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

[Goblyns Hoard]

1- Subjective opinion Auld Grump - the players may like the house rules... we don't know.

2- The house rule doesn't stop you playing your character - it just points you toward a 'likely' response your player should have if you're roleplaying both strengths and weaknesses. If you respond to fear with aggression or with submission either is fine - but as someone pointed out earlier - you don't get to always dictate when you feel fear - just how you're going to respond to it

3- I don't disagree that she deserved her death - the players were acting exactly as I would expect them to when they killed her. She lived her short vibrant life the way she wanted and she died at the hands of her betters. My respects to Q for playing her to her full and letting us enjoy her death as well.

 

[Sarellion]

Why should the halfling expect the other PC to come to help him
As far as I understood she was part of the party even if the NPC didn´t show up all the time. The NPC - PC divide is something OOC. ICC the character wouldn´t if some of the guys like the Hextorian cleric and the kukri fighter would help him against her.

 

[Zappo]

The way I do it, Intimidate checks and the like are treated as "polite suggestions" that the player should do as the roll indicates. I allow them to do otherwise, but I consider it to be extremely poor roleplaying. If roleplaying awards are in place, it may cost XP.

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.

I take it you never played any Storyteller game.

 

[JoeGKushner]

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.

If the DM tried it I would leave the game.

If I tried it I mould expect my players to leave the game.

And she drew steel.

And she died.

Guess she won't try that again.

The Auld Grump. if his players abide by it all well and good, but since they don't... it seems they don't like it either.

This is pretty much my take on it.

Maybe it's because I'm a fair role player and if the GM tells me how dangerous the character is, if I've heard about them, if I know their attitude, I can judge what my character would do. It's also the same reason why despite being a fair roleplayer, I'm often not the party spokesman because most of my characters have average charisma and despite a good speaking voice, I'll usually only offer advice and tactics that my character would have a good grasp of.

I can see in some groups why the GM might force his players to obey roleplaying checks but at the same time, it wouldnt' be any group I'd jump to be in.

 

[Quasqueton]

a lot of players (me included) don't feel the GM has any business telling them what their charcter feels or how they act

It is possible you players felt this way --

There are lots of standard game situations where the DM tells the Player what their character feels or acts. Most of these situations are from magical effects, but still, your blanket statement is inaccurate.

if his players abide by it all well and good, but since they don't... it seems they don't like it either.

By Players don't "abide" by it? That's news to me and my Players. Thanks for letting us know how we feel.

Quasqueton

 

[Berandor]

I side with Q.

IMC, NPCs can bluff the PCs, pick their pockets, sneak up on them, charm them, make suggestions, dominate, hold them, stun them, and yes, intimidate them.

Now, Intimidate is not very useful - just read the description -, because if there's one type of person that can carry a grudge, it's a PC vs an NPC. Plus, I give the PCs the freedom to interpret the effect.

For example, the Intimidating NPC might demand of the Pc to hand over the MacGuffin, and succeeds. I describe the intimidation and tell the player that his character thinks it's best to follow suit. And whatever the PC does, the net result must be that he relinquishes the item.
But he might throw it over (in the hops of her dropping it or her guard), or he might lay it on the floor and step back, or he might hand it over (and try something sneaky), or he might throw the item across the room into a corner to get away.
However (!), the NPCs are allowed to do the same. If they can screw you over, they'll likely try to.

 

[Quasqueton]

I think there's a lot of people jumping on Quasequeton for his use of some HOUSE RULES.

Apparently, technically, it is a house rule. By the RAW, the Diplomacy and Intimidate skills cannot be used on PCs. [Diplomacy and Intimidate are the only skills that change a character's attitude.] There is a game mechanics barrier that prevents these two skills from having any affect at all on a PC.

Apparently, PCs cannot be stirred by a great speech. PCs cannot be convinced by a strong argument. PCs cannot be worried by a threatening stance. PCs cannot be bothered by harsh words. PC attitude is inviolate, and the Player has no obligation, whatsoever, to role play his character within any emotional context from the characters in the campaign world.

Although, if the *DM* can make the great speech or strong argument, or if he can color his description of the threatening stance or harsh words well enough, and can affect the *Player*, then it seems no one has a problem. But such amazing verbal and descriptive skills are rare in a DM playing a hobby.

Q has a system in which he can roll his NPC skill checks against the PCs. They then get the chance to role-play their character.

It is not a "system" I created or really officially enforced. It is just something that kind of came up during play. Even the PCs occassionally use Diplomacy with each other.

One of the most memorable instances of an NPC using Diplomacy on a PC was when an NPC seduced a PC into bed. We role played the intial encounter in a tavern where the PC was trying to get info from the (known-to-be-a-ladies'-man) NPC. During that encounter, I said the NPC was using Diplomacy to seduce her. I rolled the NPC's Diplomacy check (very high) and the Player played along with the result. We "faded to black" when she agreed to go back to his home for the evening. The PC got the info she was after, but the Player allowed the in-game emotional manipulation to work and role played with it. No one was angry or cheated.

Just in our most recent game, the PCs were supposed to board a ship for a day's sail to another coast town. One PC absolutely did not want to get on the ship. She wanted to go to the town by horse instead (a 3-day trek). The "diplomat" PC tried convincing her with a Diplomacy check. I would have prefered the Player actually play out the speach as best he could, and then roll the dice to see, mechanically, how well his words should have sounded, but I think the Player chose just to roll the dice to save time (simply boarding the ship was just taking too much time). Unfortunately, in this instance, the Diplomacy check was not very good, so the party had to convince the reluctant PC by just everyone boarding and showing that she'd have to ride alone if she didn't want to come on the ship.

