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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6727174" data-attributes="member: 996">5e gives DMs tremendous latitude with these sorts of things.  Ultimately, though, players make choices about their characters, they aren't their characters.  That's it, that was my initial reaction.They look like caricatures of an RP style made to get a point across, so I'd guess pretty near 0 /actually/ play exactly that way.  How many play in the range of styles you might be alluding to, to varying degrees, IDK, depends on how serious we're being...5e certainly presents mechanics that could be used to influence PCs, especially if PCs aren't taken as being in any way 'special' (which supposedly is an assumption 5e backed away from). How that's presented and RP'd would depend on the table.  For instance, if a DM is having an NPC deceive your character he might just give you false information, if you asked if you noticed anything suspicious about the story, he might tell you that your character doesn't know or notice anything to make him think the character is lying, tell you some more details that could make you suspicious, or call for a check to decide between the two (and the check might be 'opposed' by the NPCs deception or have a DC based on it - and the DM might even make it secretly).  So, in some cases, your character is not going to know he's being lied to.  How you deal with that is up to you.  If you have some meta-game reason to believe the character might be lying, or just know your DM well enough to suspect that's what's happening, you can have your PC react according to those opinions, instead of strictly to the information he has.  You could have your PC react according to what you think would 'make the best story,' instead.  Some would-be theorists like to label different approaches like that.  I believe the last one would be 'author stance,' for instance.In the case of undesirable influence that might involve saving throws or contested checks because DM fiat in a case like that can be a little hard to take (though it's allowed, the DM could just say "you are all shocked to see Dirk Blackpool alive, his goons have surprise" and that'd be that: you're shocked whether you think you should be or not).  In the case of positive influence the effect would likely be voluntary.That's the kind of thing 5e likes to leave to "rulings, not rules."It's 5e, there is no right or wrong interpretation of what a rule really says, there's just DM rulings.  If some interpretation of the rule doesn't agree with a DM ruling, the DM ruling stands.  If the rules inescapably disagree with a DM ruling, the DM ruling stands.Try to imagine Neo saying "There is no RAW."</blockquote>

Verification