A quick look at Intimidate: the D&D wunderskill
Who then determines what the specific result of a successful check is?LostSoul said:
If it's the DM, it's still DM fiat, and you've changed nothing.
If it's the player, and the DM has veto over the result, it's still DM fiat, and you've changed nothing.
If it's the player, and the DM has no veto power over the result, then you've taken control of an NPCs actions in much the same way that a DM might take control of a PC who failed a save vs Charm Person; in the same way that a PC should not be taken control of by the DM, neither should the NPC be taken control of by the player.
So which is it?
If you don't trust your DM, then playing DnD with him could be considered useless.
Last edited:
LostSoul
Adventurer
Felix said:
This is how I see it working:
The player says, "I want this." The other people don't punch him for being a moron, so he rolls for it. Does he succeed? Then he gets that specific result. Does he fail? Then the DM tells him what happens.
It doesn't matter who says exactly what happens; it could be the player of the PC who rolled, the DM, another player, the whole group, or whatever. Just as long as the result is achieved.
I don't have a problem with a player taking control an NPC. I don't have a problem with the DM taking control over my PC either, though. The only thing is that I want a die roll to determine who can say what.
So I'd have to say that the dice (well, the mechanics) determine the specific result. In that way, it's like combat.
edit: whoops.
Last edited:
I'm at your table and I say, "I want to intimidate him into abdicating his throne".LostSoul said:
As written this wouldn't work, because this is not within the realm of things a friend would do. But if you disallow the DM the right to adjudicate exactly what happens, then whose hands to you put it in?
If the rule is, "someone will say exactly what happens, but it doesn't matter who", then this is about as sloppy and potentially troublesome a rule as I've encountered.
If the rule is, "We decide beforehand if the player, the whole group, or the DM decides the result of the roll", then you're back where you started. Except it's the DMs job to decide what his NPCs do for the entire game; why should this skill be any different?
Should, "I intimidate him into giving me one of his cookies" and "I intimidate him into abdicating the throne" have the same DC? If yes, I have serious disagreements that it requires the same amount of intimidation to accomplish those two tasks. If no, then who determines the DC when the player states what he wants to do with the roll? The DM? Well, then you're still putting the decision over what happens in the DMs hands.
Trusting the DM means, among other things, having faith that he will role-play his NPCs according to the motivations he ascribed to them when he created them.
If you do not believe that the DM is capable of role-playing his NPCs faithfully (which is why you'd want to take the response to Intimidate out of his hands) then you have a trust issue. Creating rules to relieve him of his decision-making powers will not fix that; likely it will aggrivate the problem if the DM sees this as a problem with people trusting him.
So at its fundament, having a problem with DM fiat means there's a problem with trusting the DM. (By the way, I fully believe that there are some DMs who cannot be trusted. It doesn't make this less of a trust issue.) And if this trust problem is large enough, then it may very well be banging your head against the wall trying to play with him. So, if you don't trust your DM, why play with him? In other words,
Me said:
Lonely Tylenol
First Post
Felix said:
Well, if I roll my to-hit and damage and score a hit and enough damage to kill the target, I've taken control of that character away from the DM, haven't I? This is not an all-or-nothing issue. It's a question of degree. The social skills assume that the DM will need to reliquish some control over the characters on which those skills are used. That's their raison d'etre. If you couldn't exert some measure of control over an NPC using Intimidate, Gather Information, Diplomacy, or Bluff, you'd have no reason to put ranks into them.
These skills were designed to allow a PC to influence an NPC to a certain degree, and the degree to which that control can be exerted is more or less spelled out. You can almost, but not quite, duplicate Charm Person using Diplomacy by changing an NPC's attitude to friendly. Charm Person changes the target's attitude to friendly, despite circumstances, and leaves it there. Diplomacy takes more time, more effort, and can be ruined by circumstances: "yes, I killed your wife, but please don't hold that against me" will probably not work with a Diplomacy check, but a Charmed character will have to forgive you for the duration of the spell, because he can't stop being friendly.
Another important point is that Diplomacy only works on NPCs, presumably because, as you say, the DM shouldn't be taking control of player characters. It clearly says in the description that it affects NPCs. The "demoralize opponent" version of Intimidate works on PCs, although one might argue that the more general use does not because it duplicates the effects of Diplomacy.
It's no fun when your character gets puppeted by the DM, but under certain circumstances it's valid under the rules. However, these circumstances have been reduced compared to what the PCs can bring to bear. There is an imbalance built into the skill system to help protect player autonomy: PCs are better at social skills than NPCs, by virtue of being PCs. If the DM chooses to ignore the skills' description of what it says a character can do, and he hasn't discussed this with the players ahead of time, that's unfair.
I'm always arguing this same point: if the DM is going to overrule the action of social skills whenever the mood strikes him, just remove them from the game. The DM will decide when he wants your attempts at diplomacy or intimidation to work, so spend your skill points on more useful things. Some people just don't like social skills, and that's a valid point of view. If that's the way you want to play, formalize it so that everyone's on the same page. If the DM is letting players believe falsely that their ranks in social skills mean something, he's treating them unfairly.
LostSoul
Adventurer
Felix said:
I say, "Okay, roll your Intimidate." I might get all fancy and oppose your roll with Profession: King or Knowledge: Nobility or Sense Motive or something. If I did, I'd let you know and make sure that was okay with you.
Felix said:
No, the rule is that the dice decide what happens. Who describes it can depend on whoever has the coolest thing to say at the moment.
