Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 8471211" data-attributes="member: 3400">Social skills working on PCs, whether between me as DM and my NPCs or between fellow PCs, follows the same basic convention - the player decides what to believe and do unless there is a game mechanical result for the situation, then the game mechanical result applies if the PC's defenses/target number were met.For example, lying to a PC - if a deception check exceeds the PC's insight check, they don't necessarily believe the lie, rather I tell them that &quot;they seem to be sincere, or if they're lying, you can't detect any tells that they are&quot;. I'll tell them the same thing if they apply their insight against someone telling the truth too. The player can decide for themselves what to believe based on that.For second example, persuasion on a PC - I have no problem with describing the attempt to persuade the PC based on the outcome of the persuasion check such as &quot;they make a strong argument with no obvious holes in it&quot; or &quot;the idea isn't bad, but they don't seem to press it with conviction&quot;. They can then decide whether or not to agree or comply with the request/entreaty.For a 3rd example, intimidation on a PC - there are little/no obvious mechanical results in 5e, but in editions where there are (shaken status in 3e), then yeah, PCs are totally intimidatable in the sense that an enemy with a good intimidation check could leave the PCs shaken if they hit the appropriate target number with their intimidation check. The player may still claim to have bravado, but that -2 still applies to their PC's attacks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 8471211, member: 3400"] Social skills working on PCs, whether between me as DM and my NPCs or between fellow PCs, follows the same basic convention - the player decides what to believe and do unless there is a game mechanical result for the situation, then the game mechanical result applies if the PC's defenses/target number were met. For example, lying to a PC - if a deception check exceeds the PC's insight check, they don't necessarily believe the lie, rather I tell them that "they seem to be sincere, or if they're lying, you can't detect any tells that they are". I'll tell them the same thing if they apply their insight against someone telling the truth too. The player can decide for themselves what to believe based on that. For second example, persuasion on a PC - I have no problem with describing the attempt to persuade the PC based on the outcome of the persuasion check such as "they make a strong argument with no obvious holes in it" or "the idea isn't bad, but they don't seem to press it with conviction". They can then decide whether or not to agree or comply with the request/entreaty. For a 3rd example, intimidation on a PC - there are little/no obvious mechanical results in 5e, but in editions where there are (shaken status in 3e), then yeah, PCs are totally intimidatable in the sense that an enemy with a good intimidation check could leave the PCs shaken if they hit the appropriate target number with their intimidation check. The player may still claim to have bravado, but that -2 still applies to their PC's attacks. [/QUOTE]

Verification