A quick look at Intimidate: the D&D wunderskill

[buzz]

Who then determines what the specific result of a successful check is?

In D&D, the book does. The DM then adjudicates the result. This is exactly why social skills in D&D have such potential for problematic play.

All the D&D die mechanic does is resolve tasks. It doesn't resolve conflict or intent. The latter are only resolved as the result of an aggregation of tasks and player-DM negotiation.

This is exactly why arguing over the PC trying to intimidate a king to give up his throne is fruitless; the Intimidate roll does not cover the player's goal, i.e., there is no stakes-setting in D&D. All the player can do is say, "I want him to give me his throne; I'm giong to try and Intimidate him and see if that helps." The resulting roll only determines if the target feels intimidated. It does nothing to insure a specific outcome. The specific outcome is almost entirely in the hands of the DM.

Not to mention, the DM is entitled to modify the heck out of that roll, e.g., "You're at -10 becasue you're trying to Intimidate him in his own throne room, in front of his elite guard."

This brings us back to the point that Dr. Awkward (and I) was making above: what the result of the roll means is highly subjective, and is ultimately out of the player's hands. Ergo, Intimidate (and any other social skill) is only "uber" if you know your DM is very generious with its results.

The solution to these issues is to write into the skill descriptions a means to achieve a specific goal. "If you beat DC X, the target performs an action specified by you for Y rounds," or "...will provide aid up to Y thousand gp in equivalent value," or "...will answer Y questions to the best of their ability." That, or some equivalent sort of mini-stakes-setting built into each skill mechanic.

The only social skill I've seen become "uber" is Diplomacy. A player who's minmaxed his PC's Diplomacy can get ridiculous results unless the DM throws out the NPC Attitudes table altogether.

Dynasties & Demagogues supposedly has something equivalent to Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits. I keep meaning to check it out, as D&D could really use a similar mechanic, IMO.

 

[Felix]

This is exactly why social skills in D&D have such potential for problematic play.

It is more a problem when the player decides that the DM is not having the NPCs react in a manner the player decides is appropriate. Because of the serious lack of information about the NPCs that the players suffer from, I regard the DM the best judge of what NPCs do and don't do. Players should either trust their DM, or find a new DM.

The solution to these issues is to write into the skill descriptions a means to achieve a specific goal.

Or, you trust your DM. This is also a solution. Or rather, a non-problem.

"If you beat DC X, the target performs an action specified by you for Y rounds,"
And it also should have mechanics determining the difficulty class of getting each NPC, depending upon his situation, to perform an action, depending upon the action, for an amount of time, depending upon how much time it will take to complete the action.

"...will provide aid up to Y thousand gp in equivalent value,"
Depending upon the NPC's ability to render aid, the availability of the value of the NPC's aid, and the amount of time it will take the NPC to aid the PCs.

"...will answer Y questions to the best of their ability."
Depending upon the questions, and the degree to which the NPC is willing to endanger himself by revealing the answer.

If what you desire is a more thorough explanation of what Indifferent, Friendly, and Helpful mean, then that I can understand. But to render a table of DCs for Intimidate accurately and fairly (for both the PC and the NPC) I would argue is prohibitive.

 

[buzz]

It is more a problem when the player decides that the DM is not having the NPCs react in a manner the player decides is appropriate. Because of the serious lack of information about the NPCs that the players suffer from, I regard the DM the best judge of what NPCs do and don't do. Players should either trust their DM, or find a new DM.

It is inevitable that a player and DM will disagree at some point, even if there's normally a lot of trust in the group. This is human nature. I don't think it's fair to blame the players for the vagueness of the rule.

But to render a table of DCs for Intimidate accurately and fairly (for both the PC and the NPC) I would argue is prohibitive.

I don't think this is necessarily so, but regardless, there could be better methods to help players pursue their goals less ambiguously, a la BW's Duel of Wits. And, no, this doesn't "mess with the roleplaying" at all, FYI.

 

[blargney the second]

I'd love to see a rock paper scissors kind of thing for social skills where you choose to make opposed checks with different skills. "I pretend to be cowed by this bully." Would be an Intimidate opposed by a Bluff defense.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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?

I'm not suggesting that the player be able to dictate the NPC's reaction. I'm suggesting that the player be able to influence it in a direction of his choosing, with success correlated to his die roll. The DM's fiat isn't that he knows which characters are which and how they should behave. It's in determining whether this character can be affected by this power, right now.

