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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6736148" data-attributes="member: 6787503">I realize my earlier response was a little terse, so I'll try to explain myself. You said the Orc is being intimidating in an effort to avoid combat. I assume he expresses his desire that I back-off and makes some sort of threat to back this up, which is kind of silly if you think about it. He doesn't want to fight, so he threatens to fight me if I don't comply. It doesn't limit the decisions I can make in the least. If I still want to fight, the Orc will oblige me. If I don't want to fight, then he doesn't either. It seems to me that the ball is in my court, and yet the way you wish to resolve this situation is for the Orc to roll a Charisma check. Does that mean if the Orc hits whatever DC you set, I will have to do what he wants?I mean, that's how I'd run it if the Orc wanted to intimidate an NPC. Assuming the NPC is hostile to the Orc, a DC 20 Charisma check from the Orc would result in the NPC complying with the Orc's request to not fight him as long as that decision carries no risk for the NPC, i.e. there isn't someone else threatening the NPC with some consequence if s/he doesn't fight the Orc. This makes sense for an NPC because s/he is being run by an impartial DM, so the dice can inform the NPC's decision making, but a player is not impartial with regard to his/her PC. The player is meant to assume the role of the PC and advocate on behalf of his/her character at the table. Placing mechanical constraints on the player in the social pillar, the part of the game that is most about roleplaying, seems to go against this.Maybe I don't understand you, but I'm sorry you're sick. I hope you feel better.</blockquote>

Verification