Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greenstone.Walker" data-source="post: 8062811" data-attributes="member: 6788312">I wonder if that is an issue because GMs are not roleplayingt the consequences of diplomacy?Sure, you can sweet-talk the guard into letting you pass, but you've now left behind someone who feels maybe betrayed or faithless. Or maybe they get greedy and come at you later, asking for more bribe or they'll turn you in.As a GM, I feel I should be providing consequences for everything the players have their characters do. Players should be choosing between &quot;two tactics with different consequences&quot;; not between &quot;one tactic with nop consequencea and one tactic with bad consequences.&quot;That way intimidation and persuasion simply become &quot;two tools for overcoming an encounter&quot;, not &quot;Intimidation is the wors skill ever.&quot; <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greenstone.Walker, post: 8062811, member: 6788312"] I wonder if that is an issue because GMs are not roleplayingt the consequences of diplomacy? Sure, you can sweet-talk the guard into letting you pass, but you've now left behind someone who feels maybe betrayed or faithless. Or maybe they get greedy and come at you later, asking for more bribe or they'll turn you in. As a GM, I feel I should be providing consequences for everything the players have their characters do. Players should be choosing between "two tactics with different consequences"; not between "one tactic with nop consequencea and one tactic with bad consequences." That way intimidation and persuasion simply become "two tools for overcoming an encounter", not "Intimidation is the wors skill ever." :) [/QUOTE]

Verification