A quick look at Intimidate: the D&D wunderskill

[Crothian]

The situation you describe in the first sentence is pretty much the same as the situation you describe in the second sentence.

Except for one DM ignoring the rules the other DM using the rules. DM fiat is part of any game, and if one wants to remove that from the game they might as well just get rid of the DM.

 

[Hussar]

Your NPCs don't talk to each other, do they not?

"Those guys are jerks, don't let them in the store next time; call the cops if they show up again."
"Sergeant, quick, some guys just barged through the door looking like they were on their way to commit murder; I was scared for my life!"
"Sound the alarm and shoot to kill!"
"Don't help..."
"Don't aid..."
"Don't heal..."
"Don't protect..."
"Tell your friends..."
"Tell their sponsor..."
"Tell their guild..."
"Tell their church..."

Mine do. And all of those are perfectly reasonable repercussions from varied instances and frequency of use of Intimidate; it's a useful skill when you're dealing with people who are already hostile, but piss poor when dealing with... everyone else.

"Mind control", indeed: pfaugh.

I'm not terribly concerned with using it in civilized places. After all, you're right, there would be consequences. What I'm worried about is the player doing this in every encounter, right off the shot, to mind control targets into doing pretty much whatever they want.

If I'm mistaken about the standard action bit, please correct me.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Except for one DM ignoring the rules the other DM using the rules. DM fiat is part of any game, and if one wants to remove that from the game they might as well just get rid of the DM.

The point of including the social skills as skills was to remove the DM from the position of just deciding that the attempts at social interaction did or did not work. So yes, the existence of the skills is precisely getting rid of the DM. If you want to reduce the skills to DM fiat, go ahead and remove them from the game and let the players spend their skill points on useful skills. If you don't, you need to provide a non-arbitrary way of determining success. A DM just heaping on as many modifiers as he wants is not really functionally any different from removing the skills entirely and relying on DM fiat. If he wants the player to succeed, the player will succeed. If he wants the player to fail, he'll fail.

 

[LostSoul]

Except for one DM ignoring the rules the other DM using the rules. DM fiat is part of any game, and if one wants to remove that from the game they might as well just get rid of the DM.

Just because you rely on the dice to resolve something doesn't mean you are getting rid of the DM.

Might as well get rid of the DM during combat then, too, eh?

 

[pawsplay]

Your NPCs don't talk to each other, do they not?

What does it matter? Your PCs are just going to Intimidate someone to assassinate anyone who stands in the way. Or intimidate them into voluntarily failing their saves against dominate person. Or intimidate the king into abdicating to the PCs.

It really doesn't matter. They could be the most unpopular people in town, they would still go around intimidating people one at a time.

"I'm sorry, we don't sell to your kind here."
"Oh, yeah?"

"We have decided to throw you out of the church."
"Have you said your prayers lately, padre?"

These so-called "consequences" evaporate when players can use dice to get whatever they want out of an NPC with a high enough roll.

Let's compare negotiation to combat in another fashion. Combat involves dozens of dice rolls. Negotiation involves maybe a half dozen. The chance of throwing one good result is much higher than ending combat in one round. Intimidate, or Diplomacy, is not balanced under those circumstances. Intimidate or Diplomacy should be limited to reasonable results, and that's within the DM's purview.

 

[Felix]

I'm worried about is the player doing this in every encounter, right off the shot, to mind control targets into doing pretty much whatever they want.

Right off the shot, meaning, whenever they encounter someone in any social situation? (So they have the opportunity to spend a minute of time interacting with them.) This I have less of a problem with since they'll subject themselves to the consequences of being jerks.

Or are you concerned with making the interaction usage of Intimidate into a Standard Action? Because I'm right with you there. It should most certainly not be a Standard Action.

It really doesn't matter. They could be the most unpopular people in town, they would still go around intimidating people one at a time.

If you as a DM would allow PCs to go about saying things like:

"Have you said your prayers lately, padre?"

And nothing happens in consequence to them, like the police being called for Harassment ("Oh, I'll just intimidate the police" Yeah. Ok, buddy. Good way to make a quick trip to the jail or the gallows.), then I can understand why this skill is frustrating you.

PCs are mean to people ---> people are mean back to PCs.

Or intimidate the king into abdicating to the PCs.

"Hey King Pawsplay, since I've been your friend for a long time, I was thinking, would you mind if you abdicate and I become King?"

"Sure, Mr... I mean "King" Felix; because I would abdicate my crown for a friend, I would surely have no problem leaving my duties, responsibilites and power because you, a friend, asks me to."

Why would a king abdicate his throne for a friend? Because that's what their attitude is considered while the target is intimidated. It's not bloody mind control; if a friend would do it for you, the target will now do it for you, and hate you later. If a friend wouldn't do it for you, then the target still won't do it for you, no matter how high your bonuses are. Intimidate already is "Within the DMs purview"; he decides what a friend will and will not do for you.

 

[pawsplay]

That is precisely my point. Diplomacy and Intimidate are designed the way they are for a reason.

And nothing happens in consequence to them, like the police being called for Harassment ("Oh, I'll just intimidate the police" Yeah. Ok, buddy. Good way to make a quick trip to the jail or the gallows.), then I can understand why this skill is frustrating you.

People keep saying things like this, but if Intimidate is allowed to be used to gain a specific result, yes, you bet those police will get Intimidated.

That is why, as is perhaps not clear, I am in favor of leaving intimidate exactly as it is, not changing it to a standard action and not allowing to be used to gain a specific result rather than just an attitude.

 

[Felix]

That is why, as is perhaps not clear, I am in favor of leaving intimidate exactly as it is, not changing it to a standard action and not allowing to be used to gain a specific result rather than just an attitude.

So... we agree?

*Blink*

Heh heh heh. Anyone else care to join me in the corner with the DUNCE cap on? Heh.

 

[pawsplay]

That's what happens when these discussions go on for a few pages.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. Yup.