Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Don Durito" data-source="post: 7827102" data-attributes="member: 6687260">I think I said something similar earlier but I think this is best done without the Persuasion skill.You just need a good underlying system to provide structure.  If you say to Faction X "If you distract faction Y by attacking them from the front then we'll sneak in the back and kill the leader", then this sounds like it should call for a persuasion roll.  But what's at issue ?- Whether the PCs are telling the truth (if not then there's deception) and whether the PCs are trustworthy.So if the GM knows how trustworthy they think the PCs are then he also can decide if they are willing to believe the PCs will do what they say.  If the  NPCs attitude is Hostile, then probably they won't.  If it's Friendly then likely they will.  So if the PC can build rapport and shift that attitude along, or act in such a way that they can prove trustworthiness - say give over a magic item for safekeeping as a kind of hostage - then the NPCs may believe them.But this is not so much Persuasion, as providing the groundwork for persuasion.  It's a subtle distinction - but I think it is important.  It means that you can decide the important things through role-playing but without just relying on GM fiat.But basically if we call the skill "Build Rapport" rather than Persuasion than it's clearer to the player - that at the crux moment - when the actual act of persuasion is taking place - that the skill is not rolled - which I feel is only being fair and transparent.  (Of course if you as a GM are making it clear to the players as an outset that you can to use Persuasion in a way that's different to what they might expect than I guess it's not really an issue.)</blockquote>

Verification