Results 31 to 60 of 109
-
2021-05-10, 12:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2020
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
That's P1): dissonant models of reality. I described it myself in my first post.
Originally Posted by kyoryu
Originally Posted by kyoryu
Originally Posted by kyoryu
When sincerely pursuing realism, there is no need to look at what happens in most games, because most games aren't interested in realism. You only need to look at reality - in this case, reality of weapon combat and ask how to turn it into a game. Once you do that, you'll see a lot more than two options.
Originally Posted by kyoryuLast edited by Vahnavoi; 2021-05-10 at 12:29 PM.
-
2021-05-10, 01:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
Sure. While running a game for teens I decided not to run any scenarios where characters are shown doing (NPCs or bad guys) or would succeed at the adventure quest by doing something like throwing metallic sodium in water, making thermite, or creating poison gas from household cleaners. That's the level I think the gaming community needs to think about such things.
-
2021-05-10, 01:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
When I ran games in a school setting, I was clear that any attempt to get involved with drugs beyond the very most notional would also involve the player getting into hilarious (but utterly humiliating) circumstances.
One player tried to buy drugs. He ended up buying the "special white powder" for an insane price. It was powdered sugar, which the dealers kept for the obvious plants/adventurers/country boys. When the cops arrested them later (for an unrelated crime), they found the baggie and simply mocked him.
Also, recently when I unveiled a bit of a PC's backstory[1] involving heavy abuse (both as a witness and as a victim) and memory modification, plus finding out that his dad thought (due to enemy action) that he was dead, I made sure to not go into any kind of detail. Because that was too abhorrent even for me.
[1] the player knowingly put his character's backstory in my hands. The character has amnesia. Intentionally-caused amnesia, it turns out, caused by experiments by one of the BBEG's lieutenants (before he became such).Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2021-05-10, 01:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2020
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
@Willie the Duck: If you're thinking on that level, I'd note that the ability to make fire is just as simple to teach and just as dangerous. We regularly teach kids that in scouting and most of them don't go and set everything ablaze the moment they are unsupervised. So while I wouldn't suggest putting detailed instructions on how to make thermite (etc.) in publicly available adventure materials: if you can trust your players with matches, you can put this level of realism in a game without them suddenly turning into domestic terrorists.
Last edited by Vahnavoi; 2021-05-10 at 01:58 PM.
-
2021-05-13, 09:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
Interestingly, the criticism I would have given wasn't that the attack was too deadly, but that the Intimidation didn't work.
If I understand the scenario correctly, the PC successfully used Intimidation. Mechanically, his numeric result was a good enough one that he was deemed "scary." But the response was "realistic" in the sense that that just made him the high-priority target, without actually having the narrative impact that intimidation is meant to have. Potentially, it didn't have the realistic impact intimidation would, either. Intimidation isn't just "convince people you're dangerous." Intimidation is the skill to put trepidation into the hearts of those being intimidated. To make them hesitate, to make them uncomfortable with the idea of opposing you, or to make them outright scared of you.
Successful intimidation should have, to my mind, resulted in at least some of the pirates leaning towards seeking easier prey. It doesn't have to - and probably shouldn't - make the encounter go away, but it should result in hesitation as the captain has to rally his crew, result in fewer volunteers for the boarding action, and/or result in them changing their battle plan not just to take out the scary guy first, but around the idea that they might not be able to take him out. It should have created tactical advantage or other opportunities to exploit the hesitation and trepidation of the pirates, not merely painted a target on him.
Whether that's a criticism that the encounter was "too realistic" or that it wasn't realistically representing what intimidation is supposed to be is its own discussion, probably.
-
2021-05-13, 09:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
I see the failure as something different - a game process failure.
Normally for skill checks, I like to make sure I have two things - the desired result, and what the character is doing to achieve it. As a GM, I can then give the player feedback and what might happen on a success, what might happen on a failure, etc. As a general rule, I think that if you allow a roll (big if there!), then a success should give a character at least part of what they wanted.
Letting players roll knowing that, even if they succeed, they will not get what they want and may get the opposite of it is almost always a bad idea. Clarifying expectations and understandings is critical to games going smoothly. Of course, sometimes there's hidden information, and that's a separate subject, but in general I think it's best to avoid these misunderstandings.
I imagine this went something like this:
Player: "I intimidate them!" (thinking: 'if they're intimidated, they won't attack me')
GM: "Okay." ('if they're intimidated, they're the high priority target')
Player: "I succeed!" ('Yay, they'll go for others!')
GM: "They attack you." ('Cool, you succeeded, you're now tanking them like you wanted.')
