They killed my abbrasive, quarrelsome, violent NPC that I loved so much
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
Quasqueton
First Post
In our very first game session in this current campaign, the PCs went into the cargo hold of a large ocean-going ship. They knew there was some kind of dangerous creature down there, and they were sent down to investigate.
A hatchling blue dragon leapt out of the shadows, onto a crate, and roared at them. I rolled an Intimidate check for the dragon. The 2nd-level PCs rolled their "resist Intimidate" checks. 3 of the 4 PCs failed their resist checks. Ironically, the 1 who resisted actually turned and ran away screaming "Dragon!" in fear. The 3 who failed their resistance actually jumped and attacked the dragon.
I did not force the PCs to do anything. They reacted as they wanted, and later we all laughed at how they all acted exactly opposite what the in-game circumstances suggested. Their actions made no sense in the game context, and they all admit that.
The in game situation and game mechanics suggested that 3 of them "act intimidated", in whatever way that would be shown by their characters. Most people would not think "attack the dragon" was an appropriate way to play the situation. And the "un-intimidated" character probably shouldn't have run away screaming. But I did not tell them how to act, and did not "punish" them in any way for their actions. But it was apparent to all present that they didn't really role play the situation in the logical/realistic/proper way.
How would you have played this encounter? Maybe the dragon should have known they were PCs and could not be affected by the Intimidate skill? Maybe he should have just pounced on them instead for his surprise round action?
Quasqueton
A hatchling blue dragon leapt out of the shadows, onto a crate, and roared at them. I rolled an Intimidate check for the dragon. The 2nd-level PCs rolled their "resist Intimidate" checks. 3 of the 4 PCs failed their resist checks. Ironically, the 1 who resisted actually turned and ran away screaming "Dragon!" in fear. The 3 who failed their resistance actually jumped and attacked the dragon.
I did not force the PCs to do anything. They reacted as they wanted, and later we all laughed at how they all acted exactly opposite what the in-game circumstances suggested. Their actions made no sense in the game context, and they all admit that.
The in game situation and game mechanics suggested that 3 of them "act intimidated", in whatever way that would be shown by their characters. Most people would not think "attack the dragon" was an appropriate way to play the situation. And the "un-intimidated" character probably shouldn't have run away screaming. But I did not tell them how to act, and did not "punish" them in any way for their actions. But it was apparent to all present that they didn't really role play the situation in the logical/realistic/proper way.
How would you have played this encounter? Maybe the dragon should have known they were PCs and could not be affected by the Intimidate skill? Maybe he should have just pounced on them instead for his surprise round action?
Quasqueton
Last edited:
Saeviomagy 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.
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."
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?
Right, because obviously the characters with the best Will saves are fighter types.
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?
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.
What about a paladin? Should he/she have been cowed in the example given in the OP?
Ahh, so you're psychic and have won a million dollars.
Those are certainly valid responses, as the player decides his character would react. So would a failure to be impressed by her.
Wait, so you aren't arguing that a character should always be intimidated by a dainty little (although admittingly unstable) lass with a sword.
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.
Since you're a millionare, can I borrow some money?
Regardless, I can see some circumstances where strength could be used to bolster intimidate. Surely you have that much imagination, right?
Quasqueton said:
Wow, where did you read that?
I read that the PCs are forced to feel a certain way, not that they prohibited from doing so.
Perhaps you could show me where it says that?
Incidently, the rest of your post brings up a very good point, IMO. How players (and thus characters) should respond to (N)PCs with stats that are wildly different from the player or DM controlling them.
For example, how do you adjudicate the persuasion ability or tactics of someone with a 20+ in diplomacy or knowledge (tactics) if the person running the character doesn't have them?
I tend to have the players spend about 10-15 seconds making their speech or explaining their strategy to get the general gist, then have them roll it out. Everyone else can then (based on the die roll) judge how effective the character's attempt was.
It sounds similar to the way you handle it.
Does anyone else do it differently?
Quasqueton
First Post
And that's the way I meant what I said. I was making the statement from the side of the one using the skill. I think you are reading the statement from the side of the one receiving the skill use. Interesting flaw in communication.
"He cannot be moved." Doesn't mean, "He cannot move."
Yes, with my added italics. I mean, how many Players would say, "Yeah, 47 is a great Diplomacy check, but I'm still not going to help you."
Quasqueton
TheEvil
Explorer
Quasqueton said:
Three of four failed? Considering the hatching gets a d20-4 vs. the players d20+2+wis+fear save mods, they must have rolled pretty poorly vs. your pretty good roll. What made you decide to go with an intimidate check in this situation?
To answer your question:
As a player:
It would depend on what type of character I was playing and what my character knew. Backstory would also matter quite a bit. I am going to assume you described the a dog-sized blue lizard with wings as opposed to saying 'hatching blue dragon'. I wouldn't expect a 2nd level character really worried about it until it hit him with lightning. Certainly startling though. I don't tend to play cowardly character, primarily because it isn't fun to me, so I doubt running away screaming would be a choice I would have used. Given that I am supposed to be playing a character that is competent enough to be sent to look into the problem, I would probably have attacked.
As a GM:
Discribed a dog-sized blue lizard hoping up on the crate and roaring at them. May have asked for an easy spot check for the wings. If someone had the appropriate knowledge, I would have asked for a check to recognize it as a dragon. Then I would have asked the players what they do.
fafhrd
First Post
Quasqueton said:
I skimmed through most of the bile so I may be missing an already elaborated point. Q, what do you find to be the advantage of these checks? They seem to have little effect on game play according to your own statement. Do you use them as cues for how a character might elect to respond? Are you just loath to give the PCs exemption to those mechanics despite the fact that they have carte blanche in how they react? I'm just trying to understand what use they have if they are paper tigers.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Quasqueton said:
Q, go and read your own posts as though seeing them for the first time and by somebody else.
You are saying that they aren't abiding by how they should react to an intimidate roll. Then you brought up a second example of the same thing.
This may not be what you intended, but it is what you have implied.
The Auld Grump
Last edited:
Similar Threads
