Excerpt: skill challenges

[Fanaelialae]

An important part of the DM's job has always been to maintain internal consistancy. If I created an NPC who doesn't respond to intimidation well, I wouldn't later allow the bad guys to successfully intimidate the duke without some exceptionally good reason. There are always alternate options. If the DM wants to have the duke cooperate with the enemy while simultaneously exonerating his actions, simply have him brainwashed (perhaps the bad guys are a demon cult who had a succubus infiltrate the duke's court and charm him), or something to this effect.

 

[Mort_Q]

Mearls' latest skill challenge.

 

[Imp]

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 "Do what I say or our group's protection over your point of light will be withdrawn," might be a powerful motivation in the world of 4E.

See, I'd file many negotiations of this sort under "Diplomacy," since after all that is what is going on there and diplomacy is not synonymous with "hugs" no matter how much cable news tries to tell us otherwise. "Intimidate" covers threatening behaviors. In fact I think turning the sound off, so to speak, is a good guide for where the dividing line is between the two.

 

[jasin]

I think that the sample presented makes much more sense if viewed as a (potential) piece of an adventure rather than a system.

The NPC isn't inherently immune to intimidation, but the one particular situation is such that using intimidate will yield no favorable result. Meeting the same NPC in some other circumstances will constitute a new skill challenge, where Diplomacy might be fruitless (because the NPC's mind is now dead set), but a difficult Religion check might present the opportunity for an easy Intimidate checks (as you dredge up some obscure stricture that makes the NPC's view questionable, and then threaten him with fire and brimstone).

The argument about monster stats not being meant to describe the entirety of its functioning but just the way it behaves in play goes doubly for skill challenges, I think.

 

[malraux]

See, I'd file many negotiations of this sort under "Diplomacy," since after all that is what is going on there and diplomacy is not synonymous with "hugs" no matter how much cable news tries to tell us otherwise. "Intimidate" covers threatening behaviors. In fact I think turning the sound off, so to speak, is a good guide for where the dividing line is between the two.

Yeah, the intimidate skill, at least as it is in 3e, really only covers immediate threats. If its not something the individual would change his mind about after the PCs leave, its not something the intimidate skill would cover. All those threats are really better covered under diplomacy, or possibly bluff.

 

[Torchlyte]

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.

When the PCs succeed in doing what they want, it isn't a failure. It may have negative consequences, but it shouldn't be a skill challenge failure. The PCs are losing _____ because they didn't do things The DM's Way (tm).

To quote the article:
Success or failure in a skill challenge also influences the course of the adventure—the characters locate the temple and begin infiltrating it, or they get lost and must seek help. In either case, however, the adventure continues. With success, this is no problem, but don’t fall into the trap of making progress dependent on success in a skill challenge. Failure introduces complications rather than ending the adventure. If the characters get lost in the jungle, that leads to further challenges, not the end of the adventure.

Furthermore, the Failure result states:
Failure: The characters are forced to act without the NPC’s assistance. They encounter more trouble, which may be sent by the NPC out of anger or antagonism.

It's fine if you want to define failure results for templates that you write differently, but it's fairly clear from this article that for this particular template it would be reasonable for the duke to appear to capitulate to the PCs' intimidate-based demands while in truth attempting to kill them. (The duke agrees to send his troops with you, but orders his men to kill you at the first opportunity). IMO, if the duke sends his men along simply to "take care" of the PCs, he isn't assisting them.

The point you quoted wasn't really a point, it was an alternate suggestion for framing a specific scenario. Anyone can define failure however they want.

Intimidate refers to the skill of getting people who do not like you and who do not agree with you to do what you want them to do anyway.

You can recognize the use of the Intimidate skill by the fact that it has a threat in it - that is the proposition stakes that if the target doesn't agree you will do something negative in responce. The threat can be as unsubtle as 'Do this or I'll beat you up', to as subtle as, 'If you don't do what I want, I won't be your friend anymore'.

One can imagine an intimidate check being, "Your Grace, if you value our friendship, then you will send your troops to Pickford."

Friends try to intimidate friends in this manner pretty regularly. Sometimes it spells disaster (failed check) and the friendship (or marriage or whatever) is over. Done regularly, and the friendship sours failed check or not. But its a natural human tactic, and we can even imagine honorable heroes like Conan or John Carter making this very sort of claim, "If you have ever valued the friendship of John Carter, then send your warships to the lost sea or else count me no more a friend."... sort of thing.

The fact that the challenge is set up such that you can only get the aid by winning the Duke's trust is itself a railroad. The challenge ought to be 'Get the Duke's Aid'. Winning his trust and support is just one way to do it. Scaring the Duke into going along by repeatedly intimidating him every time he works against you would be another, albiet probably more difficult path (assuming you are less terrifying than Zeus).

Likewise, there are middle grounds. As part of a larger social challenge, dangling carrots via diplomacy and displaying sticks via intimidate is a perfectly acceptable strategy. Maybe the Duke reacts badly to intimidation, but saying that he's immune to it is IMO poor design. Better design might be to say that intimidate has hard difficulty amd each time intimidate is used (successful or not) the DC of all charisma based checks in the challenge goes up by 2.

++

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,

The players decide on their own objectives. You suggest it through plot, but they get to decid what they want and how they want to get it.

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.

That's exactly the issue we're pointing at. This example leaves two real options: bluff and diplomacy, and both of these are a subset of one option (get the Duke to trust you). The stated goal is to get the NPC to trust the PCs, but if the PCs are using intimidation in the first place they obviously have a different goal in mind. Therefore, the direction of this example is self-defeating.

 

[Fanaelialae]

When the PCs succeed in doing what they want, it isn't a failure. It may have negative consequences, but it shouldn't be a skill challenge failure. The PCs are losing _____ because they didn't do things The DM's Way (tm).

I'll grant you that, lacking context, that's reasonable.

Nonetheless, if the context of the adventure is that the PCs' liege lord (Baron Somethingorother) sent the PCs to investigate the borderlands and told the PCs to try to earn the duke's trust and aid, then it makes sense that failing to do so would result in failure of the challenge.

I'd say that it's really a matter of perspective.

 

[Torchlyte]

I'll grant you that, lacking context, that's reasonable.

Nonetheless, if the context of the adventure is that the PCs' liege lord (Baron Somethingorother) sent the PCs to investigate the borderlands and told the PCs to try to earn the duke's trust and aid, then it makes sense that failing to do so would result in failure of the challenge.

I'd say that it's really a matter of perspective.

If that is the context, it would be acceptable. My worry is that this was intended as a general example, and I think in that case it would encourage the wrong mindset in new/inexperienced DMs.

 

[Rechan]

Mearls' latest skill challenge.

I liked that. But I ALSO liked the soul eater. I want to see that sucka!

But I also wonder why the soul eater didn't just vamoose after it had killed Xarn.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If that is the context, it would be acceptable. My worry is that this was intended as a general example, and I think in that case it would encourage the wrong mindset in new/inexperienced DMs.

You might be right and, if so, I agree. Hopefully though, it's only intended as one specific example of several. One way or the other, we'll know in a month.