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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8002961" data-attributes="member: 6696971">That is definitely helpful.So let’s assume that is the case here. This is an Adventure Path with hard-coded NPCs and plot.Not knowing exactly what resolution mechanics were deployed here (were the Social Interaction mechanics in 5e used? What happened afterward to resolve the physical conflict when things went south? What about the imprisonment? What about the setting’s response to all of this?), in your mind, what are the moving parts of this and how could it be done at the table?One final aside. I’ve seen degenerate action declarations (cited here and live) in social conflict where someone’s intent is not to play in good faith. I just don’t see how a player directly challenging a king (who is apparently a bad ruler) through their PC is anywhere near “bad faith” or “unreasonable.” We talk about inclusive diversity in so many different ways (as we should). Yet simultaneously I see a rejection of neurological diversity (where we are likely MOST diverse) in cases like this far too often with some sort of expectation of fealty to some (mis)perceived collective thought orthodoxy. It is very clear when someone has intended malice at a game table. Overwhelmingly though (as it looks to me in this case), I see an instance of neurological diversity. Someone has perceived something or had an impulse that seemed appropriate in the moment and they acted upon it.And honestly, the “sorry I hurt your campaign” remark after social pressure/admonishment (or whatever took place) doesn’t move units with me the way the units were intended to be moved (by my reckoning if it at least).</blockquote>

Verification