this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2025
522 points (98.7% liked)
RPGMemes
13968 readers
1525 users here now
Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
The multiple sections where it says the DM doesn't control the PCs and describes the mechanics and reasons to roll skill checks in the first place.
Having a section describing how to do a contested roll isn't the same thing as saying that is how you handle all player vs player skill checks, and it assumes you know that circumstances should affect the rolls beyond the numbers on your character sheet.
Tbf 5.0 is actually pretty bad about splitting up this information between the PHB and DMG, and assuming players have a better grasp of the whole picture than it should.
For example, in that Contested Roll section, it has this paragraph:
"Both participants in a contest make ability checks appropriate to their efforts. They apply all appropriate bonuses and penalties, but instead of comparing the total to a DC, they compare the totals of their two checks. The participant with the higher check total wins the contest. That character or monster either succeeds at the action or prevents the other one from succeeding."
It assumes you know this has to be used with the sections describing things like environmental and attitude bonuses, and the sections on player agency and cooperative play, or for that matter NPC attitude tiers and how those specifically work with Deception and Persuasion, but it's easy to gloss over that line and think it simply refers to a character stat line.
It also assumes you know that rolling that as contest was an option and not a requirement in the first place.
The DM isn't controlling the players. The player of the paladin is choosing to use sense motive against my bluff checks.
Again, any circumstancial penalties or bonuses that are not inherent on your sheet are typically given by the DM. Such as you entering a room that has some kind of field or obstacle that imposes a penalty or confers a buff. It does not mean that a player can say "I have a super high iron will and so I get a +40 to any mind affecting spells!"
Not what I'm saying, and I know you don't understand the problem, because you're talking about spell save DCs which are not skill checks and are specifically under DM purview as a magical mind altering effect.
Think of it like this:
You have the right, as a player, to decide your character fucking hates someone so much they will not believe a word they say under any circumstance.
That would be, in terms of interpreting that to mechanics, setting the Skill DC to "impossible." Which is ALWAYS AN OPTION FOR SKILL CHECKS. You can not jump to heaven with an Athletics check (normally speaking).
It could be you're metagaming, but that's a separate problem beyond the scope of skill, ability, and spell save checks.
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.
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."
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.
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