First, what your DM does is not wrong. The rules of the game even tell them to use dice however they want (page 236 DMG):
THE ROLE OF DICE
Dice are neutral arbiters. They can determine the outcome of an action without assigning any motivation to the DM and without playing favorites. The extent ...
Not trying to put the OP down, but there is an argument going the other way. If you're someone who likes to RP and come up with eloquent speeches in-game, yet dumped your Charisma stat and have, say, -1 to Persuasion, then its tricky to reconcile that. You may be persuasive but the character clearly isn't (same as trying to play a very Intelligent/Wise char can be tricky sometimes!). Personally, as a DM, I often call for a roll but with advantage if the player role-plays a good argument.
@PJRZ not exactly related to the original answer, but I feel like if a player likes to roleplay with such speeches and developped methods of persuasion, maybe their character doesn't fit their playstyle. Then again, that's assuming that stats such as charisma are abstractions of a character's abilities and personality, which isn't how all players create their characters.
This answer brings to mind a situation I've seen happen twice: Someone is playing a Bard and composed music, performing it at the table as part of their roleplay and the DM made them roll to succeed. That sours the whole experience for me. Removing player agency to support unsupported mechanics, out of fear of making the skills "useless". If that's the case the skills are useless to begin with.
@bitfed making a skill (like perform) impossible to fail because player has this skill in real life seems not fair for players that decided to play characters that are unlike the players themselves. And unfair for players like a strong guy playing a barbarian, who still have to roll for strength to kick out the closed door because DM won't let him kick real door out of the door frame in real life to show that skill.
It's a one on one campaign too. It legit makes everything I do completely unnecessary especially when concerning roleplay. @PJRZ Also what I mean with deciding the story? Look at the edit
The Angry GM was removed from our feeds and recommended sites due to blatantly racist rhetoric, I would strongly recommend to look for a different example by a less dispicable content creator — there are many of them who convey the same information.
@Akixkisu Thank you - I was not aware of that at all (and had seen him referenced multiple times, and faintly recalled his discussion on the subject as good. I'll see if I can find something on Alexandrian or another good site).
@GroodytheHobgoblin The op still seems active, it would be lovely if you could forward the message. Referencing the site is not forbidden, but the removal is as stated well-justified.
@Akixkisu I figure there must be some Meta-Q&A / resultion for it that I should reference if I contact them? Do you have a link? (Mine is already updated).
@GroodytheHobgoblin Typical approach is to just comment on the particular thing where it’s found. So commenting on that answer will inform the answerer. And now I have to track down my own references, of which I have many, because he made a great case for a particular way of handling skills that I like, but not enough for this crap...
@KRyan, understood. I am just looking to something documented to refer to for when I post a reach out, as I myself am unaware of the entire backstory and do not go around telling people to change without having checked myself or having a reference (It's my decision to trust Akixkisu, but I would not want to presume this for others).
This is the only post I found about AngryDM on Meta: rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9369/… - coincidentially also shows how one can fish out all ones posts that go to a given site
@DanB I do not, I completely trust BESW's statement and rely on it. BESW is, especially in these matters, absolutely careful and utterly reliable. He makes a tremendous effort in that area and therefore I trust him implicitly in this.
Angry was removed as a source because one comment by one person declared racism? I am not saying it isn't, but that seems a bit unilateral even for this site.
The policy worries me that it is going to end up as someone not wanting to remove a link and getting accused of racism, but until that becomes a thing I will just say thank you for the links.
Discussion on answer by Groody the Ho…
Discussion on answer by Groody the Ho…