Excerpt: skill challenges

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think people are commenting on the fact that Intimidate - being a social skill - is seemingly well suited to a social challenge. It may be true that the Duke is difficult to intimidate (because he is a stern, proud, honorable, and patriotic person), or particularly difficult to intimidate by the PC's (who may be his social and legal inferiors, who may be of lower level, and so forth), and naturally people react badly when you try to intimidate them but fail. But, suggesting that something is very difficult is quite different than suggesting that it is impossible. 'Impossible' is a word that generally means, 'the plot is on rails', as in, 'You can't march through these woods, its impossible.... No, you can't chop a path through the woods either, its impossible...no you can't go over these mountains except on the road, its impossible'

But what the "no intimidate" is actually to represent is this:
"Sure, you can use the northern passage over the Mountain of Doom. But it won't bring you closer to the Tomb of Despair, since that one is south!"

 

[el-remmen]

Intriguing, but really doesn't tell us much. I wish it had been a more specific example of play than what they gave us.

This the kind of thing I am looking forward to porting over to my 3.x game - since at this point I fairly certain I will not be playing 4E even though I pre-ordered the books.

I don't care about the article much, but the art is some of the best i have seen for 4e.

Word. So much better than the crap on the covers or the glossy stuff from those photos from a couple a weeks ago.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And how should the PCs be able to know when a new skill can be rolled because of a previous success like with the history check here, especially as I see no reason why you can't start the negotiation with "We are honored to meet the savior of whatevertown" without previous successful diplomacy check.

You set up the encounter like following:

PCs hear something about a lord rescuing the town, but you don´t tell them the name...

Some days later they meet that particular lord (the DUKE), but the PCs don´t know that it is still the same one...

(If someone guesses good, i would not forbid using the history skill outright)

If they have their first successfull diplomacy check, you let slip a name the players hopefully connect to the old story. Then that player may use history to remember a bit more of that story... (no names, but some deeds of that lord, which will make him happy when he knows you know about him)

 

[AllisterH]

The example does not say "the Duke cannot be intimidated". The example says that each attempt to intimidate the Duke makes him less likely "to provide reasonable assistance to the characters." (ie: gaining the benefit of succeeding at the challenge).

Exactly. There's nothing in the actual writeup/excerpt that says you can't use Intimidate.

All it says is that Intimidate leads to one failure and if it leads to three, you don't accomplish your goal. Which can be from "get the Duke to write a writ of passage for a month" to "get the Duke to supply his best (highest level) troops".

If you fail, instead of the above, you get "Duke writes a writ of passage for a week" to "get his worst troops (a.k.a lowest morale/lowest level) troops".

Nowhere in the example does it say "Can't use Intimidate".

 

[Derren]

(If someone guesses good, i would not forbid using the history skill outright)

Isn't the history skill supposed to do exactly that? When someone has a high history skill he doesn't have to guess because he knows such things.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Isn't the history skill supposed to do exactly that? When someone has a high history skill he doesn't have to guess because he knows such things.

yes... right!

And i would make it a very hard or impossible check, if you have no clue which particular lord has saved the town, because usually no one bothered to write his name down. But that successfull diplomacy skill will give you the clue you needed...

A different Lord ruling the town where you studied, and the history skill is a no-brainer...

 

[Propheous_D]

I think people are commenting on the fact that Intimidate - being a social skill - is seemingly well suited to a social challenge. It may be true that the Duke is difficult to intimidate (because he is a stern, proud, honorable, and patriotic person), or particularly difficult to intimidate by the PC's (who may be his social and legal inferiors, who may be of lower level, and so forth), and naturally people react badly when you try to intimidate them but fail. But, suggesting that something is very difficult is quite different than suggesting that it is impossible. 'Impossible' is a word that generally means, 'the plot is on rails', as in, 'You can't march through these woods, its impossible.... No, you can't chop a path through the woods either, its impossible...no you can't go over these mountains except on the road, its impossible'

Again lets have a reality check.

Having one skill result in something else because it suits role-play and plot is in no way putting the plot on rails. That is a rather silly statement considering it removes 1 of a nearly infinite number of options to the PC's. To properly put the plot ON rails you would have narrow the options significantly.

Plot and Story should and are allowed to throw monkey wrenches into rules when it is deemed appropriate. Also, THIS IS A TEMPLATE AND NOT A RULE!!!!!!!! It shows what options are available. If you feel so pationately that all skills should be allow then feel free to play that way. I won't, and I love the idea that PC's can tread into dangerous ground if they are not carefull that is WHAT role-playing and roll-playing is all about.

