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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7742277">I probably shouldn't have described anything as "superseding" the die roll, because I really don't mean negating an undesirable result with some RP.  I, too, heartily believe in "Roll then narrate."  I don't think that contradicts anything I'm saying.If the Duke rolls a fantastic Persuasion check, that's great.  The DM can (try to) act this out, and/or simply tell the players that he's very earnest/persuasive/believable/etc.  Then let the players respond however they wish.  Hopefully they won't just ignore that cue, but they should be allowed to narrate the impact that persuasive speech has on them.And the reverse is also true: if the players want to persuade the Duke of something, roll away to determine how persuasive they are.  The DM may wish to be a neutral arbiter and set a specific DC for success, or can just factor the strength of the roll into the Duke's response.  In fact, just as a straw man to bat around, to see how well it holds up, imagine players doing the same thing: "If the Duke can roll a 25+ I'll rescue his annoying daughter."  I've never done that one, either, but if I did do that I would happily abide by the result.  Effectively, what I would be declaring is not how strong my willpower is, but how strong my initial opposition is, and thus how persuasive the Duke will have to be to win me over.   For the DM to set the DC is for the DM to dictate how opposed my character is.On the rustle/ninja thing, again it's not that I worry the players will take advantage of the meta-game knowledge to mechanically prepare for the fight, it's that "You hear a rustle, but you think it's probably just a squirrel." has three problems:1) It's telling me what my character thinks2) It's not a very interesting roleplaying cue3) I now strongly suspect we are getting attacked but I'm supposed to play along and not do anything with that knowledge, which means my character and I are (unnecessarily) in different states of mind.Note: The #3 two-states-of-mind thing is fine when there are other people at the table for whom you are playing along.  For example, the canonical trolls/fire situation: I would play dumb if there's a new player at the table who knows nothing about trolls.  I'd even exaggerate my panic, to help put the new player in the same state of mind as his character.  But if we were all veterans I don't really see the value/point in doing that.Fair enough.  Sorry that I got snarky back.I think we've all dealt with immature/disruptive players, who find endless ways to weave their chaos.  I don't think "helps protect against immaturity" should be a criterion for rules adoption.</blockquote>

Verification