Other PC's cannot force other Pc's to roll against such 'social skill checks'. And it is entirely possible someone may not believe a certain persuasive attempt through possibly being a suspicious bastard/sexist/racist or just plain not care, no matter how persuasive someone might be.

_________________

Signature by Maryn! <3 I am also seen as DM Snuffles.

I don't think it would ruin RP, but more likely divert it in another direction. Skills can be so easily boosted, especially if you can get Grt mythals and just craft them on every item possible, in terms of things like persuade.

I think it should stay as is. I think it shouldn't be as simple as "Stay here" *In no specific tone other than neutral and no other kind of expressed feeling* Roll: Persuade - 100 + 20 = 120, and you just somehow manage to persuade successfully based on a Roll alone.

It's like intimidate, I used to see people roll Intim of around 80's with no pre-RP and just expect the other to be all "Oh gods, I pooped my pants, time to run and go clean!". If you want persuade to actually count IC, I'd recommend not rolling it for other players and just try to persaude how your character would.

If someone said to me the above example (Stay here), my character wouldn't feel at all persuaded and would do whatever he felt was best, as opposed to something more deep and meaningful, that is actually done in a persuasive manner, emoting the emotions and expressions behind it would only aid in that.

I don't think any player should be expected in P2P interactions to be persuaded if the player feels their character wouldn't be, if the effort is put in to actually be skillfully persuasive and use tact, I'd say people would be more likely to take the persuasive attempt in.

_________________
Ael'thil Rilyn'tlithar
Previously known as: Anubis

A persuade check and an opposed will roll hardly does justice to the gravity of conversion in a setting where deities are real and faith has very real implications even for those without the Power.

_________________
feel the blood gushing from your anusfeel the blood gushing from your anus

Since Snugglekins commented first, we all know the DM stance on the issue. So below is just my personal feedback which was requested by the OP.

Since Persuade skill is used very differently from Diplomacy, there aren't many situations that I can realistically take it into account. Persuasion is not Suggestion, which is a magic of compulsion. If my character doesn't care about whatever it is the person is saying for whatever reason (e.g., you are a stranger, you are of religion/race/gender that my character is unapologetically biased towards, the topic is of no concern to my character whatsoever, etc.) it doesn't matter how high or low you roll because the thought isn't there to begin with. Persuasion doesn't impose a new thought or belief. At very best, it would introduce the possibility of new thought or belief to be considered, but such things will only be a matter of consideration if and only if my character cares about what you have to say in the first place.

For example, even if someone rolled 103 on Persuasion check for a Paladin to go kill some random innocent, it's most likely not the 103 Persuasion check that's going to make the Paladin do such an act if and when they do somehow end up killing an innocent person. It would be a complex interaction of other factors in which the 103 Persuasion may only be but a minor role in the act itself.

Ultimately, I would only consider a Persuade check in situations where my character would already be persuaded without the check. I would take in the check not to determine whether or not my character is persuaded, but to the extent to which my character would be persuaded. After all, I do think it's reasonable to assume a particular character is more charismatic/intelligent/wise than the player's writing ability to convey such complex human characteristics. So I do want to give a chance for players to explore a side of their character that is perhaps not expressed efficiently through text-based communication, especially with considerations in mind that other players like myself do not speak English as their first language.

Such a way would help, of course. Expressed concerns would help too, I think. But there are so many factors (Like mentioned above) that may make the persuasion nulled to the character in question. Lets take the other day when your character was advising mine not to go near a certain location while certain others were present there, because he had no intention to walk in to the middle of a group that will likely attack him while he was alone, the persuasion held no sway with his mind already made up to not do what your character tried to persuade him not to, any way, but even if he did have intentions to head that way for some reason, that specific character doesn't often take strangers words with much weight, but may still consider them.

In the end it's all down to the characters personality and many other things, but beyond that all you can do is RP it out as well as you can, some people may take the persuasion and act accordingly while others may not even listen to it at all.

_________________
Ael'thil Rilyn'tlithar
Previously known as: Anubis

I've seen the argument several times here that social skills are optional because people would roll their intimidation skill without *enough* (or *good enough*) roleplay to make it believable. Isn't that the point of those points and abilities? To represent skills your character has, that perhaps you as the player do not (which might in fact be why we are playing this game, to have skills we do not normally have). When you roll to swing your sword, or cast your spell, with no roleplay to go along with it, do I get to deny that roll happened because you didn't include a detailed enough emote to connect past my very elaborate dodge and fancy pants crafted armor?

