Crimson Longinus's latest activity

I suggest no such thing. Your character can be a rat-catcher that dies at the next kobold fight. But the player still has only one...

Yes, the reverse is also true. Attempts to intimidate are not fear spells. Attempts to know if somebody is lying are not detect lie...

Once again, I think the solution to that is: 1) The player doesn't actually know what the NPC is. Leverage that doubt to try to...

1) the PCs and NPCs are not the same. 2) The GM can ignore such effect if they want.

But GM can ignore such effect when it suits them too. The GM can just decide, that Lord Dreadskull of the Death Knights of Inconvenient...

Honestly, they are not. The player's sole focus is on their character, they probably have a elaborate backstory, they have been played...

We use a system that has no insight, and the game works just fine. The player, as the PC, either believes the NPC or doesn't. It's their...

Being able to decide what the character thinks and attempts to do are at the core of the player agency as is the ability to set...

Player agency is vital to the game but also delicate in times of interpretation. To preserve that agency, features that compel any kind...

I've definitely run surprise 5e14 RAW, and I've house-ruled it on the fly, and I've basically said "ok you, the fighter, get advantage...

What's the problem with that? Seems to me that the player of that character is about to start rolling a new one.

Sure it is. I'm fully capable of deciding whether my character would fall for something or not. I can and do roleplay to the detriment...

If I "used Intimidate" it would look like this: The player describes a goal and means, which might be "I want to intimidate the orc so...

It's not about like. It's about what the PC thinks is going on. I control that, not the dice. Not the DM. Not any other player...

Yeah, the appeal of that approach/philosophy is completely alien to me. That a scenario which is not dangerous becomes "intimidating"...