Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7741475" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Poor choice of words on my part. “Rarely seen” probably would have made more sense. I know that some games have rules for this, or an option for it to be added.Covert is not a perfect word for it, no. Sometimes a person could be perfectly straightforward about trying to influence another’s decision making. But not always. Attempts to trick or decieve are, I think, what people tend to take issue with in this regard. I don’t think most folks would voice the complaint “that NPC offered sound advice and my PC took it to heart”.The feint analogy doesn’t really work for me because even though it’s a deception of sorts, the end result is still someone trying to stick something sharp into the you. See I look at this almost exactly the opposite. If I want my decision making as a player to align with my character’s as much as possible, then mechanics are an intrusion. I’m supposed to advocate for my character. So if the merchant is telling my character that the duke is secretly evil and aligned with the cult that’s been plaguing the area, then I want the GM to present the merchant’s argument in a way that convinces me. If any mechanics are to enter into it, I’d prefer it be a roll on my part, using Insight or Sense Motive or whatever relevant skill is called for to try and determine if the merchant has an ulterior motive or is lying.Doing it in the opposite way...where the GM rolls for the merchant to Bluff/Influence/Persuade my character just seems off. It involves some judgment to decide exactly the impact of the roll; does my PC wholeheartedly believe him? Will the PC march off to confront the duke? Or doEsthe PC simply take the merchant’s information into consideration?Just seems very heavy handed to me.</blockquote>

Verification