Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 8476677" data-attributes="member: 7031982">Ok, now I'm on a roll.  (GET IT!?!?!). I'm particularly curious how [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER], [USER=84112]@HammerMan[/USER], and [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] respond to the following, but of course I'm interested in all reactions.Upthread, [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] got a lot of pushback for saying that "there's no uncertainty" when an NPC tries to influence a PC.  Let's unpack that.First, I think we're all agreeing that the underlying assumption is that the play loop is symmetric.  That is, we resolve these action declarations ("Fred tries to intimidate Ginger") the same way, regardless whether it's PC -> NPC or NPC -> PC.One reason for that that is that there is no separate set of rules, or a separate play loop, described for NPC -> PC.  All we have to go on is the assumption that the same rules apply.  It's all we got.Ok, so the first step in that play loop is to determine whether the described action is an automatic success or an automatic failure.  If it's neither of those we move on to resolution using attributes and, perhaps, skills.So who determines, in an NPC -> PC action declaration, whether it's an automatic success or an automatic failure?There are three possibilities:a) The player decidesb) The DM decidesc) We skip this step if it's NPC -> PCIn reverse order:If we skip this step, then we are using a play loop that is not the same as the one described in the books.  But our whole premise for getting here is that we use the same play loop for NPC -> PC that we use for PC -> NPC.  There's just no way to read the published text and conclude that RAI or RAW is that only part of the play loop applies when it's NPC -> PC.So the answer can't be that we skip this step.  Somebody needs to determine if it was an automatic success or automatic failure. If it's the DM, it means that the DM has authority to just declare that the PC is persuaded, or intimidated, or seduced, or whatever.  And is there anybody actually advocating for DMs (in D&D 5e) to have that authority?  If so, then we are definitely never going to resolve this dispute, so we can stop right there.But I think most of the participants in this thread will agree that's crazy.  The DM can't...or shouldn't...just say, "The goblin flexes his muscles, and you find that intimidating and hand over all your gold."  That's just simply beyond any reasonable description of DM authority.So the person deciding if it's an auto success (or failure) can't be the DM.That leaves only the player to decide.  If it's true that the standard play loop applies to NPC -> PC action declarations, then it must also be true that the player is the one who determines whether it succeeds or fails automatically, before moving on to calling for a dice roll.Once the player has made that determination, we (maybe) move on to a dice roll.  So now the question of who decides which skill/attribute to use, what the DC is, and what the actual outcome is, including if the player must abide by the result, and how.But all of that is irrelevant because the player had the power to keep us from even getting to this step. If they want to let the dice decide for them, fine.  My opinion is that the player should also set the DC, pick the skill, and interpret the result, but if somebody else thinks the DM should do it that's fine, too: as long as the player has the authority to declare the attempt an automatic failure (or success!), then in the cases where they don't take that opportunity I don't really care how the rest of it gets resolved.(edited for persuasiveness)</blockquote>

Verification