Irda Ranger
First Post
For MY game, neither am I. But like any tool, they can be used safely and productively in some circumstances.Grazzt said:
Excerpt: skill challenges
- Thread starter jaelis
- Start date
Looking at it again I am a little puzzled by the complaints. It seems to specifically say that the DM can design an encounter to be resolved by:
1. Rp Only
2. One skill roll only + however much Rp you want
3. The Skill Challenge system + however much RP you want
Isn't #1 and #2 how these sorts of things were dealt with in 3.x? So why does adding #3 take away anything from the DM? It really seems like a very opened ended system and other than using adventures written by others it does not seem forced on anyone.
1. Rp Only
2. One skill roll only + however much Rp you want
3. The Skill Challenge system + however much RP you want
Isn't #1 and #2 how these sorts of things were dealt with in 3.x? So why does adding #3 take away anything from the DM? It really seems like a very opened ended system and other than using adventures written by others it does not seem forced on anyone.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
This is actually a cool idea!Derren said:
Maybe a knowledge check gives you a clue which element makes it vulnerable to a diferent element...
or maybe you did a research, because you knew that you will soon face a demon...
Having some surprises for your players (like x stripping someones defeses vs y) seems like a good idea!
Irda Ranger
First Post
Er, what's the point of the Intimidate Skill then if you can't intimidate people into doing what you want? Kind of defeats the purpose of taking that Skill Training if everyone can "just decide" to ignore the result, doesn't it?Propheous_D said:
By the way, this is why I've decided not to use the Social skills in my next game. At all. I want to be able to say some times "Sorry chaps, this guy is wolverine-crazy immune to intimidation." Or "This guy's just in a bad mood - he won't let you cheer him up." But since I want the freedom for NPCs to be whoever they are / need to be, I'm not going to encourage PCs to waste resources on stuff I can just ignore at will.
drjones said:
4. Set a goal and let the PCs do what they want with multiple skill checks but without any restricting X/Y count etc. That has all the advantages of a Skill Challenge and non of its disadvantage because it is much more flexible.
Skill Challenges are good as suggestion, but not as a rule.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
drjones said:
the trick is only reading what you don´t like so that you have a reason to argue...
#1 is actually the worst of all: RP only means that you have to supress good ideas, because your character is stupid as hell (or vice versa)
combined skill checks with RP seems the best solution, so you can let your character try something he is not good at (maybe even roleplayed very well), but the skill roll will be hard for you.
With multiple rolls, you can actually try it without hurting the party directly...
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Derren said:
thats actually something we can agree on...
the complexity thingy is not really needed... but if you are flexible, you can just count double for especially good ideas or just ignore some results
having guidelines helps however
SteveC
Doing the best imitation of myself
It seems that I am going to have to disagree with many here and give a big raspberry to the "intimidate automatically fails." Many years ago in the Complete Fighter book, TSR gave me a quote I took to heart for all of my GMing: "don't say no, determine difficulty."
Should you be able to intimidate the noble? It may be difficult, even much more difficult, but it should certainly be possible. If the god of intimidation showed up and said a few words, would that still fail? If so, we're back to the system of immunities that have plagued D&D for a long time. The game designers decided to remove things like an immunity to flame for a fire elemental, why would they dream of putting them back in for a social encounter? Intimidate is a social skill, it's a social encounter, they fit together in a way that, say, acrobatics does not (although I wouldn't absolutely rule that out either).
Beyond that, I would argue that Intimidate is a VERY appropriate skill for use in negotiation with the nobility. It seems to work far better than diplomacy in most of the movies or books I've seen. Might a noble get a huge morale bonus in resistance? Yes, he most likely would, but as he isn't a construct, it should still have a chance to succeed.
Just my $.02.
--Steve
Should you be able to intimidate the noble? It may be difficult, even much more difficult, but it should certainly be possible. If the god of intimidation showed up and said a few words, would that still fail? If so, we're back to the system of immunities that have plagued D&D for a long time. The game designers decided to remove things like an immunity to flame for a fire elemental, why would they dream of putting them back in for a social encounter? Intimidate is a social skill, it's a social encounter, they fit together in a way that, say, acrobatics does not (although I wouldn't absolutely rule that out either).
Beyond that, I would argue that Intimidate is a VERY appropriate skill for use in negotiation with the nobility. It seems to work far better than diplomacy in most of the movies or books I've seen. Might a noble get a huge morale bonus in resistance? Yes, he most likely would, but as he isn't a construct, it should still have a chance to succeed.
Just my $.02.
--Steve
I must have missed the place where skill challenges were declared to be mandatory for use by all DMs in all situations.Derren said:
On one hand, I totally respect your decision to remove social skills from the game. I've played RPGs that didn't have social skill systems, and they worked just fine.Irda Ranger said:
That said, I don't get your reasoning. There's a big difference between "everyone can just decide" to ignore your intimidation, and acknowledging that different people respond to threats differently based upon context, and that a particular set of PCs may not have any leverage with which to intimidate a particular landed noble into performing a specific task. This is "just deciding" to ignore the Intimidate skill in the same sense that telling a PC that there's nothing in the room big enough to hide behind is "just deciding" to ignore his Stealth skill. Skills are used in context of the gameworld, and sometimes the gameworld doesn't facilitate the use of a particular skill. That's why you get more than one.
SpydersWebbing
First Post
SteveC said:
I don't think they're saying a flat out "You can't intimidate this guy". What they're saying is that the NPC won't put up with it and will have you thrown out, thus ruining the challenge.
It's not that the man can't be intimidated: it's that he won't let it affect him (unless you are a god, which you aren't, because the difficulty level for this is a seven or an eight, remember?)
Keep it in the context and it makes sense. Remove even one thing (that this is supposed to be for heroic tier characters who-quite frankly-can't do everything), and it seems to be a travesty.
