorry about that. I have been informed by my wife that that joke was inappropriate for

this podcast. Yeah, well, okay, fine. You don't like it? You can kiss my toxic waist dump. So we're all characters in this real-life RPG. Suppose you have $100 or an equivalent amount of yen or pounds or euros to last you until your next payday. A random person walks up and says, Hey, give me your money.

Your answer is probably going to be, Uh, no. Unless they have a weapon or they give you a darn good reason why. I mean, even if they had an amazing charisma and look like Channing Tatum or Ana de Armas, you're probably not handing over your last $100 for no reason. You have agency over the decisions that you make. So another person's high charisma or high charisma checks should not make you sacrifice that agency at the altar of a high skill check. Now let's move on to NPCs using these skills on PCs. If you allow NPCs or people being run by the DM to use skill checks on PCs,

it's the same problem, except it feels like the DM who's taking control of the character's actions and dictating what the character will do on behalf of the player who should be controlling that character. NPCs shouldn't just roll persuasion and if it's high enough, force your player characters to just agree or do something. What I do is I will make that roll and tell the player appropriate information that their character would sense or experience. With a high persuasion or diplomacy role, I'll tell the player that the NPC seems like they're making good points and that they're making a lot of sense, but I always leave it to the player to tell me what the character wants to do.

If they don't want to donate to the burned-down orphanage, they don't have to, regardless of how passionate and compelling the person asking for donations can be. You see the passion in the young man's eyes as he begs you for even a few coppers to help take care of the displaced orphans. His words ring of truth and compassion for the lowest among you that are suffering. I think that's a good description of a good persuasion role. Now it's up to the player if their character makes a donation. The young man flatly states that

the orphanage will be expensive to rebuild and extends his hand asking for a donation. Bad persuasion role. But again, it's up to the player how their character responds. A high intimidation may sound like, you see the guard's muscles flex effortlessly as she plays with the hilt of her longsword. She exchanges a wry smile with her four companions carrying crossbows behind her. I think you can find some more gold than that to pay the toll, can't you? Otherwise, you know, I'd hate to either send you the debtor's prison or the morgue. They sound calm, controlled, ready to give the PCs a rough night. Meanwhile, a low intimidation role may sound like you better pay me more or you'll be sorry. They sound unsure of themselves, weak or unwilling or

unable to follow through on their threats. If you're sitting behind the screen and you don't feel comfortable describing these roles or you don't feel like that you're capable of acting them out the way they were rolled, you can always just tell the players what the check was and let them role play their reactions. By telling them the result of the roll, you can say, hey, this guy got like a 31 on his intimidation. He is way more intimidating than I could ever be, but you guys decide what your character would do. The players keep their agency over their characters and the game can continue. The players keep their agency over their characters, and the game can continue. When it comes to NPCs making rolls against PCs, there is an invisible line, which if you cross,

you're taking away the player agency over the character, just like I talked about NPC on PC social skill checks. My advice? Players should always have agency over their characters, use the result of the NPC's roll to flavor how you describe the interaction between the NPC and PC, and encourage your players to accurately roleplay how their character would react to that level of a role. Alright, let's move on to PC on NPC roles, and I think this is what these skills were designed for. They're completely built for roles against NPCs. My biggest piece of advice for these roles is to remember what I said earlier. These roles aren't mind control. I've seen and heard about too many games that become easy mode because the DM lets a character with a high diplomacy, high intimidation, or high persuasion check convince NPCs to do something that no one in their right mind would do. I remember watching a game where one guard

was deceived into thinking that the Goliath is two dwarves in a trench coat, or a halfling with no weapons intimidating a dragon, and a character attempting a diplomacy check to get a king to hand over his scepter, and the DM saying, if you roll a natural 20, I'll allow it. No. Persuasion's not mind control. It can only be used to convince someone that you are an honest person with no ill intentions and you're not going to trick or betray them in the future. Or that the deal that you're offering is a good one or the thing you're proposing is logically a solution that helps everyone. These skill descriptions explicitly use words like influence instead of command. The relevant definition of influence,

by the way, is have an effect on the behavior of someone. Have an effect, not demand, not control, not some miraculous result. There are limits to what you can and can't do with social skill checks in these game systems. The requests made by the PCs still need to make sense in the moment. I don't care how high your intimidation role is by a PC, they can't make the captain of a ship just hand over the keys and throw themselves into the charybdis. Why? Because that'd be rock-solid, absolute certain death. And most NPCs, if we treat them like real people, like living.

