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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8003915" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I'm not missing that at all. Laughing off an insult is not out of the picture. It's really a matter of how the DM chooses to play it, isn't it? And yes, he's well defined in the book....but the players haven't read the book. So they're relying on the DM to convey what's in there. I don't think we have enough information to determine if he clearly established it. And even if he did, I still don't think that the player did anything wrong by deciding to challenge the NPC. My players did the exact same thing, really. They talked to the guy, realized he's batty as all get out, and then gave up on diplomacy. I think that the part I've bolded above is what may be at the heart of my issue here. What makes this a really stupid decision? And, do you mean on the part of the character or the player? I said earlier in the thread that many seemed to act as if the player needed to be punished in some way. And I don't know if that's the case. Yes, it turns out that this player may have some odd expectations about play based on additional information that the OP has offered. But I don't think that this specific instance must be a case of a player being disruptive.Yes, I'd expect any and all methods of resolution to take the genre and fiction into account.Why would a roll of some sort result in something more unexpected than what the DM can simly come up with off the top of his head?</blockquote>

Verification