Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8476862" data-attributes="member: 6779196">That’s a very good point, rolling with it and ignoring the dice are indeed both supported by the rules, and do have advantages as well as drawbacks. So, I’ll concede that the DM who simply decides the goblin automatically succeeds at intimidating the players into giving him their gold doesn’t entirely lack support in doing so, and likewise the DM who puts it to a roll doesn’t entirely lack support in doing so either. I still think the Role of the Dice section is presenting the middle path as having the benefits of both methods and the drawback of neither, but nonetheless it does seem to be offering support for all three approaches. A tip of the hat to you for making that case quite well.Sure, and those things generally have specific rules for how they work, which make them exceptions to the general action resolution process.That’s not something I have personally experienced. People I’ve played with are generally comfortable that sometimes specific effects such as magic can indeed force their characters to do things they might not want to do. As long as it’s not crossing any meta-game boundaries (which should be hashed out before the start of play, most likely in session 0), I haven’t seen it cause issues at the table. I think this should be clear from the DM’s description of the action, no?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8476862, member: 6779196"] That’s a [I]very[/I] good point, rolling with it and ignoring the dice are indeed both supported by the rules, and do have advantages as well as drawbacks. So, I’ll concede that the DM who simply decides the goblin automatically succeeds at intimidating the players into giving him their gold doesn’t entirely lack support in doing so, and likewise the DM who puts it to a roll doesn’t entirely lack support in doing so either. I still think the Role of the Dice section is presenting the middle path as having the benefits of both methods and the drawback of neither, but nonetheless it does seem to be offering support for all three approaches. A tip of the hat to you for making that case quite well. Sure, and those things generally have specific rules for how they work, which make them exceptions to the general action resolution process. That’s not something I have personally experienced. People I’ve played with are generally comfortable that sometimes specific effects such as magic can indeed force their characters to do things they might not want to do. As long as it’s not crossing any meta-game boundaries (which should be hashed out before the start of play, most likely in session 0), I haven’t seen it cause issues at the table. I think this should be clear from the DM’s description of the action, no? [/QUOTE]

Verification