A quick look at Intimidate: the D&D wunderskill

[LostSoul]

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.

I guess that's a matter of taste. I'd much rather not roll if the roll had no meaning at all.

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."

This is why I think Intimidate is useless.

I rolled a success and I failed.

edit: This is more RAW than how I do things, and (except for the last example) I wouldn't have a problem playing like this. I might even put a few ranks into Intimidate! It's not my favourite way of playing, but I can enjoy it.

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.

Wait, this doesn't make sense to me. Even though I can convince a king to give me his throne, when the DM says "Intimidate doesn't work on this guy, so no roll is needed" I don't have to ask why. Maybe if I didn't trust the DM, maybe then I would. But since I do trust the DM, I don't ask. And when I'm the DM and I play like this, I don't get asked (but I would tell them if they did).

I don't see why I would have to know this information in order to play with more input in the game.

 

[Felix]

I don't think it's fair to blame the players for the vagueness of the rule.

I'm not blaming the players, I'm just putting the responsibility in the hands of the person best able to make the decision: the DM.

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.

Of course the player can direct the NPCs reaction. If the PC successfully intimidates the NPC and he engages in a discussion of tribbles instead of borogoves, then the NPC will react to that, and act as if he were friendly; if he knew anything about tribbles, he'd likely tell the PC.

See, the thing is, it's out of the DM's hands as well.

Except for the part about the DM having created and inserted the NPC into the story in the first place? Yeah, once his AC and HP are set, they're set; but it's not like the players know what they are. So how can the players know the difference between a DM who meticulously keeps track of NPC HPs and one who decides the NPC can take 4 hits of ~9 damage? They can't.

However, relying on fiat is certainly not a good solution to this problem.

Isn't this "DM Fiat" business a different thread?

It's not fiat to say that the DM role-plays his NPCs, is it? That's fairly well in the job description of the DM. If the DM usually has his NPCs react to the PCs, then how is having a skill which influences the way the NPC is inclined toward the PCs any different? The DM is doing the same job, only with a nudge of, "Hey, the NPC should be more helpful now and less helpful in the future."

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.

I prefer to have hidden information because the PC don't know the skills and abilities and effects acting on the NPC... so why should the players?

Is it not more interesting to discover that the strangely tough townspeople who have been attacking you have been posessed by a demon instead of having that information tipped at you the first time a posessed is encountered?

I guess that's a matter of taste. I'd much rather not roll if the roll had no meaning at all.

But if the DM says, "You can't do it" then as a player you know that there's some reason you can't. Why should you know that? Why should the player (or the PC) know the difference between someone who is immune to Intimidate (a paladin) and someone who has a strong force of will?

I rolled a success and I failed.

May I ask how you know it is a success when you don't know what the opposing roll was? This is not Diplomacy (a whole other can of worms) that has set DCs. It's an opposed check; you can't know what result of yours will ensure a success.

Or perhaps you're refering to the fact that you now have a patent of nobility when what you really wanted for Christmas was the crown? That's absurd; of course you succeeded: you've now got a bloody title, and all the accompanying dangers, including the emnity of your monarch.

I don't see why I would have to know this information in order to play with more input in the game.

Fair enough. If the DM is willing to give control of his NPCs' reactions to the players then no, you don't need to know squat about the NPCs or their motivations.

 

[pawsplay]

If you can't get a specific result with a successful check, you're relying on DM fiat. (Which is fine for some.) Because the DM can rule however he wants regardless of the actual roll, putting ranks into the skill could be considered useless.

The DM could also have the king by a paragon ancient wyrm gold dragon in disguise. So what?

There is no DC for intimidating a king to give you the throne, because that's a ridiculous application of the skill. The only way to get a king to do such a thing is to convince him that he has no other choice. Charm person does grant very specific results, but even it defaults to describing the target as "friendly."

The problem with setting the DC for specific actions is that at some point, a high Charisma PC will turn all the NPCs in the setting into lunatics.

 

[LostSoul]

There is no DC for intimidating a king to give you the throne, because that's a ridiculous application of the skill. The only way to get a king to do such a thing is to convince him that he has no other choice.

No.

The only way to do it is to convince the DM.

