A quick look at Intimidate: the D&D wunderskill

[Taraxia]

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.

FWIW, I much, much, much prefer Rich Burlew's variant Diplomacy rules to the core rules.

 

[Felix]

Why should I - the player - have to do that for you - the DM?

Because as the DM I can't think of one good reason why on earth I would allow a PC to do something so ridiculous as this. However, I would, being a reasonable fellow, allow you to suggest an argument as to why such a circumstance might come to pass. I feel that because my imagination has not supplied anything, I would do well by enlisting your help.

Not that I think anything you come up with will hold water better than a collander... but I'm willing to listen.

Why can't I have my character do that to the NPC?

Because your PCs action is not to give the NPCs crown to you. The PC's action is to try to convince the NPC that this is a good idea. In this case, the PC attempts to use intimidation tactics to influence the King.

The king's reaction is out of the PC's hands, much as LostSoul's ability to control Felix's response to his posts. The DM takes the effects of the intimidation into account when the king responds, of course, and this is the extent of the PCs influence, RAW. Assuming a successful check, the King will now act towards the PCs in a friendly manner. Abdicating a throne is not something a king will do for a friend because he asks him to. Period. The king might be scared of you, and he might try to buy you off with something else like a patent of nobility. He might even give you an heirloom. But he won't do anything for you that he wouldn't also do for a real friend.

Ask yourself what you would do for a friend if he were to ask. Would you sell him your house for a dollar? Would you divorce your wife so he could marry her? Would you give him all of your personal belongings and live out your life on the street? No? Then neither will an NPC who has been intimidated by a PC.

Why can't I use the mechanics - the roll - to determine the results?

You do use the mechanics to determine the results. Your total check determines exactly what the NPC must roll to not be intimidated.

Congratulations, you've determined the results.

What good are all those ranks that I put into Intimidate?

Likely the good has something to do with NPCs treating you as a friend rather than being hostile or unfriendly or indifferent to you.

Do you not think being able to pump an enemy for information is good for you?
Do you not think a patent of nobility is good?
Do you not think a merchant reducing his prices is good?
Do you not think a rogue telling you where the secret entrances are is good?

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.

I would say, "This is where we part ways, you and I" were it not for the obvious fact that we parted ways before we met.

Verisimilitude being to me very important, if there is no reason for the PCs (or the players) to know a fact, then the players (or the PCs) won't know it either.

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

Ah. Fair enough. I mistook your exclamation of success as you, the player, knowing what you've rolled was a success, instead of a prompt for me, the DM, to fill in the blanks of what the outcome a successful Intimidate check would be.

In either case, you'd not be getting the Kingdom. Either because I would roll the Intimidate check normally and have the king give you help based on friendship or because I would seriously cripple you with a circumstance modifier on the opposed roll (and such a modifier is not unreasonable). Either way, no crown; which would you rather: a failed check or a patent of nobility?

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.

Ok, a player of yours says, "I wanna win. Gimmie."

Or, more graphically, "I want to Intimidate this loving father of four into slowly sacrificing his wife, children and neighbors to my dark god of Evil while he <insert disgusting acts of disgust here>. I have maxed ranks and he's a commoner so there's no possible way I can fail, even on a one."

Do you dismiss these requests as absurd, or does he now "win"? Are the youngsters now slowly roasing? At what point is an absurd request not catered to?

EDIT:

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

The penny drops. So it's not that you're unwilling to restrict what players want to do, you just believe you have a better measue of what you think they should be able to do. Is that it? What happened to the "dice determining the results"?

 

[Taraxia]

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.

This all depends on what kind of relationship the players and the DM have, and what kind of game the players are playing.

I mean, true to a point, but I don't think it's realistic that a player should be expected to say, "Look at this spell on my spell list! It's totally overpowered! I think I'm going to cast it but change it so that it allows a Reflex save." If you've got players who think that way, you're likely not playing D&D.

Speaking as someone who's seen a player try crap like the Bag of Explosive Runes trick, I'd say that it's just best for the social contract of the game if we do start from the assumption that DMs have central control over the game.

And, by the way, sure, the players might not try the ridiculous edge case there. But still -- the flat DC is a huge problem. I would *want* and *expect* a system that works in such a way that an only moderately Intimidating guy can get away with "You. Get out of my way" when pushing past someone rudely in the street, but could not, say, get away with "You. Give me your wallet. No funny business", and could even less get away with "If the cops ask you, I was never here, understand? Even if they threaten you!"

Quite often PCs will have to make the choice between asking NPCs to do things that are of no real permanent consequence to them, things that are of significant cost to them in time or money, and things that put their jobs, their social standing or their lives at very direct risk. All of these are realistic things to try to Intimidate someone into doing. All of these ought to be very different in terms of how *difficult* they are. Currently the game doesn't really simulate this -- it just says they become "Friendly", and the definition of "Friendly" is therefore *very important* if you're going to try to use the rules as written to do a realistic and satisfying scenario.

And, to an extent, it works. Some people are bastards who never help out their friends much at all. Some people are willing to let their friends impose on their time or money, but only up to a reasonable level. Some people are willing to lay down their lives for their friends. It all depends.

 

[LostSoul]

Because your PCs action is not to give the NPCs crown to you. The PC's action is to try to convince the NPC that this is a good idea. In this case, the PC attempts to use intimidation tactics to influence the King.

Right, that's RAW. I just don't like RAW because I feel like it puts too much influence in the DM's hands. I'm not sure what will happen on a successful check.

