Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6202599" data-attributes="member: 17106">Yes. It's called roleplaying. The NPC exists to the same extent that the PCs do, and his behavior and intentions are determined by the DM in the same way that the PCs behavior and intentions are determined by the players.In context, the NPC decided that for whatever psychological reasons were prevalent at the time.In my case, the NPC I wanted to negotiate with was apparently a ruthless warrior who had recently been recruited into a church and had apparently been told that I was a heathen (not exactly false), and had bought into it to the extent that he believed any words I said might be witchcraft and refused to consider them as being legitimate. I thought it was a stretch that a previously irreligious NPC could buy so hard into this, but the logic certainly holds.However, there are many reasons why people ignore other people, even if they are aware of them and can understand them. Have you ever tried to talk to a woman who decided to give you the silent treatment? Diplo that!"Aware of", however, is not equivalent to "willing to engage in at least six seconds of meaningful conversation".Exactly my point. Who decides that? Are you suggesting that the player does? That if a player thinks the situation is clear the DM can be subverted and he can just do what he wants without approval?I did not say that. I said that both rulings were acceptable, but like all rulings, require a logical justification. I also explained that it is much easier to justify someone being unwilling to listen than someone being unable to be attacked, simply because of the nature of the actions.Some actions, like Diplomacy, have more gray area actions than others, like attacking. Movement skills like Climb and Jump are relatively clear cut, while Knowledge requires an enormous amount of interpretation. Spot and Listen can pretty much always be used, but Sense Motive is quite unclear. Fort and ref saves are more objective than will. We're modeling reality, and some things are easier to model than others. In general, the psychological is harder to model than the physical, and thus rules on that subject require more interpretation by the DM.But ultimately, the rules as written allow the DM to do both those things (say that an intended attack or Diplo does not happen), and to determine the validity of any actions, as the "final arbiter" of what happens.And again, what is the converse? If the DM says "no attack", and the player says "I attack anyway". The player clearly has no recourse through the rules. It's certainly feasible to imagine a situation where the DM does this for no good reason or for some obviously bad reason, but since that would be, in your terms, a strawman, what if there is a good reason and the players simply don't know it?What if, for example, the players have unknowingly been transported to the extraplanar realm of a deity of peace, and the plane magically prevents all violent acts? Then there's no attack, and the players have to accept it whether they know why or not, and whether there's a mechanic in any book that does this or not. Obviously, situations like these test the trust between players and DM (note paragraph on trust I quoted pages ago), but they're well within the letter and intent of the rules.</blockquote>

Verification