What if your player wanted to make a bet?

[Nifft]

Really, really, really depends on the player. I hate the idea of wagering a mechanical benefit for a role-playing penalty. This has the potential for the worst kind of munchkinism.

I'd much rather require a finite resource expenditure in trade for a cool "break-the-rules" bonus. Like, spend a Fate Point (or Hero Point or whatever), or shatter the magic sword of the enemy commander who you just captured or killed (i.e. sacrifice some loot), and then you get the army revitalized.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mallus]

Roll.

 

[Graybeard]

I say go for it. If the player rolls a natural 20, then the army is back on its feet. Otherwise, they flee. They still might lose the battle. I like my games to be interesting whether or not the rules allow it.

 

[Dog Moon]

I say go for it. If the player rolls a natural 20, then the army is back on its feet. Otherwise, they flee. They still might lose the battle. I like my games to be interesting whether or not the rules allow it.

I think it was 'get a 20 with the check', not 'roll a 20', unless I'm mistaken.

 

[Ry]

Dog moon is correct; it's 50-50 here.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I wouldn't allow it. Sets a dangerous precedent for what you can do with the intimidate skill.

Buffing allies is completely outside the scope of the skill. It's for scaring people, not bard-like empowering.

 

[shilsen]

Roll.

I am so going to have to take you up on this sometime.

 

[FireLance]

This falls into the category of "what's plausible for an Intimidate check?" Re-energizing of support troops is not what I'd be willing to go for.

But, on a DC 20 Intimidate check, I'd be willing to have the enemy troops hesitate, and then have the enemy commander, noting the effect that the PC had on his men, challenge him to single combat. If the PC wins, the enemy routs.

 

[Mallus]

I am so going to have to take you up on this sometime.

Well there is a war brewing...

 

[Digital Archon]

Assuming he means "DC 20" and not a natural 20, i'd say:

"Normally, i wouldn't allow it, but it is really cool, so just this once... Go for it."

Here's my reasoning and thought process:

I care about four things when players try to think outside the box: Is it cool? Is it going to have an interesting result, and are the results manageable? Is the proposed risk equal to or greater than the proposed reward? Is it appropriate at this exact time and place?

- Coolness: It's a really cool idea, and will make for a great story no matter what happens. I like my players to have really cool ideas, rather than just stand and hack and mumble "hit-damage" over and over and never do anything interesting, and this encourages players to come up with them.

- Risk/reward/interest: It's a serious risk, with serious reward. The game is more interesting for everyone if the players take risks. No matter what happens, the result is going to be interesting. No matter what happens, the results are going to be manageable.

- Appropriate: It's heroically appropriate. The player obviously wants his character to have a heroic moment, in a thematically appropriate way and and at an appropriate time. I say let him have it. Either way it works out, the player "wins", even if his character doesn't and ends up hacked to death.



I understand the fears of munchkinism and precedence. Hence my commentary of "Normally, i wouldn't allow it..." and "just this once".