 

[Primal]

Actually the example annoys me specifically for that Intimidate prohibition. Why? Why is this guy immune to getting leaned on? Offer to feed him to your pet demon and he just laughs? Threaten his family, and he just responds with 'Go ahead'?

It feels too artificial and just a quick band-aid replacement for actual role-playing.
'Come on guys, roll high 8 times, and we can just hand-wave the whole thing and get back to killing'.

I don't have a problem with 'find the temple in the jungle' example, because that makes sense- it isn't something the players and DM can actually do, so you game it out with dice rolls. But faking a role-playing session seems to defeat half the point of a game. Go down that road, and you really are playing a board game.

As already mentioned, I think it is due to *this* particular Duke not being swayed by intimidation. And why not? Dukes and other nobles rarely take slights or threats likely -- and in most cases you're lucky if he doesn't order his men to kill you on the spot.

How would you have handled it if any of your players (in 3.5) would try to get a local duke's help by saying: "Listen, I'm gonna Intimidate this guy witless -- I'll tell him that I'll kill his wife and children if he doesn't give us his castle and all his wealth!". Would you have accepted that? Would you have even let him roll that check? And would you have ruled that there are consequences?

Look, it's very easy to say that it's restrictive, but how many times have you denied your players a skill check that just didn't make sense in a certain situation? It's pretty obvious that although you *CAN* use Intimidation in the challenge, but it's just that the outcome is automatically negative. And if any of my players used Intimidation in such a situation in 3.5, I would probably let him, but there sure as hell would be repercussions -- whether he succeeded or not. Unless, of course, the duke was actually a villain or there was some other logical reason for PCs behaving that way.

And let's not forget that this just an example -- I'm sure that Ari (and other playtesters) can confirm that this is not the "only" way to run a social skill check challenge in 4E. I'm sure that there are rules how to modify the given examples in various situations (i.e. when your players are involved in a skill challenge against an innkeeper).

I was very doubtful of players abusing the "big intent vs. small intent" problem (which is also handled terribly even in some Indie RPGs), but to me it's clear that they've put some thought into this. I especially like how using certain skills open new options to use other skills. I may not like a lot of stuff in 4E, but I honestly believe that this system will actually *encourage* role-playing and character immersion.

 

[Propheous_D]

yes... right!

And i would make it a very hard or impossible check, if you have no clue which particular lord has saved the town, because usually no one bothered to write his name down. But that successfull diplomacy skill will give you the clue you needed...

A different Lord ruling the town where you studied, and the history skill is a no-brainer...

Don't forget it can be insignicant in the eyes of history but that the Duke feels is a bright spot or a thorn in his side. While you might know the fact with out knowing the Duke you would not realize its relevance to him.

For instance it may be that the day the King rode out to be assasinated the Duke warned him not to go, but he didn't listen. This has left the Duke feeling guilty he didn't try harder. You can bring up the fact that you had heard such a rumor and that you consider his councel sound and wise based on it. He may then on some rant about how only if the King had listened and people never listen to him but its good that you take his councel.

A fact that means nothing in history, but is personal to the duke like that can really away a vote in your favor. The trick is knowing if this will bring up bad memories and anger him or draw him to your side.

 

[Dausuul]

I like the system, though it doesn't tell me much I didn't already know.

As for Intimidate, I read that the way I read any rule--"This is how it works except in extraordinary cases, in which case the DM is expected to adjust on the fly." The Jump rules tell you how far you can jump under normal circumstances. They don't include rules for what happens if the party wizard casts gust of wind right behind you at the moment you leap. Does that mean you can't use gust of wind to help you jump farther? Of course not; it just means that under normal circumstances, you can't jump farther than 1 foot per point of your Jump check result.

The local leader is proud, arrogant, and used to being in charge. When you attempt physical intimidation, it just makes him mad; hence, most Intimidate checks actually turn him against you. You can't lean on him the way you can lean on some cowardly informant.

Does that mean the guy is flat-out immune to intimidation? No, but the party fighter talking tough isn't going to do it. If you present yourselves as emissaries of the emperor, and smoothly but menacingly imply that disobedience will mean an Imperial legion sent to lay waste to the NPC's barony, that's got a much better shot at succeeding. Of course, unless the PCs actually are emissaries of the emperor, a Bluff check would be more appropriate than Intimidate on that one.

For that matter, there are circumstances where I'd house-rule the other way too. Normally, trying to bluster or threaten just gives you one auto-failure, but if the attempt is really egregious, it could derail the whole negotiation. For example, if you draw your sword and brandish it, the NPC is likely to call his guards and have you arrested on the spot.