Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Swarmkeeper" data-source="post: 8472260" data-attributes="member: 6921763">I see.&nbsp; It appears you prefer prescriptive roleplaying that is determined by the dice during play.&nbsp; That could be one of the disconnects in the conversation.In our game, the dice most certainly do not tell a character what they think or how they act or speak.&nbsp; They sometimes describe how well they've accomplished a task they were attempting.&nbsp; Put another way, the dice sometimes determine the outcomes of behaviors, not the behaviors themselves.So, it is becoming clear you want NPCs and PCs to behave similarly via the mechanics.&nbsp; You still haven't concretely shown how the rules support this claim.&nbsp; Which is kinda what this conversation is about.Ok, understood.&nbsp; That's one way to play - to let the dice narrate how intimidating an NPC is during gameplay - a way not supported in the rules but if you are having fun with it, there's nothing wrong with it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Another way to play is to let the player decide if their character is intimidated by the actions of the NPC.&nbsp; A way that is supported by the rules.&nbsp; And if it is fun, there's nothing wrong with it.This might be the first time I've ever seen someone invoke the concept of DM Agency.&nbsp; The DM controls the whole world and has infinite dragons.&nbsp; I don't think many people are worried that the DM's Agency is in peril from anyone's interpretation of the rules.&nbsp; It's a false equivalence you are making.&nbsp; In other words, I don't think many DMs would be upset by a player rolling high on an intimidation check and besting an enemy (DMs are, after all, supposed to be fans of the PCs who are the protagonists of the story).&nbsp; I don't think you can make the same claim about players though.&nbsp; In fact, I'll say the opposite is true:&nbsp; many players - without explicit buy-in for this playstyle at session 0 - would be upset by the DM rolling a high intimidation check for an NPC and expecting the PC to behave accordingly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Swarmkeeper, post: 8472260, member: 6921763"] I see. It appears you prefer prescriptive roleplaying that is determined by the dice during play. That could be one of the disconnects in the conversation. In our game, the dice most certainly do not tell a character what they think or how they act or speak. They sometimes describe how well they've accomplished a task they were attempting. Put another way, the dice sometimes determine the outcomes of behaviors, [I]not [/I]the behaviors themselves. So, it is becoming clear you want NPCs and PCs to behave similarly via the mechanics. You still haven't concretely shown how the rules support this claim. Which is kinda what this conversation is about. Ok, understood. That's one way to play - to let the dice narrate how intimidating an NPC is during gameplay - a way not supported in the rules but if you are having fun with it, there's nothing wrong with it. Another way to play is to let the player decide if their character is intimidated by the actions of the NPC. A way that [I]is [/I]supported by the rules. And if it is fun, there's nothing wrong with it. This might be the first time I've ever seen someone invoke the concept of DM Agency. The DM controls the whole world and has infinite dragons. I don't think many people are worried that the DM's Agency is in peril from anyone's interpretation of the rules. It's a false equivalence you are making. In other words, I don't think many DMs would be upset by a player rolling high on an intimidation check and besting an enemy (DMs are, after all, supposed to be fans of the PCs who are the protagonists of the story). I don't think you can make the same claim about players though. In fact, I'll say the opposite is true: many players - without explicit buy-in for this playstyle at session 0 - would be upset by the DM rolling a high intimidation check for an NPC and expecting the PC to behave accordingly. [/QUOTE]

Verification