Player: "WTF?" ('WTF?')
I'd rather see:
Player: "I glare at them menacingly, trying to get them to cringe away from me."
GM: "Well, they're hardened warriors with a lot of discipline... if they see you as the biggest threat, they're more likely to gang up on you."
Player: "Oh. Hrm. Okay, I don't do that."
OR
Player: "I glare at them menacingly, trying to get them to cringe away from me."
GM: "Oh, normally I'd think that doing that would make them attack you, but if you did some dangerous sword swings and stuff it'd probably make them reconsider."
Player: "Oh, cool, I'll do that."
You can have realism, and disallow unrealistic actions, just make sure everyone is on the same page about what is or is not realistic."Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"
-
2021-05-13, 10:27 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
I once played in a game where the PCs were a small local part of organized crime. All of them quite typical and engaging in the typical stuff. The game worked mostly as expected, but after a couple of sessions we all noticed, that no one actually liked the characters. Not even their own ones. And that someone destroyed all the fun. So we did something different.
-
2021-05-13, 01:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2017
- Location
- Inner Palace, Holy Terra
- Gender
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
I would say this is very much a YMMV thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with being dropped from being filled with lead, or blown up by a mortar shell, etc, provided you can trace a continuous sequence of you decisions to lead to your death [read: you got blown up for a reason, not just randomly or unavoidably blown up].
I think the problem with the situation described is not that the player was blown up, but that the player did something that was logically sound, succeeded, and not only did the opposite of what they expect to happen happen [the pirates continued their attack with greater planning and determination], the situation got worse for them as a result of their success [dead without recourse].
The player's plan wasn't even bad. Real life modern pirates are often deterred by their target being armed or otherwise protected, so the players logic was sound and it's not a case of "didn't think this through".
It's not particularly more realistic for pirates to continue their attack than it is for them to discontinue their attack.
As for too realistic, a game is too realistic or non-realistic when players aren't having fun in accordance with what they came for. Players who came to run and gun and machinegun their way through mooks may not be having fun if the game centers around being pinned down behind a HESCO barrier by a truck with a machinegun, and vice versa.Last edited by LordCdrMilitant; 2021-05-13 at 02:17 PM.
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
-
2021-05-13, 07:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Sweden
- Gender
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
In my game the intimidation skill isn't a Fear spell, it doesn't put a phantasm into the minds of your targets, it convinces people that you're dangerous and scary and how NPCs react to that perception is not up to the player. That is how I explained it to the player in session zero when he dumped all his skill points into intimidation
My reasoning is that I don't want subterfuge to turn into this scenario, same for persuasion and intimidation because it breaks immersion in my opinion, social skills aren't mind control.
Now I want to be clear: the intimidation skill did work, the pirates retreated almost immediately (2nd round) and it was in large part because the PC convinced the pirates that she was extremely dangerous.
In another scenario the same PC entered a bar filled with criminals and immediately tried to intimidate the whole bar crowd into giving answers about her lost friend. Rolled really high, and most of the patrons tried to flee/hide, but again- it's not a spell, the NPCs are free to react however they prefer and some of them opened fire on the PC. (this time the player was smart enough to wear armor)Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal
-
2021-05-16, 10:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
At least you told him in advance, at chargen. I would have taken that as a warning not to waste points on intimidation. I got very tired in another game of a feature that made my character naturally terrifying if people recognized his true nature only ever being a downside. If I would have wanted them afraid and cowed, people would get super-hostile and make (impotent) threats and even attack with no apparent sense of self-preservation beyond "try to kill it rather an appease it or run away." If I wanted to talk, they'd all run and scream and refuse to listen.
If our party behaved that way with supers cary monsters, we'd have been slaughtered by the frustrated or angry creature. But because the GM knew that that wasn't how my PC would respond, the worst possible reaction to me being scary - for me and my goals - was always the one that came up.
And, of course, if I responded the way the NPC monsters would have to such behavior, I would be somehow in the wrong, too, as a player, not just as a monster living down to expectations. Of course we should be afraid of scary monsters and not hold their violence against them. But if I reacted similarly, it can only make matters worse.
In all, when NPCs are free to decide that player skills don't actually do anything but make matters worse for the PC if the PC succeeds at using them, I know better than to waste resources on those skills. I don't like being punished for using abilities successfully.
-
2021-05-16, 10:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
I had a similar reaction once.
I was captured by a bad guy, he told me if he felt threatened he would have me killed. I told him I wouldn't do that, people know where I am and will come looking for me if I don't come back, GM told me to roll intimidate, I succeeded, and the GM said "Ok. He feels threatened, he makes good on his word and shoots you in the head!".Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.
