Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs
When I discussed this with Kromm, he said explicitly that this is false. You either roll reaction OR attempt influence. You don't get to do both,
|
Can we clarify whether the player(s) decide to use reaction rolls, or the GM does? And are there official distinctions where this differs? Because, if we allow a PC to countermand one Influence attempt with another as the dialogue develops, but never to countermand a Reaction roll, then how many players are ever going to agree to a reaction result? Or are we also saying that officially only one roll (reaction or influence) should govern a whole dialogue, regardless of how the circumstances might change during the interaction?
This also raises a related question in my mind. What happens when the GM hasn't pre-decided on an NPC's attitude to the PC and decides to use a Reaction roll to guide them in this (as per p.B494 it appears to be the GM doing this, not the player)? Does not the official interpretation above imply that the PC should not be allowed to use Influence rolls to change this attitude? And if the GM is rolling for "first impressions" of the NPC in this way, that suggests to me that game-mechanically players must decide how they are going to "influence" an NPC
before the PCs themselves have had a chance to get any impression of the NPC. Because, to get a feel for which approach would best work, requires that the GM has already rolled for the general Reaction of the NPC, in order for the PCs to have something to perceive, surely?
EDIT: to try and summarise my many bouncing thoughts here, it seems to me that the "official" EITHER/OR statement above is creating a "chicken and egg" situation, in some types of NPC interaction at least.