Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6734947" data-attributes="member: 4937">Technically, no.&nbsp; You can still conceivably be diplomatic without being terse or clear.&nbsp; You can be very likable and attractive without being the sort of person other people want to follow and obey.&nbsp; And Intimidation is for buck privates that have just enlisted and whipped into shape, and you can be good at without knowing the first thing about leadership.&nbsp; But if you try to lead men by intimidation, pretty soon they'll want to kill you.&nbsp;&nbsp; See for example Richard Winters by comparison with Herbert Sobel.There is a repeating problem in militaries where the peace time traits of its leadership don't translate well into strong leadership in war time.&nbsp; You could think of this as Diplomacy being a skill of great utility during peace time, allowing leaders&nbsp; to rise high in the ranks and be well liked and admired, but ultimately turning out to actually lack skill at Command which is needed urgently during time of war.&nbsp; You can easily imagine a very diplomatic person who expresses this in consensus building, in bolstering others egos, and in not giving offense.&nbsp; And this person might completely lack the ability to make firm decisions, express those decisions in clear ways, and not muddle the situation by forgetting needed steps or adding unnecessary information.&nbsp; And you might not even realize that until you are in a situation where because of pressure, they can't go through a long process of polling other peoples opinions and reaching a compromise.However, in a simplified system, you could combine the idea of Leadership with something else the way Pathfinder has a 'Perception' check.&nbsp; There are advantages to doing things like that, particularly if you want to have all PC's inherently have strong leadership qualities which you might in a game like Birthright where everyone is assumed to be some sort of leader.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6734947, member: 4937"] Technically, no. You can still conceivably be diplomatic without being terse or clear. You can be very likable and attractive without being the sort of person other people want to follow and obey. And Intimidation is for buck privates that have just enlisted and whipped into shape, and you can be good at without knowing the first thing about leadership. But if you try to lead men by intimidation, pretty soon they'll want to kill you. See for example Richard Winters by comparison with Herbert Sobel. There is a repeating problem in militaries where the peace time traits of its leadership don't translate well into strong leadership in war time. You could think of this as Diplomacy being a skill of great utility during peace time, allowing leaders to rise high in the ranks and be well liked and admired, but ultimately turning out to actually lack skill at Command which is needed urgently during time of war. You can easily imagine a very diplomatic person who expresses this in consensus building, in bolstering others egos, and in not giving offense. And this person might completely lack the ability to make firm decisions, express those decisions in clear ways, and not muddle the situation by forgetting needed steps or adding unnecessary information. And you might not even realize that until you are in a situation where because of pressure, they can't go through a long process of polling other peoples opinions and reaching a compromise. However, in a simplified system, you could combine the idea of Leadership with something else the way Pathfinder has a 'Perception' check. There are advantages to doing things like that, particularly if you want to have all PC's inherently have strong leadership qualities which you might in a game like Birthright where everyone is assumed to be some sort of leader. [/QUOTE]

Verification