LostSoul
Adventurer
Felix said:I would consider that more frustrating than thinking that perhaps I had lost the opposed roll mechanic. It is possible for PCs to lose an opposed roll.
I guess that's a matter of taste. I'd much rather not roll if the roll had no meaning at all.
Felix said:If the NPC is suseptable to intimidation, I roll his opposed check.
- If the PC wins, the King responds, "Perhaps we can find a patent of nobility for you..."*
- If the NPC wins, the King responds, "I think that perhaps you overestimate you ability to influence people; I suggest you leave before your thoughts turn you into a failed regicide. Guards!
If the NPC is susceptable, I roll a d20, futz around for a few seconds, and say, "He doesn't look pleased that you're trying to intimidate him."
This is why I think Intimidate is useless.
I rolled a success and I failed.
edit: This is more RAW than how I do things, and (except for the last example) I wouldn't have a problem playing like this. I might even put a few ranks into Intimidate! It's not my favourite way of playing, but I can enjoy it.
Felix said:Because if the PCs are by rule allowed to determine how NPCs react to them, then they must be made aware of why the DM would say that an NPC would not react in that way; you said yourself:
And if they players are consistently second-guessing why the DM is having his NPCs react the way they do, then the PCs don't trust that the DM is being accurate or fair in his representation of the NPCs.
Wait, this doesn't make sense to me. Even though I can convince a king to give me his throne, when the DM says "Intimidate doesn't work on this guy, so no roll is needed" I don't have to ask why. Maybe if I didn't trust the DM, maybe then I would. But since I do trust the DM, I don't ask. And when I'm the DM and I play like this, I don't get asked (but I would tell them if they did).
I don't see why I would have to know this information in order to play with more input in the game.
Last edited: