Excerpt: skill challenges

[Torchlyte]

As has been said a few hundred times already you have not been told that you cannot try to intimidate the Duke, but that if you do try you will not get what you want, which is his trust.

This is no more a railroad then having an orc guarding the pie. "But I want to use my arrow of dragon slaying to kill the orc!!!" you can try, but it will not work.

Let me summarize this debate for the people who choose to repeat the same ignorant post over and over without stopping to think about what others are saying.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is the reasoning behind the railroad debate:

The Negotiation
The duke sits at the head of his banquet table. Gesturing with a wine glass, he bids you to sit. “I’m told you have news from the borderlands.”

This skill challenge covers attempts to gain a favor or assistance from a local leader or other authority figure. The challenge might take only as long as a normal conversation, or it could stretch on for days as the characters perform tasks to earn the NPC’s favor.

Setup: For the NPC to provide assistance, the PCs need to convince him or her of their trustworthiness and that their cause helps the NPC in some way.

There are two possible scenarios relevant to this debate:

1. The players want to be diplomatic.

2. The players want to intimidate the Duke.

If (1) is true, then by definition there's no need to put a ruling on intimidation because the players don't want to use that skill. If a player wants to use Intimidate, then that means that (2) must be true and the challenge's stated goal is not the players' goal.

If the players use intimidate, then earning the NPC's trust is not their goal.

3. Therefore, the only reasonable reason to fiat that Intimidate will not work is if you're forcing the players to solve the problem your way, because in any other case the rule is irrelevant. This is railroading.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, having already found the objective to be out of sync with the rules contained therein, we can come to the debate over the fiat itself.

Given: The DM is only allowing the players to solve the challenge his way.

The following proposition is given:

Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.

Clarification given by posters who don't actually understand what the debate is about: "He's not immune to intimidation; he just doesn't respond to it."

Rebuttal to the quoted proposition: If you feel that you have options (such as ignoring me or calling your guards) other than doing as I say, I have not successfully intimidated you. This interpretation is backed up by the following definition:

in·tim·i·date
1. to make timid; fill with fear.
...
3. to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear: to intimidate a voter into staying away from the polls.

If you use the first definition, then the Duke can "not respond" to intimidation as mentioned. However, there is a problem with using that definition - it assumes that you have no skill or persuasive ability, which is belied by the fact that intimidation is a CHA stat.

It does not take skill to cause fear, it takes skill to make someone feel as if they have no other options. The KKK was good at intimidation not because Whites were inherently more scary, but because Blacks felt like they had no choice (because the Whites controlled all the consequences). The mafia is good at intimidation because they make you feel as if you cannot escape them, and therefore you must do as they say.

In sum of the above: If you feel like you have a choice, you have not been successfully intimidated. As a result, it makes no sense to say, "No matter how convincing you are (how successful you are at eliminating his perception of choice), he can't be intimidated."

 

[Torchlyte]

Andor sorta ninja'd me. = /

Edit: I disagree with him here:

Example 3: The PCs need the Duke to loan them a regiment of men to fight a war with the Orcs. Intimidate will not work, becuase the Duke will not be with them in the field and if they try it the regiment will have secret orders to kill them. They might try taking the Duke hostage I suppose. Good luck with that.

Intimidate will only work if they are able to threaten him or his stuff without being present, like if they have an accomplice. Of course, they don't have to really have an accomplice, they just have to convince the Duke that they do.

Example 4: The PCs need the Archmage to make them an item to help them bind a powerful demon. Because item construction takes days it is well outside the use of intimidate and when they try to use the item they'll probably get a programmed image of the Archmage telling the demon "Bon appetite."

Same as above.

 

[Andor]

A rewrite of your example

middle of the challenge)

Fighter: he's almost there, guys, I'll take him over the finish line "If you don't help us, who will be there to help you when the horde reaches here. Who is going to protect your daughter when the savages are tearing down your door, you willing to help out we can be around and make sure bad things don't happen to you" intimidate success

Oh wait, maybe we do understand what was written we just thought it was shortsighted and unduly limiting on skill usage. Absolute no's are almost always bad.

So you feel that having the PCs state that they are perfectly willing to see a dutchy overrun and it's lands and people savaged if they have a personal dislike of the duchys ruler should somehow inspire said rule to find them trustworthy?

Setup: For the NPC to provide assistance, the PCs need to convince him or her of their trustworthiness and that their cause helps the NPC in some way.

