They killed my abbrasive, quarrelsome, violent NPC that I loved so much

[Berandor]

I was referring to before IcyCool's post:

You appear to think it is somehow similar to a magical fear effect though, which seems to indicate you should look at it more carefully.

No. I was just comparing that both a skill and a magical effect can make a PC do something the Player might not want to do based on "just a die roll"; one is a skill check, the other a saving throw.

The Player might not want his PC to fall down, but it doesn't matter whether he fails his Balance check for mundane ice or his Reflex save for the grease spell: he will fall down due to "just a die roll". Ice is not a magical effect, but the results still come from a die roll.

Which, to me, made it clear what he intended to say, even if it might have been not expressed too clearly in the first place.

As to fanning the flames, I thought it was clear Quasqueton was already acting defensively, and just jumping on the bandwagon to demand an apology from him for another poster seemed to me to be not very likely to make him less defensive, but more. (I'm not saying Q's posts might not have been over the top).

 

[IcyCool]

Which, to me, made it clear what he intended to say, even if it might have been not expressed too clearly in the first place.

Fair enough, but my point still remains valid.

As to fanning the flames, I thought it was clear Quasqueton was already acting defensively, and just jumping on the bandwagon to demand an apology from him for another poster seemed to me to be not very likely to make him less defensive, but more. (I'm not saying Q's posts might not have been over the top).

I understand your viewpoint, but do not agree. I will continue to treat the posters here as if they were adults, because barring the occaisional outburst most folks here are witty, intelligent, and mature. I will do my best not to post inflammatory comments, but I will not let a point suffer just because someone is "feeling defensive."

To sum up (and then I'm following Q's lead and leaving this thread):
Saying, "You owe him an apology" is not "fanning the flames."

Saying, "You owe him an apology you stupid git" is "fanning the flames."

 

[Arnwyn]

If so then they sound like bad house rules. When I play a character I want to play the character, not let the dice do it for me.

Guess you guys don't use social skills like Diplomacy and Intimidate, then.

Whether people like it or not, this is an either/or situation regardless of whether the DMG tries to (poorly) argue for a double-standard.

If the results are to be used, then the results must be consistently applied for everyone, IMO.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've just read through five pages and seen a lot of impoliteness. Nobody likes impoliteness. The NPC in question might have been abrasive, quarrelsome and violent but that doesn't mean that we want to see anyone here behave that way, eh?

So lets drop any too-ing and fro-ing about what might have been said by someone refuting someone elses refutation and stick to a nice discussion eh?

And always remember different != wrong.

Cheers
Plane Sailing (mod)

 

[Hammerhead]

I've just read through five pages and seen a lot of impoliteness. Nobody likes impoliteness. The NPC in question might have been abrasive, quarrelsome and violent but that doesn't mean that we want to see anyone here behave that way, eh?

And always remember different != wrong.

Cheers
Plane Sailing (mod)

Yeah, just look at what happened to her. Not a happy ending.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Guess you guys don't use social skills like Diplomacy and Intimidate, then.

Whether people like it or not, this is an either/or situation regardless of whether the DMG tries to (poorly) argue for a double-standard.

If the results are to be used, then the results must be consistently applied for everyone, IMO.

Against players? Darned straight. I have been in games where the GM tried to force PCs to abide by such things - end result? Game 3 he had no players. Sometimes a double standard is the proper choice. And it is poorly designed in your opinion. (And I thank you for saying so in your post by the way.) Not in everyone's.

Even Storyteller had a mechanic for ignoring such things - spend a willpower point.

If you wanted to allow the expenditure of Action Points to avoid an intimidation result I would not have a problem - it puts the control back in the hands of the player, albeit at a cost and with a limit.

Personally I would not bother, though when players have asked me 'how intimidating is he' I do roll, and let him know. I personally think that there should be an opposed roll involved as well, the fact that fighters are so easily intimidated does bother me. ('Cause bards are just so darned intimidating...)

The Auld Grump

 

[Saeviomagy]

Personally I would not bother, though when players have asked me 'how intimidating is he' I do roll, and let him know. I personally think that there should be an opposed roll involved as well,

There is an opposed roll. d20+level+wisdom bonus+modifiers vs fear. So someone of equal level, with average cha, and you with average wis, who is investing max ranks in intimidate only has a 3 point lead on you. And it cost him precious skill points.

the fact that fighters are so easily intimidated does bother me. ('Cause bards are just so darned intimidating...)

And I suppose in your games bards walk around with a big sign on their forehead that says "Hi, don't fear me, I'm just a bard!"?

Finally - fighters get intimidate too, and their other skills are just so bad that they should probably have it at max ranks.

At which point you're down to a difference in the charisma and wisdom of the intimidator. Frankly if you've chosen to dump both in favour of physical stats, you've created someone who may be able to walk the walk, but can't talk the talk, and is easily scared by those who can.

Dump mental stats at your peril.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

And I suppose that in your game you put words in other peoples mouths?


Guess so.

My feeling is that it should be an opposed skill roll, though I was not clear upon that in my post, not just level and bonus.

The Auld Grump

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I'm not going to get into the Intimidate debate. Been there, done that. And not only that, but I don't think that's the reason Q started this thread.

I will say, Q, that your original post reminded me of a fond NPC of my own. He was a spoiled noble's son who wanted to have adventures, so he regularly took to doing guardwork and mercenary work in the city. To hide his identity he wore a specially-made suit of full plate enamelled red, with a dragon helmet. He called himself "Dragonman."

God I had fun playing Dragonman. I used to play the Lois & Clark theme song whenever he arrived on the scene. He spoke in a booming voice, just like a super hero might. And he had a way of inserting backhanded insults into his comments to the party gnome.

"Never fear, my vertically-challenged friend, Dragonman will protect you!"

I sure loved playing him. Understandably, though, the party wasn't particularly upset after their contract with him was over, nor did they ever look him up again for further service.

It isn't that NPCs like Lewellyn or Dragonman don't get what they deserve. It isn't that a DM expects them to be treated well in spite of any annoyances they might cause the PCs. It's just that, playing the character is so fun that you're sad to see them go.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

In that case he has the perfect right to mourn her passing, though she brought it on herself. I was reading it as complaint about his PCs' actions, which I felt justified. I may have been reading too much into what he said.

Personally I find that there are characters that I rejoice when they get dealt with. And I might have put her in that category if I were running her. She was just a shade too psychotic for me to empathise with.

The Auld Grump