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

[IcyCool]

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

Three things:

Would you not "force" the PC to run away if he failed a save vs. cause fear?

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.

1. You do indeed appear to be comparing Cause Fear and Intimidate. In point of fact, you say it right there in the second quote.

2. Nowhere did I say that you are claiming that Cause Fear and Intimidate are equal, you did not. I was under the impression that you chose Cause Fear for it's similarity to Intimidate. If this is not the case, then you appear to have no point, or I have missed it. Was your choice of the saving throw for Cause Fear deliberate, or could you just have easily have said an attack roll? They both "give results based on a die roll", as does just about every other mechanic in the game.

3. I ask you to adopt a more civil tone. If my post was somehow inflammatory, please point out where, and I will gladly edit it and apologize. I'm not trying to pick on you here, I too know the feeling of losing a treasured and fun NPC to my PCs, I'm just curious about a couple of things.

Hope I didin't intimidate you.

 

[Buttercup]

I doubt any of my players would have let her live after the incident with the monk. She would have been bound, weighted and thrown in the ocean I would imagine.

Oh yeah. Heck, my players have threatened to kill another PC because he was stealing from them. An NPC stabbing one of them? It would be over in seconds.

 

[Nilhgualcm Leahcim]

Hmmm.

(a cleric of Hextor? LE, presumably? and probably wants to be in charge?). I'll re-iterate what I said that it's a surprise they didn't attempt to get rid of her before.

I thought he said that the cleric was an NPC.
Anyways, I like the exchange. I thought that the fact that the party didn't smack her around in the beginning but did in the end showed the group dnamic becoming important. Before they became a party, they were annoyed by the NPC's action at best. After they became a group, they slayed the b***h. That shows they grew together. Liked it alot.

Have a nice one!

 

[Ace]

I have read the description, but thank you for the suggestion. </sarcasm>

You would not step out of a friend's way as she walked out of the room? You expect your friends to maneuver around your oh so important person?

And you seriously think that an intimidated person would not step out of the way of the intimidater?

Quasqueton

In many games PC's (and major NPC's) get script immunity to intimidation and related "skill" checks -- magic spells and supernatural powers are exempted here but 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 --

also remember that many PC adventurers are violent by career choice -- these are not the kind of people you want to mess with -- They are hardened professional kilers and many (depending on group) are borderline sociopaths. A cleric of hextor is a pretty fricken scary violent guy by nature

if my PC would have been involved in that incident he would have done what your PC's did -- and chopped her head off just to prevent raising (or make it harder anyway) only as soon as feasible -- and than he would have looted the body --

As DM I would not have considered it an evil act either

only an idiot attacks an armed professional killer and an even bigger fool tries to intimidate a cleric of fricken Hextor -- hell the cleric would get kudos for the kill -- removing fools from the gene pool

 

[enrious]

Because players bitch about that kind of thing. Hell, I've known players who quit a game because the DM transported them to an alternate dimension (temporarily), and that was too much of a loss of creative control for them. A good player will LISTEN to the GM when he says "this guy is quite likeable" or "the guy seems to be telling the truth as he understands it".

Oh, I see. It's because the players are bad players, not that they could be playing in character. Gotcha.

You're supposed to play to the stimulus that the DM gives you - if he tells you someone is being intimidating, they're being intimidating, and you should play to that, not totally ignore it because you counted how many sneak attack dice they rolled.

Right, so even if the PC is a 6'5" Barbarian for whom showing weakness to a woman would result in enough personal shame for him to be forced from his clan, he should cower because the woman NPC has the intimidate skill.

Gotcha.

Ignoring the results of a social skill check isn't 'defining your character', it's being a jerk. It's the equivalent of having your character be more afraid of an NPC who sunders gear than of the guy who will kill you, because after all, you can just be resurrected or roll up a new character if you die, right?
Frankly, it's not conducive to a good game.

So a player is a jerk if they expect the game to be played according the rules and with some semblance of allowing a player to play a player character.

Because, after all, the type of game is DM Theater.

Gotcha.

 

[Tiew]

Hmm, I think there's also a difference between failing a balance check and being intimidated. With the balance check you're telling the player how the physical world is treating their character, with the intimidate check you're telling them something about what has to go on inside their character's mind.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Oh, I see. It's because the players are bad players, not that they could be playing in character. Gotcha.

