D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[Reynard]

In the inspirational fiction, how many author's wishes are being served by the story?

If the players and the GMs goals are at odds, you have problems in combat and exploration, too.

 

[Maxperson]

unless the weird NPC had magic

I said that in the post you quoted

 

[Reynard]

It's a mental combat to force the PC/NPC to do something. If he would never do such a thing, can the player or DM just say no? Can he say that no matter how the social combat turns out that he isn't going to do that thing? If yes, then it's still up to the player do decide and agency is preserved. Of course, if it's yes then the social combat isn't necessary since it's up to the player/DM to decide just like it is now.

It would preserve exactly as much agency as physical combat -- which is to say, whatever the group agreed upon when choosing to play the game.

It is very strange to me that people immediately leap to the worst possible interpretation. Why would "social combat" outcomes be any less genre and tone appropriate than any other outcome?

 

[Maxperson]

I think you are talking about two very different things. I've not seen anything in 5e that convinces me that D&D is getting far from Trad play. I've got 5e published modules. They look very much like Trad play.

"Rulings over rules" is intended to explain why 5e is less rules light than 3e, and not that it requires less preparation. It's meant to suggest that the DM should be relying on their judgment to improvise rules to cover all the edge cases that the rules of 5e don't cover. It's very much meant to inform a process of play where the players give free form natural language propositions that won't be covered by the rules and therefore require "rulings". This contrasts strongly I think with PbtA rules where all possible propositions are Moves that the rules cover completely.

Not exactly correct. At least a half dozen times across the 5e DMG, the DM is told that the rules serve the DM, not the other way around. The "rulings over rules" mantra is also very much intended to let the DM know that the rules are subservient to his fiat and he can and should change them if they get in the way of how he wants to run his game. It's not just about filling in the blanks left by the rules as written.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

To me? No. Salesmen don't have that kind of control, but mostly because I scrutinize everything and trust little that they say. From the flip side, it's amazing the kind of control over some people that salesmen have.

okay so you may be that 1 in a million iron will no one can change you, and also so skilled and smart that no one can lie to you manipulate you or trick you. I will assume that this is 100% with out question true.
DO you honestly believe the same is true for most people?

When I was young and worked in retail, I worked sales at a company similar to Bed, Bath and Beyond. I came up to a woman who had almost an entire bathroom picked out for her house. She told me how much she liked those items and asked my opinion. The colors didn't go well together and I told her that. Without any hesitation she put all of it down and asked me to pick out stuff for her. Stuff that SHE liked and wanted got tossed away because I gave my opinion. Still, that's very different from going up to her and talking her into buying something that she hates.

I can't say I have not seen the same or worse...

That's the key here. We all like things that we don't need, so it's pretty easy to talk us into buying things we like, but don't need.

DO you honestly believe (remember the above we are assuming you are 100% immune to any influence of others) that most people can not be talked into thinking they want something that they not only have no need for, but will not use and don't really want? Like the joke about exercise equipment never used except to fold laundry, or shoes that someone buys and can't walk in when they get home?

 

[Celebrim]

is not this DM fiat?

It's a very different sort of fiat than the one being discussed. Rulings don't address the fiction or secrets of the game in any direct manner. The most power that offering rulings would give the GM is the ability to say no to local proposition like, "I jump between the galloping horses and disconnect the tongue from the carriage." It's kind of a crude and blunt for instrument to use to gain control of the narrative compared to inventing new fictional positioning like: "Yes, and [because you did that] a previously unseen dragon then comes along and grabs the carriage lifting the princess away." If you are having trouble seeing that, I'm not sure how to explain it to you.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In the inspirational fiction, how many author's wishes are being served by the story?

in a none shared universe 1

 

[Maxperson]

It would preserve exactly as much agency as physical combat -- which is to say, whatever the group agreed upon when choosing to play the game.

It is very strange to me that people immediately leap to the worst possible interpretation. Why would "social combat" outcomes be any less genre and tone appropriate than any other outcome?

As long as I can override the results of the combat if it would cause my character to do something he wouldn't do, I'm fine with whatever social combat rules you want to use. I know my character and what he would or would not do, and what he might do.

 

[Celebrim]

Not exactly correct. At least a half dozen times across the 5e DMG, the DM is told that the rules serve the DM, not the other way around. The "rulings over rules" mantra is also very much intended to let the DM know that the rules are subservient to his fiat and he can and should change them if they get in the way of how he wants to run his game. It's not just about filling in the blanks left by the rules as written.

Ok... ummm... not really seeing how that changes anything. Are you not seeing a difference between being empowered to create rulings and being empowered to change the fiction on a whim?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's a very different sort of fiat than the one being discussed. Rulings don't address the fiction or secrets of the game in any direct manner. The most power that offering rulings would give the GM is the ability to say no to local proposition like, "I jump between the galloping horses and disconnect the tongue from the carriage." It's kind of a crude and blunt for instrument to use to gain control of the narrative compared to inventing new fictional positioning like: "Yes, and [because you did that] a previously unseen dragon then comes along and grabs the carriage lifting the princess away." If you are having trouble seeing that, I'm not sure how to explain it to you.

I just don't see (not even just here now but in general ever) someone pushing for a DM to

"Yes, and [because you did that] a previously unseen dragon then comes along and grabs the carriage lifting the princess away."

although this is selling me on never wanting to look into FATE...