In my campaign, there have been far more instances of PCs using Diplomacy on PCs (usually for good purposes) than NPCs using either Diplomacy or Intimidate on PCs (for good or bad purposes). Usually, the Players play along with the rolls in whatever appropriate way their character would respond in game. Often the PC-on-PC Diplomacy checks are just to have an in-game reason for a reluctant PC to go along with a "plan".

As long as Q isn't saying "OK you failed your intimidate counter-check, you think she's big and scary so you step out of the way quickly and grovel as she goes past" and leaves it up to the player to respond to how the dice roll then everything is fine.

Exactly! The Player gets to choose how their character reacts, and usually they respond appropriately for the roll and their character. No one gets forced to act in any particular way. It's just an unstated, but understood and mutually respected, "agreement" that a Player should and will play his/her character within the context of the game mechanics.

And it is not just in the game that I DM. I'm a Player in another game, with the same group, and we all follow the same concept when I'm not DMing. And I bet it is not that unusual in other groups. Do PCs ignore the high-Charisma PC in the group? Or is the high-Charisma PC (paladin, cleric, sorcerer, bard) often the accepted *in-game* leader of the group? Why is that? Is it because the Players usually accept the concept that in-game, the high-Charisma character is more "follow worthy" than the low-Charisma barbarian?

Quasqueton

 

[TheEvil]

I'm very close to cussing now. I DID NOT COMPARE THE EFFECTS OF AN INTIMIDATE SKILL CHECK TO THE EFFECTS OF THE CAUSE FEAR SPELL!!! Read what I friggin' typed. I compared the facts that both give a result based on a die roll. READ MY DAMN POST! Don't infer. Don't twist my meaning.

Quote where I said Intimidate = cause fear. Quote it or shut up about it.

Quasqueton

Rough day? It seems to me that you at least owe IcyCool a response, and possibly an apology...

 

[Storm Raven]

Never said they were. You are just setting up a strawman argument.

Actually, you have, several times.

Constantly stating that social skills have no useful effects makes your argument irrelevant.

No useful effects on PCs out of combat, since they affect reactions, which are defined as NPC attributes. The skills can be used to inform your description of what is going on to the players, but it can't dictate their responses.

 

[TheEvil]

Apparently, technically, it is a house rule. By the RAW, the Diplomacy and Intimidate skills cannot be used on PCs. [Diplomacy and Intimidate are the only skills that change a character's attitude.] There is a game mechanics barrier that prevents these two skills from having any affect at all on a PC.

Apparently, PCs cannot be stirred by a great speech. PCs cannot be convinced by a strong argument. PCs cannot be worried by a threatening stance. PCs cannot be bothered by harsh words. PC attitude is inviolate, and the Player has no obligation, whatsoever, to role play his character within any emotional context from the characters in the campaign world.

Although, if the *DM* can make the great speech or strong argument, or if he can color his description of the threatening stance or harsh words well enough, and can affect the *Player*, then it seems no one has a problem. But such amazing verbal and descriptive skills are rare in a DM playing a hobby.

It is not a "system" I created or really officially enforced. It is just something that kind of came up during play. Even the PCs occassionally use Diplomacy with each other.

One of the most memorable instances of an NPC using Diplomacy on a PC was when an NPC seduced a PC into bed. We role played the intial encounter in a tavern where the PC was trying to get info from the (known-to-be-a-ladies'-man) NPC. During that encounter, I said the NPC was using Diplomacy to seduce her. I rolled the NPC's Diplomacy check (very high) and the Player played along with the result. We "faded to black" when she agreed to go back to his home for the evening. The PC got the info she was after, but the Player allowed the in-game emotional manipulation to work and role played with it. No one was angry or cheated.

Just in our most recent game, the PCs were supposed to board a ship for a day's sail to another coast town. One PC absolutely did not want to get on the ship. She wanted to go to the town by horse instead (a 3-day trek). The "diplomat" PC tried convincing her with a Diplomacy check. I would have prefered the Player actually play out the speach as best he could, and then roll the dice to see, mechanically, how well his words should have sounded, but I think the Player chose just to roll the dice to save time (simply boarding the ship was just taking too much time). Unfortunately, in this instance, the Diplomacy check was not very good, so the party had to convince the reluctant PC by just everyone boarding and showing that she'd have to ride alone if she didn't want to come on the ship.

In my campaign, there have been far more instances of PCs using Diplomacy on PCs (usually for good purposes) than NPCs using either Diplomacy or Intimidate on PCs (for good or bad purposes). Usually, the Players play along with the rolls in whatever appropriate way their character would respond in game. Often the PC-on-PC Diplomacy checks are just to have an in-game reason for a reluctant PC to go along with a "plan".

Exactly! The Player gets to choose how their character reacts, and usually they respond appropriately for the roll and their character. No one gets forced to act in any particular way. It's just an unstated, but understood and mutually respected, "agreement" that a Player should and will play his/her character within the context of the game mechanics.

And it is not just in the game that I DM. I'm a Player in another game, with the same group, and we all follow the same concept when I'm not DMing. And I bet it is not that unusual in other groups. Do PCs ignore the high-Charisma PC in the group? Or is the high-Charisma PC (paladin, cleric, sorcerer, bard) often the accepted *in-game* leader of the group? Why is that? Is it because the Players usually accept the concept that in-game, the high-Charisma character is more "follow worthy" than the low-Charisma barbarian?

Quasqueton

So you play with house rules, no need to get testy about it.

It sounds like your players are quite willing to roleplay their responses, why not try just discribing the results of your roll and let them chose how to react? Has this method disappointed you in the past? Do dice rolls rule in your game? Will a reasonable request be rebuffed because of a failed diplomacy check? Out of curiousity, did the Intimidated NPB react as you in a way you would expect a player to? That part was a little spare of details, and I am somewhat curious.