Search results

I don't think this is possible. Let's look back at what I presume was Session Zero. What I gather from this is that Frank the Tank and Johnny Bootlegger decided to go on a realm-spanning journey to partake in lands' finest alcohols. For some unfathomable reason, they both agree that Dry...

To the first question: I consider the adventurers in the group to be competent at survival and combat. As such, I announce the results of my attack rolls because they're able to tell the difference between a complete whiff and a close call, as well as decide if they should expend a resource or...

The only thing bothering me is that I feel like the author equates "role-playing" to "acting" or "narrating", which I do not believe to be entirely true. Otherwise, there's some nice advice in here.

You're kidding, right? :/

I read your posts. I told you I find that they can be interpreted different ways. I asked for clarification by asking a simple question with two simple answers. I said I asked it not to be antagonistic, but because I believe that once I get that clarification, I'll know why we're talking past...

I am well aware of all this, but it doesn't answer my question. I asked specifically about how you communicate in this thread, about a specific phrase being used and how you're using it. It's not about the game or real world psychology; it's about how you're expressing yourself and your ideas...

I'm going to ask this because it's been on my mind for a while, and I'm genuinely curious... When you say "being intimidated", do you mean "feeling intimidated" as in the feeling of fear you get, or do you intend it as shorthand for "somebody is trying to scare you"? For example, in this quote...

Easy. Because he says so. He's the one running the game, not the rules or the dice. As the DM, what he says, goes. That monster will be as intimidating as he needs it to be, and then he'll convey that information while framing the scene.

Yup, opting out was the better decision. No gaming is better than bad gaming, IMO.

I think "Wizards rule and Fighters Drool" comes down to an imbalance in the codification of spells and skills. Either the spells should have looser rules, or skills should have tighter ones. But that's beside the point of this thread, I believe.

I think it would be important to draw a distinction between feelings (emotions) and feeling (physical senses). I get the feeling (pun totally intended, sorry) that they're getting confused.

If it seems like it's Magic vs Skills, well... it kind of is, but maybe not for the reasons you think. Magic spells are discrete bundles of rules. They have clear effects. A character casts a spell and you just follow the rules: Roll a saving throw vs a DC (or attack vs AC), apply effects. They...

I'm not sure how to respond to this, because I don't get the Jeopardy analogy. But the difference is obvious, no? "You are spooked" is fundamentally different from "Spooky things are happening". The first establishes an emotion, which is off-limits in my book. It's vague, for one thing. It...

IMO, a nice rule of thumb is that it's okay to describe sensory information (sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell), but emotions are off-limits. So, I wouldn't say somebody has the "heebie-jeebies". I'd make that person feel them through sensory information. "A deep chill runs through your...

So... There still isn't anybody expecting players to behave a certain way after an NPC makes a social skill check against them, right? Just wondering why this thread is still going on.

Well, I am playing through the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy, sooo... :p But seriously though, any person reading normally would indeed find that to be a contradiction. You know, because those two posts don't say the same thing. Okay, so it was a contest roll, then? I apologize. I...

Uh... But you said: It's kinda hard to say this without sounding like a jerk, and I really don't want to come off as one and I really just want to understand, but what's with the contradiction here?

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...

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...

How so? Care to give an adequately detailed example?