Excerpt: skill challenges

[Andor]

As for the intimidate... I really dislike being told that a) something that isn't actually physically impossible is impossible. (can't turn myself inside out? Fine with that. This guy can't be talked to a certain way? Absurd)

b) autofail makes my teeth ache. Particularly in a world that has magic and divine intervention to back up the characters. Its a especially annoying when its an RP situation and the DM essentially fiats an option out because he feels like it. And having a handful of skilled adventurers leaning on you shouldn't be a situation that a random pissant duke can just ignore. If they're the ones being called in to deal with problems that they kingdom (and therefor the duke) can't, there should be a reason for it. If monster > kingdom and PCs potentially > monster, then PCs > kingdom.

Gah. It's been said about a hundred times already but I'll try again.

The example is not saying that the Duke is immune to Intimidate. If you think it is you are misreading it. It says that in an attempt to gain his favor or assistance Intimidation is counter-productive.

And it is.

And the rules of 3.0/3.5 work exactly the same way. Intimidation does not make you friends. It makes people act friendly while you are present and ticks them off when you leave.

You can change another’s behavior with a successful check. Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear). If you beat your target’s check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.) The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile).

Hey look! Intimidate does not make people your friends! Go figure. The example is not saying that if the PCs try to shake the Duke down for cash they cannot. It simply says that trying to use a skill which says right in it's skill description that it makes people dislike you to make someone like you is not going to work.

As for why a Duke might be immune to intimidation anyway take a look at the modifiers to the target numbers. The fact that fear save mods apply could easily be interpreted to mean that any character immune to fear to also immune to the intimidate skill. Perhaps the Duke has a few levels of Paladin.

 

[Jasperak]

Huh? I play RPGA events pretty regularly, and players losing XP for roleplaying badly is something that happens. In many instances, roleplaying XP forms 10-20% of the adventure XP and the GM is well within his rights to dock it for stuff like that.-

In the newer systems, where the DM fills out a little form at the end of the adventure there is a part where the DM is asked to rate the group's roleplaying, effectively on a scale of 1-5. That result will determine your roleplaying experience.

I realize that you had a bad experience at an RPGA event. I've had some too, but I've also had many more fun experiences. The RPGA are (mostly) not a bunch of roleplay-free rules junkie robots, I promise.

Maybe I should have bothered staying around. I think part of the problem was I wasn't playing the way he played or wanted to play. I guess sanctioned play doesn't allow for thinking outside the box, although I didn't think I was that far off. At least I didn't think what I was trying to do would not have been covered by the module with minor tweeks.

Maybe these Skill Challenges will allow people with different play styles to play together easier. Though they don't SEEM to incorporate any benefits with respects to role-playing. I reserve judgment until the full rules come out.

BTW Not much RPGA action in Central VA so I don't have to worry too much about that anymore. Although finding a group down here sucks, but that is for a different thread.

EDIT-My location is listed because of our area (Virginia) in the RPGA. I had looked forward to playing but really one bad DM and a enough people bad mouthing turned me off to the whole idea.

 

[Thasmodious]

I'm puzzled by the distinction between NPC and DMC. All NPCs are run by the DM, so...

As for the intimidate... I really dislike being told that a) something that isn't actually physically impossible is impossible. (can't turn myself inside out? Fine with that. This guy can't be talked to a certain way? Absurd)

b) autofail makes my teeth ache. Particularly in a world that has magic and divine intervention to back up the characters. Its a especially annoying when its an RP situation and the DM essentially fiats an option out because he feels like it. And having a handful of skilled adventurers leaning on you shouldn't be a situation that a random pissant duke can just ignore. If they're the ones being called in to deal with problems that they kingdom (and therefor the duke) can't, there should be a reason for it. If monster > kingdom and PCs potentially > monster, then PCs > kingdom.

Mostly though, we've been told before that the pages of the DMG suggest that the DM should get used to saying yes instead of no. The first example we get? Smack the players down with a big NO. And follow it up with a 'because we said so'.
Disappointing. Doubly so because its truly arbitrary. It smacks of a DM deciding he wants a certain flavor to the campaign and is preemptively fiating certain possibilities away because thats how the dialog in his head goes. It doesn't matter what the players might enjoy at all.

This is the attitude that makes me question some's skill ranks in reading comprehension. You aren't being told no or that something is impossible. You are being told that in this situation, something you might consider doing is counter productive. You can try and intimidate the duke. You could succeed and scare the everloving crap out of the poor man. But that isn't going to help you convince him that you are a trustworthy group of adventurers with the regions best interests at heart and who need resources and aid to solve a problem he wasn't even aware of.

Its a perfectly reasonable part of the overall guidelines for the negotiation. Negotiations are like that. You can say the wrong thing or take the wrong path of convincing and set yourselves back in the negotiations.

(middle of the challenge)
Duke: "I'm just not sure if you are the ones for this task..."
Cleric: religion check success
DM: Duke is known to be pious and friendly to Pelor (cleric's religion)
Cleric: Recites some scripture "...and like St. Todd's band, I can vouch for the sincerity and piety of this group." diplomacy success
Fighter: he's almost there, guys, I'll take him over the finish line "besides, if you don't help us I'll tear your 'crown jewels' off like a paper towel." intimidate success
DM: The duke jumps back, alarmed and clearly frightened. His guard captain and personal guards step forward, hands on hilts, the captain bristling at the threat. "y-y-ou call that sincere and p-p-pious?"

There have to be victory conditions and failure consequences. I wouldn't like it if the only option for failure was poor dice rolling. Being able to succeed and still hurt the cause adds an interesting, dynamic aspect to the encounter, above simply rolling. The failure is not a "no", it is an avoidable encounter condition.

The party is in a challenge to cheer up the sad, 6 year old emperor. Unknown to the party, but could be known with a successful hard history check, the kid was traumatized by a troupe of clowns at his 4th birthday and has an irrational fear of acrobatic displays. If the party doesn't learn this, the rogues first attempt at an entertaining aerial display results in a dismal failure as the young emperor, who is prone to having people tossed out a hole in his sky castle, begins to bawl.

 

[DandD]

People who complain about the duke being immune should stop, and go read the text again. It says:
"Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure." He refuses to be intimidated into helping the PCs. This is why it's a failure to get his assistance. He still can, but it results in a failure, and if enough failure are accumulated, especially by Intimidation attempts, he might very well try to antagonize the PCs.
"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."

I really think most people simply don't read enough at all and just write without thinking for one second. If I didn't knew that such things simply happened, I would have really guessed that some people were trying to be purposefully obnoxious. But it's the internet, people often simply write as fast as possible, so I guess we have to live with it.

I'm sad that wednesday, we're going to have such a boring excerpt like weapons. I'd prefer something better, but I guess we'll have to take what is offered.

 

[Sojorn]

I'm sad that wednesday, we're going to have such a boring excerpt like weapons. I'd prefer something better, but I guess we'll have to take what is offered.

Boring?

They're probably going to show off the buster swords at last!

 

[AZRogue]

I would suggest we forget the silly Intimidation debate (which really is silly--the Duke is obviously immune to Intimidate because the scenario said so, end of story). Instead, let's look at what Skill Challenges, as they seem to be shaping up, will help us with:

Surviving being stranded in the desert. Attempting to discover hidden ruins. Recovering valuable and fragile scrolls and books from a time-wasted trash heap of a library. Guiding hurtling mine carts down a twisted track without splattering into a wall or dead end.

Even beyond the social encounters themselves, Skill Challenges promise to provide a nice template to help resolve situations that, in the past, may not have been given the full "drama" treatment. I, for one, am looking forward to them.

 

[Shroomy]

I don't have an issue with restrictions on what will skills will ultimately work. For example, I've had people try to intimidate me with varying degrees of success; generally speaking, they didn't get what they wanted, and if I did get what they wanted, I did it without much enthusiasm (to say the least) and I usually tried to find a way to screw them over.

In any case, the real reason why I don't mind this restriction is because I see that there is a clear difference between success and failure in terms of the skill task resolution system and the conflict resolution system. Even if you do something successfully, it doesn't necessarily advance your overall goal and I could easily instances where it could be counterproductive.

 

[Spatula]

2. With 4e becoming more of a tactical game, I guess I am more paranoid that the role-playing aspects are going out the window.

*shrug* People said the same thing when 3e came out. A Diplomacy skill?! Why roleplay at all!? And yet, we still roleplay. 3e just gave us a mechanical measure of how effective a character, as opposed to a player, is at arguing their case. 4e isn't any different in that regard - the whole skill challenge thing is actually entirely edition-independant; any game with a skill resolution system could use it. It's simply a way to structure a non-combat encounter to potentially make them more interesting than a single die-roll. Convincing the Duke to trust you could be boiled down to one Diplomacy check (depending on his starting attitue), but the challenge attempts to draw the encounter out, which should really give the players opportunities for more roleplaying, if anything, if they wish to take advantage of it.

Of course you can always say, "I talk the Duke into trusting us. That's a 30 on my Diplomacy check." Some groups probably work like that, and if that's how they like to play I'm not going to tell them they're wrong. Groups that want to roleplay will. Those that do not will not, same as it's always been.

I could foresee a Diplomat-type class that gains Encounter and Daily powers that would work in non-combat situations. I'm looking at you Bard PHB2.

Not going to happen. Powers are explicitly combat abilities, and class mechanics are balanced entirely around combat effectiveness. Roleplaying is up to the players.

I miss the simplicity of BD&D and AD&D1e in this regard; it seems to take more power away from the DM to keep an adventure moving without having to hand wave away skill failures.

Having no rules at all is indeed simpler. No one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use skill challenges. They're a non-combat encounter design tool, an area of the game where D&D has not given DMs much guidance in the past. But as the excerpt states, the challenges should not be structured so that failing one brings the adventure to a halt, so there should be nothing to handwave away. The challenge is a possible branch in the unfolding story - if the players succeed, good thing X happens; if they fail, bad thing Y happens instead.

 

[Jasperak]

*shrug* People said the same thing when 3e came out. A Diplomacy skill?! Why roleplay at all!? And yet, we still roleplay. 3e just gave us a mechanical measure of how effective a character, as opposed to a player, is at arguing their case. 4e isn't any different in that regard - the whole skill challenge thing is actually entirely edition-independant; any game with a skill resolution system could use it. It's simply a way to structure a non-combat encounter to potentially make them more interesting than a single die-roll. Convincing the Duke to trust you could be boiled down to one Diplomacy check (depending on his starting attitue), but the challenge attempts to draw the encounter out, which should really give the players opportunities for more roleplaying, if anything, if they wish to take advantage of it.

Of course you can always say, "I talk the Duke into trusting us. That's a 30 on my Diplomacy check." Some groups probably work like that, and if that's how they like to play I'm not going to tell them they're wrong. Groups that want to roleplay will. Those that do not will not, same as it's always been.

Not going to happen. Powers are explicitly combat abilities, and class mechanics are balanced entirely around combat effectiveness. Roleplaying is up to the players.

Having no rules at all is indeed simpler. No one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use skill challenges. They're a non-combat encounter design tool, an area of the game where D&D has not given DMs much guidance in the past. But as the excerpt states, the challenges should not be structured so that failing one brings the adventure to a halt, so there should be nothing to handwave away. The challenge is a possible branch in the unfolding story - if the players succeed, good thing X happens; if they fail, bad thing Y happens instead.

Very good points, I coming down off my tree; until I see the rules that is

 

[Kraydak]

That... was an amazingly useless excerpt. Given the existence of primary skills, one can expect secondary skills to exist, which reraises a lot of questions.

My take: difference between what we've seen of 4e skill challenges and, well, post WSG 1st/2nd/3rd editions under modestly experienced (competent or no) DMs? None. For most people reading this board, skill challenges are irrelevant.

The good: it provides novice DMs with a framework.

The bad: the framework is mediocre. It trains railroading: "I designed this skill challenge and you will follow it". It trains PC level dependent skill DCs (does the survival DC for traveling through jungle really depend on PC levels?). On top of that, the statistics behind it are going to be *wonky*, unless guessing the primary skills that unlock easy (read free) successes is a key component of the design. I am somewhat curious about how skill challenges fit with 4e's version of Take 10. Or even Take 20 (and yes, in the Jungle Trek example, taking 20 could easily be justified).