Of course I understand those skills can be jacked up with items, but so can AB, AC, and every other skill with a value assigned within NWN. And social skills can be abused, and should not be considered a way to actually control other PCs. But if someone throws out an intimidation check with a +80 modifier, even without an elaborate emote to go along with it, that character is VERY good at intimidation, and it should have *some kind* of reaction, within reason. And I don't consider purely ignoring those skill values to be within reason.

Essentially your saying (with that argument, not you as in any particular person) that a mage, with no skills in intimidation, is more intimidating with their array of spells than the barbarian or BG with a maxed out intimidate score, because you the player is more intimidated.

And I'm not saying there should be a rule change, because there are always those situational modifiers and/or incorrect usage of a skill, I'm just saying players should allow those social skills to have some bearing on their roleplay. Even if the emotes to go along with the roll are not amazing. Of course the person using those skills should strive to roleplay them out as well, that's the goal of roleplaying. But ignoring those skills is just as poor roleplaying as the "Stay here (*intimidate*)" situation.

_________________

I'm failing to see even a remote similarity. Try walking up to my character all cheerful and smiling and roll 100 Intimidate, but don't expect him to so much as bat an eye lid. I'm not expecting people to RP it with great depth, but they shouldn't expect me to react to a skill roll with nothing to back it up, either.

Intimidate shows the potential of how scary/intimidating a character can be (IMO), not how they are in every single little tiny instance ever. We're playing in a setting where people make Dragons fall to the ground lifelessly, kill 'epic' bosses and fight in all manners of actually intimidating situations that would make alot probably cower, a little Fey with flowers in her hair, surrounded by butterflies rolling her mechanical intimidate of 100 just because she can, it will have no effect against just about any one in a way that is intimidating.

As for AB and AC, since when do you need to RP that you can swing well, dodge good etc? If you're good with your weapon, then you are good with it and probably can use it skillfully without the need of any kind of verbal uses of wording and the mechanical side displays that well enough, social skills don't just rely on base ranks on level up, but the actual actions of the player trying to be intimidating. People trying to enforce these rolls and expecting others to react how they themselves want them to just sounds like trying to dictate how another should RP their character.

And not being intimidating or whatever in RL is not really a good argument in my eyes. Why? Because you are reading text that can be taken a number of ways other than and including the intended way. It's a lot easier to play a confident character in an online text based game than it is to actually be confident IRL, same goes for persuasion and intimidation. You don't have to be effective at any in RL to be somewhat effective in this game with those skills. If anything is going to hold power over how my own character reacts in the world of Amia toward other characters, then it should be actual RP and not mechanical rolls with nothing to back them up but bumping up the skill on levelling and with items and going *Skips around merrily and rolls an intimidate check, then gets all pissed OOC'ly because the other players char just laughed.*

_________________
Ael'thil Rilyn'tlithar
Previously known as: Anubis

Skills like persuade and intimidate I find no need for because if you want to persuade or intimidate me then do it....dice rolls for stuff like that are stupid.

player A "Thane, you should let me run that Tarvern in the Mill because I'm so cool and would do stuff that would help the people of Caraigh" * rolls persuade for 140

player B " Thane you should let me run the Tarvern in the Mill, I would hire staff from Caraigh first creating more jobs for the people, higher a brewmaster and build a Brewer's Kettle so we can produce our own ale made with Barley from Caraighs fields and a oven as well so we can produce more freshbaked goods for the people of the Caraigh, using barley flour produced from the Mill of course. *rolls persuade for 1 *


I'm going to pick player B every time because he did a better job to persuade me, player A just said stuff and tossed a dice roll at it and if player A was the only option I still would not pick him.

_________________
================-<Cory ShadowFlame>-================
Risenlord-Shifter(OMG a Non-Dragon Shifter that can hold his own in PvE)

Agreed, blatant misuse of skills (and the possibility of griefing) are why the ruling should not change. As well the fact there is no real opposing skills. And the social skills are not always on, but can be used when needed. I don't always smile intimidatingly, but when I do... it is entirely ignored as if I didn't invest as many limited skill points into that as into my spot skill I get to use 6 times a second.



Again, arguing the ridiculous and the exceptions don't really help. Situational modifiers would still apply (which of course can't be done by anyone but the player, without DM over your shoulder), your character concept would still apply, no control over your character would be given away. The point wasn't the exceptions, but the blanket rule many people seem to have that no other character can ever influence their character in any way whatsoever. The total refusal of a +20 intimidate, while recognizing a +20 attack, makes little sense to me.

