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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6742694" data-attributes="member: 16814">That seems... odd to me.  I can't put my finger on it, because it's either so vague that any situation can eventually arrive at a player decision that precipitated it (up to and including sitting down at the table to play), or it implies that NPCs should always be reactive to player actions -- they can intimidate a PC, sure, but only if the PC puts themselves into a position for the NPC to intimidate them.For example, in a recent game, an NPC organization set out to intimidate a player character.  The short backstory was that the PC had come into possession of information that would be damaging to this organization.  Further, the organization was well known to be of the highly unsavory sort.  The PC made contact with a representative of the organization and indicated he has the information and wished to return it, provided sufficient compensation was made.  Once word got back to decision makers in the organization, they immediately acted to put the PC in distress by making a not subtle threat against his family (specifically, contact was reestablished through the time honored tactic of having the organization representative waiting as a guest in the character's home, speaking with his family in a friendly way -- trite, but effective).  This was a clearly NPC initiated intimidation, and done so because I knew that this organization behaves in this way -- always have an advantage during negotiations is one of their mottos.  So, was that a PC initiated confrontation, because the PC did something that caused an unseen and unknowable (at the time) sequence of events that led to the intimidation attempt?  If so, it would appear that your criteria for PC initiated could conceivable span multiple sessions, hidden and lying await, to spring up later in a way that isn't clearly connected to the initial impetus.  And that's nearly meaningless in deciding if the action is okay by the rules, because then the interpretation is so loose that anything is therefore justifiable (which was my point).  Yet you seemed to be keen on making a statement that only some things are allowable -- that NPCs shouldn't initiate action, be merely reactive.  If, however, the reaction isn't clearly linked to the action except in the mind of the DM, then it's a hidden mechanic from the players' perspective and doesn't seem to accomplish the goal you've set.I don't know, perhaps I'm overthinking this.  I appreciate that you're responses are full of 'my way is better' and that you seem genuinely interested in engaging the topic.  Thanks for the responses.</blockquote>

Verification