Wrong. For one thing, players don’t have to agree to contested persuasion at all, feel free to look that up. Even if they do it’s not just a simple dice contest, otherwise every face character would have free mind control over their entire party.
For example:
Player Elon Musk throws a Nazi salute. He uses his Deception +6 to claim that’s not what it is, rolls a 5 for a total of 11.
Player Not A Moron rolls a 1. This does not matter, because they know what they saw, and further, they remember all that other Nazi shit he’s been saying. They have effectly set their own Deception/Persuasion check DC to 30+, or roll+bonus+30 circumstance bonus.
Player Stupid Fucking Simp rolls a 20. This also does not matter because, as a stupid fucking simp, they already believe everything Elon says and take a -30 circumstantial negative and critical success skill checks are silly homebrew nonsense.
Tl;Dr you’re forgetting that circumstance, including character emotions and affection, affects difficulty of all skill checks. If a player agrees to ignore that that’s on them.
This also, btw, applies to NPCs trying to persuade the party. The DM does not a have a right to tell your character what they believe or disbelieve without magical effects.
If you think about it, beyond the fact of the player being the only one can say what their character is in totality and is biased towards as a result, this is how a system must work to prevent RPG horror stories of incels forcing other players into sexual or abusive situations, eg “ummm I rolled a +29 so your character has to sleep with mine and you have to roleplay it”
I know general game mechanics pretty well to perceive many things a character would not know. I am pretty sure that in the spirit of roleplay i have to adjust to my characters
Stats.
In the example it would be Elon rolling their deception against my intelligence/perception, which whatever skill the Dm decides is most relevant. Also because the game
Master is always right and has the final say as an actual dictator.
The player abuse and sex stuff just seems like a consent issue. There are probably groups that are into that just like there are many that don’t. A good Dm and play group should communicate beforehand if they allow such things and also respect peoples wish to stop playing if they are uncomfortable.
It could be, but it doesn’t have to be. It all depends on the characters involved.
The DM can referee in the dispute but they (usually) can’t say your character would or wouldn’t believe something.
A good DM might ask you to in-character justify your bias, for example. They’re also supposed to listen if you say “I don’t trust Count Fuckface on account of him having a history of being a Fuckface and also he’s standing over a cooling corpse with bloody hands.”
If a player is metagaming that’s a separate problem from their character being biased, or having a reasonably justified suspicion or whatever.
Or never, ever being interested in the creepy player’s character because they don’t like their vibes.
In what edition of the rules, for what system, and what page number of that rulebook would I find your version of these rules in?
They are not forced to believe anything; but they also can’t tell a lie was made unless they beat the bluff check with an opposing sense motive.
You might have a point if instead of suggesting the guy I killed had a heart attack, I suggested the paladin killed him and he was made to fully believe that. That’s not how persuasion works, even in PvE.
In the sections describing how skills work and what circumstances you should allow checks for them, and the sections describing bonuses to those checks, what the role of the DMs and players are, including several very specific references to how character attitudes are very important to the DCs of those checks and the fact that skills only affect those attitudes in the first place and they aren’t mind control.
This depends on the table and their own rules honestly. In my DM’s table we go for a contested roll of deception/insight between our players or between NPCs. Now this might not be RAW, but we do it that way and we like it since it creates funny and interesting scenarios.
And for the RPG horror stories bit, I don’t think that if the DM is trying to force something that they’ll just obey the dice blindly if they aren’t in their favour. They’re just gonna turn around and say “oh no, you didn’t pass the DC / my NPC also has +30 to his persuasion, you lose.”
If you didn’t think it through and thus suffer from skill issues.
And there are of course good stories to tell with it, like in this secret traitor situation, and good players will apply circumstantial bonuses fairly.
Like perhaps that paladin doesn’t WANT to believe their comrade is a murderer.
Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be aware that another player can’t force you into simple contested rolls on the nature of reality that you can’t possibly contest, ever.
Hell, even if they’re right! You can play a completely deluded madman that looks at a windmill, hears an NPC tell him the absolute, objective truth that it is a windmill, and decides it’s a giant instead.