But if your fairy with the 100 intimidate turned on terrifying rage, making it a mechanical thing, suddenly all that reasoning goes out the window?



I'm not trying to dictate another players RP, I'm saying that we should be playing along together. That I'm gonna let you try to play a persuasive, intimidating, lying sonofa' even if you can't convince me the player of it. Because me the player is not the person that needs to be convinced, the character is, and those rolls and skill values are a direct representation of the game world we are playing in.

If I don't have to RP that I can swing well, dodge good etc... why do I suddenly have to RP that I can be persuasive, intimidating, or bluff? It's just a score on my character sheet either way.



Real life is not a good argument at all. In real life something as simple as walking down a street, crack your knuckles, or adjusting your weapon can be excessively intimidating... and even fox news can apparently be persuasive. And there's no dragons. All I'm saying that not being terribly intimidating in real life should not bar you from playing an intimidating character in a roleplaying game, just like not being able to cast spells doesn't bar you from playing a caster.

I'm also saying that the blanket statements most people seem to embrace for all of their characters (something along the lines of "I'm just too cool to be intimidated, or influenced in any way by anyone else") do not help create a dynamic, interesting world to play in. Nor do they create engaging, multi-faceted, 'real' characters. Those mechanical rolls should not in any situation ever dictate your response, and players that expect that should very much have their misconceptions corrected. But totally ignoring them is just as bad as playing them poorly or misusing them, IMO.

And again, if my 1d20 attack roll, +22, with a 1d6 weapon, +4, +1d8 fire damage, +on-hit effect (DC 18) is an acceptable influence of your character, countered with simple AC and HP values... Refusing to acknowledge my 1d20 skill roll, +25 modifier, with no tangible effect beyond creating something for your character to react to... Well, that just seems a bit silly.

I would still laugh at the fey skipping along intimidatingly... but I would guess that was the point. It's funny IRL when cute things try to be intimidating. But I would respond, acknowledging that the roll actually happened. And if/when they continued to throw out intimidation checks, my IC response might change, something along the lines of "oh, wait... they are actually serious?"

Also note that I haven't even mentioned the save/resist/opposed check. I don't think there is one that would work validly. Which is one of the very good reasons the rule that social skills cannot *actually* effect another player should not change. All I'm saying is that the social skills a charcter does invest in should be considered, and not entirely ignored. As I've seen happen, even in less unreasonable situations then our skipping fey. Were playing together, even when on opposite sides of a conflict, and other characters should be allowed influence (not control) over your own.



Character A is more generally persuasive, even if that argument fell flat. Character B is less persuasive generally... Just like if Character A has a 120 AB, is more effective in combat then Character B (who apparently has a 0). That's exactly what those numbers mean, in the game we are agreeing to play together.

This doesn't mean Character B could not persuade you, just that the force of Character A's persuasion attempt is stronger. Character B is still right, with the better argument, and more situational modifiers as well.

_________________

This. Sorry, but the social skills are only relevant if you're going to put the effort to being creative IC as well, and not just throwing the dice.

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata

*casts True Res on the horse*

Muwahahahah.

_________________
Whomst've'll'd'mn't I play:
Salema Nefahri :: A penny for your thots
Zrae'a'stra'fryn :: That which nightmares are made of
Khasir :: From the East a storm is coming

I don't see any DM approval for use of PnP spells in this thread.

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata

Unlike Intimidate and Bluff, Persuade (like Diplomacy, its PNP partner) isn't meant to be used on PCs. It's solely for manipulating NPCs.

_________________
Mathus, Void Apostle of the New Moon

It's really much more simple than that. Persuade is Diplomacy. Diplomacy was designed to be used on NPCs, not PCs.

Intimidate and Bluff do not have this restriction because they're less about winning someone over and applying a relationship so much as a temporary status effect, or as combat maneuver.

I would like to see Social Skills mean something also; mainly by being allowed to use them on NPCs.

(GET OUT OF MY HEAD, CHARLES.)

