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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6059791" data-attributes="member: 1465">First of all, keep in mind that this is a playstyle issue: there is no "right" and "wrong" way to handle these situations.In my case, I don't force any player into certain actions due to Intimidate, Diplomacy and Bluff checks against them. I don't see any need to do that. Actually, I don't even necessarily always roll those checks, but I certainly do if the player asks for them, e.g. the player says "I want to roll Sense Motive against this guy to see if he's lying".How I would handle your specific examples:1. The thugs rolling very high Intimidate would mean that I tell the players "these guys look really tough, they look very capable of kicing your a**es". The player can choose to ignore and attack, basically it means they don't trust their own PC's ability to figure out the level of challenge but what if they are wrong? If the DM always gives encounters that are easy (or at least quite possible) to beat, then clearly the players learn that no matter how tough the monsters/NPC look, they can always beat them. Well, then this is another problem, and the DM cannot blame it on the rules. I don't do this, I sometimes really give out an encounter that is very tough, and could even be impossible, and in those cases I definitely give clear clues about that (such as "this foe looks beyond any of you!"), so if you avoid having only easy/beatable encounters in your game, the players learn that backing off is sometimes the best thing to do.2. I would never tell the player "your PC must believe what the NPC says". Instead I say "the NPC sounds very convincing, he's very probably telling the truth". The player can then do what she wants, but if she's wrong, she's going to pay the consequences in-game. Sometimes players gamble, and if they have fun doing that (even if it means to occasionally screw up the adventure), I don't see anything bad.3. Once again, a high Diplomacy roll by the NPC simply means that I'm going to describe him as "very convincing", while a very poor roll could mean (depending on the situation) that I may say "he sounds suspiciously, as if hiding something" - that said, if he really has something to hide, because if the truth is that he really only is concerned with getting the kitten saved, I wouldn't add anything like that.</blockquote>

Verification