Sounds like your version of 'in character' means 'my character is never afraid, unmotivated, unable to carry on, or in any way weak minded or willed, despite that will save of -5 and no immunity to fear whatsoever.

Right, so even if the PC is a 6'5" Barbarian

Once again "The character is big and tough, so he's not afraid of anything".

What a load of horsedoo. If your character is not afraid of anything or anyone, he's got a good will save, and doesn't fail that intimidate counter check. If he fails, he's just as lilly-livered as the next guy.

for whom showing weakness to a woman would result in enough personal shame for him to be forced from his clan, he should cower because the woman NPC has the intimidate skill.

Ahh, so you've also got no idea about gender roles in D&D...

He cowers and then he feels ashamed about it. Or he gives in to her in a manner that saves face. Or he's thrown from his clan for shamefulness.

So a player is a jerk if they expect the game to be played according the rules and with some semblance of allowing a player to play a player character.

Because, after all, the type of game is DM Theater.

Well, you're supposed to have SOME sort of dimension to your character.

At a guess, you're also the sort of person who campaigns for intimidate to be based off strength, am I right?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Whatever. She is dead, and if she pulled a weapon over something as stupid as that she deserved to die. Heck it is amazing than another NPC didn't kill her before the PCs ever met her. Such behavior is not a good survival mechanism. Had she backhanded one of them, all well and good - instead she drew steel.

And I have also seen clearly intimidated people refuse to back down - they often get the snot beaten out of them, but they don't back down.

Now take the same situation and reverse it - how would you take it if the DM pulled it on you? I know that I would be ticked off.

The Auld Grump

 

[Goblyns Hoard]

DM: "She starts for the door but stops, apparently expecting you to step out of her way."

Player: "I look to either side of me, noticing that she can easily walk around me."

DM: "She glares at you, eyes narrow. She shifts so her hand is not-so-subtly close to the hilt of her rapier. She's waiting for you to take the hint. Roll your check against her Intimidate. She gets a 22."

Player: d20, plus level, plus Will mod, plus fear mod. . . "I get a 15."

DM: "She gets a dangerous curl to her lips, as if she's seriously considering just stabbing you where you stand."

Now, the Player can role play out the skill check: "I cautiously step aside and let her pass." Maybe he adds a snide comment, once she's out of earshot.

Or the Player can be bullheaded and refuse to role play: "I stare her down, daring her to draw her weapon. 'You want a piece of me?'"

I believe most good role players would play along with the dice results. On the extreme, you could get Players refusing to run away when they fail a save vs. cause fear. That's just a die roll too.

Quasqueton

Guys - I think there's a lot of people jumping on Quasequeton for his (I'm making an assumption her Q- sorry if I'm wrong) use of some HOUSE RULES. 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. 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. Q started this thread as a "They killed her and I loved her, mourn and celebrate her" - everyone jumping down his throat for the house rules he uses is well out of order IMO.

That said - my tuppence:

I think this is a great system. If players want their characters to detect every bluff then their character needs the sense motive skill. If they don't have enough and the NPC with a maxed out bluff check is lying through his teeth I'd get very suspicous if they decided point blank not to go with it... that way lies metagaming. If you choose to play a fighter with no social skills or a wizard with maxed out concentration and knowledge arcane then you have to expect a skill based character to whomp your butt every now and then in the social context. After all in the combat situation you're going to whomp theirs - give them there part of the game.

Take as a for instance - two PCs. 1- half-orc barbarian with the social skills of a rat that has been ostracised by the other rats but with a player that knows the other PC is lying. 2- human bard with maxed out bluff, diplomacy, sense motive, the persuasive feat and whatever else you want, king of the social situation and lying through his teeth. Is it fair that the dice roll will favour the barbarian in the fight but that the bard can't use all the benefits of his character class to persuade the barbarian to join him, just because the player knows something.

OK - being forced to join the bard because of a dice roll would piss me off, but so would not being able to use the skills I have. The answer - use the dice and let the players use them as a basis for their role-playing. Encourage a suitable response. Also allow the barbarian the option of starting a fight when he realises he's been duped - it's not all one way afterall, and the bard has to consider the consequences of lying to the really big guy with the axe.

And how is that really any different from what Quasequeton has put forward - use the dice as the basis for role-play - give the players the chance and also the responsibility to represent the character's they have created - both their strengths and their weaknesses. Afterall the DM is part of the game too.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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.