Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stormtalon" data-source="post: 4204624" data-attributes="member: 5541">Regarding Intimidate and History:First, Intimidate.&nbsp; I think it might go over better if folks stopped thinking of Intimidate as being &quot;impossible&quot; to use against the Duke but rather as &quot;counter-productive.&quot;&nbsp; It provides one skill failure out of 4.&nbsp; It would be railroading if it immediately failed the entire encounter, sure, but that's not what happens.&nbsp; As a DM, it makes eminent sense to me that in most situations there will be skills which may actively harm your progress; it makes things a bit more fluid and can add suspense to what would be an otherwise rote bit of &quot;Beat the DCs.&quot;&nbsp; There's drama to be milked out of such things, I'm thinking.On to History.&nbsp; Can't say I'm buying the argument of &quot;but I know all this historical stuff, why can't I just make use of it right away?&quot;&nbsp; The answer (and I know it's been stated multiple times by multiple people, but not quite so bluntly) is &quot;Relevance.&quot;&nbsp; Sure, you can know a lot of history -- enough to impress just about anyone.&nbsp; However, without the knowledge that this one individual considers this one bit of historical knowledge to be personally important, that vast amount of information packed away in your brain is as good as useless in a negotiation setting.&nbsp; The Diplomacy check opens that door as the Duke makes a reference to something that you might have considered irrelevant.&nbsp; It's not just about knowing the history of the region.&nbsp; It's about knowing this one bit of information AND knowing that it's of value.&nbsp; It's that last part that's the kicker, and why you need Diplomacy first to let you make use of your vast knowledge of History.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stormtalon, post: 4204624, member: 5541"] Regarding Intimidate and History: First, Intimidate. I think it might go over better if folks stopped thinking of Intimidate as being "impossible" to use against the Duke but rather as "counter-productive." It provides one skill failure out of 4. It would be railroading if it immediately failed the entire encounter, sure, but that's not what happens. As a DM, it makes eminent sense to me that in most situations there will be skills which may actively harm your progress; it makes things a bit more fluid and can add suspense to what would be an otherwise rote bit of "Beat the DCs." There's drama to be milked out of such things, I'm thinking. On to History. Can't say I'm buying the argument of "but I know all this historical stuff, why can't I just make use of it right away?" The answer (and I know it's been stated multiple times by multiple people, but not quite so bluntly) is "Relevance." Sure, you can [i]know[/i] a lot of history -- enough to impress just about anyone. However, without the knowledge that [i]this one individual[/i] considers [i]this one bit of historical knowledge[/i] to be personally important, that vast amount of information packed away in your brain is as good as useless in a negotiation setting. The Diplomacy check opens that door as the Duke makes a reference to something that you might have considered irrelevant. It's not just about knowing the history of the region. It's about knowing this one bit of information AND [i]knowing that it's of value.[/i] It's that last part that's the kicker, and why you need Diplomacy first to let you make use of your vast knowledge of History. [/QUOTE]

Verification