Skills used by players on other players.

[FrogReaver]

If you had a pacificistic animal-rights activist barbarian character in my game, I'd point you toward the door, but that would have been covered in session zero when game expectations were set. You might want to explore those things, but I really don't, at least not in my D&D game. My 7th Sea Hack for Firefly, sure, sounds fun, let's do it.

Right, if such a character is incompatabile with the campaign then the DM should have just banned it out the door.

 

[iserith]

I DM'd a game recently for a group. 4 of the 5 wanted to accomplish the goals of the adventure. The 5th one decided that his Barbarian was a pacifist and an animal-rights zealot, and proceeded to consume a large portion of our limited game time with his own little escapades, then initiated PvP when the others killed a hostile beast that attacked them.

Sounds like someone needs to learn how to share the spotlight. I'm all for silly concepts, but it's all in the execution.

 

[GameOgre]

I mean yeah it could be. Then again it could be someone bored with the slash and hack of your typical game and trying to elevate the game. Some of the best games involve such play.

That said. It's also very possible its exactly what the poster thought. Not knowing anything more than was posted, it certainly seems so.

It's a hard tightrope to walk trying to break free of the typical railroad nature of a lot of the adventures but still make sure the group is having fun(that includes the DM). A lot of the time it ends badly because what one person finds fun can lead to one or more of the other players growing more and more aggravated.

The skill certainly calls for a harsh learning curve. Maybe he will get better at it. Lets hope so.


I know during one of my last times playing I was having a ball role playing with several npc's and a couple of the players but noticed one player kinda trying to force a smile while not really participating in that activity so I had my character cut it shorter than it would have been and bounced the ball over to that player to see what he had in mind. He quickly had us head off into combat and that was fine, it's a group activity after all.

 

[Charlaquin]

I feel like trying to play a pacifist in a game where the majority of the mechanics are focused on combat is a strange choice. I get making a character who doesn’t kill, or who only uses violence in self-defense or whatever, provided they aren’t disruptive to the rest of the group. But a true pacifist seems like a defective adventurer to me.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

What was the uncertain outcome for which you rolled the guard's Intimidate check?

I was contrasting it with the scenario that started this thread, the use of Intimidate on a Player Character.

You're right. In real play, I'd have decided already "this guard is good at intimidation" or "this guard is good at shaking down people" or "this guard can't back up her words so her intimidation attempts will be weak" and so on.

My point is, as a GM, I shouldn't be saying to players, "Your PC is intimidated."

I should be saying, "The NPC is ready and willing to back up their intimidation attempt with violence and they think they can take you. What do your characters do?"

If the intimidation attempt came from another PC then as a GM then I shouldn't be saying anything at all.

 

[FrogReaver]

I feel like trying to play a pacifist in a game where the majority of the mechanics are focused on combat is a strange choice. I get making a character who doesn’t kill, or who only uses violence in self-defense or whatever, provided they aren’t disruptive to the rest of the group. But a true pacifist seems like a defective adventurer to me.

Well the guy wasn’t a true pacifist. He did attack the party lol. A pacifist IMO is a PC that always tries to find a non violent solution to a problem but one that will defend themselves if attacked. If pacifist means never makes an attack then yea that’s a problem.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well the guy wasn’t a true pacifist. He did attack the party lol. A pacifist IMO is a PC that always tries to find a non violent solution to a problem but one that will defend themselves if attacked. If pacifist means never makes an attack then yea that’s a problem.

If you use a different definition of a commonly understood word, you should mention that up ftont.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you use a different definition of a commonly understood word, you should mention that up ftont.

#1 The evidence based the example provided was obviously closer to my definition or else the PC in question would never have attacked the party.

 

[Ovinomancer]

#1 The evidence based the example provided was obviously closer to my definition or else the PC in question would never have attacked the party.

Hey, you're the one that keeps complaining everyone musunderstands you. Maybe, at some point, you'll realize what the common denominator is.

 

[FrogReaver]

Hey, you're the one that keeps complaining everyone musunderstands you. Maybe, at some point, you'll realize what the common denominator is.

It's not right to bring complaints from a totally different thread with a totally different topic into any other thread. If you can't be mature enough to not do that then there's no sense in speaking to you.