Ok, now I'm on a roll. (GET IT!?!?!). I'm particularly curious how
@clearstream,
@HammerMan, and
@Ovinomancer respond to the following, but of course I'm interested in all reactions.
hi
Upthread,
@Charlaquin got a lot of pushback for saying that "there's no uncertainty" when an NPC tries to influence a PC. Let's unpack that.
yes, and completely ignores that we have a mechanic to tell if something fails/succeeds (before I and others house rule that the better you do on the check the better you do in narrative)
First, I think we're all agreeing that the underlying assumption is that the play loop is symmetric. That is, we resolve these action declarations ("Fred tries to intimidate Ginger") the same way, regardless whether it's PC -> NPC or NPC -> PC.
Okay
One reason for that that is that there is no separate set of rules, or a separate play loop, described for NPC -> PC. All we have to go on is the assumption that the same rules apply. It's all we got.
exactly, and when the game DOES have NPC/PC act different it calls it out.
I actually am not 100% down with the 'play loop' but have accepted it as part of this discussion in good faith.
Ok, so the first step in that play loop is to determine whether the described action is an automatic success or an automatic failure. If it's neither of those we move on to resolution using attributes and, perhaps, skills.
So who determines, in an NPC -> PC action declaration, whether it's an automatic success or an automatic failure?
There are three possibilities:
a) The player decides
b) The DM decides
c) We skip this step if it's NPC -> PC
by RAW I think the DM... by my Interpretation of what they meant combining interviews and other rules I think PC...but either way it's cool
In reverse order:
If we skip this step, then we are using a play loop that is not the same as the one described in the books. But our whole premise for getting here is that we use the same play loop for NPC -> PC that we use for PC -> NPC. There's just no way to read the published text and conclude that RAI or RAW is that only part of the play loop applies when it's NPC -> PC.
agreed...
So the answer can't be that we skip this step. Somebody needs to determine if it was an automatic success or automatic failure.
yup, again by defualt I would say 99% of the time there HAS to be a not automtic vs PCs...but I could imagine corner cases where it is.
If it's the DM, it means that the DM has authority to just declare that the PC is persuaded, or intimidated, or seduced, or whatever. And is there anybody actually advocating for DMs (in D&D 5e) to have that authority? If so, then we are definitely never going to resolve this dispute, so we can stop right there.
sort of grey area. I have NEVER done so but again I can imagine a corner case where I could have, it just would be so weird that I can't imagine it coming up. The other end though, the auto fail I know has come up...
REAL GAME EXAMPLE: a 9th level party of 5 PCs and an NPC controlled by a player (sidekick/apprentice) go to walk into clearing... 6 kobolds pop up from ambush and the lead one pulls a rusty old knife (the others all have short bows that look like they have seen better days) he puffs his chest trying to be intimadating but really you will have to fight the urge to laugh as he says in his squaky shaky voice "Stop 2 silver each or else you can't pass"
as you can see I had him "trying to be intmidating," and ruled it failed "You have to fight the urge to laugh"
But I think most of the participants in this thread will agree that's crazy. The DM can't...or shouldn't...just say, "The goblin flexes his muscles, and you find that intimidating and hand over all your gold." That's just simply beyond any reasonable description of DM authority.
okay agree. the DM can not (Again avoiding some monster special ability/spell) make the PCs hand over there gold, and shouldn't narrate them to be intimidated.
So the person deciding if it's an auto success (or failure) can't be the DM.
again, grey area... they can and I can't imagine anyone here argueing, even
@iserith , that we describe auto fails all the time...
now I want a "How you doing?" half orc with a 8 cha to try to seduce a PC... maybe in a week or two when they get back to town.
That leaves only the player to decide. If it's true that the standard play loop applies to NPC -> PC action declarations, then it must also be true that the player is the one who determines whether it succeeds or fails automatically, before moving on to calling for a dice roll.
okay makes sense.
Once the player has made that determination, we (maybe) move on to a dice roll. So now the question of who decides which skill/attribute to use, what the DC is, and what the actual outcome is, including if the player must abide by the result, and how.
okay
But all of that is irrelevant because the player had the power to keep us from even getting to this step. If they want to let the dice decide for them, fine. My opinion is that the player should also set the DC, pick the skill, and interpret the result, but if somebody else thinks the DM should do it that's fine, too: as long as the player has the authority to declare the attempt an automatic failure (or success!), then in the cases where they don't take that opportunity I don't really care how the rest of it gets resolved.
maybe it is just I have spent so long in a set of groups, but we all pretty much agree on skill/stats anyway, so sure... I can get behind this as one of the ways of reading RAW.