Excerpt: skill challenges

[Derren]

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."

But what would that achieve? Intimidating a noble is quite hard unless you are massively powerful o have some way to blackmail him, but lets say the PCs manage to intimidate the Duke to support them. What kind of support would the Duke give the PCs? Certainly not honest support but rather unreliable one and as soon as the PCs show a weakness the Duke will exploit it to get rid of the PCs.
That sounds more like the result of a failed Skill Challenge (Don't forget, a failed challenge doesn't have to mean "No" but can also mean"Yes with bad side effects") so its quite logical that a successful intimidate moves you toward the "bad" result.

So the Duke can be intimidated, but both a successful and unsuccessful attempt will in the end get the same, bad, result.

I must have missed the place where skill challenges were declared to be mandatory for use by all DMs in all situations.

There is a whole chapter about Skill Challenges including imo unnecessary rules about complexity which in the end hinders roleplay because its too restrictive. If Skill Challenges would be presented as a guideline they would need less space which could be used for something else in addition to be better for the game as you can react better to what the PCs do.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

What I'm wondering is if there will be a mechanism for opposed skill challenges. For example if there was a debate between the PCs and another party both appealing to the Lord to trust them over the other side.

It could be a situation where the PCs need to gain a certain number of successes before the other side does, but I then realized the DM is playing the other side and has the advantage of knowing the parameters for the debate, so he couldn't have the NPCs use Intimidate and get a failure without knowing that it was an automatic failure.

I'm thinking opposed rolls in this case might work. For example: The PCs use Diplomacy to sway the Lord. The NPC uses History to remind the Lord about the last time they trusted outsiders. NPC gets higher result = 1 failure for PCs. NPCs use Bluff to convince the Lord that Noble X trusted them in similar circumstances 2 months ago. PC use Knowledge to recall that Noble X was away on a hunting expedition during that time. PCs get higher result = 1 success.

I guess in this case I would probably even out the number of successes to failures since it isn't as passive as they PCs just having to meet a set DC for success.

Thoughts?

 

[Andur]

To all of you "intimidate automatically fails" haters. I say you automatically fail at reading comprehension.

It is simply NOT POSSIBLE to INTIMIDATE someone into TRUSTING you. There is no DC 10000000000000 check, it is not possible, because WORDS MEAN THINGS.

Intimidate : to make timid or fearful . That is what intimidate DOES, nothing more, nothing less. If the goal of the social encounter was to have the duke give you some men, treasure, information, than intimidate could work, but there is simply no way you can intimidate someone into trusting you, period end. There is absolutely nothing short of changing the meanings of the words intimidate and trust which would accomplish that goal. (In otherwords you are living in yown fantasy world instead of just playing in one.)

BTW, in my campaigns trying to jump to the moon automatically fails, even if you are on the highest mountiantop. I guess I railroad too much...

 

[Fifth Element]

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?

Do you mean "what's the point of the Intimidate skill then if you can't intimidate all people into doing what you want at any time?" This Duke, in this situation, according to this example, will not be persuaded by intimidation. This makes the skill useless?

 

[Fifth Element]

No, that is more akin to the "The Duke can't be intimidated" restriction.

This history restriction is more like the Pit Fiend having very high defenses and resistances till the PCs hit it with a a certain energy type and they neither know this type or even that there is a way to lower the Pit Fiends defenses.

Okay, I'll grant you that it is closer to that. Which is still not railroading, even in the slightest.

 

[med stud]

I realized one thing when I read the article again. It says that the level of the challenge is the same as the levels of the PCs. In that case, Intimidate could be impossible simply due to scaling DCs. If the PCs are level 28, then it's one hell of a duke, probably one of the pit fiends or maybe something more powerful than that. If the PCs are level 1, then it's your regular duke without any special support.

If, on the other hand, the challenge was set in stone to be a level 3, then it wouldn't make sense if level 28 PCs couldn't use Intimidate.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I like having NPCs that have personalities and emotions and react to characters actions and words. I like using skill rolls to inform that RP and to select likely results.

