Search results

What's useful or evocative about a phrase that has nothing to do with the actual principle discussed?

I don't need it to be so formalized as that. Usually I can tell if people are going to be similar enough in playstyle for me to fit in with. Very few things will break a game for me, but taking away my agency is at or near the top of that list.

There may be some games that are played that way, but D&D when I've seen social skills vs. PCs used hasn't been played that way. I'm also not sure I'd want to play that way. The DM would have to ask the DM every time he wanted to use a social skill if it was okay to use, which would end up...

Thanks! I hadn't heard that term before.

That social skills used on a PC deprive the player of agency.

This sounds like you are saying that if the roll is successful, that it by default turns something the character would never do into something that the character would have done. Is that the case? If not, then I need you to be a bit clearer with what you are trying to say there. :)

I don't know what that is.

Er, no. It's true as soon as I make my character. It's MY character, not the DMs. I get to decide what parts are true and what parts aren't. As for it coming out, it would be coming out in the game in response to the attempted removal of my agency. Ultimately, I will know 1000000 times...

We only have that veto power if it's built in like you did. If it exists, I couldn't care less about social skills being used against me, because the only ones that work are the ones that I likely would have done anyway. But it's only delegated to the DM, unless like you he further delegates...

You want to sweep the problem under the rug? I know my characters in ways that the DM cannot possibly know, and he will know much more than the dice will. Unless I have 100% veto power over social skills used against my character, sooner or later it will force my PC to act completely out of...

Those few NPCs that I know as well as a player knows a PC, can have things that no PC can convince them to do or not do. There will be no roll in those situations. Rolls only happen when there is doubt. The issue is that I can't know what the PC absolutely will or won't do. If social skills...

If the NPC persuades the PC to do something the PC would never do, the player can ignore it and do something else? Because there is no "good faith acting as if something the PC would never do is true." It can't happen. Never = never. Never =/= never unless the die roll is high. The bad...

100% isn't a tiny bit of control. For that period, the player has no agency at all. He is forced to do the bidding of the die roll.

No, in the second example the DC is not 10. It is in fact tiered. 10-14 is partial success, and 15 is full success. I argue RAW for rules discussions. I house rule the crap out of my games in real life. ;) I've never met an edition of D&D that didn't require a bunch of house rules to get...

The base DC is for full success. The lesser DC is partial success. If we drop the DC to 10, then we have to drop the partial success DC even lower.

No. Assuming I know the NPC well enough, which as I said is only a very few of them. If I don't know, that's what rolls are for. You don't roll in 5e if the outcome isn't in doubt. You're adding up the wrong thing. Your math works, but it's irrelevant. The relevant math is that for that...

On a scale of 1 to 10? That would be rocking!

What you are arguing is 6 in one, half dozen in the other. There's no significant difference between. DC is 15: 20 and higher: success 15-19: success with complication 14 or lower: failure. (maybe failure with extras on 1-4 as well) And... DC is 15: DC 15 and higher: complete success DC...

Then 6e needs to include, "Thou shalt bring thy DM a well seasoned ribeye steak cooked medium rare."