I mean, that’s why in any such contested roll between PCs you should have both parties agree to the roll and just see how the dice land? And if they don’t agree to it, they’re free to roleplay it how they wish to. That’s how we do it at least.
I don’t see why you have to call someone’s preference on how to play a “skill issue” though.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but from their response and seeing this situation happen so often it sure doesn’t seem like the players are aware that all skill checks have inherently circumstantial difficulties.
Simple roll vs roll contests just tend to be the default of players that haven’t read the rules for these circumstances, something about the way the game is set up just doesn’t clue players into that fact.
Maybe it’s just that players simply aren’t primed to accept that they can set their own DC bonus and it’s not even metagaming? It’s basically the only circumstance that they can. It’s probably a good DM habit to get into, come to think. “What’s your character’s willingness to believe this” type prompting.
Those circumstancial bonuses or penalties are given by the DM. If the DM doesn’t inform the players what they are for the current situation, thats the fault of the DM, not the players. It also still is just a d20+bonuses. Those circumstantial things are part of the bonuses applied to the roll.
Where are you getting that players set the DC themselves? It’s set like everything else: By rolling the dice and applying all applicable bonuses and penalties. Now, I still play 3.5 and the rules for bluff vs sense motive are quite clear in the book that the player using sense motive has to just get a higher score than the bluff score. It does not at all differentiate between NPCs or PCs. And why should it? It already makes sense where the DC is coming from.
The DM sets the mental circumstances for their characters and you set yours.
Your character is not summed in its entirety by their skill bonuses, and the DM by definition does not know your character better than the person playing them.
That character, like any other person, can refuse to believe something they don’t want to believe, for whatever reason makes sense to them.
For example, they could ignore someone telling them an objective truth they could easily verify themselves by reading the relevant portion of the DMG.
I still would like to know what relevant portion of the DMG you are referring. I know of no such table for any kind of “mental circumstances” or anything close to what you’re describing. It sounds like homebrew stuff or confusion with some rules regarding psyonic abilities.
Uh… What? Your skills are still just a d20+bonuses even against another player. Their sense motive check has to beat my bluff check to catch my lie.
I roll d20, add my whopping 33 bonus to it and that’s the DC the other player’s sense motive has to beat.
Wrong. For one thing, players don’t have to agree to contested persuasion at all, feel free to look that up. Even if they do it’s not just a simple dice contest, otherwise every face character would have free mind control over their entire party.
For example:
Player Elon Musk throws a Nazi salute. He uses his Deception +6 to claim that’s not what it is, rolls a 5 for a total of 11.
Player Not A Moron rolls a 1. This does not matter, because they know what they saw, and further, they remember all that other Nazi shit he’s been saying. They have effectly set their own Deception/Persuasion check DC to 30+, or roll+bonus+30 circumstance bonus.
Player Stupid Fucking Simp rolls a 20. This also does not matter because, as a stupid fucking simp, they already believe everything Elon says and take a -30 circumstantial negative and critical success skill checks are silly homebrew nonsense.
Tl;Dr you’re forgetting that circumstance, including character emotions and affection, affects difficulty of all skill checks. If a player agrees to ignore that that’s on them.
This also, btw, applies to NPCs trying to persuade the party. The DM does not a have a right to tell your character what they believe or disbelieve without magical effects.
If you think about it, beyond the fact of the player being the only one can say what their character is in totality and is biased towards as a result, this is how a system must work to prevent RPG horror stories of incels forcing other players into sexual or abusive situations, eg “ummm I rolled a +29 so your character has to sleep with mine and you have to roleplay it”
Wouldn’t that be metagaming?
I know general game mechanics pretty well to perceive many things a character would not know. I am pretty sure that in the spirit of roleplay i have to adjust to my characters Stats.
In the example it would be Elon rolling their deception against my intelligence/perception, which whatever skill the Dm decides is most relevant. Also because the game Master is always right and has the final say as an actual dictator.
The player abuse and sex stuff just seems like a consent issue. There are probably groups that are into that just like there are many that don’t. A good Dm and play group should communicate beforehand if they allow such things and also respect peoples wish to stop playing if they are uncomfortable.
They can also use the x-card system
It could be, but it doesn’t have to be. It all depends on the characters involved.
