Having an NPC roll persuasion on YOU?

[Elredion]

True Neutral can be characterized as having an attitude of apathy or indifference. Has anyone met a plea for help from an NPC with a request for them to make a persuasion check?

I think this would be mildly amusing, but I'm not sure how some DMs might feel

 

[iserith]

"Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time." I wouldn't say that implies an attitude of apathy or indifference.

In any case, I've never requested the DM make a Persuasion check to convince my character of something. As DM, I would also never make one to influence a PC's behavior as I think it is up to the player to decide how his or her character acts or thinks. The player is welcome to flip a coin if he or she can't decide what to do.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I will make checks for NPCs to see how convincing/honest/scary they are, but that never forces the PCs to believe or act on that information.

(NPC's Deception check, beats PC's insight check): "You're pretty sure he's telling the truth." Or better yet, "He doesn't seem to have any reason to lie, and your gut it telling you you can trust him."

(NPC makes good Intimidation check--no opposed check involved): "You're pretty sure she could snap you in half if she wanted to." Or, "If the count does call upon those favors, things could go very badly for you."

(NPC's makes a good Persuasion check--no opposed check involved): If the PCs ask... "You like this guy." Or, "You get a good feeling about this--she seems interesting to work with."

Intimidate they generally get without asking, but for Deception or Persuasion the players will generally need to ask me what sort of vibe they are getting from the person, do they seem to be honest, etc.

 

[Elredion]

"Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time." I wouldn't say that implies an attitude of apathy or indifference.

That's one interpretation, though I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I was referencing this page:
http://easydamus.com/trueneutral.html

The player is welcome to flip a coin if he or she can't decide what to do.

I mean, that's one way to do it. A 50% split seems boring when you can have something more dynamic in a game based on dice and numerical statistics.

 

[iserith]

That's one interpretation, though I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I was referencing this page:
http://easydamus.com/trueneutral.html

Mine is a direct quote from the D&D 5e Basic Rules.

I mean, that's one way to do it. A 50% split seems boring when you can have something more dynamic in a game based on dice and numerical statistics.

I'd prefer as a player and DM that the player just decide for him or herself what the character does.

 

[Elredion]

I'd prefer as a player and DM that the player just decide for him or herself what the character does.

I see your point, this lies on the side of metagaming and attempting to access behind the screen information.

Thanks for the response

 

[iserith]

I see your point, this lies on the side of metagaming and attempting to access behind the screen information.

What do you mean?

 

[Elredion]

What do you mean?

It could give the player an avenue to infer NPC statistics. Most likely wouldn't be game-breaking, but it could set a precedent that might be abused.

 

[Hriston]

I see your point, this lies on the side of metagaming and attempting to access behind the screen information.

Thanks for the response

I believe [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s point was that he prefers a game that promotes roleplay over "rollplay". Metagaming has nothing to do with it. Not having your character's decisions dictated to you does.

 

[delericho]

I will make checks for NPCs to see how convincing/honest/scary they are, but that never forces the PCs to believe or act on that information.

That's basically what I'll do - indeed, I could have used the examples almost verbatim.

The one other time I'll make a 'social' role for an NPC is if there's a direct mechanical consequence as a result of the roll - in 3e I would make a Bluff check as part of a feint, for example.