-
2021-05-16, 11:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2018
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
I've had games that wanted to get into calculations of how much characters had to pay in taxes and plots involving very mundane (but "realistic") political squabbles. I've also had a game that took one session for my character to get shot and five sessions of working through the recovery from that injury. This is the kind of realism that, IMO, kills my interest in games.
-
2021-05-16, 05:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Gender
-
2021-05-16, 07:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Sweden
- Gender
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
The most powerful skill so far has been streetwise and investigation, followed by intimidation (the player was able to interrogate a smooth talking assassin down), then mechanics, medicine and pilot. But yeah if you think if you can't do this https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html then deception is not worth taking then I don't know what to say to you.
Last edited by Mastikator; 2021-05-16 at 08:58 PM.
Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal
-
2021-05-17, 01:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
It just seems, from your description of how you run your game, that there is a lot of middle ground between the way you seem to run intimidate and the comic you quoted. I prefer it somewhere in that middle ground, because the way yo described your own running of it makes it sound like it can only hurt you to succeed at it.
-
2021-05-17, 02:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- 61.2° N, 149.9° W
- Gender
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
I've seen "social skills" run two ways in games that have the skills (or whatever that particular game calls being good at talky stuff) but no real rules structure or effective guidance for them. First is a sort of narrative "pay to play" style, where because a character paid for the ability in some way they get to have narrative control over the outcome when the ability is successful. Second is a sort of deterministic "roll for pants" way, where there's a roll that determines something about the outcome but the player is basically rolling blind and nothing except a number on the character sheet has any observable effect.
Thing is, without decent rules or guidance from the game book you seem to get different people trying to play both styles at the same table. And it can be even more fun if one person expects a sort of degrees of success/failure when another is expecting pass/fail outcomes. The solution (when there aren't clear expectations set from the rules) is for everyone to sit down and hash out all the how/why/results/things the social rolls do for each "social skill".
-
2021-05-17, 07:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Sweden
- Gender
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
Doing stupid things hurt you, even if you roll well on doing the stupid thing.
Spoiler: the second scenario longer story
The context:
The doctor PC had successfully used streetwise to find a seedy bar that was used as a front for criminal activities, the activities in question is looking for assassins for hire. He then entered and talked to the patrons looking for whoever is in charge (name drops Jacob, a name he got from a previous session), the PC is directed to this Jacob, who he discovers is a android (a robot who looks like a human, not a smartphone lol). He tells Jacob he's an assassin for hire and heard that target Jacob wants dead is still alive because Jacob hired an incompetent assassin. Jacob is convinced and installs a program on the PCs computer, then tells him to leave. As he leaves a message appears on the new program, which contains a picture, name and location of the target they want dead (who just so happens to be another PC- the bounty hunter).
The doctor and the bounty hunter stage a fake killing (using medicine and firearms skills) to make it seem like the bounty hunter is dead. (I have no idea where they're going with this BTW, but they're the players, I'm just the GM)
He then sends pictures of the "dead" bounty hunter to Jacob using the program, and finally dumps a fake body into the local compost.
The bounty hunter successfully sneaks into the airplane they have and hides there.
(the skills used here are streetwise, persuasion, subterfuge, medicine, firearms. 3/5 are social skills)
All the while this is happening
The mechanic PC and the intimidator PC are doing jobs for money (workshop and selling streetfood respectively). The Doctor and the Bounty Hunter both agree that since the intimidator can't lie and can't keep his mouth shut they'll just not tell him about this plot, instead tell him that the bounty hunter is missing.
The situation:
Now the intimidator finds the bar the doctor went to, he enters and blocks the exit and demands to see his Bounty Hunter friend.
The crowd (for the most part) having no idea what the intimidator is talking about just say so "we don't know who you're talking about, scram", I ask him for a perception check which he rolls really low, I tell him "you just see about 20 people minding their business" (hoping the player would understand that there's more pertinent information to notice). A higher roll would reveal that most of the patrons are armed with guns (and some sub-machine guns) and armored.
He then says he wants to roll for intimidation, "I scream at them: I'm not leaving here until you show me my friend!!!". I tell him that they're going to perceive this as a hostile act, he says that's what he's going for, he rolls really well this time on intimidation. They're all frightened by him, most of them being to flee, 6 of them decide to shoot first.
I tell him to roll for initiative, he rolls second lowest, five of the 6 bar patrons go before him. Two have sub machine guns, four have regular guns. The ones with sub machine guns empty their magazine, the ones with guns shoot and then start running. (this time he's wearing body armor so it doesn't kill him, also this time I've slightly lowered the lethality of guns)
On the intimidator's turn he pulls out his machine gun and spends the whole turn shooting, he hits 3 patrons and kill 2 immediately.
