Search results

Heh. How to say you only play D&D without saying you only play D&D. ((Sorry, that might be more snarky than it's meant. It is meant as a gentle ribbing)) There are tons of systems out there that disagree with you. FATE being an easy example. There are all sorts of mechanics in Fate, the...

Gotta admit, this is a new one to me. I've never had a player even suggest this one. Yeah, no. Lantern on belt is a no-no. It just wouldn't work.

No. That's what YOU are insisting we talk about. No one else is talking about this. I presume that this is something that has been established in the game? The DM is aware that your character will never lie? So why would the DM, knowing this, allow a persuasion check to counter this? We...

But, you've got this backward. The DM has had the NPC try to persuade the PC to do something and is rolling for the NPC. It's not that the PC failed any check. The NPC succeeded. Had the NPC failed the check, then the PC would not be persuaded. But the dice and mechanics have said that the...

Again, you never allow players to persuade an NPC to do something they would never do, so, why are you allowing an NPC to do it? If the NPC tries to persuade the character to do something the character would never do, it's treated exactly the same way as the player trying to do that to an NPC...

That is flat out untrue. Since the check will not make the PC do something that the character would never do, your "no agency at all" is flat out wrong. The player, in good faith, acts as if the result is true. No different than the player role playing falling down from failing a climb check...

From my personal point of view, the reason for this is pacing. I want my games to have a MUCH higher pace than you do. We've had enough discussions over the year to know that this is true. I have zero interest in delaying the players just to satisfy my own need for them to play 20 questions...

But, you just got through saying that adding mechanical heft to this is impossible since players cannot be trusted to act in good faith, but, lacking any mechanical heft is fine because players will act in good faith. 🤷

Again though, let's not get too far into the weeds. We're not talking about "ways". We're talking about a single way. Same as a social check with an NPC. You don't allow a persuasion check to force an NPC to do something that the NPC would never do. So, why would it be any different for a...

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". 🤷