Search results

I understand that criticism, but we are talking about an ally inspiring you etc. The problem is easily averted by making accepting the warlord buffs and such voluntary.

Why it is in bad faith? Certainly it is plausible, that high level leaders and would have high social skills, and certainly they would use those to pursue their own agenda? That's what PCs would do in similar situation, why don't you want symmetry now?

Not a fan, but less of an issue for the reasons Thomas mentioned. But I would prefer if they worked so that you had some sort of disadvantage or penalty in situations related to the phobia, rather than the mechanic dictating what you can even attempt.

Sure. That is determined by what sort of success the mother and the necromancer had with their previous social rolls. But perhaps it is your character's goal because some NPC (perhaps the mother or your sister) rolled well in persuasion previously and convinced the PC that this is what they...

Yes, we are in agreement.

But certainly NPCs being able to use persuasion on PCs must mean that the NPC can convince the PC that doing X is a good idea? Like how could it not? A charismatic necromancer says: "Bring me the red ruby of doom, I can use it to save your sick mother!" and rolls super high on persuasion...

You misunderstood me. It would be fine if magic was risky in this way. But in 5e it isn't. So it is an issue if only the skills are risky.

Sure. But basically more situations there are where mechanics override the PC volition this way, less agency there is. And it is a matter of preference at what point it becomes too much.

I think it is. We have had plenty of talk about agency. Some people are fine with less, and some people desire it on specific areas and not so much in others. To me the agency to decide the desires and goals of my character is central. If some people don't feel the same way, then that's their...

Yeah, Blades in the Dark works this way too. And that's important. I don't think it is good idea to port this approach in a system where some classes have plentiful capabilities (spells) to bypass this consequence generation mechanic.

So at what point does the GM decide that the owlbear is there and how would this have proceeded had the wizard not bamfed through and waited for the barbarian to lift the portcullis instead? It is not a competition, but unless specifically informed beforehand, I think it is fair that players...

I literally didn't: That mechanics can dictate the player goals doesn't mean the player could not have set the initial goals. Also, I don't get where you're going with this nit-picking. It doesn't really affect the overall point: the agency is diminished in a manner I find unacceptable.

That the NPCs being able to use social mechanics to influence the desires and beliefs of PCs limits the player agency over the goals* of their character is a fact. Whether one considers that to be a problem, is a matter of preference. (*Both short and long term.)

Frankly, that's BS. It can force the character to engage in sexual act the player did not consent to. It is very troubling that people do not get why this is not cool.

Sophistry. Doesn't change the point. They player is not in control of the goals of their character.

It would not be great storytelling if it was NPC saying "revenge is dumb" and rolling 30 on their persuasion check. Great storytelling would require you actually tell the story, to have the NPC make an argument that connects with the experiences and beliefs of the PC. And to me what the PC...

Ok. I wouldn't. Like not at all. But this certainly is a matter we can agree to disagree on, as long as we can agree on what is actually happening: the mechanics are dictating the player goals. It is a matter of taste whether one finds this acceptable.

There is no flaw in my logic, the flaw lies with your example. If your friend instead convinced you that losing weight is not worth the effort then your goal would indeed be changed.

It is simple logic. If NPC can convince PCs via social rules, then it follows they can influence the goals of the PC. There is no way around it. If a NPC can convince the PC that doing X is a good idea, then it follows that NPC can set doing X as the goal of the PC. It is inescapable.

Yes, but under @Bill Zebub's logic we cannot have an athletics test where the cost of failure is merely not being able to lift the portcullis. Every time you use a skill something consequentially bad must happen on a failure. This makes skills way more risky tool than they would be otherwise...