And they want to keep it that way. If the PCs are trying to influence a guard outside the kingdom's treasure room, I don't care if the rogue rolls a natural 20, plus has a high charisma, plus their proficiency bonus. That guard is not going to impale themselves on their spear, or throw themselves into the open sewer, or escort the PCs to the treasure room and just hang out while the party fills its pockets. That would result in death, disease and death, and then death by firing squad, respectively. If the PCs want to use a social skill against an NPC,

they still need to back up a successful check with sound logic or an offer of some reward. You generally can't persuade that treasure room guard to leave their post and come with you somewhere else. They're working right now and know that they would be executed or their family be responsible for replacing stolen treasure if they're delinquent. However, six hours later, when the guard's in the tavern getting something to eat, the checks have a higher chance of success and it's more likely that one of the PCs could get the guard's attention with a high diplomacy check, make bedroom eyes at them, lure them upstairs, crack them over the head with a rock, and steal their key. But that same

request would be nearly impossible if the guard was currently stationed outside the treasure room door. Again, let's go back to the real-world analogy. If Channing Tatum or Anna de Armas could get bank guards to follow them while they're on duty, they would both be very rich. Okay, they are very rich, but it's because they're actors, not because they're charming bank guards and robbing vaults. At least I don't think they are. Plus, if you allow PCs to use social skills to make outlandish requests of NPCs to anyone or anything they interact with, then high charisma characters would have a very easy time of any RPG. Show up in a town, waggle my charisma around, get money from everyone just by asking for it,

providing nothing in return, and then skip off to the next town. Lather, rinse, repeat until I'm god, queen, empress of space and time. That makes no sense, and it skews the game too much towards characters with very high social skills. But Jeremy, what about natural 20s? That means the best result, right? Yes, but you're leaving out part of the description. A natural 20 is the best result that character could get, not the best result in the universe. If I, Jeremy, soft-bellied, middle-aged, unathletic couch potato, natural 20 my athletics check, that doesn't mean I'm going to go get a gold medal in the 100 meters in the Olympics.

That just means I did the best I could, which would probably be me finishing the race without falling down and face planting. But either way, even a natural 20, I'm probably finishing in last place. A natural 20 on a social skill check is not any of the following. One, a reason for an NPC to act like they had open brain surgery and can't think for themselves anymore. Two, a natural 20 doesn't automatically result in the best outcome the player could ever dream of. And three, a natural 20 on a social skill check is not even an automatic success. The natural 20 could still mean failure. A bard is not going to convince a dragon to walk away from its horde and leave the area for good with one charisma check.

A PC is not going to intimidate a god into doing what they want from a single die roll. Even when it comes to PC skill checks against NPCs, these results would go far beyond how those skills were intended to be used in the rules. Even with high rolls, the PCs still need to convince the NPC that they are attempting to influence that the reward is worth the risk. still need to convince the NPC that they are attempting to influence that the reward is worth the risk. They can provide bribes, offerings, promises that the negative effects won't come to pass to sweeten the deal, or maybe even threats and potential violence, but it still has to make sense in the NPC's minds. So when PCs make these checks against NPCs, social skills like persuasion,

intimidation, and diplomacy are meant to show a numeric effect on one or more NPCs. Social skills like persuasion, intimidation, and diplomacy are meant to show a numeric effect on one or more NPCs who are deciding whether to accommodate these requests made by the character. These requests need to be reasonable because these NPCs shouldn't lose their mind to become the PC's thrall just because they're really good looking with a high charisma. Social skills have limitations that should be respected at your gaming table. They're not magical compulsion effects like charm spells that can allow other players or the DM to rob players of their control of a character. I recommend never allowing PCs to make social skill checks against other PCs. NPC checks should only be used to describe the intensity or relative success of the interaction,

but always allow the player to decide how the character would respond. NPCs can use these checks against NPCs to influence their behavior as long as the request is reasonable, the reward is sufficient, and the NPC believes it's worth the risk. Keep these limitations in mind, adjudicate your game appropriately, and I'll bet you and your players would have fun doing it. If you like the podcast, please consider sharing it with your gaming friends or on social media pages. It doesn't take too long and every one of those helps get the word out to others who may be interested in an RPG podcast with the occasional fart joke. Tune in next week when we're going to talk about armor class and hit points.

They are, and more importantly, what they're not. Before I go, I want to thank this week's sponsor, Birds. Did you know that hawks have been known to meet for religious ceremonies? They are, after all, birds of prey. This has been episode 169, my review of Honor Among Thieves and the use of RPG social skills. My name is Jeremy Shelley, and I hope that your next game is your best game.

The Taking 20 Podcast is a Publishing Cube Media Production. Copyright 2023. References to game system content are copyrighted by their respective publishers.