3 ms·

That is why persuasion is not a good thing to resolve with stats. Because you’re playing a role playing game. You inevitably have to come up with an argument to

That is why persuasion is not a good thing to resolve with stats. Because you’re playing a role playing game. You inevitably have to come up with an argument to engage in persuasion. “Hey guard, give me the keys” Is not an argument that works ever. “Hey guard, give me the keys so I can save your friend” is a substantially different scenario. “Hey guard, give me the keys because we’re lifelong friends, and I’m going to save your friend, and you’ll probably die otherwise, and you owe me a debt, and because I have a solid reputation for keeping promises” is even more so. If we’re already in agreement that version 1 should be all but impossible, 2 is plausible, and 3 is narratively obvious then what’s the point of the dice? If you roll poorly are you just forgetting to say those things in 3? Because that’s just a dumb way to take agency away from the player. Persuasion isn’t meant to replace the merit of the argument. It’s meant to affect the articulation of it. But charismatic people aren’t mind controllers.

TheCleric 4y ago
No, this is where we disagree. It should suffice it to say that the player can say "I would like to attempt to convince the guard to give me his keys." THEY don't have to come up with the reason. THEY don't have to be persuasive. Just their character. > Because that’s just a dumb way to take agency away from the player. It's not taking away agency, it's allowing for the random element that is inherent to the game. If the player is a lawyer by trade, but their character has the charisma of a rock, why should they gain some sort of advantage that another player wouldn't have? Explain to me the difference between these two things: 1) Allow a character to succeed on a persuasion check because their player can personally, in real life, come up with a good argument. vs. 2) Allow a character to succeed on a strength check because their player can personally, in real life, bench press 300 pounds. In other words, why should a player's "real life" stats have an effect on their character's in game ability?
- fauxpause_ 4y ago
  So what’s the DC of the check to get the guard to agree? Is it hard because that’s a baseline very dumb request? Or is it exceptionally easy because all of the facts from v3 are true? Putting together basic facts does not require you to be a charismatic person. The problem with relying on checks is you create situations where NPCs behave according to the Charisma stat of the PC they’re interacting with rather than the context of the conversation. Which is dumb. NPCs should not act against their own interest because they’re talking to someone who is not charismatic. And it should be exceptionally hard to get people to act clearly against their own interest. This also creates a bad habit where DMs make people roll for trivial skill checks where they have a 95% chance of succeeding and a 5% chance of a fun but dumb exaggerated failure. It also encourages the non RAW interpretation where players roll HUGE numbers on trivial tasks and DM think that means they’re supposed to succeed by wider margins.
  - TheCleric 4y ago
    > So what’s the DC of the check to get the guard to agree? Depends on the situation. In situation 3, if all those things are factual and known, then for me it's a non-roll. Guaranteed to succeed. Otherwise it would depend on what's going on in the game. Are the guards on alert? Drunk? Etc. I'd start with a harder baseline (say 15-18 since guards aren't in the habit of handing out keys), and adjust from there. On alert? +7-10. Drunk? -5. If the situation renders something impossible, then it's a non-roll and I explain why. So not everything is a roll, but things that have a chance of success or failure (at DM's discretion) should be given a chance at that success or failure. Just like adjudicating anything else (I want to tame this wolf; I want to jump out of this 2nd floor window; Etc.) All I'm saying is I don't like factoring in the player's ability (or inability) to perform those tasks in the outcome, as that's unfair.
    - fauxpause_ 4y ago
      If you agree that 3 makes for an easy roll, then it’s only an easy roll if you remember it and have thought it all through. If the player points it out when asking the guard, they have achieved the same outcome by making sure you and the guard you are role playing understand the situation via real world persuasion. You’ve just shifted the burden of persuading the guard via roleplay to persuading the dm via contextual reminders which is less cool.

TheCleric 4y ago

No, this is where we disagree. It should suffice it to say that the player can say "I would like to attempt to convince the guard to give me his keys." THEY don't have to come up with the reason. THEY don't have to be persuasive. Just their character. > Because that’s just a dumb way to take agency away from the player. It's not taking away agency, it's allowing for the random element that is inherent to the game. If the player is a lawyer by trade, but their character has the charisma of a rock, why should they gain some sort of advantage that another player wouldn't have? Explain to me the difference between these two things: 1) Allow a character to succeed on a persuasion check because their player can personally, in real life, come up with a good argument. vs. 2) Allow a character to succeed on a strength check because their player can personally, in real life, bench press 300 pounds. In other words, why should a player's "real life" stats have an effect on their character's in game ability?

fauxpause_ 4y ago
So what’s the DC of the check to get the guard to agree? Is it hard because that’s a baseline very dumb request? Or is it exceptionally easy because all of the facts from v3 are true? Putting together basic facts does not require you to be a charismatic person. The problem with relying on checks is you create situations where NPCs behave according to the Charisma stat of the PC they’re interacting with rather than the context of the conversation. Which is dumb. NPCs should not act against their own interest because they’re talking to someone who is not charismatic. And it should be exceptionally hard to get people to act clearly against their own interest. This also creates a bad habit where DMs make people roll for trivial skill checks where they have a 95% chance of succeeding and a 5% chance of a fun but dumb exaggerated failure. It also encourages the non RAW interpretation where players roll HUGE numbers on trivial tasks and DM think that means they’re supposed to succeed by wider margins.
- TheCleric 4y ago
  > So what’s the DC of the check to get the guard to agree? Depends on the situation. In situation 3, if all those things are factual and known, then for me it's a non-roll. Guaranteed to succeed. Otherwise it would depend on what's going on in the game. Are the guards on alert? Drunk? Etc. I'd start with a harder baseline (say 15-18 since guards aren't in the habit of handing out keys), and adjust from there. On alert? +7-10. Drunk? -5. If the situation renders something impossible, then it's a non-roll and I explain why. So not everything is a roll, but things that have a chance of success or failure (at DM's discretion) should be given a chance at that success or failure. Just like adjudicating anything else (I want to tame this wolf; I want to jump out of this 2nd floor window; Etc.) All I'm saying is I don't like factoring in the player's ability (or inability) to perform those tasks in the outcome, as that's unfair.
  - fauxpause_ 4y ago
    If you agree that 3 makes for an easy roll, then it’s only an easy roll if you remember it and have thought it all through. If the player points it out when asking the guard, they have achieved the same outcome by making sure you and the guard you are role playing understand the situation via real world persuasion. You’ve just shifted the burden of persuading the guard via roleplay to persuading the dm via contextual reminders which is less cool.