That the DM must use his best judgement sometimes does not indicate fiat. Fiat implies that he is overruling something, or making some kind of decree from his seat of power. But for normal everyday play, the DM plays his characters and the players play theirs, no fiat required. Deciding what "friendly" means isn't fiat. Deciding that "friendly" is actually "unfriendly" is.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

See, the thing is, it's out of the DM's hands as well. One hit kills him if he has fewer hit points than the weapon damage. It pisses him off if he has far more hit points than the weapon damage. The character's hit points are determined by his hit dice, and his hit dice are presumably determined by the level of encounter he's supposed to represent. And I think players can, these days, assume that encounters are not designed to automatically mash them into paste. If the DM monkeys around with his HP because he wants him to be pissed off instead of dead, that's using his fiat to determine an outcome he wants, and it's unfair.

 

[buzz]

I'd love to see a rock paper scissors kind of thing for social skills where you choose to make opposed checks with different skills. "I pretend to be cowed by this bully." Would be an Intimidate opposed by a Bluff defense.

You could certainly do this. The list of opposed checks in the PHB is just a set of examples. The DM is totally within his purview to oppose any skill with another.

Granted, the specific rules for Intimidate imply trumping something like this, but I would consider this fair game for DM adjudication. It would probably be more in line with RAW to make the Intimidate check first, and, if unsuccessful, allow the target a Bluff check vs. the intimidator's Sense Motive to pretend he's been intimidated.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It is more a problem when the player decides that the DM is not having the NPCs react in a manner the player decides is appropriate. Because of the serious lack of information about the NPCs that the players suffer from, I regard the DM the best judge of what NPCs do and don't do. Players should either trust their DM, or find a new DM.

I agree. However, relying on fiat is certainly not a good solution to this problem. A robust rule with determinate results is much better, because then you know you're relying less on the judgement of someone you might disagree with. Rich Burlew's Diplomacy skill changes spell out much more precisely what you can do with it. I haven't read Burning Wheel, but if its system provides more definite outcomes, it's probably better than the current D&D system too.

Or, you trust your DM. This is also a solution. Or rather, a non-problem.

For the most part, this is the case. For the most part, skills like Intimidate and Diplomacy are non-problematic because people make judgements that make sense. However, sometimes people make decisions that leave you wondering about whether they're taking everything into account, realistically making NPC decisions, or just railroading you. A good rule that everyone is sticking to and which can be rolled in the open without a lot of hidden information is a good way to keep things on the level.

 

[greywulf]

It sounds to me like some folks are expecting the wrong response from a successful Intimidate roll. It doesn't matter whether you're a Barbarian standing and roaring a challenge to the enemy tribal chief, or a slow boil in an interrogation roll - the net result is the poor mook is in a corner and will provide the same aid a friend would. The tribal chief will let you pass through their land unmolested, the suspect in the cell will tell you where he was last night, etc.

What won't happen though is the mook won't suddenly give in to your will. A king won't give you his crown, and a secret might remain a secret still. There are some things that aren't shared, even between friends.

Intimidating a king might get you a written pardon for past crimes, or maybe (at a pinch) a patent of nobility. You'll also earn the enmity of a very powerful individual though, so it's DEFINITELY not a good idea.

Intimidate is a great tool for role-playing. It's a way to difuse a situation (or control it) without drawing your sword. I'm still inclined to make it a standard action still, simply because I think it plays on the gut feelings. Save the 1 minute stuff for the really tough nuts.

As regards Batman. He put fear into the first crook he met. And the second, and the third. That's not reputation. Not on the first few appearances. That's pure Intimidate. Reputation followed, along with an increase in his Intimidate skill as his level increased

Please, read Waylander and you'll see Intimidate how I see it.

 

[buzz]

I haven't read Burning Wheel, but if its system provides more definite outcomes, it's probably better than the current D&D system too.

Basically, Duel of Wits resolves intractable arguments between players. You break into two sides, and each state the argument you're trying to make. Your argument has a "body" (i.e., hit points), and you then make a series of verbal manuevers (which you must roleplay) that whittle down your opponent's body of argument. When one BoA reaches zero, you have a loser. The winner's argument holds, although he must make concessions commensuate with the "body points" lost in the course of the argument.

You don't necessarily convince your opponent that you are right; you just force him to agree to your demands. Of course, he can always escalate to violence (in-character) if he's really upset with the outcome.