Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6745832" data-attributes="member: 996">What's more, in 5e, you determine that there's uncertainty when you call for a check.  No check, no uncertainty.  That ball is entirely in your court.So you guys are drawing the stimulus|response line in different places?  Not even that different, it seems.  And, in both cases the bottom line is that the player has the PC do whatever he wants, regardless of what the 'stimulus' or the character, itself, were like?Could it be that there's a chain of stimulus-response going on?  And is that really what an intimidation roll models?  Either how competent your threat display, or how successful you are at evoking an involuntary fear response?   Because neither of those quite sound like the full 'intimidation' package, to me, somehow.  To get someone to do (or not do) something through intimidation, you'd have to be scary, sure, a credible threat.  But, you'd also have to leave room for the victim to think that knuckling under will actually placate you, and you'd have to make it clear what you want.  A lot of things don't exactly require verbal instructions, 'back off'/'out of my way'/'get out' can all be pretty obvious, but aside from that, it does seem to be an actual interaction skill, not just general scariness.</blockquote>