Search results

The problem here is that different systems have different granularity for rolls. For example, if a system has an "Explore" roll - be it explore a room, building, forest, whatever. You simply make a single check and the results of that check tell you information about that location. What does...

Do you allow players to persuade NPC's to do things that that NPC would never do? Through a simple die roll? Do you allow PC's to mind control NPC's through skill checks? No? Then why would you do that to PC's? There is a rather alarming level of straw in this man. Never minding the...

I'm sorry, but there are all sorts of games that do exactly that. You get hit, take damage, and the mechanics tell you how you react to the pain. Heck, even 5e has things like Vex which grants advantage on your next attack or disadvantage to enemies for their first attack. What exactly do...

Just because @Faolyn did ask for a citation, I'd point this out: So, it's not like I'm pulling this argument out of thin air. @Faolyn is straight up saying that we cannot trust players to play in good faith because there is "no way to enforce this" and players would rather play a different...

But that NPC will likely only be present in the campaign for a tiny fraction of time. That PC will be present (barring unforeseen circumstances) in every scene throughout the campaign. There's no difference in the scale. That NPC loses 100% of their agency, but, that's okay because you have...

Again, no. After all, a successful attack roll could take away your movement (there's a number of ways), depending on the system could take away your actions. And, again, I recommend you read my last post. Do you feel the same way as a DM? Do you think your players are exercising mind...

Ok, let's back up a second shall we? We're all DM's. All of us here are running games. So, that means that every single poster here has been in the position where the players attempt to influence an NPC through some sort of social skills in order to achieve some sort of goal. This is basic...

You YOURSELF said this. We cannot have mechanics which force any sort of action on the players because you yourself said it won't work. That a player will never actually act in character but will always try to subvert the results to their own advantage. Those are your own words. But, we're...

No. It really isn't. You're mixing successes and failures. The attack roll tells you to succeed. The NPC's persuasion roll tells you whether or not THEY succeed. Same as an NPC's attack roll tells you whether they succeeded. It's not mind control to let the NPC hit you with a sword, so...

I don't see an issue with a bit of wish fulfillment and playing out the fantasy of a character that is in control of they body when we're in a world where people feel like they have control over so little. But, the point is, it's the double standard. It's the unending claims that one...

Well, possibly because every single time anyone answers your unending stream of questions, you refuse to accept any answers and then turtle up with, "it's just my preference". 🤷

But, the dice tell you how well you attack. The dice tell you whether or not you know something. You're saying that what your wizard knows isn't part of your character? You don't know what you character knows, but, you absolutely know 100% of the mental state of the character? How does that...

The thing is, you're assuming none of us HAVE played with DM's like what the other side claims as priorities. Heck, I used to BE a DM that would have agreed 100% with everything you've said, once upon a time. You seem to think that our preferences are born out of ignorance, yet, get really...

And yet, you have zero problem with dice determining every single other element of the game. It tells you how good a warrior you are, how knowledgeable your wizard is, how pious your priest is. But, giving you direction over how gullible you are is not acceptable? The level of double...

Ugh. The worst of all worlds. The only way I can convince an NPC is if I game the DM and hope that whatever reading I have of the DM gives me the results I want. I thought you insisted on a neutral DM? What could possibly be more neutral than following mechanics?

Except that the determination to not run away has nothing to do with playing "in character" but, with whatever is most advantageous to the player. Running away makes a LOT of sense when a beholder just disintegrated your friend. Running away when you are already wounded and baddies are closing...

So, essentially, we can't have these things in the game because we cannot trust players to actually play in character. Hrm... how does that dovetail with the notion that immersive gamers want to inhabit their characters and act like it's a real world? Seems that the notion of immersive...

Typically, I think this action is prefaced with the statement of, "Hold my beer."

I suppose, at the end of the day, this is why things like morale rules don't apply to PC's. I believe that they should. I absolutely believe that PC's should be affected by Persuasion checks (or whatever the system uses) and the system should reward players who do so.

I get what you're saying here, and, for a large amount I agree. Someone who just disrupts the game for the sake of disrupting the game is being a jerk. OTOH, playing the game and always choosing the most rational, logical, advantageous option is not being true to a character either. The...