Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7916235" data-attributes="member: 29398">In all of these cases it'd almost certainly come down to a series of dice rolls, maybe modified by various factors e.g. track position, skill, willingness to cheat in the race, etc.Yeah, this is part of why I'm not a huge fan of those rules and rarely use them.I also don't use the RAW for how a hench reacts to the treatment given by the employer, instead reacting as that particular character would as a free-willed individual.If a PC can change its mind (and I'm pretty hard line that, absent controlling mechanics, it can) then an NPC can also change its mind; which is why binding rolls are IMO a very bad idea.Had the sorcerer been another PC would this have been handled any differently?&nbsp; If yes, there's a problem.It is, but why did it need any rolling?&nbsp; Sir Lionheart was an NPC, right?&nbsp; If he - in your judgment as SL's player - is impressed enough with this squire (via how the squire's been roleplayed) to knight him on the spot then just do it.&nbsp; If not, don't do it; or have SL say something encouraging to the squire as he passes: &quot;You're brave, squire, I'll give you that.&nbsp; When next we meet I fully expect we will joust.&quot;And all of these violate the freedom of players to roleplay their characters, which makes them all&nbsp; - simply put - bad.And not for the better.&nbsp; Just as a GM can't* take the right to play a character away from a player, the game shouldn't be allowed to either.&nbsp; If I try to manipulate or persuade another PC to do something (e.g. chip in toward a castle) it's on the player of that PC to respond in character.* - again, absent control mechanics etc.And here's exactly what I'm talking about: the GM has to allow however long it takes for these debates to play out.&nbsp; They're still arguing three sessions later?&nbsp; Fine.&nbsp; Put yer feet up and let 'em have at it.Sooner or later the debate will resolve itself in character, and yes this might mean the party splits in two if they truly can't agree what to do next or in what sequence.&nbsp; Been there, done that, it's part of the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7916235, member: 29398"] In all of these cases it'd almost certainly come down to a series of dice rolls, maybe modified by various factors e.g. track position, skill, willingness to cheat in the race, etc. Yeah, this is part of why I'm not a huge fan of those rules and rarely use them. I also don't use the RAW for how a hench reacts to the treatment given by the employer, instead reacting as that particular character would as a free-willed individual. If a PC can change its mind (and I'm pretty hard line that, absent controlling mechanics, it can) then an NPC can also change its mind; which is why binding rolls are IMO a very bad idea. Had the sorcerer been another PC would this have been handled any differently? If yes, there's a problem. It is, but why did it need any rolling? Sir Lionheart was an NPC, right? If he - in your judgment as SL's player - is impressed enough with this squire (via how the squire's been roleplayed) to knight him on the spot then just do it. If not, don't do it; or have SL say something encouraging to the squire as he passes: "You're brave, squire, I'll give you that. When next we meet I fully expect we will joust." [INDENT]And all of these violate the freedom of players to roleplay their characters, which makes them all - simply put - bad.[/INDENT] And not for the better. Just as a GM can't* take the right to play a character away from a player, the game shouldn't be allowed to either. If I try to manipulate or persuade another PC to do something (e.g. chip in toward a castle) it's on the player of that PC to respond in character. * - again, absent control mechanics etc. And here's exactly what I'm talking about: [I]the GM has to allow however long it takes for these debates to play out[/I]. They're still arguing three sessions later? Fine. Put yer feet up and let 'em have at it. Sooner or later the debate will resolve itself in character, and yes this might mean the party splits in two if they truly can't agree what to do next or in what sequence. Been there, done that, it's part of the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification