iserith
Magic Wordsmith
You might want to check yourself on that last comment. You won't even directly answer Shirebrok's question - and he's actually trying to help you.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
You might want to check yourself on that last comment. You won't even directly answer Shirebrok's question - and he's actually trying to help you.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
no, you are trying to pigeonhole my argument and force me to say something you already have an argument for... but guess what, I don't have just choose A or B
I am explaining your character's body taking in stimuli, and I am doing so with the system and words you the player should understand...
have you ever been intimidated? Guess what, it doesn't force you to do something. It just is short hand for what your body is telling you...
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
Either of these approaches is fine with me. But if I say "I fought in a war against Orcs for years. I've killed hundreds of them and I've faced at least 5 more just like this guy: Big, scary, skilled. But I killed all 5 of them and I'm certainly not letting this guy get the best of me. I long ago conquered any fear I might have felt in this situation. I'm confident that I'm even more skilled than him. I walk up to him and stare him in the eye, refusing to show any fear and keeping my face a mask, and I say, "You are going to die, you know?". I then give my best wry grin." and my DM says "Sorry, you are intimidated, you have to act scared of him!" then I'd get rather annoyed.
Part of what I learned while writing boxed text for Living Greyhawk is that players really don't tell them what they FEEL or THINK. There were a couple of boxed texts that said things like "As you trudge through the sewers, you are disgusted by what you feel in your boots" and we had people tell us "I'm not disgusted. My character lives in the sewers, he's used to this." They didn't like boxed text that told them what they were afraid of, either. Different people are afraid of different things. They wanted to decide on their own how their character felt about a situation. They also don't like boxed texts that say things like "You can't help but wonder where the smoke is coming from". They'd say "My character just doesn't care about those sorts of things. He wasn't wondering that at all."
Basically, "He is pretty scary" is fine. "You are scared" is not.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
yea, it would be a pretty messed up GM to say "you are intimidated, you have to act scared of him!" especially after your very well resond response to being intimidated..."not letting this guy get the best of me. I long ago conquered any fear I might have felt in this situation. I'm confident that I'm even more skilled than him. " and this is why you don't go around trying to intimidate everyone (someone up thread had suggested it) because some people will kill you for being intimidated...
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
The difference is that I'm not establishing the character's response at all. To say "you're intimidated" is to establish a response, regardless of whether you "allow" the player to determine what happens after that.
I thought your post upthread that breaks down intimidation was spot on. Beat Horsedeath is obviously a simple example of an orc trying to cow the PCs into doing something and how individual DMs establish what with regard to that and whether we're rolling to determine anything about Beat Horsedeath's attempt at intimidation.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
I think it really depends on your definition of "intimidated". And I think that's the major problem in this thread. Many people will say that being "intimidated" means you feel compelled to do what the person who intimidated you says. It implies you are scared of them and afraid to act out against them. Which is why someone saying "This Orc is intimidating" is fine. Lesser people might be "intimidated" by his act but being told "you are intimidated" feels like me that I'm being told what to feel and think.
It's a subtle difference, but I think it's important. We've been told from movies and books that heroes are never intimidated. So, being intimidated seems like a weak and unheroic trait. That by controlling their fear, that's what makes them heroes.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
please source thise books of heroes...
Harry potter is scared and over comes it
Harry Dresden is almost pooping his pants at least once a book but over comes it
John Snow gets intimidated, sometimes he backs down other times he moves forward anyway.
Ned Stark tells his son the only time you CAN be brave is when you are affriad.
The modern Green Lanterns get past there yellow weakness by overcoming fear...
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
Mostly action heroes: John Maclean, Rambo, and the like.
But my point is precisely that yes, all those people feel fear but they all overcome it. The word "intimidated" implies FAILING to overcome your fears. When the average person hears the word "intimidated" they think of the person saying "Please don't hurt me! I'll do anything you want! I'll tell you anything!" The book implies that succeeding in an intimidate check causes the target to tell you what you want to know or do what you want them to do.
So, most people view the word "intimidated" to mean losing control of your emotions. And being uncontrolled is considered to be unheroic. Someone can be "intimidating", which is to say they are scary to most people. But most people feel that if you feel scared and don't let it show that you are NOT intimidated.
sunshadow21
Explorer
And that, to me, is a key difference is the types of stories that movies or novels tell and the types of stories that can be told in an RPG. Over the course a of a campaign, player will see the weaknesses of their characters and will have to deal with them. A veteran orc fighter can still be scared by an orc; it's not easy, and I would certainly give such a character a mechanical boost to avoid it, but it can still happen. The key to me is what happens next. You mostly see the next part in movies and novels, but there still has to be those moments, whether they are shown or not, that triggered the next part. Heroes didn't learn to control fear because they just can; they did so because they have practice in experiencing it and dealing with it. A movie rarely shows those moments of weakness that serve as the reason that they can control it later. A tabletop campaign shows every notable moment from starting level to the end of the campaign, and not all of those moments are going to be superheroic; there will be a lot of stumbling that occurs before the superheroic stuff occurs.
On intimidation, the key in my minde is that the successful check instills fear, but fear is a very tough emotion to use to guide someone. Even the fear spell, which dictates that the usual response is to run away, makes it clear that someone who can't easily do the standard response is still perfectly able to choose other options. The goal of the intimidator may be to get a specific reaction, but of all the emotions, fear is definitely one of the more unpredictable. Trying to pin someone down into a corner, whether it be a real, physical one or a mental one, is an uncertain exercise even for the most trained intimidator in the world who can eliminate the large majority of options available to their target. A roll can very much be used to force some kind of reaction, but the roll by itself does very little to control the precise nature of the reaction; better rolls get sharper reactions, but also more unpredictable reactions, so control remains elusive.
The other social skills are in a similar boat. I may tell someone that their PC fully believe someone who is lying to their face if they completely fail their check to see through the bluff. But all it takes is for someone else in the scene to put that little ounce of doubt back in the PC's mind for that failed roll to have noticeably less impact. Similar things with diplomacy; the roll can get a very real effect, but other aspects of the scene can very easily dampen or strengthen that effect.
And the last key part in my campaigns at least is that few social rolls are ever made in true isolation. They are almost always made as part of a larger scene. The roll very much effects that one aspect of the scene, but just like one player's RP can potentially override another player's RP, so too can the actions of another character minimize or strengthen any particular dice roll. Since there is almost always another PC around to support the affected PC and give them reasons to respond to the attempt different than how the one who initiated the response expects, the dice roll, in resolving one particular action, sets up an opportunity for the party to work together to shape the response. There will be times where the dice roll does basically determine the outcome, but those moments are rare if the party is working together to actively avoid them, and more notable because of it. I would get bored as a player or DM where such moments were common, but as a relatively rare thing, it can help make a scene stand out and make it that much more memorable.
sunshadow21
Explorer
To me, those are not really the greatest examples for D&D except for quick little one off adventures or for the relatively small number of groups that enjoy going from epic battle to epic battle with little in between. Most campaigns will have downtimes, and every character is going to have encounters that just don't go in their favor, even when logic says it should. Harry Potter is actually a pretty good example, and far better than any of those action heroes. He has moments of greatness, but he also has a lot of times where his butt is pulled out of the fire by his friends because he failed to save himself. If we were to use the logic that he couldn't ever fail because he's the hero, the full seven books it took to tell the story as it known could have easily been condensed to half of that or even less.
Similar Threads
D&D (2024)
Intimidation vs Morale