Excerpt: skill challenges

[doctormandible]

The Great Unthinking Duke??

Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.

Really?? Here's my setup:

The PCs are 25th level. Kingdoms rise and fall at their whim. All but the mightiest foes cower at their name. The PCs discover that this Duke has valuable information. Rather than kill him outright, they mention that they will spare his life - this time - if he gives them the information they require.
RESULT: The Duke refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.and the PCs earn a failure. (WHAT?!?!)

Point is, this is not a level specific encounter. I certainly hope that this is not indicative of more 3.x shortsighted jilting of high-powered campaigns, ala Epic Level Handbook.

 

[hcm]

In any given social encounter there will be more factors then whats in your post. If a PC has a really high intimidate skill and rolls really high, and still fails, then obviously choosing intimidate is is the wrong thing to do. That is how he calculates risk, by his own ability. If his attempt is poor and he succeeds then the PC knows that that particular skill is the key to the encounter. On the other hand, as state above, if his attempt is exceptional and he still fails then the PC knows that that particular skill isnt going to lead to failure.

As for it being a bunch of rolls, it isnt if you dont want it to be. You could require the PCs to actually rp their specific skill and give detailed circumstances, phrases, and actions which they are performing. For example, dont let a PC just say, "ok, I use diplomacy." Make the PC make a diplomatic statement; "You know duke, helping us out would really be helping yourself. Once those orcs are done with the city of Whitehall they are going to cross the river and raid your city. It would be best if you joined forces with Whitehall and made one quick crushing blow to the orc hord before they can do any more harm to this fair land" (or whatever).

But there's still not much of a real tactical choice for the player. Stripping the encounter down to its mechanics, it looks like this:

Player: I try diplomacy (roll high).
DM: You succeed.
Player: Ok, now I try intimidate (roll high).
DM: You fail.
Player: Ok, back to diplomacy (roll low).
DM: You succeed.
etc

It looks like a very limited (as the skill list is short) guess-what-the-DM-prepared game and not like an interesting tactical game. The player will look down to his sheet, find the highest skill and come up with a way to make it plausible in the situation. There is no tactical choice.

A tactical choice would be for the player to deliberately choose an easy, moderate or hard check while considering the skill levels, the stakes (potential outcomes of the entire encounter) and how many wins/losses the group currently has. But it seems from the excerpt that this is not how the rules are written.

The RP part is not my issue with the excerpt. I would definitely let the group RP through the encounter. When I said the skill challenges look like bunches of rolls, I meant the lack of tactical choices for players, not the lack of RP nor the lack of tactical choice for PCs (just to clarify).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I beg to differ -- I thought it was kind of the primary design thesis and intent in 4E to be able to "whip up" any combat/social encounter in less than 10 seconds? To save all those poor DMs from the agony of pre-play planning and the complexity of 3E? ;P

If "kind of" means that your time frame might be off by a few orders of magnitude, you might be right. But then, the design thesis was certainly reached, since it appears to me as maybe 10 to 20 minutes might be enough to whip up a combat encounter (flipping through the monster manual and picking creatures of the right level, adding XP to match against the PCs), or to find a suitable model of a skill challenge at hand.

If you really meant something close to 10 seconds, no, that might be a design dream, but not a goal.

 

[Mirtek]

The Great Unthinking Duke??

Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.

Really?? Here's my setup:

The PCs are 25th level. Kingdoms rise and fall at their whim. All but the mightiest foes cower at their name. The PCs discover that this Duke has valuable information. Rather than kill him outright, they mention that they will spare his life - this time - if he gives them the information they require.
RESULT: The Duke refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.and the PCs earn a failure. (WHAT?!?!)

Point is, this is not a level specific encounter. I certainly hope that this is not indicative of more 3.x shortsighted jilting of high-powered campaigns, ala Epic Level Handbook.

So the duke is very brave, knows full well what the characters are capable to do if he refuses and still would rather die than betraying XY by giving them the information.

So the PCs fail the challenge, kill the duke and devastade his lands but they still have to find annother way to get the information

 

[Mirtek]

is short) guess-what-the-DM-prepared game and not like an interesting tactical game. The player will look down to his sheet, find the highest skill and come up with a way to make it plausible in the situation. There is no tactical choice.

What's the alternative? Any skill goes and the player just selects their highest modifier, make up an excuse why this skill should work, and then roll it over and over.