By round 4 one patron has escaped with his life, the other 5 are dead. The patrons who hid all lived.
When this combat ended it was about 21 o'clock on a Sunday so we called it a night. I think the intimidator wanted a fight in retrospect. That fight was completely pointless to the story, but a random encounter never killed anyone lmao.
I'm not exactly sure how it could've gone down differently. Should they beg for mercy? All 20 of them? He blocked the exit so they couldn't escape. The only good alternative I can think of is that they do nothing, wait for intimidator to either calm down, that wouldn't yield anything.Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal
-
2021-05-17, 09:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
My advice when running with somewhat rules-light social systems (which is how people often treat D&D, with varying degrees of fidelity to the actual rules) is to, as player, try to establish with the GM what it is you want the outcome to be, and the GM to check with the player what he expects the outcome of a successful check to be and why.
I think a lot of the dissatisfaction I have experienced and heard others express from in-game resolution of such things stems from the player thinking, for example, "If I threaten them successfully, they'll be walking on eggshells and eager to placate me," while the GM thinks, "Okay, they'll view you as dangerous and unhinged and try to run, hide, or fight for their lives."
In an RP bit, my sailor PC was offering his city guard girlfriend a place on the ship he's the bosun for. The DM had me roll persuasion, and I'm glad he and I had an OOC discussion of what my PC was trying to accomplish, because what my PC wanted to do was get across that it's a genuine offer and that he'd be happy to have her along, but that he won't be hurt if she turns it down, either, because he doesn't want to pressure her into doing something she doesn't want to. It turns out that she doesn't WANT to go to sea, as much as she likes being around him and wants him to come back to her. So, because we'd had this conversation about the sailor PC's intent, the successful persuasion roll got his intent across, got her to make her decision based on what she wanted rather than on what she thought he wanted, and had them have as pleasant a parting as a couple can when one's going away for a longish while.
In this case, I suspect (assuming the player was dissatisfied with the result) that the player heard, "They'll interpret that as a hostile act," to mean, "they will think he really means to harm them." Given that he's trying to scare them into submission, of course that's what he wants.
If I had been the GM, here, I would have asked, "What do you expect them to do if you succeed at this intimidation check?" in order to make sure I know what it is he thinks he's doing. If his expectation is wildly off from mine and I don't see how his action could lead to his desired result, I would tell him so, or at least warn him of possible alternatives based on the fact that a crowd of people may not react uniformly.
If I had been the player, I would have tried to express, when told, "They'll interpret that as a hostile act," that my hope was that they would be cowed by the threat of violence and be looking to prevent him from escalating further, preferably via attempting to placate him.
Of course, if you're right, and the player was looking for a fight, as the player in that case, I'd have said, "Great! I'm looking to provoke a fight with at least some of them while the others duck and cover," or something like that.
-
2021-05-17, 10:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
And not just social systems. All ability checks (to use the 5e term) need a few things established before the DM can even begin to fairly and usefully resolve them:
* Intent--what does the person triggering the check want to happen?
* Method--how is the person triggering the check attempting to cause this to happen in-universe? This generally involves some of the details, not just the name of the "skill" they want to use.
* Outcome/Risks--what will happen on a success? on a failure? This one can be partially hidden from the players, if there are indirect effects that they'd not be able to determine immediately. But generally there should be consensus between player and DM about what will happen. Whenever the risks are large, I try to ensure that the player has the chance to change their mind before they commit to that path.Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2021-05-17, 10:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Sweden
- Gender
-
2021-05-17, 11:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
Yes, all of this.
And while some of it can be hidden I think it's a good idea to err on the side of divulging as much to the players as possible.
Another good technique is, on a failure, to frame it in a way that the players get their choice of failure modes. "Okay, you've taken a while to pick the lock and are almost there. But... you hear guards coming. You're pretty sure you can finish picking it and get through the door, but the guards will definitely know you went through there. Or, you can go hide now and give up your progress, but you can probably remain hidden". In this case, you give the player the choice between "get through the door but lose stealth" and "don't get through the door but keep stealth"."Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"
-
2021-05-17, 12:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2016
-
2021-05-17, 12:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
It depends on what level that's happening.
And it's always reasonable, I think, for the GM to give some ideas of what the character would know. I also don't worry too much about the "how" except to the extent that "how" has an impact outside of the resolution. What specific lockpicking technique you're using is mostly irrelevant... UNLESS it's changing the speed of unlocking, how likely it is to break picks, etc.
