enrious said:
I suppose actually responding to what I say is too much trouble. Far better to take the easy way out and construct a strawman.
Is there a word for a double strawman? Maybe we should invent one. Inappropriate use of the term is getting quite cliched around here...
Please show me where I said that every character should respond the same way; that every character should not be intimidated.
Or please re-read this staement, "In the scene described, I could see and justify a number of responses the PC could have made. The manner in which he responded helped define his character, something forcing him into one way of acting would not have allowed."
Of course, you're trying to justify reponses that are totally inappropriate. What you are saying is "no matter how the rules say the situation should play out - no matter how weak willed the character is, the player should still be able to just totally ignore that, and I consider that a valid response."
In other words, how the character responds depends on the character. Some would likely be easily cowed, others wouldn't - it depends on the character.
But it seems that according to you, if you're playing a character who isn't likely to be intimidated by a given NPC and thus opts not to play the character as intimidated, it's bad role-playing according to you.
Are you seriously suggesting that playing the character isn't good role-playing?
Go back, get your arguments back on track. Your mixing up what you're arguing against here.
You said (paraphrasing) "Why don't social skills work when used by NPCs against PC's?"
I said "because some players don't like losing control of any aspect of their character"
And you said "Well I think that saying 'I'm playing in character!' would make a good excuse to ignore the situation described by the GM".
I said "yeah, it's also called being a jerk"
Right, because obviously the characters with the best Will saves are fighter types.
Yeah, because obviously every other character class out there isn't at least as dangerous as a fighter. I mean maybe a fighter isn't going to be intimidated by someone he knows for a fact to be a talentless commoner, but outside that, everyone has something horrible and nasty they can do to the fighter, no matter the size of his muscles. And someone with a high intimidate skill can make the fighter think that they ARE going to do something horrible and nasty, even if they can't.
I also love how you fail to read what I say and instead project a ton of stuff that I don't. Perhaps you've heard of the strawman fallacy?
We're talking about mental stuff. We're talking about being scared of someone and reacting appropriately.
For some obscure reason, you believe that a character being 6'5 and a barbarian somehow contributes to the situation. Before you try and use complex concepts, work out what it is that you're actually saying.
In any event, as I've said, it depends on the character. A character who isn't a very physical type, who is something of a coward would very likely be intimidated by a NPC and the player should very much take that into consideration when role-playing.
On the other hand, some characters by virtue of their backstory or personality aren't likely to be intimidated by certain types of NPCs and that should be taken into effect when role-playing. Of course, that's not to say that a different type of intimidation wouldn't have more of an effect (such as a magical display in the case of the above barbarian) - it varies by NPC and circumstance.
And someone making a successful check has worked out what the targets 'trigger' is and successfully hit it. It's a successful check. It means that the intimidate worked, via whatever explanation you can think of.
What about a paladin? Should he/she have been cowed in the example given in the OP?
No. "Beginning at 3rd level, a paladin is immune to fear (magical or otherwise)". That's part of them rules. It says "paladins ain't scared of nuthin".
If your barbarian wants to be unafraid of anything, then maybe he should find himself a similar ability, or at least a good will save.
Ahh, so you're psychic and have won
a million dollars.
If it wasn't important to you that somehow, females in D&D are less impressive than men, why was it in your example?
Honestly, hong does this much better than you. Go take classes.
Those are certainly valid responses, as the player decides his character would react. So would a failure to be impressed by her.
That would be called "succeeding at the opposed check that forms the intimidate". Or "just roleplaying my character! R0XX0RZ THE MAGNIFICENT bows to noone!!!!!!1111oneone!!two"
Wait, so you aren't arguing that a character should always be intimidated by a dainty little (although admittingly unstable) lass with a sword.
You fail the roll, you've been intimidated. HOW you back down defines the character, as others have said.
Help me out here. It sure seems like you've been advocating a scripted response to an NPC's attempt to intimidate because you've sure seemed to say that anyone who doesn't cower is engaging in bad role-playing.
And I said that where? Strawman, meet kettle.
Since you're a millionare, can I borrow some money?
No. I'm going to keep it all.
Regardless, I can see some circumstances where strength could be used to bolster intimidate. Surely you have that much imagination, right?
Yeah, used to bolster, fine. I can't ever see the 6'5 written in the height box on my sheet, or the 'barbarian' ever being used to justify to my GM that I don't need to make a save against fear, or a sense motive check.
Or a counter-intimidate roll.