A tactical choice would be for the player to deliberately choose an easy, moderate or hard check while considering the skill levels, the stakes (potential outcomes of the entire encounter) and how many wins/losses the group currently has. But it seems from the excerpt that this is not how the rules are written.

I never really understood this select easy/moderate/hard part. What's stopping a coward like me to always go for easy + my highest skill modifier. Fine, I don't get the bonus to the next roll for making a high check, but since I am only going low DC vs. my best skill, I don't need it anyway

 

[ForbidenMaster]

The Great Unthinking Duke??

Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.

Really?? Here's my setup:

The PCs are 25th level. Kingdoms rise and fall at their whim. All but the mightiest foes cower at their name. The PCs discover that this Duke has valuable information. Rather than kill him outright, they mention that they will spare his life - this time - if he gives them the information they require.
RESULT: The Duke refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.and the PCs earn a failure. (WHAT?!?!)

Point is, this is not a level specific encounter. I certainly hope that this is not indicative of more 3.x shortsighted jilting of high-powered campaigns, ala Epic Level Handbook.

The problem with your post is that you are attempting to use a template illsutable for your scenario. The template given is for a senarion in which the duke will not go through with the goal of the party if he is intimidated.

For example, a scenario in which the PCs are level 3 and the duke has an entire legion of guards at his disposal, and when intimidated instead of cowering and doing whatever the party says he calls his gaurds and the PCs are locked up. Its not that the duke isnt intimidated, its that intimidating him doesnt give the result the PCs want. It all depends on the character of the NPC.

 

[FadedC]

The Great Unthinking Duke??

Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.

Really?? Here's my setup:

The PCs are 25th level. Kingdoms rise and fall at their whim. All but the mightiest foes cower at their name. The PCs discover that this Duke has valuable information. Rather than kill him outright, they mention that they will spare his life - this time - if he gives them the information they require.
RESULT: The Duke refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.and the PCs earn a failure. (WHAT?!?!)

Point is, this is not a level specific encounter. I certainly hope that this is not indicative of more 3.x shortsighted jilting of high-powered campaigns, ala Epic Level Handbook.

Presumably if you design an encounter for a party of demi-gods you adjust things accordingly. All skill challenges are ultimately at the discretion fo the DM. If you know they are local heroes negotiating with a more powerful baron you also design the challenge apropriately.

The example you give of 25th level PCs isn't even necesarily a use of the intimate skill or even a skill challenge though. Players are immune to the intimidate skill too, but they often back down from things they know they have no hope against....without a single roll being made.

 

[Mirtek]

Its not that the duke isnt intimidated, its that intimidating him doesnt give the result the PCs want. It all depends on the character of the NPC.

Exactly. It's

OMG they're scary - slay them before they can make their threats come true

as opposed to

OMG they're scary - I better obey them before they can make their threats come true

or mabye even


OMG they're scary - but I will suffer anything they might to do me and won't betray XY by aiding them

 

[Pale Jackal]

Interesting. I like what I see... it's not particularly complex (i.e. there's not a lot of mechanics behind it), but it's a useful reminder to DMs about how to make things more interesting.

I did really like the use of "history" in Escape from Sembia? to find out whether or not there are grates. So I do think players should, if reasonable, be allowed to use other skills than listed, obviously. Also, I think a really high Intimidate check should allow you to intimidate the duke, though sometimes Intimidation (even a high roll) may not give what you want. Depends on the situation.

Of course, whether or not the DMG mentions such caveats isn't a big deal, but it'd be better if it did.

 

[hcm]

I never really understood this select easy/moderate/hard part. What's stopping a coward like me to always go for easy + my highest skill modifier. Fine, I don't get the bonus to the next roll for making a high check, but since I am only going low DC vs. my best skill, I don't need it anyway

easy+highest mod is not always the optimal choice (as in it does not always give you the highest chance of winning the entire challenge). That depends on the number of success/failures needed, the number you currently have and your actual skill mod alternatives. You might have a better chance to win the entire challenge by choosing a hard check with a somewhat lower skill, or by doing a moderate check. Take also into consideration that the next guy to roll might not be you, but the player next to you who has other skill modifications (and ideas).

When there is a tactic that is better than the others, but which one it is isn't obvious to you, the game gets interesting. Remove a proper tactical choice and the game gets less interesting. To me at least.