Pretty sure this is happening in my game
-
Holy shit. No. I am not talking about spell save DCs; I am talking about circumstances that would provide a bonus or penalty that might not appear on your character sheet, using magical effects as an example.
Yes, you are, and you don’t know enough to know what you just said.
“I have a super high iron will and so I get a +40 to any mind affecting spells!”
-
Yes, you are, and you don’t know enough to know what you just said.
“I have a super high iron will and so I get a +40 to any mind affecting spells!”
Let’s use a different example then.
The characters have entered a room where the wind is absolutely howling, affecting their hearing, movement and balance. Anything they do in that room that requires a listen, movement or a balance check, has a -5 penalty. That is a circumstancial penalty.
The same can be done through magical means.
-
Let’s use a different example then.
The characters have entered a room where the wind is absolutely howling, affecting their hearing, movement and balance. Anything they do in that room that requires a listen, movement or a balance check, has a -5 penalty. That is a circumstancial penalty.
The same can be done through magical means.
Sure.
And you as the player are the one who decides what the metaphorical wind is like for your character’s attitude towards the people and world around them.
Don’t trust the king? Good news, you can tell the DM that, and they can’t say “yes you do” unless you are affected by magic. They also can’t roll the king’s Persuasion to change your character’s mind about that without you agreeing to how the DC is set, including potentially a straight contested roll.
Or, to put it another way:
Just because they didn’t find a trap in the hallway doesn’t mean they have to think there isn’t one, especially if there’s a posted sign saying “This hallway is trapped.”
-
Sure.
And you as the player are the one who decides what the metaphorical wind is like for your character’s attitude towards the people and world around them.
Don’t trust the king? Good news, you can tell the DM that, and they can’t say “yes you do” unless you are affected by magic. They also can’t roll the king’s Persuasion to change your character’s mind about that without you agreeing to how the DC is set, including potentially a straight contested roll.
Or, to put it another way:
Just because they didn’t find a trap in the hallway doesn’t mean they have to think there isn’t one, especially if there’s a posted sign saying “This hallway is trapped.”
There is a difference between “you believe what they say” and “you can’t tell if they are lying.” The sense motive roll’s outcome only says whether or not they can tell if another character is lying; not even what the lie is or have anything to affect their personal belief. He might know the cleric is a bad guy; he just can’t prove it.
-
The big problem with twists like these…
If you know they’re coming, it sort of ruins the surprise. If the GM asks if it’s okay to have party betrayal (or if someone else asks and the GM says yes) then you’re constantly on the lookout for it - because why would they ask if it was irrelevant? Of course, nothing says the GM can’t ask an irrelevant question in the same manner they keep irrelevant minis next to their screen, but it’s something that’s usually frowned upon (what amounts to non-consensual PVP), so if it’s known to be ok, you’ll be looking out for it and then the twist won’t stick.
Of course, if you don’t know it’s coming, then it’s never a place your brain will go. You aren’t just going to accuse a character (and thus player) of working against the party because that’s a heavy accusation. It carries a lot of weight behind it since you’re only a few steps down from calling someone a problem player. Players often don’t have a good enough grasp on other players’ characters to notice behavioral shifts, and players often don’t have good enough acting skills to roleplay them correctly.
I’ve yet to hear a story where someone figured this kind of twist out before the reveal, and that doesn’t surprise me at all.
You could privately talk to your GM and say your character wants to cover all of their bases, so just like batman, spends time strategizing about how to defeat the other party members and making preparations in case they betray the group or him. Like a ring of concentration that also has an anti-magic curse activated when the correct word is spoken in its vicinity for the mage, secretly planted on the body of a mob that your character manages to get to before the party loots.
And then, of course, you’re in a position where you could betray the party and surprise even the GM.
Though a counter argument to what you’re saying is that deception games are a thing and the players knowing that there are enemies in the group doesn’t make those games trivial to figure out. A deception RPG could be interesting to play.
-
There is a difference between “you believe what they say” and “you can’t tell if they are lying.” The sense motive roll’s outcome only says whether or not they can tell if another character is lying; not even what the lie is or have anything to affect their personal belief. He might know the cleric is a bad guy; he just can’t prove it.
And he can think whatever the fuck he wants about that, which is entirely my point, because he, as a theoretically sentient being, is aware that he is flawed.
Unless there’s a character driven reason not to! Arrogance, naivete, backstory, whatever.
But, more pressingly, my point is to make you aware that there are more options available to the system for Deception checks than pure statblock measuring! And every table should be aware of that!
As well as the fact that Persuasion and Deception are not mind control.
Which I’m still not convinced you are, because this argument is still going.
-
And he can think whatever the fuck he wants about that, which is entirely my point, because he, as a theoretically sentient being, is aware that he is flawed.
Unless there’s a character driven reason not to! Arrogance, naivete, backstory, whatever.
But, more pressingly, my point is to make you aware that there are more options available to the system for Deception checks than pure statblock measuring! And every table should be aware of that!
As well as the fact that Persuasion and Deception are not mind control.
Which I’m still not convinced you are, because this argument is still going.
As well as the fact that Persuasion and Deception are not mind control.
No fucking shit. I agree with that, my argument is that knowing the truth and believing it are two different things. It doesn’t affect their beliefs or motivations; it’s a god damn lie detector test.
At this point I can only come to two conclusions: You either don’t have a strong grasp of English or you are willfully not reading what I am saying.
-
As well as the fact that Persuasion and Deception are not mind control.
No fucking shit. I agree with that, my argument is that knowing the truth and believing it are two different things. It doesn’t affect their beliefs or motivations; it’s a god damn lie detector test.
At this point I can only come to two conclusions: You either don’t have a strong grasp of English or you are willfully not reading what I am saying.
And
A
Player
Can
Decide
They
Do
Not
Care
What
The
Lie
Detector
Says
Or
How
It’s
Calibrated
It’s a particularly interesting example you’ve chosen given that lie detectors are fucking pseudoscience and a specific character might not believe one single fucking thing they say
-
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.
