Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8146468" data-attributes="member: 29398">Not quite.  I'm saying that after-the-moment options ought to be left open-ended; that while the archivist might have helped you at the time this doesn't proof you against later repercussions.  It doesn't guarantee their occurrence either.Am I-as-GM even allowed to use Diplomacy or Intimidate (in 3e, say) against a PC?  If no, then why should PCs be allowed to use them against an NPC?But yes, honouring the dice at the time is fine - it's why we roll them.In part because I want to make decisions like that ahead of time in order to inform how I'm going to role-play this guy.  Even just pre-determining an alignment gives me a general starting point.I'd rather do it in reverse: alter the interaction based on the principles (or lack thereof) of the NPC and let that interaction be what establishes his nature in the shared fiction, absent prior information.I'm very much a let-'em-play ref when it comes to that sort of thing, so it'd have to get pretty crazy before I stepped in. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />For clarity, usually.  I find non-bonkers examples often cause their own sub-arguments.In the case of the bridge, it'd be some sort of perception check (or equivalent) to notice something fishy before you joined the fish.  In the case of the sword...I don't know, I just couldn't come up with a better bonkers example on the fly. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification