Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 8476643" data-attributes="member: 7031982">In my post you were responding to, I was suggesting that no check should be needed at all.  Since we're talking about a change in descriptive mental state...one that doesn't correlate to any change in game-state as described by the rules...then we don't need mechanics.   That is, there is no "Intimidated" or "Persuaded" state that correlates to having been intimidated or persuaded, so mechanics don't play a role.So your response doesn't make any sense to me here.  There is a threat, and it's up to the player (in their role as the character) to determine how seriously they take it.  I think that models the fiction we are trying to convey better than rolling dice and pretending to be threatened.Check.  (Although I'll add that if these are too common or too onerous, I would probably tire of the game.)So, that's not exactly right.  Or, at least, it puts a misleading spin on it.  I would say that I (and probably others) are ok with the DM deciding whether (and how) what an NPC thinks, says, or does is influenced by PC actions.  Plus that's what the rules say: the DM can simply decide.  If the DM decides that a PCs attempt to influence an NPC might work, but might not, and the DM wants to resolve that uncertainty by asking for a PC ability check, that's ok, too.  But that's the DM's choice; he/she can also just choose the outcome.Right.  Many of us think players should have at least as much say over their PCs as the DM has over their NPCs: that is, both should decide if attempts to influence their characters are successful, and if so, how.  (If an individual player wants to let the dice decide for them, they should also have that right.)Clearly!So here is where I think you are starting to conflate "attempts to influence characters (PC or NPC)" with specific skills.  I'm concerned with all attempts to influence decision-making, which meet these two criteria:1. Have the goal of causing (or preventing) certain action declarations by a target character2. Without using abilities that have specific mechanics achieving the desired effect (e.g. a charm person spell)Now, some action declarations that meet those criteria may be described using a word that matches a skill: e.g., "I try to intimidate the captive" seems to align with the "Intimidation" skill.  Some of them don't have an obvious associated skill: e.g. "I try to seduce the princess".  And some action declarations sound like a specific skill, but may actually be a better fit with a different skill: "I try to deceive the guard by handing him the key, but I really pocket the key and hand him a different one."  And, finally, even when the correlation to a skill is obvious, the acting character may not actually have proficiency in that skill, but it still gets resolved the same way.The point of all of those examples is that I think it's a mistake...it's a distraction...to put any focus on the skills themselves.  Again, we are just talking about resolving action declarations which:1) Are meant to influence another character's decision-making...2) ...in the absence of an ability that has a specific mechanic for doing soAnd that's why you lost me there.  Because we're not concerned only about intimidation and persuasion.  Or we shouldn't be.  Or, at least, I'm not.  I'm concerned about any attempts at influence that don't rely on a clearly defined mechanic.So for the rest of this, I'll pretend we're talking about all those cases.Thus, likewise, the power to adjudicate those attempts should be a mirror.  That is, the "owner" of the target character should have absolute authority to determine the outcome.  If they aren't sure what the outcome should be, they are free to rely on whatever resolution they like.Honestly not even sure what you're saying here.  I think what you are saying is that it's fine for the DM to have absolute executive fiat over attempts to influence their NPCs, but it's problematic for players to have the same authority over their characters.  If so, I disagree.  And maybe we're stuck there, because good luck proving it either way.NPCs can use intimidation and persuasion.  And deception.  And seduction.  And flattery.  And ridicule.It's even possible that the player of their target may, in resolving the outcome, ask for the DM to make an attribute roll to help them decide.  And they may further grant a proficiency bonus for certain skills.  And it's even possible, although not guaranteed, that the name of that skill will be a word that sounds a lot like a word that was used in the original action declaration.But nobody, neither PC nor NPC, can "use the Persuasion skill".  That's just not how it works.</blockquote>

Verification