GMforPowergamers
Legend
it has a lot of bearing on our scenes, and I know of no way that I could get the point across both eaiser AND equally detailed...
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
it has a lot of bearing on our scenes, and I know of no way that I could get the point across both eaiser AND equally detailed...
Okay, a few things:
What is that "measuring stick" relative to? What does it even measure? How do you measure this scale?
Why do you need to a roll to determine how menacing an NPC is?
(A slight tangent) If I'm 15th level, chances are I have fought demons, fiends and/or aberrations. That orc can roll as high as he wants, he's simply no match for me and I know it.
How so? Care to give an adequately detailed example?
My players, as villains, did a better job of killing protagonists than I ever managed. One of them in particular was absolutely brutal, and always went out of his way to finish off downed enemies. He eventually got so powerful and despicable that the player requested that I take him over as an NPC; playing him wasn't fun anymore. I've still got him in my back pocket as one of the primary antagonists of an upcoming arc.
Their next villains were much more gray.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
to other skills and a basic 1-30ish scale...
why, because that way it is the character's skill that matters...
I can't say I agree with this...
GMforPowergamers
Legend
OK, back in the playtest (before the rules where solidified) I had a paladin I had played for 2 or 3 games (each under a different DM we were round robining at the time) when we attacked a necromancer (there was some feat in that version of the rules that was cool for necromancers) and this undead thing (I don't know if it was a ghoul or white or what) and I walked in and this thing was standing there..,. it droped it's sword and said "Thank Baccob...your here to help..." and I looked at the DM funny. He told me to make a wisdom check, and I rolled a 1, so he told me I belived he was honest... so I say "What happened to you..."
I don't remember the whole story but when it back stabed me (in the literal sense not game mechanic) the check helped me see that he was more convincing then I was perceptive.
Could you please be more specific?
It's the NPC's skill that matters to do what, exactly? Establish flavourful fiction? Because the way I look at it, you can roll 26 on your Intimidate check all you want, but if I still get to act however I wish, then your "skill" basically accomplished nothing of value. And if it can't accomplish anything, it doesn't matter. You're using a mechanic for no mechanical benefit.
I suppose a better question would be: Why are you using a conflict resolution mechanic when there is no conflict being resolved?
Because...?
You failed a check to see through an opponent's true intentions and went along with it. Cool. But that's not what is being discussed.
I'm asking about how rolling for intimidate/deception/persuasion versus PCs has significant bearing on a scene and why you think this is the easiest and most detailed way to bring flavour into a scene.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
not really
You are correct I am using a mechanic for a roleplaying benefit...
it is actually elevating the conflict and informing the rp...
because there is no reason that fighting something effects being intimidated... I have a friend who was a Recon Marine (ok friend is a strong word...I know a guy...) he is a big scary guy. He fought in the war and thinks nothing of counting off the people he has killed. I don't know the whole story but I know he has a dishonorable discharge. You know what flips him out... clowns... like makes this big tough guy almost cry... the movie IT (the old one with tim curry) can make him sick (face turning pale sick) just at a mention...
so no I don't buy that fighting a demon lord means nothing can ever scare you...
sunshadow21
Explorer
For Iserith and those arguing with him, let it go; you're not going to convince anyone or change anyone's mind at this point, and there are really no further new points to be made on that particular front. Everyone knows where the lines are drawn, and as long each one works for the respective games, that's all that really matters. Both interpretations are as right and/or as wrong as the individual group is willing to accept, no more and no less.
--------------------------------------------
For Shirebork: Because intimidate, deceit, and persuasion are no different from any other skill, class ability, or magic ability available to both NPCs and PCs in the game. For all that I can respect and understand Iserith's position, and seen a few others that hold it, it's not particularly common, and very few groups are going to make it a major concern. Very few people I've met in the many circles I've gamed in, be they DM or player, treat those three skills (whatever their name is in any given edition) any differently from the limits put on a character from failing a spot/perception roll to see a stealthy NPC, imposing a condition like poison or nauseated, or using magic. All have had more or less the same effect in pretty much every game I've played in, and if anything, magic is tamped down and limited on the NPC side far more than anything else, not the social skills. And that is generally how I run games; I don't usually bring any one tactic, skill, magic spell, etc. to the forefront unless it's something that is relevant to what the party is doing at that particular moment. At the same time, I see no point in removing a perfectly good tool from list of options to throw at PCs when it works just fine for what it is designed to do and very few people I have met treat it as a major concern, either in my games or any others I've been in. Most have been perfectly willing to accept that their characters can and will have hurdles put in front of them making certain paths harder than others in any given circumstance as long as the path is not shut down entirely and/or the player is not forced to go down a truly unpleasant path; many have seen such things a proper challenge to be relished and others have used the mechanical aspect to start from with the positive end result that neither DM nor player would have expected that would probably not have happened at all if the initial response had been left up entirely to player.
