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="TaranTheWanderer" data-source="post: 7535162" data-attributes="member: 15882"><p>Thinking about it a bit more:</p><p></p><p>The big issue is things like, "I grapple the my comrade" happens on the character level. It's a physical action that happens in the story itself. </p><p></p><p>"I disagree with my comrade" happens on the meta level. OOC, The player thinks about their character and decides how his or her character would react to what is happening in the story. Sometimes that's influenced by stats, or how you envision the personality of your character or sometimes it's based on Meta knowledge. Then the character reacts that way, on the narrative level.</p><p></p><p>This is why I think it's perfectly fine to discuss these things on the Meta level.</p><p></p><p>Bob wants to persuade Frank. Out of character, Bob asks Frank if Frank thinks his character can be convinced or lied to or whatever. This is how you get a character to buy-in.</p><p></p><p>But I see no reason why an NPC can't persuade a PC. "I know you aren't likely to help but this NPC wants to try to convince you to help them, against your character's better judgement. Is that reasonable? Ok, lets make it a test."</p><p></p><p>Obviously, you don't always have to make it a test. You can just rp the NPC and see if you can convince the player by playing to what you think would convince their character. </p><p></p><p>I think, with a normal physical conflict all the OOC consequences are assumed. Reaching 0 hit point (meta health)could result in defeat and possibly result in death. The stakes are assumed. If you lose, you might lose the McGuffin you were protecting.</p><p></p><p>There's no reason why you can't have a conflict where the stakes aren't assumed and where you need hammer those details out. Why should giving up the McGuffin always be a result of losing a fight? Why can't you set up a conflict where defeat means being convinced to give it up to someone? It would be an interesting way to run diplomatic talks which often involve the pcs trying to convince the NPCs but rarely involve the NPCs trying to convince the PCs.</p><p></p><p>In any case, as someone mentioned, I find, with PVP most players just hammer this crap out among themselves and if they want to settle it with roles, they will and it's the DMs role to be arbiter and make sure things are fair.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TaranTheWanderer, post: 7535162, member: 15882"] Thinking about it a bit more: The big issue is things like, "I grapple the my comrade" happens on the character level. It's a physical action that happens in the story itself. "I disagree with my comrade" happens on the meta level. OOC, The player thinks about their character and decides how his or her character would react to what is happening in the story. Sometimes that's influenced by stats, or how you envision the personality of your character or sometimes it's based on Meta knowledge. Then the character reacts that way, on the narrative level. This is why I think it's perfectly fine to discuss these things on the Meta level. Bob wants to persuade Frank. Out of character, Bob asks Frank if Frank thinks his character can be convinced or lied to or whatever. This is how you get a character to buy-in. But I see no reason why an NPC can't persuade a PC. "I know you aren't likely to help but this NPC wants to try to convince you to help them, against your character's better judgement. Is that reasonable? Ok, lets make it a test." Obviously, you don't always have to make it a test. You can just rp the NPC and see if you can convince the player by playing to what you think would convince their character. I think, with a normal physical conflict all the OOC consequences are assumed. Reaching 0 hit point (meta health)could result in defeat and possibly result in death. The stakes are assumed. If you lose, you might lose the McGuffin you were protecting. There's no reason why you can't have a conflict where the stakes aren't assumed and where you need hammer those details out. Why should giving up the McGuffin always be a result of losing a fight? Why can't you set up a conflict where defeat means being convinced to give it up to someone? It would be an interesting way to run diplomatic talks which often involve the pcs trying to convince the NPCs but rarely involve the NPCs trying to convince the PCs. In any case, as someone mentioned, I find, with PVP most players just hammer this crap out among themselves and if they want to settle it with roles, they will and it's the DMs role to be arbiter and make sure things are fair. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Skills used by players on other players.
Top