 

[Torchlyte]

So you feel that having the PCs state that they are perfectly willing to see a dutchy overrun and it's lands and people savaged if they have a personal dislike of the duchys ruler should somehow inspire said rule to find them trustworthy?

No, and I don't think anyone is arguing that it would cause him to trust them. However, it's the PCs' choice whether they want that trust*, not the DM's.

* = or whether they just want access to his human/material resources.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I had a big rant typed out, but I'm pretty sure everyone is set in their ways, so they're not really worth the effort. Have a small rant instead.

To those who say "by definition, intimidate means direct personal threats etc." go and actually read the definitions. There are words that specifically cover that. Intimidation is a broader term.

The classic example of intimidation is the good-cop-bad-cop bit. Is the bad cop threatening to beat the suspect? Or is he suggesting that they'll let him go with a big public pat on the back so he looks like a stoolie? Or that jail will not be easy on him? Since the first option is generally frowned upon in most civilised countries, I dare say it's the second or third one.

Are you honestly, honestly saying that those are all diplomacy (they're not lies, so it cannot be bluff)?

Does diplomacy really cover "if you do what I say, I won't murder you"? Is the reasoning behind a negative answer "because intimidate does that"? But when it comes to a larger scale, suddenly diplomacy IS the answer?

Finally, if nothing else, think of skill balance. Bluff can do basically anything as long as you're lying. Diplomacy can do basically anything as long as your telling the truth. Intimidate can make someone do something as long as you stand over them the whole time brandishing a weapon.

Do we really want intimidate to be the 'use rope' of skills?

 

[Simon Marks]

Do we really want intimidate to be the 'use rope' of skills?

I tell you what - until we find out in the 4e PHB what the intimidate skill covers we are all just guessing.

The best example we have is 3.5 version which explicitly won't work in the template given.

 

[Cadfan]

(does the survival DC for traveling through jungle really depend on PC levels?).

Does the CR of the monster depend on the PCs fighting it?

I mean, in a way, yes. But also no in another way. Its like the chicken and the egg. Which came first?

 

[Cadfan]

Fighter: he's almost there, guys, I'll take him over the finish line "If you don't help us, who will be there to help you when the horde reaches here. Who is going to protect your daughter when the savages are tearing down your door, you willing to help out we can be around and make sure bad things don't happen to you" intimidate success

By rules as written, that is not an Intimidate check. Intimidate is not Diplomacy with a frowny face. Intimidate is convincing an NPC that you are capable of inflicting harm upon them, and will do so if they do not comply.

At least that's true in 3e. And it makes sense. Its silly to think that you need a different skill to say "If you help us, it will be profitable for all involved" in comparison to saying, "If you don't help us, it will be ruinous for all involved."

 

[Torchlyte]

At least that's true in 3e. And it makes sense.

Does it, though? Does it make sense that the intimidate skill doesn't represent a skill, and that it can only work in way X for Y length of time?

I think the original rule was dumb.

 

[Cadfan]

It does not take skill to cause fear, it takes skill to make someone feel as if they have no other options. The KKK was good at intimidation not because Whites were inherently more scary, but because Blacks felt like they had no choice (because the Whites controlled all the consequences). The mafia is good at intimidation because they make you feel as if you cannot escape them, and therefore you must do as they say.

Your refutation refutes itself in a sort of weird logical mobeus strip.

In both of your real world examples, the intimidation factor of the organizations involved depended not only on the personal charisma of the person issuing the threats, but also on the real life capacity and demonstrated willingness of the organization to carry out those threats.

Or in other words, the Mafia doesn't "make you feel as if you cannot escape them" in some kind of theoretical vacuum. They make you feel that way because you know, from context, history, and familiarity with the Mafia, that you probably cannot escape them, just as they say.

Now, logically, this also works in reverse.

Take the threats issued by the Mafia. Have them issued by a whiny six year old to his own Mom, after having watched movies at his friend's house that his Mom normally wouldn't let him see.

I don't care if he rolls a freaking 20, he's just getting paddled.

PS- for those of you who find it inexplicable that player characters couldn't intimidate a lousy duke, find and replace "duke" with the drago "Allenyo, the Golden Daughter of Tiamat, who is by the way a Level 30 solo monster and you're a level 2 character in a solo campaign."

If nothing else, that should persuade you that, in some circumstances, for some parties, certain social skills shouldn't work on certain people.