Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 7643980" data-attributes="member: 4348">I've had several situations pop up recently with a player that wants to use this skill for EVERYTHING.They want to force other players to do what they want them to do.  The player doesn't agree with it or want to do it...they roll a persuade check.They want to persuade a soldier to defy their king and not arrest them with a persuade check.They want to seduce a Priestess of Homemaking and the Hearth (meaning that they also believe in absolute fidelity only after marriage...etc) they think they can succeed on a...persuasion check.I've basically secretly decided...they simply WILL NOT be able to actually succeed on some checks (for example, the latter, there is simply NO force possible to persuade some people to abandon principles or their personal morales).IS this a step too far?  I mean, this is a fantasy game, but in reality, you can't persuade everyone to your point of view no matter HOW Charismatic you are.  There are ALWAYS those that will have a different opinion, different idea, different morals or other things.Each of the situations above are examples of how I've handled the persuasion skill differently.1.  For the first situation, I will NEVER (or at least the situation has not come up yet) allow one Player to dictate what another player HAS to do with their PC with the exception of a few spells.  Ever.  A persuasion check is NOT going to cause another player to do what someone else wants them to do.  I think that  is against the spirit of the game and the spirit of playing.  It abridges the freedom of the other players and is sort of like almost an unacceptable power move to try to unacceptably force others to do things how you want them to do it.Does anyone see this as acceptable?What I DO currently in these situations (as I have one problem player who constantly tries to do this...actually, all of the items above center on this one player) is to tell the PC they are trying to influence that the other has rolled such and such.  In some situations I'll relay information in a way that is favorable to the Persuading Player's character's point of view, sometimes with extra information that was not there to begin with.For example, the Persuading PC wants to convince another PC to go into a building on fire to get a talisman important to the quest before the town guard comes and puts out the fire and confiscates everything in the building.  I would relay to the player that the persuasion check is against that the Persuading PC wants them to go into the building.  It appears to them that their character is the most able to get in and out with the least amount of damage and the highest amount of success compared to anyone else in the party...And then I leave it up to the player on what they want to do.  Is that too much, or too little if a persuasion check (let's say the Persuading character rolled a natural 20) succeeds against another player?Personally, I think it's trash that they would resort to trying to make a persuasion roll instead of simply talking to them over the table...but...how would people here handle it?2.  The soldier is highly loyal to the King.  Very UNLIKELY to EVER disobey, especially when not just their job, but their home and family are also subject to the whims of this ruler if they choose to betray their orders.  Thus, I allow the player to make an argument on WHY the soldier should not arrest them and depending on the statements will make the DC higher or lower.Let's say they make a very reasonable argument that seems plausible (perhaps the King will never find out, they player is innocent and needs time to prove it, seems dependable to follow through on the promise, and has shown evidence that they will turn up eventually and prove that they are innocent) I could make a DC of 10 or 15.On the otherhand, if they are not able to make a good argument, that DC could be 40 (so, yes, they can still roll and IF SOMEHOW they have the ability to make a roll that high...they would actually succeed in the check).I would modify this depending on how charasimatic the player is themselves...thus if you have a very uncharismatic player playing a charismatic PC, the player would not have to be as convincing as say...another player who was very charismatic.I think this is reasonable when strong loyalties or strong duty is present.3.  In the last case, there are some things that people are NOT going to change.  It doesn't matter if you are Henry Cavill or Bradley Cooper, you aren't going to be able to change certain people's opinion.  On these, they can make their argument or idea, and I even allow a roll...but secretly...they are ALWAYS going to fail the persuasion check.I simply don't think persuasion should be so powerful as to be all convincing no matter what, that people would simply abandon lifelong morals or convictions that they hold.  So that Bard could try to seduce all the chambermaids and whatever they want but unless the chambermaids are already predisposed in that direction or don't have qualms about being seduced, the Bard is not going to succeed constantly.  It really would depend on the character of the NPC in those areas.Basically, on some areas, the Bard will be able to succeed like normal, or even all the time if they roll well.  Other times it depends on the loyalty and convictions, and sometimes, they won't be able to succeed as the DC = impossible...ever.Is that wrong to have certain times when skills, no matter WHAT the roll...will not succeed?  Especially when, in some ways, I feel it is against the spirit of free agency and choice on what people might do if we have an iota of reality...or when other players are involved?</blockquote>

Verification