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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6737730" data-attributes="member: 16814">Since I feel it in poor taste to continue questioning Iserth's approach without providing my own:I let social skills affect player characters.  Deception:If a NPC lies to a PC, they roll deception opposed by the player's passive insight (Or active if the player declares he's paying close attention). If they succeed, and the player asks if they think the person is telling the truth, I tell them that they don't think he's lying.  "You don't think he's lying."  The player retains the agency to reject this belief of their characters -- to override it, as it were -- and do whatever they want or act however they want, but the social skill use sets the baseline.  They can choose to deviate.  If the NPC fails to succeed at his deception check, I tell the player that they think that the NPC isn't being fully truthful.  They, again, retain the agency to do whatever they want to, including overriding that statement and setting their PC at whatever mental state they wish.For diplomacy, I use a number of different approaches.  Usually, a successful diplomacy check by an NPC targeting a PC to improve attitudes will result in me telling the player that his character feels the NPC is being very charming and friendly.  Again, the PC has the right to reset that opinion wherever he wants, but the roll establishes the baseline.  I have been known to give an NPC advantage on other social checks against a PC when the NPC has succeeded on a diplomacy check, which, given that I still allow the players to override, may seem moot, but it can be a tremendous advantage in a multi-party situation where the PCs are negotiating between multiple other NPCs.  Or in attempting to haggle - a NPC that gets a good diplomacy off against the players does a much better job in setting a price beneficial to the NPC.  Intimidate:  a successful intimidate check contested by the PCs CHA save, resulting in the PC having disadvantage against the intimidater on all social checks for the duration of the social encounter.  If the PC chooses to initiate combat (or the NPC initiates combat), the PC has disadvantage on the first attack roll made against that NPC.  This applies even if the PC is substantially higher in power than the NPC -- every can get that momentary doubt or fear of confrontation, especially weak personality 20th level fighters that dump-statted CHA.  This doesn't mean you can't punch the guy that intimidated you -- you can if you want -- it just represents the fact that you're a bit off when you do so.That's pretty much how I work social skills.  They impact the PCs, and set baseline opinions and feelings, but the PCs are ultimately under the direction of the players and they can override if they want.  In the case of deception, it's mostly a wash between my method and Iserth's in that the player makes the ultimate decision in either case.  Granted, I have the intermediate horribad step of daring to tell a player what his character thinks, but I'm okay there and so are my players.  Diplomacy can have major ramifications when dealing with other NPCs, or when offloading loot, but neither really restrict the players either.  Intimidate may have the largest mechanical effect, but it's still within the spirit of the rules and I think it works well within the spirit and intent of intimidate.Now, please be certain that all of that gets described and roleplayed out.  I believe in letting the dice inform roleplaying, not replace it.  The dice should have an impact, but it's up to the players and myself how to put that impact into our roleplaying.</blockquote>

Verification