Do you not think being able to pump an enemy for information is good for you?
Do you not think a patent of nobility is good?
Do you not think a merchant reducing his prices is good?
Do you not think a rogue telling you where the secret entrances are is good?

These are all good uses of Intimidate. But the DM could easily come up with reasons why his NPCs won't comply - so I don't know if Intimidate will have any chance of success here.

I would say, "This is where we part ways, you and I" were it not for the obvious fact that we parted ways before we met.

Which is cool.

Either way, no crown; which would you rather: a failed check or a patent of nobility?

Failed check, totally. I want the king to kick my ass all over town. "Guards! Throw him in the pit of DESPAIR and sharpen the royal head-sticking pike. We'll make an example of this would-be usurper."

Or, more graphically, "I want to Intimidate this loving father of four into slowly sacrificing his wife, children and neighbors to my dark god of Evil while he <insert disgusting acts of disgust here>. I have maxed ranks and he's a commoner so there's no possible way I can fail, even on a one."

Sweet. That would be awesome! I'd look at him and just be floored. "You want to do what? You are one hard-core bastard. Awesome. Do you want to describe the horror, or should I?"

 

[Felix]

Right, that's RAW. I just don't like RAW because I feel like it puts too much influence in the DM's hands. I'm not sure what will happen on a successful check.

These are all good uses of Intimidate. But the DM could easily come up with reasons why his NPCs won't comply - so I don't know if Intimidate will have any chance of success here.

And here we are, back to trust issues. If you don't trust the DM, what's the point of playing in the first place?

Sweet. That would be awesome! I'd look at him and just be floored. "You want to do what? You are one hard-core bastard. Awesome. Do you want to describe the horror, or should I?"

So, when asked the question:

"LostSoul, because I'm your friend, would you mind <insert litany of graphic evil>, because, you know, I think that would be cool. Oh, and then kill yourself while you're at it."

You would answer, "Yeah, ok".

 

[LostSoul]

The penny drops. So it's not that you're unwilling to restrict what players want to do, you just believe you have a better measue of what you think they should be able to do. Is that it? What happened to the "dice determining the results"?

Yeah, I was just thinking about that.

I think I need to consider things for a while, maybe for a day or two. Maybe our positions aren't so far apart after all.

edit: just to remind myself: "And here we are, back to trust issues. If you don't trust the DM, what's the point of playing in the first place?"

- I trust the DM to play the NPC properly. I want input on the game. If I don't have input via the mechanics, what does that mean? Can I still have input by role-playing (acting)? By convincing the DM? Does the method of input matter to me? Hmm...

 

[LostSoul]

So, when asked the question:

"LostSoul, because I'm your friend, would you mind <insert litany of graphic evil>, because, you know, I think that would be cool. Oh, and then kill yourself while you're at it."

You would answer, "Yeah, ok".

No, I just think that it would be a really cool thing to see in a game.

 

[Felix]

Maybe our positions aren't so far apart after all.

If it's a difference in where the DM draws the line, well, there's no point in aruging that; to each his own.

But we can argue if the DM should or should not be able to draw the line at all. (It seems we might have reached a conclusion on that front.)

No, I just think that it would be a really cool thing to see in a game.

Horribly, graphically, repulsingly evil and cinematic? Sure is.

Something for a BBEG to do on his days off? Ayup.

PC ability vis-a-vis Intimidate? Not on your life.

 

[buzz]

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.

But you are basically saying, "This mechanic works fine if there's trust at the table and the DM acts reasonably." And that doesn't really say anything, because the hypothetical rule, "Roll a d20, and the DM will tell you what happens, probably something good if it's a high roll" (which I've seen many times) is also a perfectly sound mechanic by your logic.

I'm saying that, while trust is great and the foundation of a healthy group, it would be a lot more helpful if the rules actually gave us some methods to help resolve the conflict, instead of just leaving it up to player-DM negotiation.

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?

It's a matter of opinion. I think it can be just as fun to give this info to players up front and have them deal with it. "Okay, they may want to kill you, but they're all innocent townspeople who have been mind controlled." Now the players actually have to think about the consequences of their actions, and find a way to solve the situation without killing everyone (which is not an easy thing in D&D).

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?

What's the advantage to keeping the player in the dark? Why is it fun for my pimped-out Intimidate to be blown off by the DM and my only consolation be, "The DM probably has a good reason." I'd rather the DM just be up-front and say that Intimidate will not work in this situation, the same way that Open Lock isn't going to help me walk through a wall.

 

[buzz]

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

Right, and what's "logical" is going to be determined by you and the DM hashing it out. Ergo, Intimidate is only going to be as useful as past precedent dictates it will. If you're at a con playing with a DM you've never played with before, you're going to have no idea as to the value of those ranks.

The fact that Intimidate can't let you steal a kingdom doesn't necessarily invalidate the skill...

True, but I think the whole king example is so far beyond any rational assessment of "helpful" that it's really of no use in this discussion. Granted, it does point out some more of the shortcomings of Intimidate as-written. E.g., by RAW, the king gets no bonus for having entire armies of knights at his disposal and belief in his own divine mandate as ruler. One piddly non-noble PC of standard race and class should have no chance in hell of Intimidating him, in his own throne room, of doing anything.

Granted, that's my opinion. Other DM's opinions are going to vary, based on attitude and experience, which is wholly separate from trust.

Honestly, I think the fact that we're having this discussion at all means that the social skills could use some work.