Because if you have good AB, then you have likely trained enough to have that AB repesresented the way it is, the mechanics do carry that over well. But skill rolls, it's all well and good having the high intimidate ranks, but you can't expect to intimidate someone with the roll alone, the mechanics of social skills don't display and carry it over the way the combat system rolls do. So if you roll an intimidate while just standing around, it's highly likely to be ignored,



There is no requirement to RP either, but if you do want your attempts of persuasion or intimidation to hold any weight IC I don't think just rolling should be enough, ever. Like I said, the roll alone doesn't carry over how intimidating/persuasive the character is being, just that they have the capabilities. AB rolls show visually if you get to hit or not based on how good your AB may or may not be, if people want to RP their swings to reflect that they can, if not they don't have to.



My RL argument was out of reading something in your previous post wrong, I've just now noticed after re-reading it.



I agree on the intim and casting part, but the bit about Dragons, I think you may have understood me wrong. What I was trying to say is a lot of characters on Amia face-off with beasts much bigger and more powerful than most other characters, so intimidation wont always work, if my character has felled multiple creatures, like Demons in the Abyss and Windy and numerous other tough beasts the majority of characters aren't likely to scare him much.



I only ignore rolls when they hold no weight, like I mentioned about just standing and then rolling the skill. If someone makes even just a bit of effort (whether it is someone ultimately not the least bit scary, or someone who has the potential to scare the soul out of you), it doesn't have to be some amazing amount of RP, but I wont just completely ignore it as I have an actual reason to react to it, where the poinless roll with nothing behind it, not so much as *Glares*, I wont let that influence my character because there simply isn't anything t oinfluence him with a simple dice roll. I still think if you want to be intimidating just RP it out and leave the rolls, you can take intim to represent it, of course, and if another player requests the roll that's fine too.

Either way, you don't have to roll the skill in the first place and another player can't force you to.



I'm of the impression that AB accurately represents your charcters ability to hit both via mechanics/character sheet (Or rather the combat log, that CS is a compulsive liar) and simply letting the rolls do their work and others seeing you hit IC/on their screen. You can have 127 persaude (NWN max, I believe) and simply say "Knock on that door", in no other way than simply saying it and I don't think others would be very persuaded despite how good the person/char may be at persuading others, compared to if they actually put effort in to the persuasional attempt.

_________________
Ael'thil Rilyn'tlithar
Previously known as: Anubis

I would too, if there was a proper skill to counter them in place. Just using listen/spot is silly, since nearly everyone maxes that out and more often than not I've seen people use an ability/put on an item to increase those stats before making the roll... after someone had already rolled their bluff/whatever.

_________________
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I don't want to roll and counter-roll. But I do expect you to recognize my skill point investment when I show it. If you don't, you're a jerk and I lose respect for you. Nothing more to it. We don't need rules and dice to handle something the good old shame game can deal with.

_________________

Intimidate: All good. Can be made logical with ease.
Bluff: Good for the most point. Obvious bullshit without creativity and explanation should be ignored.
Persuade: Too abuse-able. But could be used in moderation or to drive in a point.

_________________

THREE

Man, you know what would be really great? We're friends, right? I mean, we've been traveling together for like six hours. We killed orcs and giants and even demons together! We're pretty amazing together. Anyway, it would be pretty great if you climbed up on this altar over here. See how clean it is? This highly decorative and very symbolic dagger in my hand? Oh, that was a gift from some rich king, never mind it. Anyway, that altar is just begging to be laid on, isn't it? Yeah, that's good. No no, tuck your elbow in a bit. Yes, like that. Now turn your head to look at me. Perfect! Now all I need you to do is look scared....

Persuade: 18 + 96 = 114

_________________
Remember when I knew a boxer, baby

[?] Will Saving Throw = D20: 2 + Modifier (15) = 17 [?]

i wil lai der lik u sai

_________________
feel the blood gushing from your anusfeel the blood gushing from your anus

Well, specific examples are really irrelevant. The bottom line is this: an investment in social skills should make you want to cooperate as a player. You should give them the benefit of the doubt and try to make it work.

_________________

You guys really need to actually look at the Diplomacy chart, because it seems like a lot of people misunderstand what Persuade actually does. It changes the shades of attitude; it's not Dominate. Just because someone goes from Neutral to Friendly or Helpful doesn't mean they become your social slave. It means they are inclined to hear you out, where they might not have given you the time of day, otherwise.

Also, I'd say that situation is more of a Bluff.

d20 + HD + will vs Generic
d20 + concentration + will vs Changing you focus
d20 + discipline + will vs Your training
d20 + lore + will vs Your knowledge
d20 + spellcraft + will vs Your magical knowledge

_________________

THREE

This is essentially how I treat it. I take everything based on how my character would react. You could be really persuasive and also roll super high but if my character wouldn't be persuaded to do x then they won't. That's usually in terms of something extreme. But if you persuade them into something innocuous it will likely happen. It all depends on the character I'm playing, the character doing the persuading, and what they are persuading about.

