Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 5751636" data-attributes="member: 386">I find it's easier to resolve the in-fiction action - what the PC says - than it is to resolve "I got a 25 on my Intimidate check."  I find that when I know how the PC is acting in the fiction, it's easier to determine if the NPC is going to bolt at the first opportunity or if he'll remain an ally of the PCs even when the PCs leave his presence.This is how I run that sort of thing:[sblock]As DM I role-play the NPC - get inside his head and try to figure out what he's all about.  If I'm unsure or have a creative block I'll roll on a table.  Reaction Rolls really help me out here.When the players interact with my role-playing of the NPC via their PCs - through in-character dialogue - I simply role-play the NPC's reactions as I understand the NPC.When I feel that I'm not sure how the NPC is going to react to something the PCs have said (or done - body language can be important) I ask for a check.  The check helps to inform my role-play of the NPC.Since I use 4E, the NPC will remain obstinate until a certain number of successful checks have been made (ie. I use skill challenges).  I determine the number of successful checks by the NPC's Reaction, either by rolling on the Reaction Roll table or by assigning a value.  (I have some detailed rules about the default Reactions of NPCs and how those change over time based on the PC's actions.)[/sblock]</blockquote>