NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8441906" data-attributes="member: 16814">Wordcount aside, I see little merit in most of your positions in this thread.  They are badly premised on mostly a series of false equivalences.Take your claim that the Duel of Wits is the same as a persuasion check.  This is a false equivalency on the order of saying that fuzzy catepillars and bears both have hairs and so are the same.  It is, on one hand, not entirely untrue.  In both the DoW and in some CHA(persuasion) checks, the goal is to get another to agree with your want.  Rasputin and Davy Crocket both had facial hair as well.  They are still not the same.So, let's look at the differences:CHA (persuasion) check:Who frames the scene: GMWho frames the conflict:  GMWho frames the action:  playerWho asks for the check:  GM (any player attempt to initiate a check is gated by the GM)Who determines the success of a check: GM first, then, if allowed, systemWho determines the outcomes:  GM, based on their understanding of the fiction and their notesDuel of Wits:Who frames the scene: GMWho frames the conflict:  GM or player (the GM may have a conflict framed in the scene or the player may introduce a new conflict into the scene)Who frames the action:  playerWho asks for the check: GM or player (either the player or the GM can call for a Duel of Wits)Who determines the success of a check: system alwaysWho determines the outcomes:  on success, the player.  On failure, the GM, based on their understanding of player intentLet's apply this to a topic you're sure to remember:  The Burgomaster of Vallaki from Curse of Strahd.  In the backstory of the module, the Baron is listed as 100% resistant to attempts to convince him his approach is wrong.  Here are relevant passages:andFrom these, the notes clearly indicate an attempt to get the Baron to abandon their festivals will result in the Baron becoming upset and trying to run the players out of town.SO, in the CHA(Persuasion) format for a scene framed between a character trying to convince the Baron to abandon their approach for a different one:Who frames the scene: This will be framed by the GM. Let's go with the GM has decided the scene will play out in the Burgomaster's office.Who frames the conflict:  The GM will present the conflict, probably via playacting the Burgomaster for a bit and then waiting for the player to respond.  No direct conflict will be presented, only latent conflicts to be discovered via action declarations.  Perhaps the Burgomaster will offer for the PC to join the Burgomater in trying to get everyone happy.Who frames the action:  The player will present the action to try to convince the Burgomaster of a different course.Who asks for the check:  The GM will evaluate this action and determine if a check is allowed.  The GM may decide that, given the backstory, there's no hope of success.  Alternatively, the GM may allow a check.Who determines the success of a check: The GM does.  They may rule that it's a failure no matter what because of the backstory.  The may allow a roll and set an impossible DC to represent this.  They may decide to let the dice determine how back the result is.  Entirely up to the GM what counts as success here.Who determines the outcomes:  Again the GM entirely.  If they allow the roll and grant a success, that can look like anything they want -- the Burgomaster may decide that this is a funny joke and explain how wrong the player is but not move a bit on the intent of the action.  Or, they may decide, regardless of the check (if allowed) that the Burgomaster calls for guards.  Or plays along until he can set up some overwhelming force against the PCs.  Regardless, the outcome space here is entirely up to the GM and the GM's appreciation of the situation, backstory, and extrapolation from both.Now, for Duel of Wits:Who frames the scene: The GM frames the scene with an eye towards the PC's goals -- in this case, we have to assume that the Burgomaster is being created and framed to challenge a PC Belief or other dramatic need.  Let's say that the PC has the Belief "I will stand up against oppression wherever I find it."  Hence, the Burgomaster being oppressive in the way they are oppressive is created in order to challenge this.  It is not a scene that is stumbled upon.  So, most of the backstory here about the Burgomaster's brittleness or reactions to events cannot exist.  You cannot prewrite this at all.Who frames the conflict:  The conflict here will be initially framed by the GM.  Since the Burgomaster is a test to the player Belief, there must be an immediate conflict -- here let's say that the Burgomaster has presented the player an ultimatum to join his tyranny or be exiled.  This will trigger conflict, of which a DoW is readily apparent.Who frames the action:  The player will declare an action in response.  If they challenge the Burgomaster with an attempt to convince him his approach is wrong, we have established opposing wants and a non-violent approach, so a Duel of Wits is very appropriate.Who asks for the check: Either the GM can determine this action fits a DoW and call for it or the player can call for it directly as part of their action declaration.  Either is binding on the game -- if the player calls for this, the GM cannot refuse.  Play is now about this.Who determines the success of a check: The system 100% does this work.  You follow the format of the DoW, the system provides the necessary format, and checks are made until resolved according to the system.Who determines the outcomes:  If the player succeeds, they determine the outcome -- the Burgomaster will have a change of heart and abandon their attempts at tyranny.  On a failure, the GM must act against the player's intent with the DoW.  This can be that the PC is instead convinced of the Burgomaster's approach (if this is on the table, it's established as the stakes of the DoW early on and agreed to by the player) and joins the Burgomaster, thus resolving their Belief and finding out that, no, their character will not oppose tyranny wherever they find it.  Or, perhaps, the stakes set that the Burgomaster calls for guards to take the PC out of town, exiled.  Hopefully, this clearly demonstrates that saying a Duel of Wits is the same as a CHA (persuasion) check is the kind of false equivalency that pairs nicely with saying that F-35 Strikefighters and tampons are the same because they both (can) have wings.</blockquote>

Verification