Best to work with someone and just go with what your character would do. Rolls shouldn't be ignored, but they shouldn't be the only thing driving it. I regard a Persuade (or Bluff) roll as someone saying 'here's an example of how persuasive they sound, combined with what I wrote'. Sometimes it's hard to pull that sort of thing off in an emote, so you should give someone the benefit of the doubt (as long as it's not just 'do this *Persuade roll*' lol).

It's like when people make Bards and have zero aptitude for song writing/singing/instruments/etc. Are you going to call them a bad player because they can't properly describe something or they can't write their own lyrics and have to borrow some from elsewhere? If you do, you are a douche and need to be shot. Many times.



wat

_________________
Whomst've'll'd'mn't I play:
Salema Nefahri :: A penny for your thots
Zrae'a'stra'fryn :: That which nightmares are made of
Khasir :: From the East a storm is coming

I've always thought it a bit incongruous that the people whose mantra in matters of character builds is "your build should reflect your RP" are the same folks who most adamantly refuse to allow people's build to affect *their* RP. If in the build thread we'd be telling people "hey, if your character is a seriously persuasive guy, you should spend those skill points on Persuade," how do we get from that point to "I will never acknowledge your Persuade roll in my RP"? Is building your character around your RP a good thing or not? If it is, shouldn't we try to respect when someone has actually done it?

I agree that it's not quite that simple, since there's no good counter-roll for Persuade, and any server rule on the subject would just be arbitrary, heavy-handed, and stupid. I'm just advocating the idea that if someone wants to roll a Persuade check (or Intimidate, or Bluff, or whatever) that we should, in deciding how to respond, be looking for reasons to respect that, rather than reasons to ignore it.

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026

Character Portraits!

So long as there's atleast some level of effort behind the attempt before/during the roll then I'm all for it. Simple one liners or a 'grrr' do not suffice.

_________________
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Sorry. I wasn't understanding you wrong, I was using Dragons to illustrate that this is a fantasy game, not reality. I used them because they were iconic, but considering your comment I probably should have used something else.

Intimidation is a hard one to roleplay. On one hand our characters are going out and facing off against the biggest baddies in the game every day, and aren't as likely to bat an eye at a lot... but on the other they are still people, and depth of character requires a give and take. And the other party is also facing off against those same big baddies. As a player though it's sometimes hard to swallow our characters pride and respond in a way that might not be fitting of the most bad ass mofo around.

It's very difficult to create interesting and convincing characters when every person you come across is the baddest mofo around. And moreso when the metagame "oh, he's 5 levels below me, his piddly 80 intimidate doesn't work on me" is common. The numbers themselves are supposed to mean something.

Bluff is even harder to work... As it is terribly hard to consistently NOT metagame that the roll itself is telling you there's something fishy going on. But it still goes back to the point that we are players playing the game *with* other players, with the characters as our roles... Rather then players facing off against each other with the game engine as the arbitrator. If the goal is just to be the baddest mofo around, single player lends itself exceedingly well to that.

I still don't see how you can see that an AB score of 20 represents someone suitably trained enough that it is represented correctly, but a skill score of the same level somehow does not mean the same thing. The only difference is that the game engine isn't directly using one.

_________________

I don't know how else I could explain the way I see it other than social skills don't work just by rolling and do need some sort of indication as to why they would be intimidated in the first place, or persuaded, but the combat system doesn't require you to emote that you hit for it to actually be there and presented. It is shown by the attacker hitting the target, the number of damage above, the combat log, it all shows it does actually work without anything else.

Also, I wasn't saying because of the whole beast thing that my character wouldn't be intimidated ever by another character, it would depend on a number of factors.

_________________
Ael'thil Rilyn'tlithar
Previously known as: Anubis

Only for use against NPCs. You can't force players to make a roll on any social skill except intimidate (when someone runs up to you with terrifying rage.) So if you're trying to convert NPCs with your epic persuade that may well work, but if you walk up to someone and say "hay you, worship Mask" *rolls a 90* "no" "/tell you're a bad roleplayer." then you're an idiot.

_________________

I'm sure I said it above, but I'd prefer it if rolls between players just weren't made from skills, at all and the attempted persuader just did that, tried to persuade the others. I think seeing a sudden text of rolls pop up on screen is more immersion-breaking than people RP'ing they are not persuaded.

