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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Waterbizkit" data-source="post: 6760742" data-attributes="member: 6802604">As others have said, it's all very specific to the context of the situation at hand with different variables to consider. For example, how exactly did Group A intimidate Group B? Was it a player simply saying "I want to intimidate them into giving up."? Or was it more specific where a character said something to the effect of "Lay down your Weapons and surrender, do so and we'll let you live?" One of those is more specific than the other and could arguably result in different outcomes. Basically I guess I'm saying that the specific intent of a roll is as important to its result as the actual numbers are.Now in the case here where Group B is already in flight as a result of the initial intimidation check, I'd probably call for a second check if Group A really wanted them to stop. Perhaps they might even go so far as to kill one or two of the fleeing group rather than simply "aiming at their feet" to get their point across. Regardless, if you're allowing Group A to make an attempt to stop them at all then you've already accepted that they might succeed and simply need to figure out how you want that to play out in the narrative. But if Group B is already fleeing and you see no reason why they would stop, then I simply wouldn't allow Group A to attempt it to begin with.At the end of the day you have to do what makes the most sense for you. Having a group stop and surrender to a superior force when they can quite likely escape needs to have a reason, even if it's a flimsy one for the sake of having a bit more fun. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification