Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8478602" data-attributes="member: 71699">See my post above. When you look at the wordings it feels like Deception is in a different category from Intimidation and Persuasion. Deception is more - this is what the check does. The others are more - maybe you'll need a check.From this poll and other discussion, it feels like many DMs are comfortable misleading player-characters. There are different ideas about the best way to do that, of course. Most DMs draw the line at ability checks being used to say what a player-character will do (overriding player will in that instance.) Perhaps because there are no clear limits on how that could be used (in contrast to say a spell that has the same result.)Thinking idly about social interactions as a game mechanism, one may see Insight as a defense, Deception deciding belief or disbelief, and Intimidation and Persuasion influencing actor choices. The outcome of an Intimidation or Persuasion check can be that an actor has to make a given choice. Whereas the outcome of a Deception check can be that an actor has misinformation: they're mislead in some respect. Insight guards against Deception.What is harder to see in respect of game qua game, is whether or how misinformation is supposed to interact with influencing? Something I have been investigating is the possibility that something is tacitly required in order to exert influence: a believable threat for Intimidation, or a believable benefit for Persuasion. Deception then has an obvious part to play.It's not that I believe these skills must work together as a mechanism, or were necessarily designed that way, but I think they may do and that there are some opportunities around that. My overall theory of D&D mechanisms is still evolving, as I believe it must accommodate some things that are not accommodated in your current theory. Not so much saying that your theory is wrong, but it seems incomplete or wrong in parts. When one has that kind of intuition it often turns out that there is some consideration that hasn't turned up or been unpacked yet. I had wondered if Deception could be such a consideration seeing as only by weasel-wording could one really avoid a check feeling very reasonable. Now I think Deception is just in a different category... but then maybe that category itself is a challenge to your theory?</blockquote>

Verification