Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7337749" data-attributes="member: 97077">Interesting stuff, thanks for taking the time to post it! My skills are lacking in this department so I like reading about the maths under the hood as it were. I have something of an intuitive sense of things when it comes to difficulty and challenges, but it's neat to see the maths spelled out.In general, I don't specify a DC in my preparations because I think that puts the cart before the horse - after all, I can't decide on a DC until a player states a goal and approach with an uncertain outcome. That said, if I do call for a check, it's going to be DC 10, 15, or 20 usually. That'll be a straight roll for swaying an undecided voter unless one of the claimants is trying to thwart the PCs' efforts in which case it will be an opposed check. Both claimants have a +6 to their respective ability checks in this regard. So call that a DC 16 or 17 depending on however you want to round. They will tend to oppose the most charismatic PC during the challenge, but can't be everywhere all the time, leaving open the possibility that other PCs can go off on their own to sway voters and perhaps have an easier time of it. I think this works well because it encourages more than just the "face" to interact and creates a more dynamic scene.A successful result in swaying a voter (check or not) means that the voter is now "decided" for whomever the PCs are advocating - let's call that a "partisan" for ease of reference. A failure means that the voter is now a partisan for whomever the PCs are opposing. Attempting to sway a partisan is always at disadvantage if there's a check and there are no retries after a failure to sway a partisan - they are locked into their position. So everything is based on the PCs' results - the claimants won't be engaged in the same way as the PCs which should take less time to resolve. Every failure the PCs make is a success for a claimant.Here's a further complication: A claimant opposed to the PCs (which could be one or both claimants) becomes an Antagonist. In my games, an Antagonist has personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws just like the PCs do. Players in my game can "claim Inspiration" whenever they play to their personal characteristics, limit one per category per session. Antagonists can effectively do the same - I portray a personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw and "claim Villainy," again, up to 4 times. While the players can spend their Inspiration to give their character advantage, the DM can spend Villainy to impart disadvantage on the character's d20 rolls. So, in addition to opposing the most charismatic character, there is also the option to impart disadvantage on a roll by spending Villainy up to 4 times. Or up to 8 times if the PCs are opposing both claimants by making a claim for one of their own.That said, the players have an option to prevent the Antagonist from earning Villainy. If they are able to figure out an Antagonist's personal characteristics before they are put on display, perhaps by observing mannerisms and body language and making a successful Wisdom (Insight) check, it stops them from gaining Villainy by playing to a particular characteristic. So, for example, if the insightful fighter PC hangs back during the talking and observes the Antagonist, he or she might be able to figure out the NPC's bond. Now the DM can't play to that bond to earn Villainy. This encourages the non-charismatic players to engage in the interaction and help out and, in general, sets up an incentive to figure out the NPC's hidden motivations and traits.How does that look in terms of difficulty to you now?</blockquote>

Verification