Inspiration is a PC-on-PC Social Skills Question

[mellored]

Some would hold that magic is the explanation and not just a handwaving of the explanation...

Then tell me how charm person works?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Thanks for the example. I definitely am against this. Mostly because I don't believe the chance of success or failure is uncertain so a roll shouldn't be called for to begin with. The rogue does something to try and persuade the barbarian to trust the rogue. The player of the barbarian decides if that succeeds or fails. No roll required.

From this example I can somewhat see the parallel. The player of the barbarian has a right to decide if the barbarian is inspired by whatever the warlord would do. I tend to agree.

Yeah. In turn, it's not even that the barbarian can choose to turn down the offered benefit. It's that, in doing so, it invalidates the warlord player's character choice. If the others repeatedly fail to accept the warlord's favors, the warlord player's contribution will become marginalized. We end up with a lose-lose situation. Either the other players forfeit agency by allowing the warlord to be "their inspiration", using whatever rationale they can stomach, or the warlord player loses his fun. There in lies the rub.

However, DND 5e already has specific class mechanics that circumvent this decision process in the combat portion of the game. I'm not sure why a game that already circumvents this decision to be inspired by an ally during combat scenarios should be prohibited from having more of such mechanics. While in skill type interactions there is no circumvention of player agency in these regards.

Salt is an important, useful, and flavor-enhancing ingredient, when used in the correct proportions, to prepare almost any meal. But one should not just shovel spoonfuls of raw sodium in their mouth and call it dinner.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Then tell me how charm person works?

Perhaps this is as telling as anything. That you do not understand such a basic thing maybe should inform you that you may not be qualified to engage in this debate?

I recommend getting your hands on a 5e PHB and reading through it. The answers you seek are in there.

 

[mellored]

Perhaps this is as telling as anything. That you do not understand such a basic thing maybe should inform you that you may not be qualified to engage in this debate?

The only attempt at an explanation i see is..

In casting a spell, a character carefully plucks at the invisible strands of raw magic suffusing the world, pins them in place in a particular pattern, sets them vibrating in a specific way, and then releases them to unleash the desired effect—in most cases, all in the span of seconds.

Which really isn't any different from saying...

In inspiring a creature, a character carefully chooses words with deep emotional meaning, weaves them into a particular sentence, and says them in a particular way, and then is heard by the target unleashing the desired effect - in most cases, all in the span of a seconds.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Magical words? Okay. So just like a bard then. Sounds good.

 

[mellored]

Magical words? Okay. So just like a bard then. Sounds good.

I never said anything about magic.

You use words and sentences to inspire.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Then I would recommend you go back and read the OP and re-familiarize yourself with the premise of this thread.

What you are describing is exactly what [MENTION=6702445]jayoungr[/MENTION] is bringing to bear here. You are basically advocating that Player 1's character should be allowed to use social skills to influence Player 2's character, dictating their thoughts and/or feelings. Not that there is anything wrong with that playstyle preference. It just nests you firmly in that camp. Which goes a long way, again per the OP premise, towards explaining why you have no issue with warlord-esque inspirational mechanics.

 

[mellored]

Then I would recommend you go back and read the OP and re-familiarize yourself with the premise of this thread.

What you are describing is exactly what @jayoungr is bringing to bear here. You are basically advocating that Player 1's character should be allowed to use social skills to influence Player 2's character, dictating their thoughts and/or feelings. Not that there is anything wrong with that playstyle preference. It just nests you firmly in that camp. Which goes a long way, again per the OP premise, towards explaining why you have no issue with warlord-esque inspirational mechanics.

I would recommend you go back and read my post to re-familiarize yourself with my post. Because that's not what i said.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Reconsider what you are saying. Here, in your own words:

"In inspiring a creature, a character carefully chooses words with deep emotional meaning, weaves them into a particular sentence, and says them in a particular way, and then is heard by the target unleashing the desired effect - in most cases, all in the span of a seconds."

You later went on to insure we all knew it was entirely non-magical influence on an ally that achieves the desired result.

Now, explain how what I quoted is not equally applicable to a warlord inspiring an ally as it is for the rogue using a social skill check agasint his barbarian ally (as presented in my example to which you took exception).

 

[jayoungr]

However, DND 5e already has specific class mechanics that circumvent this decision process in the combat portion of the game. I'm not sure why a game that already circumvents this decision to be inspired by an ally during combat scenarios should be prohibited from having more of such mechanics. While in skill type interactions there is no circumvention of player agency in these regards.

I'm not following this. Why is there no circumvention of player agency in skill type interactions?