Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Skills used by players on other players.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7534219" data-attributes="member: 6795602"><p><strong>Actually when a PC persuades an NPC, no part of the NPC's agency is given up. If there is a check, the DM is using the check because he is uncertain on whether the NPC was persuaded by the PC. The NPC is still in complete control of his thoughts. The check isn't telling him what to think, it's telling whether he thought it.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p></p><p>So let's assume the same thing for the bard and barbarian. Let's assume there is a check. Let's say the check is not telling the barbarian what to think it's just informing everyone what the barbarian already thought. But most importantly that means it's informing the player of the barbarian what the barbarian thinks regardless of how this player envisions his barbarian thinking. That's the issue. There's now a controller of an in-game character that is being told the character under their control thinks something without their input.</p><p></p><p>Again, this doesn't happen with persuading NPC's. The DM that controls the NPC's isn't getting told what the NPC thinks regardless of what he envisions the NPC thinking because he is both the controller of the NPC and the one determining that the attempt at persuasion is uncertain enough to call for a skill check. If he had determined that the attempt at persuasion wasn't uncertain he wouldn't have called for a check and there would be no chance of having a skill check "force" the NPC to do something contrary to how the DM envisioned him. </p><p></p><p>If the DM calls for a persuasion check on the NPC it's because the DM is planning on using the result of that check to inform him of what the NPC decided to think/do. If the DM calls a persuasion check when a PC tries to persuade a PC, the DM literally can have no idea if there's any certainty or uncertainty in the attempt because he doesn't control that PC. In other words, when it comes to persuasion, only the person controlling the target of the check can ultimately decide what if any uncertainty is present in regards to the attempt. And since there should only be a check when uncertainty is present then the only way we get to this point where a PC is rolling persuasion against a PC whose player would not want to go along with the result would be to ask for the check without first finding out if there was uncertainty present.</p><p></p><p>The real issue appears to me to be about calling for checks without first establishing whether there is actually uncertainty. If that's avoided then all of this is avoided as well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7534219, member: 6795602"] [B]Actually when a PC persuades an NPC, no part of the NPC's agency is given up. If there is a check, the DM is using the check because he is uncertain on whether the NPC was persuaded by the PC. The NPC is still in complete control of his thoughts. The check isn't telling him what to think, it's telling whether he thought it. [/B] So let's assume the same thing for the bard and barbarian. Let's assume there is a check. Let's say the check is not telling the barbarian what to think it's just informing everyone what the barbarian already thought. But most importantly that means it's informing the player of the barbarian what the barbarian thinks regardless of how this player envisions his barbarian thinking. That's the issue. There's now a controller of an in-game character that is being told the character under their control thinks something without their input. Again, this doesn't happen with persuading NPC's. The DM that controls the NPC's isn't getting told what the NPC thinks regardless of what he envisions the NPC thinking because he is both the controller of the NPC and the one determining that the attempt at persuasion is uncertain enough to call for a skill check. If he had determined that the attempt at persuasion wasn't uncertain he wouldn't have called for a check and there would be no chance of having a skill check "force" the NPC to do something contrary to how the DM envisioned him. If the DM calls for a persuasion check on the NPC it's because the DM is planning on using the result of that check to inform him of what the NPC decided to think/do. If the DM calls a persuasion check when a PC tries to persuade a PC, the DM literally can have no idea if there's any certainty or uncertainty in the attempt because he doesn't control that PC. In other words, when it comes to persuasion, only the person controlling the target of the check can ultimately decide what if any uncertainty is present in regards to the attempt. And since there should only be a check when uncertainty is present then the only way we get to this point where a PC is rolling persuasion against a PC whose player would not want to go along with the result would be to ask for the check without first finding out if there was uncertainty present. The real issue appears to me to be about calling for checks without first establishing whether there is actually uncertainty. If that's avoided then all of this is avoided as well. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Skills used by players on other players.
Top