In most games I've been in, to have any of those three skills come up at all is a relatively rare event anyway, and when they do, it's usually a quick dice roll and back to combat, so the idea of using it on PCs hasn't really offended anyone when the impact is minimal regardless. In a more investigative type encounter, campaign, regular use of these skills is far more prominent and appropriate going both ways; PCs potentially being deceived, intimidated or persuaded to do things not automatically in their character concept would not only be normal, but a key element of such campaigns or encounters. I actually have several potential plots brewing in my world that will come out with the right group and right time that will absolutely involve heavy use of these mechanics going both ways; I say right group and right time precisely because I fully understand that not every group is going to be up for that particular type of campaign. Still, I will often pull them out for a scene here and a scene there in other campaigns as a break, transition, or simply a way for the PCs to gather information about the world.
The key to me is that most players don't actually mind it being used against their characters as long as it's appropriate to the story and reasonably balanced in it's use (relative to both how other skills are used and how effective PCs are allowed to be with them on NPCs), and I have never seen in any games I've been in any complaints about a player being told "you're intimidated" or something similar non-flowery unless it was tied to specific circumstances of a larger issue. In most games I've been in there has always been a large amount of "if the PCs can use it, so can the NPCs potentially," so people are generally well aware of what they might be facing on that front well before it comes up. So while I can understand where Isireth is coming from, I cannot and will not pretend to understand the inflexibility of his position. While a perfectly legitimate place to draw that firm of a line, to me it feels like a really weird and awkward place to do so, and it's been an insightful discussion, even if it will have zero impact on my own personal game.
--------------------------------------------
For Shirebork: Because intimidate, deceit, and persuasion are no different from any other skill, class ability, or magic ability available to both NPCs and PCs in the game. For all that I can respect and understand Iserith's position, and seen a few others that hold it, it's not particularly common, and very few groups are going to make it a major concern. Very few people I've met in the many circles I've gamed in, be they DM or player, treat those three skills (whatever their name is in any given edition) any differently from the limits put on a character from failing a spot/perception roll to see a stealthy NPC, imposing a condition like poison or nauseated, or using magic. All have had more or less the same effect in pretty much every game I've played in, and if anything, magic is tamped down and limited on the NPC side far more than anything else, not the social skills. And that is generally how I run games; I don't usually bring any one tactic, skill, magic spell, etc. to the forefront unless it's something that is relevant to what the party is doing at that particular moment. At the same time, I see no point in removing a perfectly good tool from list of options to throw at PCs when it works just fine for what it is designed to do and very few people I have met treat it as a major concern, either in my games or any others I've been in. Most have been perfectly willing to accept that their characters can and will have hurdles put in front of them making certain paths harder than others in any given circumstance as long as the path is not shut down entirely and/or the player is not forced to go down a truly unpleasant path; many have seen such things a proper challenge to be relished and others have used the mechanical aspect to start from with the positive end result that neither DM nor player would have expected that would probably not have happened at all if the initial response had been left up entirely to player.
In most games I've been in, to have any of those three skills come up at all is a relatively rare event anyway, and when they do, it's usually a quick dice roll and back to combat, so the idea of using it on PCs hasn't really offended anyone when the impact is minimal regardless. In a more investigative type encounter, campaign, regular use of these skills is far more prominent and appropriate going both ways; PCs potentially being deceived, intimidated or persuaded to do things not automatically in their character concept would not only be normal, but a key element of such campaigns or encounters. I actually have several potential plots brewing in my world that will come out with the right group and right time that will absolutely involve heavy use of these mechanics going both ways; I say right group and right time precisely because I fully understand that not every group is going to be up for that particular type of campaign. Still, I will often pull them out for a scene here and a scene there in other campaigns as a break, transition, or simply a way for the PCs to gather information about the world.
The key to me is that most players don't actually mind it being used against their characters as long as it's appropriate to the story and reasonably balanced in it's use (relative to both how other skills are used and how effective PCs are allowed to be with them on NPCs), and I have never seen in any games I've been in any complaints about a player being told "you're intimidated" or something similar non-flowery unless it was tied to specific circumstances of a larger issue. In most games I've been in there has always been a large amount of "if the PCs can use it, so can the NPCs potentially," so people are generally well aware of what they might be facing on that front well before it comes up. So while I can understand where Isireth is coming from, I cannot and will not pretend to understand the inflexibility of his position. While a perfectly legitimate place to draw that firm of a line, to me it feels like a really weird and awkward place to do so, and it's been an insightful discussion, even if it will have zero impact on my own personal game.
Last edited:
