Excerpt: skill challenges

[Lacyon]

My point is that claiming that intimidate being impossible isn't a railroad by pointing out that the scenario was described in such a way that intimidate was at odds of the goal of the encounter is no defence, because the goal itself is then described in terms which are also a railroad. A well stated goal only explains the primary outcome in the event of success or defeat. It doesn't explain how it is to be accomplished. By definition, if the scenario states that the only way to get from point A to point B is to do this, then its a railroad.

Point of Fact: Getting to point B is likely to happen whether the PCs pass or fail the skill challenge. The challenge resolves whether or not the Duke assists the party in reaching B. Claims of railroading still fall short.

 

[Mort_Q]

By extension I suppose all the folks that Intimidate does work on just really love being bullied.

The Duke also doesn't like being lied to, so he's immune to Bluff.

He also doesn't like having to capitulate under any circumstances-- he's used to getting his way and he's just not the sort of person who is ever going to give an inch, no matter what-- so he's immune to Diplomacy.

That's just silly.

If you intimidate the Duke, he knows he's been intimidated.

If you successfully bluff the Duke, he doesn't know he's been lied to.

The last one would work, but in that case, there is no point in having the skill challenge in the first place.

 

[Nine Hands]

I like to with the Exalted interpretation of "impossible" here; it means that it's just very hard. If one of the PCs is the grandmaster of intimidations, that PC can pull it off. But by the time the PCs can reach that level of Intimidation they most likely don't need the help of a duke anyway. In this case, I'd say that context is everything.

OTOH, if you don't like that Intimidate is impossible, make it possible. If you think all skills should be possible all the time, make it so. You have the framework for skill challenges and the rules for them work if you allow one skill or if you allow all skills. There is no cascade of weirdness if you change if a skill is applicable or not.

This is the first time I have seen skill challenges like this and I find them interesting. It creates a mechanical frame for chase scenes through wilderness and social interaction. I think this will increase the screentime of the facemen and wilderness guys beyond rolling a single roll. I'm already getting some ideas for skill challenges, 15 minutes after reading the article

Hmm...that gave me an idea for a feat...

Makes the Impossible Possible
Prerequisites: Skill Training.
Benefits: Choose a skill you have Skill Training with, you may perform otherwise impossible tasks during Skill Challenges at a Hard DC.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If it was your job to publish excerpts and sample material to sell a product, wouldn't you use the best examples you had? Wouldn't you want to publish material that made people go, "Wow, this is so great!".



Agreed. 'Get the Duke's aid' is a well designed challenge, and this isn't.

My point is that claiming that intimidate being impossible isn't a railroad by pointing out that the scenario was described in such a way that intimidate was at odds of the goal of the encounter is no defence, because the goal itself is then described in terms which are also a railroad. A well stated goal only explains the primary outcome in the event of success or defeat. It doesn't explain how it is to be accomplished. By definition, if the scenario states that the only way to get from point A to point B is to do this, then its a railroad.

IMO, if all the PCs accomplish is to convince the duke that they are a threat that he needs to get rid of, they have failed, whether they believe they have succeeded or failed. It seems to me that it is entirely reasonable for the DM to create an NPC duke who responds poorly to threats to his power. Perhaps he rose to his position by murdering his siblings, and has no compunctions about having his guardsmen rid him of a few ragamuffin mercenaries who dared threaten his rule.

If the writers failed to point out that this is just one example and that not every NPC (or not even most) is like this, then that would be a failure on their part, but seeing that this is merely an excerpt of a larger chapter it's impossible to know. I personally think that this was just an example meant to demonstrate that in certain situations it is okay for the DM to decide that particular skills have no chance of success, but that's simply my opinion.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I don't see why such a fuss is being kicked up at the concept that some people can't be intimidated. Other folks can't be reasoned with (Diplomacy). Some people are even so mule-headed that they can't be bluffed. This notion that social skills are magic spell, where if you pile up a high enough modifier they'll work, is a bad carry-over from third edition. To quote an example from earlier in the thread, are you going to let the PCs intimidate Leonidus of Sparta? I don't see that working too well even if they're 30th level demigods descending down upon a thundercloud.

There are also going to be situations where Diplomacy doesn't work. That gnoll sizing you up for his dinner pot may be immune to your charms. For him, intimidation and bluffing may be the only thing that are going to work.

The DM determines the applicability of skills. The stats of the PC determine how good they are at the skill, if it's applicable.

 

[Thyrwyn]

But that is not what the scenario says: the scenario says you can get from point A to point B using a methods a, b, or c; but not method d. The scenario never says they have to get to point B (in fact, it is specifically cautioned against) only that getting to point B will eventually make getting to point F easier.

There is no railroad; the players do not have to negotiate with the duke if they don't want to; IF they choose to negotiate, then they will have to deal with the fact that one of their skills will not help.

In fact, many of their resources are inappropriate by definition - is that railroading?

Example: The wizard knows 10 powers, 1 of which is fear based. You prepare an encounter with a group of monsters which are immune to fear effects. If "intimidate fails" qualifies as railroading, then so does the above encounter.

