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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="M_Natas" data-source="post: 9294696" data-attributes="member: 7025918">I have seen Intimidation used several times and used it several times.Like, after killing an enemy brutally (like critical hitor high damage) smearing their blood on your face and looking at the next enemy and saying "you are next".Any DM who doesn't let you roll an Intimidation check after that ... you should leave that DM ^^.Edit:But I think this is a perfect example of why a rigide structure with a limited amount of specified actions can stiffle roleplay:In Combat players don't try to Intimidate NPCs, even if it would make narrativly sense - why?Because it is not spelled out as a specific action that you can take during combat, while others are spelled out.So when you impose a rigid structure, that has to leave out something, players don't usually use the things that are left out, especially when they are mechanics first type of players.But for roleplay it is best to be a narrative first player. What would my character do in that situation? And then do that and only then figure out how to adjudicate that.The more and specific rules and mechanics you have the more you ate automatically leaving out.We already can see that with the existence of the Skill List itself. A lot of players sadly only think in their skills. The skills are buttons for them to press and they try to use a skill first and then add the ingame justification for the skill use on to it and they respectably get irritated when the DM decides to adjudicate the player character action with a different skill, because the DM things that Skill applies more to the situation.</blockquote>

Verification