Dealing with talk monkeys

[Keenath]

As can be seen, a "Good day, axe handle" situation is a complete failure to communicate due to too firm pre-conceptions on what's going to happen...

It's really not that at all. Or at least mostly not.

I admit I hadn't considered trying to talk past the guards, but more generally, it's hobgoblins (who are very good soldiers), guarding a locked gate in a chokepoint where they can't be snuck around or ambushed. The gate is designed strategically so that it is well defended. That's the whole point, to make sure that nobody can get past the guards without them knowing about it. And as I mentioned before, these are good soldiers who aren't going to give up and wander off or let a guy through just because he lies believably. They have their orders.

So on one hand, yes, it is designed so that stealth or diplomacy tactics won't work. So you could call it a railroad, I guess -- but it's not me, as the DM, glaring and saying, "NO! You can't do that!" for no reason other than that I didn't plan for other contingencies. The hobgoblins have good reason to build and maintain a defense there, and to make sure it's as secure as possible, and they're good at it.

 

[LostSoul]

There's a flavor text difference, but there shouldn't be a different mechanical effect based on power source. I mean, obviously I'd describe it differently, but I would never allow a spell to do something that a martial ability with the same rules text couldn't do. That would just be kicking the Warlord in the shin for no good reason.

Hmm.

This is how I see it going down:

The Player states an action for his PC.
The DM considers the situation.
If there is a conflict present, the DM asks for an appropriate check in order for the PC to complete the stated action. It's also possible the stated action cannot succeed.
The player may have the opportunity to alter his action.
Once the player's action is fixed, the mechanics are engaged. Sometimes it's a die roll, sometimes it's simply the expenditure of resources; sometimes there's a response from another character.
The outcome of the PC's action is determined based on the mechanics.


Since casting a spell and, well, not casting a spell are two different actions, the outcome will be different. Fundamentally, we are resolving different things.

 

[Turtlejay]

Smarter not harder is good, but one roll should not invalidate one hundred potential combat rolls. Even the most excellent of diplomats should not be able to diffuse any hostile situation, otherwise we would live in a very different world. It should require a clever plan, rolling an 18 on a die does not indicate smarter, it indicates luckier.

Allowing a party to bypass much of an encounter with one roll means there is no *downside* to trying. Roll diplomacy. On a success, you just nerfed the encounter. On a fail, you just pissed off the guys you were about to muder anyhow. Win-win. For something to qualify as smarter, not harder, there should be a plan behind the roll, and several rolls to follow it. And even then, as has been repeatedly stated, not every situation can be talked out of.

Jay

 

[Keenath]

The Player states an action for his PC.
The DM considers the situation.
If there is a conflict present, the DM asks for an appropriate check in order for the PC to complete the stated action. It's also possible the stated action cannot succeed.
The player may have the opportunity to alter his action.
Once the player's action is fixed, the mechanics are engaged. Sometimes it's a die roll, sometimes it's simply the expenditure of resources; sometimes there's a response from another character.
The outcome of the PC's action is determined based on the mechanics.


Since casting a spell and, well, not casting a spell are two different actions, the outcome will be different. Fundamentally, we are resolving different things.

I don't think I understand what you mean. If we have on one hand a Warlock using his power to gain a +5 on an intimidate check through magical means, and on the other a Warlord using his power to gain a +5 on an intimidate check through non-magical means, attempting to accomplish the same task, it sounds like you're saying you would sometimes allow the warlock to succeed where the warlord would fail just because the 'lock is using magic.

 

[Keenath]

For something to qualify as smarter, not harder, there should be a plan behind the roll, and several rolls to follow it. And even then, as has been repeatedly stated, not every situation can be talked out of.

I agree, but I want to add that in D&D terms, working "smarter not harder" often means playing to your strengths rather than coming up with a solution that actually requires fewer successful rolls. A rogue who wants to stealth past the patrol is working smarter by relying on his strong stealth check rather than putting his blade up against well-defended enemies.

That said, I agree that sometimes there is a solution that's easier than another method. Some monsters are more agreeable toward diplomacy or intimidation, and some situations are easier if you stealth past them rather than trying a frontal assault. No argument on that.

However, to my mind those will almost always be situations where those nonviolent methods are the expected solution, and the combat is the alternate fall-back if they fail (or ignore) the skill challenge. If somebody unexpectedly decides they want to talk the goblins out of fighting, I'm not going to make it easy compared to just slaughtering them; it'll require role playing, skill checks, and teamwork. The amount of effort that goes into passing the encounter is about the same as doing the combat, but they're not spending their combat resources (perhaps husbanding those healing surges for later, or because they started out the encounter in a bad tactical position) -- or they just want to mix things up, or they don't want to kill these guys for whatever reason.