No one can decide the result of the roll; it tells you what happens. Did the king give up his throne? Look at the dice roll(s). Either he did or he didn't. Maybe he ran away like a frightened kitten, maybe he was seething with anger while he walked away, maybe he just shrugged. But the king did abdicate his throne because that's what the dice said happened.
When I make a successful attack roll, I can describe it any number of ways. Or someone else at the table can. But you can't get around the fact that I hit.
Felix said:
I'd have the DC be the same. That's fine with me. It's a different, more metagame way of looking at things though.
Felix said:
It has nothing to do with how well the DM role-plays his NPCs.
The big thing is that I want to have the ability to drive the game. I don't want the DM to be the only one who says what happens and resolve all conflicts based on what he thinks should happen. I want to have some input there, too.
When I'm the DM, I don't want the players looking to me to entertain them. We should all be entertaining each other the whole time. If I decide how everything goes, I don't get that same kind of group process.
Is that an issue of trust? Maybe. I see it as more of a "shared authorship" thing though. Who gets to say what happens? It's not that I don't trust the DM to say something cool, but that I want the chance to say something cool as well.
brehobit said:
IMO this encourages abuse. Why would I bother with a good diplomacy or intimidate skill if the roll has so little meaning? This means I can concentrate skill points in other areas and still be the "great negotiator" assuming I am IRL a great negotiator (another problem with this method, that if you aren't good in IRL neither is your character).
A better way, if you like to Role-play- roll the die 1st and base your response/speech/etc. on the roll. Then you truly are role-playing, but the fact that you put points in the skill really means something - It also allows people who are not good communicators to play a good communicator.
Yes, I agree with you; that would be unfair. This possibility does not mean that the control of the NPC should be taken out of the DMs hands. It is bordering on the unfair to rule that the DM does not know enough about the motivations and conditions to adjudicate how the NPC reacts. The DM knows more about the NPCs than the PCs do, so how would you think placing the NPC reaction in the PCs' hands would improve the situation?Dr. Awkward said:
If the King were a Paladin, would you ask me if it were ok that he be immune to Intimidate because of his class feature, or would you just say, "He smirks and asks you to be more polite". As a player, I would rather not know the ins-and-outs of every NPC; it maintains an air of mystery and discovery. Which would you rather your DM say to you?LostSoul said:
Or would you house rule that paladins are suseptable to Intimidate, too?
Sure. But just as a player cannot say, "When I roll this attack, if I hit, the enemy is decapitated", he cannot by himself determine how an NPC reacts to his intimidation tactics. He can determine the method of intimidation, and by his focus on the skill, he can determine the influence he can exert (represented by his total skill modifier) on the NPC.
But he can not determine how another character reacts in the same way he cannot determine that his sword is arbitrarily vorpal.
Actually, since the DM determines the AC (which you don't know), unless you roll a 20 (and sometimes not even then), you may not hit at all.
But assuming you hit: what effect that hit has is different from saying that you hit. It might be that one hit kills him - or simply pisses the NPC off; that reaction, which is the same reaction the DM must provide in Intimidate checks, is out of the PCs' hands wholesale.
I suggest that if the whole world is affected by this "shared authorship" paradigm, the players' experience will suffer from the lack of suprise and awe because they themselves helped create the world.
I suggest this because if the DM is unable to determine the reactions of the NPCs, then the players must necessairly be aware of the NPCs' abilities and powers and such knowledge is utterly unreasonable. They must know that the King has a Mind Blank effect on his throne if they are going to accept the fact that they cannot intimidate him, otherwise they'll complain that the DM is "breaking the rules" by disallowing the PCs to do cool things.
LostSoul
Adventurer
Felix said:
I would say, "Don't roll, you can't intimidate this guy." If they ask why, I'd tell him there's a rule that says why, and if they really want to know I'd tell them what it is.
Felix said:
I don't think we're communicating very well.
Let's say that you're the DM, and I'm the guy who says, "I want to Intimidate the King into giving up the throne - to me!"
You tell me to make an Intimidate check.
I roll - success!
Now what happens?
Felix said:
I don't find that this is true. I don't see why sharing authorial power (or whatever you want to call it) means that the players don't trust the DM to follow the rules. Nor do I see why players need to be aware of the NPC's abilities and powers.
I would consider that more frustrating than thinking that perhaps I had lost the opposed roll mechanic. It is possible for PCs to lose an opposed roll.LostSoul said:
LostSoul: "I want to Intimidate the King into giving up the throne - to me!"
Felix: "Make an Intimidate check."
LostSoul: "I roll - a 37 with all modifiers."
If the NPC is suseptable to intimidation, I roll his opposed check.
- If the PC wins, the King responds, "Perhaps we can find a patent of nobility for you..."*
- If the NPC wins, the King responds, "I think that perhaps you overestimate you ability to influence people; I suggest you leave before your thoughts turn you into a failed regicide. Guards!
If the NPC is susceptable, I roll a d20, futz around for a few seconds, and say, "He doesn't look pleased that you're trying to intimidate him."
*Incidently, the PC would find himself with a title but few allies at court but those that dislike the king, and were he ever granted an audience with the King, he'd find the King very well guarded. Warded as well; Remove Fear isn't an expensive effect to find.
Because if the PCs are by rule allowed to determine how NPCs react to them, then they must be made aware of why the DM would say that an NPC would not react in that way; you said yourself:
And if they players are consistently second-guessing why the DM is having his NPCs react the way they do, then the PCs don't trust that the DM is being accurate or fair in his representation of the NPCs.
It's not a major trust issue, "I wouldn't trust that guy with a dollar!", but rather a smaller one, "I know how NPCs would react better than you; I don't trust that you'd be responsible with their reactions to my character."
Last edited:
Similar Threads