Can you give a specific example? (To be clear, that's not snark. It's a matter of wanting to make sure I understand what you're talking about)Last edited by kyoryu; 2021-05-17 at 12:49 PM.
"Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"
-
2021-05-17, 02:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2016
-
2021-05-17, 02:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
For me, two considerations.
1) this is not something that should be done in a single check. Each (social) check represents an attempt to get one specific, discrete thing out of the other participant(s). So in this case, you'd need to present/develop a new deal; the check would determine how they react to it. So you'd have to build up your case by a lot of other little things, often discovered through research, other negotiations, spying on people, etc. Basic adventuring tasks that should have been completed by the time you reach the renegotiation stage.
2) Assuming #1 is out of the way, I'd accept "by showing people that both sides are losing out here and that no one is really gaining" as a suitable "how" for using Persuasion. As would I accept a (lying) version of the same for a Deception use. Or "by offering X in bribes" (Persuasion). Or "by (credibly) threatening to bring in an army of demons" for Intimidation. Or whatever. I just need the bare-bones approach. Because Noble McGooderson won't react very well to a bribe, but will react to sweet reason. While Corrupty McCorrupterson is only caring about how he, personally, will profit.Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2021-05-17, 03:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
I've sometimes seen "you succeeded too well and now it's a bad thing!" a few times, and I always found it pretty ridiculous. Being skilled at something means knowing the appropriate way to use it.
"You rolled too high on Profession (Surgeon), so you accidentally amputated all the patient's limbs!"
"You rolled too high on Hacking, so you accidentally wrote a virus which has shut down Google and the NSA! You're a wanted terrorist now!"
Sounds pretty stupid, right?
If the result of intimidating someone is that they're going to fight back even harder, that should be apparent to someone who's actually skilled at it, unless there's something funky going on like a Jekyll/Hyde split personality.
"As you start to pressure the gang members, you notice them tensing up, ready to fight. If you push any harder, combat is going to start - do you do so?"
In the second example, the player's objective is unclear, and starting a shootout may indeed have been the intended result. So IDK if there's even an issue there.
In the first example though, it seems like the skill was secretly useless without the PC (who is supposedly skilled at this kind of thing) recognizing that. The pirates' behavior confused me too:
1) They were intimidated, but not too intimidated to board the ship and go straight for the source of their fear.
2) But then they retreat? Why? They just took down the biggest threat (as far as they know); the rest should be comparatively easy.Last edited by icefractal; 2021-05-17 at 03:16 PM.
-
2021-05-17, 03:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
I agree with this. Especially the comments about "too high -> bad result" being both counter-intuitive and feeling deeply wrong.
I think the key is that DMs should negotiate with players, alerting them to things like "your character sees X, which implies Y. Do you pull the trigger/commit to that action?" and then let the player change their mind (or not). But at the point the action is committed to play, the player should know all the consequences that the character would (likely, erring on the side of more information IMO) know.Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2021-05-17, 03:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
"Okay, you know that these are the things that they want, and their priorities. <if you know it> You know this is why they want those things. You'll need to come up with some kind of offer that can satisfy those things, or give them something that they'd want even more. What do you think you can offer them?"
If they have no clue of those things, it's almost easier. "The first thing to do is figure out what their priorities are, and why they want those things. If you can offer them something that will make the decision makers even happier, they might go along with something."Last edited by kyoryu; 2021-05-17 at 03:48 PM.
"Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"
-
2021-05-17, 04:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
Incidentally, something I use/allow when running, and I'm curious whether other people do/would - using Intimidate based on an external threat, while being on the same side as the person you're intimidating.
For example:
"Let us in, we have an important message for the general!"
"The fortress is in high-alert, no entry at night. Come back in five hours."
"Look, there are about three hundred demon-trolls headed toward you, less than three hours away. If the general doesn't get and act on our information very soon, everyone here is going to be dead by sunrise."
A successful intimidate there meaning that the guard is scared enough by what you've said that he lets you in immediately rather than spend time trying to confirm your story, or fetching a superior, or whatnot.Last edited by icefractal; 2021-05-17 at 04:27 PM.
-
2021-05-17, 05:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2018
Re: When realistic gets too realistic
Spoiler: Derailing the thread
I've grown to distaste the way Charisma skills are defined in D&D. As such, I tend to include in "Intimidation" everything related to "authority" or "presence", essentially anything related to "Don't think about it, don't question me, I'm right and you can't afford to be wrong!".
While I shift a lot of the "Intimidating negotiation" (where direct or indirect threats are just one kind of argument, together with tentative of corruptions and whatever) to Deception or Persuasion.