 

[Creeping Death]

By extension I suppose all the folks that Intimidate does work on just really love being bullied.

The Duke also doesn't like being lied to, so he's immune to Bluff.

He also doesn't like having to capitulate under any circumstances-- he's used to getting his way and he's just not the sort of person who is ever going to give an inch, no matter what-- so he's immune to Diplomacy.

Overt vs covert. Bluffing the duke into thinking the threat is worse is different that I'll slit your throat if you don't help.

But you get a culture where the strongest are in charge, then you must intimidate them into helping, becase that is their culture. The duke, not so. He's the guy in charge and won't trust you if you threaten (intimidate) him. That does not mean he's immune to intimidate, it just means you won't accomplish your goal.

 

[SteveC]

So here are my last comments on the Intimidate thing:

First, in the real world, intimidation is used to get assistance all the time. Wealthy and powerful individuals (which, if the PCs are any level, they most certainly are) get things done their way all the time by threats. "Do what I say or my business, X jobs and Y dollars leaves the area," is a common tactic. "Do what I say or our group's protection over your point of light will be withdrawn," might be a powerful motivation in the world of 4E. It's not a nice thing to do, but then if you're intimidating you're likely not a nice person.

Second, does this immunity apply only to the PCs? I mean if later on in the adventure, when the PCs discover that the lord in question has been helping the bad guys (as happens many times), and demand to know why. Should this NPC respond, as many NPCs have over the history of gaming: what could I do? They threatened my wife and family, I had to help them. If so, I'd say your players could immediately call BS and say "I'm sorry, this NPC is immune to being intimidated! Come up with another story, because I'm not buying that one!"

Because of course you can intimidate someone to help you. Heck, you can even intimidate them to keep helping you over an extended period of time and being your 'friend.' How do you think bullies work? That Cobra-Kai dojo attracts students using the intimidation skill (okay, Karate Kid reference = bad, but still...)

Pretty much every topic we are banned about discussing on this very site has people, even powerful ones, being manipulated by intimidation. So my last point: once you say that someone is immune to a particular form of persuasion, rather than just being very resistant, you're closing off plotlines and removing roleplaying opportunities from the game.

If the players succeeded with their skill challenge and used intimidation, that would open up many options to me as a GM that I didn't have before. If I were sitting behind the screen at that moment, I'd be happy that my players had given me more options for how to present a future adversary to them: they have given me a new plotline in the long term in exchange for some short term help. With the players I have, they would most likely give the intimidating player no end of grief several months later when they found out that Duke they were talking with and "intimidated" was the one giving the BBEG all of the most up to date information on what they were doing.

Of course if it's your game you're in charge and you can feel free to ignore my rantings.

--Steve

 

[Stormtalon]

Second, does this immunity apply only to the PCs? I mean if later on in the adventure, when the PCs discover that the lord in question has been helping the bad guys (as happens many times), and demand to know why. Should this NPC respond, as many NPCs have over the history of gaming: what could I do? They threatened my wife and family, I had to help them. If so, I'd say your players could immediately call BS and say "I'm sorry, this NPC is immune to being intimidated! Come up with another story, because I'm not buying that one!"

Actually, in this case, I'd use the fact that [insert ruthless bad guys] are using threats of violence towards the Duke's family as the reason the PC's aren't able to successfully Intimidate him. His back's already against the wall, everything he cares about is in jeopardy and he may take a threat of personal death as a possible way out of the situation, freeing his family from the threats hanging over their heads. Meanwhile, Diplomacy may convince him to hand them covert aid in the hopes that the party'll be able to remove the problem themselves. In sum, the party can't intimidate him because far worse people have already beaten them to it.

 

[Spatula]

Agreed. 'Get the Duke's aid' is a well designed challenge, and this isn't.

How can something that does not exist, beyond a title, be well designed?

You think "getting aid" is a better concept than "gaining trust." That's fine, but there's nothing wrong with giving the players the goal of gaining the trust of a powerful individual, and I see nothing wrong with the design of this particular challenge. You want the duke to trust you, ergo threatening him is counter-productive. Seems perfectly logical to me.

My point is that claiming that intimidate being impossible isn't a railroad by pointing out that the scenario was described in such a way that intimidate was at odds of the goal of the encounter is no defence, because the goal itself is then described in terms which are also a railroad. A well stated goal only explains the primary outcome in the event of success or defeat. It doesn't explain how it is to be accomplished. By definition, if the scenario states that the only way to get from point A to point B is to do this, then its a railroad.

There is no railroad. A railroad is the DM saying, "you must do THIS" despite the players wishes. If the players don't want to gain the Duke's trust, they automatically fail the skill challenge and the adventure continues. Or a railroad could be interpreted as there only being one way to bypass an obstacle. But of course, there are more than a few ways to successfully get past this particular obstacle, which are clearly laid out for the DM. DM adjucation might lead to more paths to success.

Anyway, using Intimidate on the Duke is not impossible, the Duke is not immune to Intimidate, etc. etc. Using Initimdate just works against the stated goal of the challenge, which again, is to gain the trust of the Duke. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.