Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7616247" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Yes but... there is a huge gulf between &quot;I've seen it in the past&quot; and &quot;But in #DND games, the PCs' primary means of gathering information often is leaving one enemy alive and then torturing them. &quot; or commenting that the system mechanics encourage it. When I look at the social check system in DnD, the actual mechanics in the DMG, I dont see anything that say mechanically torture is superior to other forms of persuasion. Why wouldn't persuasion or intimidate be the mechanics system used, not torture? Part of this, I suspect, might come from a lack of C in some GMs NPC. Do their minions surrender whrn things go bad, turn and tun, bargain? Do they show the goblins adversaries as unified, perhaps surorisinglupy so, chaotic mobs willing to die for their cause? One of the things I try to show in my games are these kinds of traits. If the enemies are fanatically loyal disciples - that is shown and stands out. If they are craven lots kept in line by force and fear, then, hey, when that new big thing is &quot;your party&quot; guess what happens to that loyalty to the others? If they are greedy cusses, if they are doing this for their clan or family, ambition, or a belief in conquest by the strongest, etc etc etc - these all provide hooks that cover not only actions in combat but possible openings for PCs to use.Those mechanics fsll under the traits, flaws, etc...And they dont dtibpve on to torture as the number one or &quot; primary&quot; means of getting info from dnrmies.To me, this premise is as accurate as the similar viewpoint that &quot; losing a fight means tpk&quot; and for the same reasond.It can be true in some campaigns but it's not due to the mechanics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7616247, member: 6919838"] Yes but... there is a huge gulf between "I've seen it in the past" and "But in #DND games, the PCs' primary means of gathering information often is leaving one enemy alive and then torturing them. " or commenting that the system mechanics encourage it. When I look at the social check system in DnD, the actual mechanics in the DMG, I dont see anything that say mechanically torture is superior to other forms of persuasion. Why wouldn't persuasion or intimidate be the mechanics system used, not torture? Part of this, I suspect, might come from a lack of C in some GMs NPC. Do their minions surrender whrn things go bad, turn and tun, bargain? Do they show the goblins adversaries as unified, perhaps surorisinglupy so, chaotic mobs willing to die for their cause? One of the things I try to show in my games are these kinds of traits. If the enemies are fanatically loyal disciples - that is shown and stands out. If they are craven lots kept in line by force and fear, then, hey, when that new big thing is "your party" guess what happens to that loyalty to the others? If they are greedy cusses, if they are doing this for their clan or family, ambition, or a belief in conquest by the strongest, etc etc etc - these all provide hooks that cover not only actions in combat but possible openings for PCs to use. Those mechanics fsll under the traits, flaws, etc... And they dont dtibpve on to torture as the number one or " primary" means of getting info from dnrmies. To me, this premise is as accurate as the similar viewpoint that " losing a fight means tpk" and for the same reasond. It can be true in some campaigns but it's not due to the mechanics. [/QUOTE]

Verification