The only time that any rolls need to be made (Other than when a DM requires, and with some exception[s]) is when all involved want to roll, or when rolling (usually) a percentile for loot-deciding, but even then there's probably other ways to decide on that, other than the dice roll system.

_________________
Ael'thil Rilyn'tlithar
Previously known as: Anubis

*sigh*

I'm totally gonna make a character that embraces all the ridiculous outlier positions people use to argue against common decency points. Or I would, if I could even get myself to actually follow through with the ridiculousness.

So, Silent... "Hay you, worship Mask *rolls a 90*" would actually be considered successful vs NPCs? And DMs would uphold this?

If that is true, I can see how far off from the common understanding my own is.

_________________

I was giving a stupid abridged version, really. Rolls won't dictate my character's roleplay, stellar roleplay will make me react. Stellar roleplay coupled with a roll will influence my NPCs, though.

_________________

I was really hoping

_________________

As a serious addition to this discussion:

I tend to discard all modifiers when it comes to skill rolls, unless it would help the person rolling against me. The d20 is what I look at. If I'm looking at the roll, it means that their RP has influenced my character to where they would do one of two things (or more). The modifier doesn't matter. The amount of effort they put into that one moment (the roll itself) is far better for me and I'll often use the roll to tip my character one way or the other.

Slightly off topic, but I often find failed rolls tend to make for much better roleplay than successful rolls.

_________________
Remember when I knew a boxer, baby

You should be doing the exact opposite and paying attention to the sill and not the d20

too many people fall inot that trap

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

Why the hell should I care how many mythals someone used to put Persuade onto their gear?

_________________
Remember when I knew a boxer, baby

Why the hell should I care how many mythals someone used to put Spot onto their gear?

I hear WoW has that fancy new Panda expansion.

_________________
Mathus, Void Apostle of the New Moon

Perhaps instead of hunting for my posts so you can refute them (I'm looking at you, Letum and Council), you could try for a little reading comprehension in regards to my previous post.

I am not obligated to respond in any way, shape, or form to a dice roll. That is as per the server rules. What I do is, if the character I'm roleplaying with has presented my character with a situation where they could be swayed either way, I allow their dice roll to dictate. The modifier doesn't matter because I'm not allowing the dice roll to win over my character. I'm allowing the dice roll to influence my character. I'm catering to the person who has put the effort into making the dice roll because they want to be influential. I could be well within my rights to completely ignore it.

Which is the more polite thing to do in regards to other players?

_________________
Remember when I knew a boxer, baby

Because the random 1-20 of a dice roll does not actually reflect the effort used in the roleplay to any dgeree whatsoever. It is a complete RNG, andto pay attention to it whle ignoring the skill, the roleplay, their demeanor, and your own character's demeanor and relationships is doing a disservice to all of the above and more, while boiling it down to random chance.

It doesn't take any fucking effort to roll a die. I just grabed a big swathing handful from my dicebag and rolle them. No effort. What does take effort is actual roleplay. If you're going to ignore the modifier, then just ginroe the die too because ignoring the part of the roll thhat actually factors in the character's inherent ability, and instead only paing attention to the randomly generate dportion that brings variance into a tabletop game, is nothing short of asinine.

The POLITE thing to do is to stay in character, and for them to do the same. If you can't get in character enough to know how your PC would respond and instead have to throw a dice, then... well, develop your character more.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

No, we're not hunting for your posts, they just happen to be the one that make us jackiechan.jpg when we happen across them as the latest post in a thread.

What you suggest is not mutually exclusive with taking the skill modifier into account, is the thing. Adding in the skill to the check does not force you to adhere to it any more than looking at only the d20 roll. I don't understand why you would overlook that piece of suggestion; it's part of the RP you are already opting to acknowledge and let influence, not dictate, your character's reaction. Some people are more persuasive than others, because of innate talent or force of personality (positive Charisma modfier) or because they have nurtured trait subconsciously or consciously (Skill ranks).

It doesn't make any sense to me that you would stop half way, when going the full distance doesn't actually change your control of the situation, because you remain ever free to ignore a dice roll; it only adds to the information/stimuli/situation you have to work with to base your response on.

Did I not just write, TWICE even, that it is the roleplay that gets me there to begin with?

Edit: What's the DC for a successful persuasion? The skill modifier doesn't matter for that reason.

_________________
Remember when I knew a boxer, baby