Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Mark CMG]

So, actually, yes, there is a rule that specifically says that the NPC will not run away.

I'm not seeing anything in what you quoted that says the NPC cannot run away.

 

[tomBitonti]

Here are the exact rules:

The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile).

So, actually, yes, there is a rule that specifically says that the NPC will not run away. That the NPC actually cannot do what happened in this situation.

Now, the DM is certainly entitled to change the rules. I'm not saying that he's not. But, that's exactly what he did here - change the rules. I know that as a player, I would never try to take prisoners again after this event. It's just not worth it.

The DM hung the decision on our taking our attention away from the target. We stepped to the side to make plans; not very far away, but off to the side to converse discretely. That was enough, in the GM's view, for the prisoner to make a run for it.

But, this is tangential to my point: The point was about drama resulting from the inability to change the cat's attacks to non-lethal damage after the fact. In my view, the 3E rule which forces a trade-off has more inherent tension, and as a result tends to more drama.

Anyways, I'm not sure now what this has to do with the original thread topic. Can someone tie this back, or otherwise close it off?

TomB

 

[Hassassin]

I'm not seeing anything in what you quoted that says the NPC cannot run away.

This.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not seeing anything in what you quoted that says the NPC cannot run away.

What part of "The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward." is difficult to understand? The effect in this case is that the target treats you as friendly for the duration.

Do you regularly run away from your friends? I would think that it would be difficult to chat with someone while running away as would offering advice or help.

Maybe this is some new form of friendly that I was previously unaware of.

So, unless tomBitonti's sidebar discussion lasted a REALLY long time, I'm thinking that the drama here came from the fact that the DM changed the rules to suit himself. The only reason that the cat attacked the NPC is because the DM ignored the rules.

See, I missed this line the first time around:

We had a player, while sneaking up to an altar invisibly, give a medusa the finger ... and they said "I look up and give the medusa the finger." And promptly failed their save, leaving them invisible and turned to stone on the altar, and leaving a huge hole in an elaborate plan.

Again, here's an example of a DM being a dick. Because, you know, the character would actually be THAT stupid. I certainly would never consider this to be an example of drama in a game. It's Three Stooges D&D.

I've played with DM's like this and I refuse to do so anymore. "Ha ha, you said you look up! YOU SAID IT! YOU SAID IT! Make your saving throw you stupid player!"

Yeah, no thanks.

 

[Mark CMG]

What part of "The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward." is difficult to understand? The effect in this case is that the target treats you as friendly for the duration.

It doesn't say he becomes your friend, it says he has to act as if he is while he is near, nor does it say he has to stay near you. In fact, it also says, "(That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.)" Basically, he has to put up with you for being a dick but it doesn't limit his ability to ignore you or to put some distance between himself and your bad attitude. If I can come up with an example, perhaps I'll post it later.

 

[Hassassin]

What part of "The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward." is difficult to understand? The effect in this case is that the target treats you as friendly for the duration.

Do you regularly run away from people you feel indifferent about? Probably not, but that doesn't mean you never do.

I can certainly imagine situations that would make me want to run away from people, even if I was feeling friendly. For example, suppose they get wasted and start waving guns? Or suppose I'm a soldier and have been ordered to?

Maybe in the intimidate case the NPC would even have stopped if asked to, but that doesn't mean he can't run away, since the rules don't say the target stops doing anything other than following orders.

 

[Hussar]

He's not indifferent. He's FRIENDLY.

In your example, I doubt you feel friendly (the D&D defined term) towards someone who is drunk and waving firearms.

See, to me, MarkCMG and you Hassasin are the reason that players almost never take prisoners. I've played with more than a few DM's who will do exactly this sort of crap. "Oh it's justified because I can pull examples out of the air to justify it". Gimme a break.

The only reason the prisoner ran away is because the DM was being a dick. He changed the rules because he didn't want the players to get any sort of "unfair" advantage over his carefully crafted adventure and hadn't planned on giving the players information.

I've seen this way too many times to believe it was anything else. The DM wants to hoard information and make the players "earn" their victory. The players get creative, find a way to bypass the DM's plot and the DM takes the first opportunity to nip that in the bud.

The fact that he actually had to bend, if not outright break, the rules to do it shows that.

 

[JamesonCourage]

From my point of view, Hussar is correct in the ruling. He shouldn't run away.

From my point of view, he's really, really off when attributing motivations to people. He might be right when he says he's experienced it, but I've seen thread after thread where people disagree with his experiences on dick GMs.

I mean, could the group just accept that the rule of Diplomacy doesn't work for them (which is why you have things like this: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html )? That'd make it different from the rules, yes, but it's not because the GM is a dick. It's because the group doesn't like the Diplomacy rules (because of things like Diplomancers, perhaps).

I don't know the motivations of the GM. Maybe he was being a dick. I can't tell you one way or another. I can say, however, that it seems like Hussar is pretty much coming to a conclusion with little to no justification. He has his experience, but nobody else saying, "no he wasn't trying to be a dick" is going to change it.

Therefore, I'd put forth just moving on. It's a derailment anyways. Hussar is correct on the rules issue. When being questioned, the NPC (according to the base, core Diplomacy rules) shouldn't run away if he was intimidated. I mean, he's supposed to be doing things like offering limited advice, not doing something that would ideally actively prevent that. Either way, though, it doesn't really contradict Tom's point, which seemed to be that drama can arise in the general method he described.

I just don't see this conversation going anywhere other than, "it's this way," "no it isn't, "yes it is," "nuh-uh," "yeah-huh." But, hey, if you want to have that conversation, don't let me stop you. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Meh, you're probably right JC, that I shouldn't be attributing motives. My bad. It's just something I've seen so many times that it becomes pretty much knee-jerk whenever I see it now.

But, yes, it's my bad for that. Apologies.

 

[Mark CMG]

He's not indifferent. He's FRIENDLY.

Nope. The target is "treated" as friendly for as long as he is Intimidated and for as long as the target remains in the presence of the person doing the Intimidating. The description goes out of its way to state that "the target retains its normal attitude" under those conditions, as well. The description does not state that the target is restricted to remain in the presense of the Intimidator and, since the target retains its normal attitude, the target would likely attempt to remove itself from being in that presence if its normal attitude would be of one not liking to be Intimidated.


*edit* Note, also, that with Diplomacy you are actually "[c]hanging others’ attitudes" rather than simply getting them to treat you differently while in your presence and retaining their attitude.