Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 9866499" data-attributes="member: 7031982">If I "used Intimidate" it would look like this:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The player describes a goal and means, which might be "I want to intimidate the orc so that he'll back down and give us what we want, and I'll do it by casually playing with my dragon-tooth necklace and talk about how I got them by strangling the dragon with my bare hands."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The GM figures this might plausibly work, but since he knows all the stats of both the orc and the PCs, and furthermore knows that if the orc does give the players what they want it will lead to consequences the orc cannot know about, all of which leads him to conclude that he just can't put himself in the orc's head well enough to know what the orc would do, wants to rely on a dice roll.  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Needing a negative consequence if the dice roll fails, the GM tells the player: "You're going to have to give me a Charisma check with a DC of X.  If you have proficiency in Intimidate you can add that modifier.  But if you fail the roll, the orc is going to think worse of you, and any further attempts to influence him are even more likely to fail.  Still want to do it?"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The player agrees and makes the roll, or doesn't and passes.</li> </ol>But the important thing to note is that, because the Orc "belongs" to the GM and the GM knows things the player does not, in step #2 the GM could have said, "Yeah, that story happens to be true, and the orc suddenly realizes that the story is about you" and ruled it an auto-success.Alternately, in step #2 the GM could, based on some information that only he knows, have said, "He doesn't seem impressed."Ok, now, let's reverse that, with that perfect symmetry you value:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The GM wants the orc to intimidate the PC into giving up the McGuffin, so he describes (I don't know, insert something).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The player, who both knows his character's inner thoughts better than the GM does and controls the character, has three options:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">He can conclude that it would probably work on him and decide to be intimidated</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">He can conclude that it probably would not, and respond accordingly</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">He could conclude that he just doesn't know what his character would do, and make a deal: "I'll need a Charisma check with a DC of X.  If he succeeds I'll give up the McGuffin.  But if he fails I'm going to call his bluff and attack him."</li> </ol></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The GM now agrees and makes the roll, or doesn't and passes.</li> </ol>I would be 100% fine with the Orc "using Intimidation" this way and would agree that the player should be bound by the results in scenario 2.3.</blockquote>

Verification