I HATE the idea that RP skills are like a non-magical dominate power.

 

[jelmore]

Um...

This example isn't railroading in the slightest. There are plenty of things the PCs can do to continue the adventure, with or without negotiating with the duke.

But deciding that the PCs only get the duke's aid if they negotiate? That's not railroading. That's DMing.

I agree totally. Where is it written that Intimidate must always have a chance of succeeding? Or Bluff, or Diplomacy, for that matter?

Scenario: The PCs attempt to Bluff their way past the guards at the front door of the Baron's estate to see the Baron. However, these guys aren't the stereotypical bored or corrupt or incompetent guards; these are the Silver Wyverns, the personal protection retinue for the Baron, and they have been given explicit orders to not allow anyone into the Baron's residence if they are not in the company of the Baron himself, or on a very short list of well-known people -- the Baron's wife, his master-at-arms, and the court wizard -- as the Baron has recently been the target of an assassination attempt. (The nature of the Silver Wyverns, and word of the assassination attempt, would be information that is available to the PCs with the correct Knowledge or Gather Information checks.)

Why must I, as the hypothetical DM, allow for the possibility that any Bluff result would allow for the PCs to bluster their way past the guards? They're not going to let you "deliver a package" and they're not going to accept that you are a "last-minute security inspection" (since that's their job). The guard's orders are clear: If you're not with the Baron and not one of three people that they are all familiar with, you are not getting in. The same goes for Intimidate; the Silver Wyverns take pride in their job, and they're expected to risk their lives if it means protecting their charge, so threatening to break their kneecaps or consign their souls to the Nine Hells aren't going to persuade them to let you in.

It's not "railroading", it's a challenge to be overcome by other means. The same goes for the example Duke in the example negotiation.

 

[Cadfan]

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."

Four responses.

1. There's no difference between saying "an effort at intimidate is automatically a failure" and saying "the Intimidate DC is 40" when you know the party's best intimidator has a +10 skill check and his allies, if aiding him, can only provide a further +8. Even on a 20, that's a 38, and a failure.

2. Some people enjoy a game where, on a natural 20, crazy stuff happens. I've had DMs who would let you roll for anything, and no matter how unlikely it was, if you got a 20 they'd let it happen. Stroll into the Duke's courtyard, where the Duke sits, flanked by 30 heavily armed warriors, 20 archers, and 10 battlemages, and tell him you'll cut him down where he stands if he doesn't go along with what you want, even though at the moment you're weaponless and wearing rags? Roll a 20, it happens. But that's not for everyone, and I don't think the rules should be set up that way.

3. Success at a skill is based on more than just your skill multiplier. Its based on context. For some skills thats really obvious. You can't light a signal fire using only a dead fish, dead fish don't work that way. For some its middling obvious. How hard it is to climb a wall depends on what handholds are available. And as a result, some walls, those without any handholds at all, may be unclimbable. A wall of sheer, rain-slick glass, for example.

Social skills are no different. Whether you can lie to someone about something is dependent on whether they already know the truth, for example. And whether you can intimidate someone is dependent not only on your skill modifier, but on how credible your threats are under the circumstances. Some circumstances may make your threats useless for your purposes, just like any other skill. If the Duke is sitting safe in his own castle surrounded by high level armed guards, you may simply lack the firepower necessary to convince him to comply with your threats.

4. When a DM is preparing, he wastes his time if he assigns DCs to things the players can't accomplish. If I have my second level 3e PCs visited by an incarnation of Pelor, for example, I don't work out the incarnation's hit points. I just mentally note that they can't kill it. Maybe some other set of PCs could kill it under some other circumstances (level 30 PCs wielding artifact weaponry, perhaps), but not this group right now. So why bother?

 

[ForbidenMaster]

I really dislike this term "railroading." Just because you as a DM want something to go a specific way, the game is bad? So rule zero and the entire basis of D&D for all these years is wrong? Im sorry, but why is making intimidate an automatic fail in 4ed railroading, but not letting intimidate work in all other editions for whatever reason whatsoever perfectly ok?