The DM can referee in the dispute but they (usually) can’t say your character would or wouldn’t believe something.
A good DM might ask you to in-character justify your bias, for example. They’re also supposed to listen if you say “I don’t trust Count Fuckface on account of him having a history of being a Fuckface and also he’s standing over a cooling corpse with bloody hands.”
If a player is metagaming that’s a separate problem from their character being biased, or having a reasonably justified suspicion or whatever.
Or never, ever being interested in the creepy player’s character because they don’t like their vibes.
In what edition of the rules, for what system, and what page number of that rulebook would I find your version of these rules in?
They are not forced to believe anything; but they also can’t tell a lie was made unless they beat the bluff check with an opposing sense motive.
You might have a point if instead of suggesting the guy I killed had a heart attack, I suggested the paladin killed him and he was made to fully believe that. That’s not how persuasion works, even in PvE.
Every edition since at least 3.0.
In the sections describing how skills work and what circumstances you should allow checks for them, and the sections describing bonuses to those checks, what the role of the DMs and players are, including several very specific references to how character attitudes are very important to the DCs of those checks and the fact that skills only affect those attitudes in the first place and they aren’t mind control.
In other words, the whole fucking thing.
This depends on the table and their own rules honestly. In my DM’s table we go for a contested roll of deception/insight between our players or between NPCs. Now this might not be RAW, but we do it that way and we like it since it creates funny and interesting scenarios.
And for the RPG horror stories bit, I don’t think that if the DM is trying to force something that they’ll just obey the dice blindly if they aren’t in their favour. They’re just gonna turn around and say “oh no, you didn’t pass the DC / my NPC also has +30 to his persuasion, you lose.”
Sure, you can agree to anything.
If you didn’t think it through and thus suffer from skill issues.
And there are of course good stories to tell with it, like in this secret traitor situation, and good players will apply circumstantial bonuses fairly.
Like perhaps that paladin doesn’t WANT to believe their comrade is a murderer.
Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be aware that another player can’t force you into simple contested rolls on the nature of reality that you can’t possibly contest, ever.
Hell, even if they’re right! You can play a completely deluded madman that looks at a windmill, hears an NPC tell him the absolute, objective truth that it is a windmill, and decides it’s a giant instead.
I mean, that’s why in any such contested roll between PCs you should have both parties agree to the roll and just see how the dice land? And if they don’t agree to it, they’re free to roleplay it how they wish to. That’s how we do it at least.
I don’t see why you have to call someone’s preference on how to play a “skill issue” though.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but from their response and seeing this situation happen so often it sure doesn’t seem like the players are aware that all skill checks have inherently circumstantial difficulties.
Simple roll vs roll contests just tend to be the default of players that haven’t read the rules for these circumstances, something about the way the game is set up just doesn’t clue players into that fact.
Maybe it’s just that players simply aren’t primed to accept that they can set their own DC bonus and it’s not even metagaming? It’s basically the only circumstance that they can. It’s probably a good DM habit to get into, come to think. “What’s your character’s willingness to believe this” type prompting.
Those circumstancial bonuses or penalties are given by the DM. If the DM doesn’t inform the players what they are for the current situation, thats the fault of the DM, not the players. It also still is just a d20+bonuses. Those circumstantial things are part of the bonuses applied to the roll.
Where are you getting that players set the DC themselves? It’s set like everything else: By rolling the dice and applying all applicable bonuses and penalties. Now, I still play 3.5 and the rules for bluff vs sense motive are quite clear in the book that the player using sense motive has to just get a higher score than the bluff score. It does not at all differentiate between NPCs or PCs. And why should it? It already makes sense where the DC is coming from.
The DM sets the mental circumstances for their characters and you set yours.
Your character is not summed in its entirety by their skill bonuses, and the DM by definition does not know your character better than the person playing them.
That character, like any other person, can refuse to believe something they don’t want to believe, for whatever reason makes sense to them.
For example, they could ignore someone telling them an objective truth they could easily verify themselves by reading the relevant portion of the DMG.
I still would like to know what relevant portion of the DMG you are referring. I know of no such table for any kind of “mental circumstances” or anything close to what you’re describing. It sounds like homebrew stuff or confusion with some rules regarding psyonic abilities.