 

[Garthanos]

I don't think I understand what you mean. If we have on one hand a Warlock using his power to gain a +5 on an intimidate check through magical means, and on the other a Warlord using his power to gain a +5 on an intimidate check through non-magical means, attempting to accomplish the same task, it sounds like you're saying you would sometimes allow the warlock to succeed where the warlord would fail just because the 'lock is using magic.

That's actually fine and good if ... sometimes the lord succeeds because he isnt using magic.... Does determining the DC of a skill check have to be flavor blind?

My hobgobs might be inclined towards sympathy with the spooky lock.. ...but a clever player just convinced me that empathy over being just a soldier in a big nasty machine could make a good ploy for the warlord type....so maybe not.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't think I understand what you mean. If we have on one hand a Warlock using his power to gain a +5 on an intimidate check through magical means, and on the other a Warlord using his power to gain a +5 on an intimidate check through non-magical means, attempting to accomplish the same task, it sounds like you're saying you would sometimes allow the warlock to succeed where the warlord would fail just because the 'lock is using magic.

Situation: The PCs are having some hard words with an ogre and his thugs in a bar. The ogre is telling the PCs to get lost; one PC stands up and says, "No."

One guy is standing in the ogre's face, his hand on his sword; the other's eyes are glowing red. The DC is the same; they both need to roll exactly the same number on the d20 to succeed.

Let's say it's a success. In both cases the ogre and his thugs will back down.

Warlock: They might run for their wizard master. Other observers might worry about the warlock.
Warlord: They just back down. The thugs (and other observers) might see the ogre as weak and aren't as afraid of him.

Let's say it's a failure. In both cases the NPCs won't back down.

Warlock: The ogre might club the warlock before he can steal his soul.
Warlord: They might just not back down, maybe prepare for a fight if the PCs persist.

 

[Keenath]

That's actually fine and good if ... sometimes the lord succeeds because he isnt using magic.... Does determining the DC of a skill check have to be flavor blind?

It does seem like kind of a jerk move to basically tell your guys, "Hey, you know that power you took? Sometimes I randomly decide it doesn't work!" (or doesn't work as well, but still)

Warlock: They might run for their wizard master. Other observers might worry about the warlock.
Warlord: They just back down. The thugs (and other observers) might see the ogre as weak and aren't as afraid of him.

Well, okay, fine -- but here you aren't describing a mechanical difference. You would probably be getting the same effect from an unenhanced Intimidate check from each character.

What you're saying here is essentially letting flavor text (of what the power is based on) determine flavor text (of how exactly the monsters respond to the intimidation). A mechanical difference would be that sometimes you apply a -2 penalty to the warlock's check because this particular character "isn't afraid of magic" or something, which I would never do*.

I'd apply +/- 2 depending on the player's role play of the intimidation, but not just because he happens to be a magic user or not.

* Unless they have a feat or other mechanical effect that specifically gives them a bonus to Will versus Fear effects, if the power has the fear keyword. Mechanical counters to mechanical effects.

 

[LostSoul]

I'd apply +/- 2 depending on the player's role play of the intimidation, but not just because he happens to be a magic user or not.

I would, but I'd consider that part of the roleplay. It would depend on the specific situation.

Anyways. The mechanics don't really mean anything by themselves. I have +12 Intimidate; the DC is 22. I rolled a 23.

That doesn't tell us anything at all*. We aren't rolling just to compare numbers; we're resolving a fictional situation. What actually happens in the fiction depends on a lot of things - how those numbers compare, the actions taken, what else is going on in the game world, etc. It's not only the numbers that matter; all of that flavour text matters.

* - I think one of the problems with skill challenges is that comparing the numbers seems to tell us something; it gives a success or failure to be tallied up. It's easy to focus just on that and forget about the fictional situation that we're supposed to be resolving.

 

[Garthanos]

It does seem like kind of a jerk move to basically tell your guys, "Hey, you know that power you took? Sometimes I randomly decide it doesn't work!" (or doesn't work as well, but still)

Yeah life is situational.. DC are meant to be used that way.
And If you play fair.. sometimes explaining the details of what comes
out (this stuff is social and even out of character information is cool for some players.. discuss afterwards) ... the players may like it even better.

Making a complex skill challenge is just one way of showing something is difficult... the old fashioned way was upping the DC and it isn't like a single "if then clause" I could program on a cellphone either, do this stuff right and the DM's position is secure and we DM's wont be replaced by your players deciding to play WOW2.0... The skill challenge method even if you have set difficulties very high could be used to acquire intermediate successes that the on off nature of a single roll often doesn't help with.

It could be fun to allow the leader hobgob to decide to outright betray his master if you crit that deplomacy.. but in hobgob style that might mean starting a brawl then and there with his allies and embroiling everyone in it.