Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7111842">Oh, I see.No, there's no &quot;persuading&quot; of the DM that your approach will work.&nbsp; Whether or not a skill test is required depends on whether or not there's impact on the game.&nbsp; If the success of your adventure depends on getting through the town gate RIGHT NOW, then a roll is going to be required, not matter how brilliant the plan (see below).&nbsp; If you're just roleplaying the town guard questioning visitors because that adds environmental flavor, then no roll will be required.Whether or not the roll is required, the player is free to narrate how they tried to persuade the guard.&nbsp; (In my opinion, if they can't really think of something novel/interesting that will contribute to the game, don't waste precious game minutes forcing them to.&nbsp; Accept the roll and keep going.)Now, let's say the player rolls a natural 20 AND has all kinds of bonuses.&nbsp; By definition it was brilliant persuasion.&nbsp; So now, no matter what crazy narration he concocts, it's &quot;brilliant&quot;.&nbsp; If he used some far-fetched excuse, then my response (as the DM) would be to say, &quot;As it just so happens, by strange coincidence...&quot; and then explain how that was actually the perfect argument to use with this particular guard.That's &quot;roll then narrate&quot;.&nbsp; It could also be &quot;don't roll then narrate&quot; (if no roll is needed).&nbsp; First resolve success by the mechanical rules, then retroactively add the fluff.EDIT: I'll add that I realize this won't sit right with some people.&nbsp; Some of you probably think that a great plan, or great acting, or whatever, should somehow alter the odds of success.&nbsp; I also have played that way a lot, and sometimes still do, but overall I think I prefer to be the neutral arbiter, not the evaluator of how good somebody's plan/acting is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7111842"] Oh, I see. No, there's no "persuading" of the DM that your approach will work. Whether or not a skill test is required depends on whether or not there's impact on the game. If the success of your adventure depends on getting through the town gate RIGHT NOW, then a roll is going to be required, not matter how brilliant the plan (see below). If you're just roleplaying the town guard questioning visitors because that adds environmental flavor, then no roll will be required. Whether or not the roll is required, the player is free to narrate how they tried to persuade the guard. (In my opinion, if they can't really think of something novel/interesting that will contribute to the game, don't waste precious game minutes forcing them to. Accept the roll and keep going.) Now, let's say the player rolls a natural 20 AND has all kinds of bonuses. By definition it was brilliant persuasion. So now, no matter what crazy narration he concocts, it's "brilliant". If he used some far-fetched excuse, then my response (as the DM) would be to say, "As it just so happens, by strange coincidence..." and then explain how that was actually the perfect argument to use with this particular guard. That's "roll then narrate". It could also be "don't roll then narrate" (if no roll is needed). First resolve success by the mechanical rules, then retroactively add the fluff. EDIT: I'll add that I realize this won't sit right with some people. Some of you probably think that a great plan, or great acting, or whatever, should somehow alter the odds of success. I also have played that way a lot, and sometimes still do, but overall I think I prefer to be the neutral arbiter, not the evaluator of how good somebody's plan/acting is. [/QUOTE]

Verification