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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Torchlyte" data-source="post: 4205586" data-attributes="member: 64272">Let me summarize this debate for the people who choose to repeat the same ignorant post over and over without stopping to think about what others are saying.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The following is the reasoning behind the railroad debate:There are two possible scenarios relevant to this debate:1. The players want to be diplomatic.2. The players want to intimidate the Duke.If (1) is true, then by definition there's no need to put a ruling on intimidation because the players don't want to use that skill. If a player wants to use Intimidate, then that means that (2) must be true and the challenge's stated goal is not the players' goal.If the players use intimidate, then earning the NPC's trust is not their goal.3. Therefore, the only reasonable reason to fiat that Intimidate will not work is if you're forcing the players to solve the problem your way, because in any other case the rule is irrelevant. This is railroading.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now, having already found the objective to be out of sync with the rules contained therein, we can come to the debate over the fiat itself.Given: The DM is only allowing the players to solve the challenge his way.The following proposition is given:Clarification given by posters who don't actually understand what the debate is about: "He's not immune to intimidation; he just doesn't respond to it."Rebuttal to the quoted proposition: If you feel that you have options (such as ignoring me or calling your guards) other than doing as I say, I have not successfully intimidated you. This interpretation is backed up by the following definition: If you use the first definition, then the Duke can "not respond" to intimidation as mentioned. However, there is a problem with using that definition - it assumes that you have no skill or persuasive ability, which is belied by the fact that intimidation is a CHA stat.It does not take skill to cause fear, it takes skill to make someone feel as if they have no other options. The KKK was good at intimidation not because Whites were inherently more scary, but because Blacks felt like they had no choice (because the Whites controlled all the consequences). The mafia is good at intimidation because they make you feel as if you cannot escape them, and therefore you must do as they say.In sum of the above: If you feel like you have a choice, you have not been successfully intimidated. As a result, it makes no sense to say, "No matter how convincing you are (how successful you are at eliminating his perception of choice), he can't be intimidated."</blockquote>

Verification