 

[Felix]

The only way to do it is to convince the DM.

Put together a sound argument why a king would give up his title, honor, duty, heritage, etc. for a friend of his because his friend asked him to and as a DM I'd let you roll for it.

By all means, please.

 

[LostSoul]

Put together a sound argument why a king would give up his title, honor, duty, heritage, etc. for a friend of his because his friend asked him to and as a DM I'd let you roll for it.

Why should I - the player - have to do that for you - the DM?
Why can't I have my character do that to the NPC?
Why can't I use the mechanics - the roll - to determine the results?

There are good answers to those questions, but I think they come down to a matter of taste.

But let's say I can't come up with a good argument to convince the king. What good are all those ranks that I put into Intimidate?

 

[LostSoul]

But if the DM says, "You can't do it" then as a player you know that there's some reason you can't. Why should you know that? Why should the player (or the PC) know the difference between someone who is immune to Intimidate (a paladin) and someone who has a strong force of will?

I am not my PC. I'm just a guy trying to have fun playing a game. If I am going to have more fun knowing that than not, why not tell me?

As a DM, I don't think it's a bad thing if players have their characters act on metagame knowledge. I think it works out well, actually.

May I ask how you know it is a success when you don't know what the opposing roll was? This is not Diplomacy (a whole other can of worms) that has set DCs. It's an opposed check; you can't know what result of yours will ensure a success.

I assumed success because that's what I wrote in my post. I wanted to see how you would handle a successful roll.

Or perhaps you're refering to the fact that you now have a patent of nobility when what you really wanted for Christmas was the crown? That's absurd; of course you succeeded: you've now got a bloody title, and all the accompanying dangers, including the emnity of your monarch.

I don't see it that way. What I wanted was to gain the crown. I didn't want a title. I see that as a failure.

 

[Taraxia]

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.

But that doesn't make sense. As the DM it's your job to make sure mechanics make some kind of sense, from a metagame perspective.

By your logic, I could go up to anyone in the street, make a successful Intimidate check, and say "Now go over to that wall and smash your own skull against it as hard as you can until you bash your brains out," and it happens, solely based on a flat DC, the *same* DC as the check to simply say, "Get out of my way". Now melee combat has become obsolete -- you can kill anything with Intimidate.

This clearly isn't what the RAW intends, clearly isn't "balanced", if you care about that, and clearly makes things stupid.

 

[Taraxia]

Why should I - the player - have to do that for you - the DM?
Why can't I have my character do that to the NPC?
Why can't I use the mechanics - the roll - to determine the results?

There are good answers to those questions, but I think they come down to a matter of taste.

But let's say I can't come up with a good argument to convince the king. What good are all those ranks that I put into Intimidate?

They're good for things you could logically Intimidate someone into doing.

The fact that Intimidate can't let you steal a kingdom doesn't necessarily invalidate the skill, any more than Base Attack Bonus is invalidated because no amount of BAB will allow you to fly. The difference is that the rules have a nice, clear mechanical description of what you can do with BAB that makes it clear why you can't use BAB to fly, while Intimidiate has vague rules where you kind of get the idea what the designers wanted to let you do, but they don't explicitly say you can't shout at the Earth, "Hey, Earth, what's with this gravity business, what?" and Intimidate the Earth's gravitational field into letting you fly.

Yes, if we were playing Chuck Norris: the RPG all of this might make sense, but we're not.

 

[LostSoul]

But that doesn't make sense. As the DM it's your job to make sure mechanics make some kind of sense, from a metagame perspective.

By your logic, I could go up to anyone in the street, make a successful Intimidate check, and say "Now go over to that wall and smash your own skull against it as hard as you can until you bash your brains out," and it happens, solely based on a flat DC, the *same* DC as the check to simply say, "Get out of my way". Now melee combat has become obsolete -- you can kill anything with Intimidate.

This clearly isn't what the RAW intends, clearly isn't "balanced", if you care about that, and clearly makes things stupid.

Yeah, that's where I'd look at you funny and say, "No, lame. Why do you want to do that, anyway?"

But I also trust the players not to make me stop and say, "Whaaa?" too much. It's their game too, and they have to live with it "not making sense" just as much as I do.