Excerpt: skill challenges

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Could we please drop the whole Intimidate argument. I thought there were more interesting aspects to the skill challenge. Everyone seems to have explained his view on the issue, and unless someone of us is capable of mind control, there seems to be no chance of changing opinions at this point.

Questions I am more interested in, since they are ultimately more constructive:
- How do we handle NPCs trying to countermand the PCs efforts? (The Dukes Advisor trying to counter a bluff, for example?)
- How could we use the framework for other encounters, like Interrogation (Torture?), Overland-Travel, Crime Scene Investigation...

 

[The Shadow]

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.

You've never seen players try something boneheaded, something completely at odds to their stated goals? I certainly have. (Sometimes I've done it myself!) Whether it's in the name of roleplaying or just plain stupidity, it happens. Pointing out in the template which maneuvers are just not going to be productive might not be needed by every DM, but it's not useless either.

If the characters are capable of intimidating a duke with an army into putting his army at their disposal, then more power to 'em. That plan clearly would not call for a Negotiation skill challenge, now would it? A single Intimidate roll should be good enough.

Of course, most characters just plain won't be able to do that. And then this skill challenge becomes relevant. *If* the party in that position decides *on their own* to solicit the Duke's aid, then the GM could choose to use this template. Maybe they don't decide to ask the Duke for help; maybe they decide on a totally different approach to the problem. This is railroading?

You seem to think it's somehow wrong for the GM to design an actual adventure - to say there are two forks in the road instead of three.

I mean, I don't have to let someone roll the dice on a skill when it's plainly ludicrous. If you're in chains, naked, and in an antimagic field, I just don't care, as a GM, how high your Intimidate skill is. You're not going to browbeat the Evil King into abdicating and giving you his crown. It will not happen. I mean, if you insist, I can set a DC of 1500, but it's just easier to say, "You can't do it."

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

That's quite obvious, yes. And in the sort of situation in which the Negotiation template is going to be a useful tool for the GM, not wanting to earn the NPC's trust is a bad idea. If it isn't a bad idea, and the party decides to go for Intimdation, the GM would probably use a different template, or make up a custom one.

Perhaps this is the nub of the problem? You appear to be assuming that the GM is committed to using the Negotiation template, come hell or high water, regardless of the PC's position and circumstances? But why should he be? Maybe the party won't even decide to talk to the Duke at all!

But *if they do*, knowing that they (as, say, 4th level heroes) have no real chance of intimidating the Duke into ordering his army around, he figures that a Negotiation is what will be called for, and preps that template, perhaps tweaking it. Not because he's a meanie-head who arbitrarily decides it, but because it makes sense in the adventure - sort of like not being able to intimidate the Evil King into abdicating while totally helpless.

If the party is 30 level demigods with a penchant of threatening measly mortals with fates far worse than death, probably the GM will decide to use something other than Negotiation, yes? They'd use that template only with a greater god or something. Against a mere Duke, they'd say, "Borrowing your army. Might bring it back later." Not even worth a skill challenge.

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.

No, it isn't railroading to say, "This particular sort of plan just won't work." That's adventure design. Now, I grant you, in a given case it might be *bad* adventure design. But it needn't be.

Railroading is where there is only One Right Plan. Banning Intimidate in the Negotiation template is just saying there are at most N-1 good plans, where N is All The Plans There Are. Surely not all plans have to be good? In fact, I'd say of All The Plans There Are, most of them aren't very good, and some of them are very, very bad.

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

I don't accept that as a premise, so the argument fails.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

The same way you know, from context, history and familiarity with heroes and monsters that if the heroes don't do something the monsters eat your town? You've just successfully argued that implying that an organisation not directly under your control might do something is within the bounds of intimidate.

And for the record - yeah, it's fine if there are some individuals who are basically sociopaths and for whom one particular social skill won't work, but it should be an exception to the rule. Saying that basically anyone in any position of power is immune to intimidate is rubbish, and putting an automatic fail on intimidate in one of the examples of skill checks means that it becomes the accepted state of affairs. All of a sudden every adventure will specify that intimidate doesn't work any time the writer thinks that the person involved is the slightest bit brave.

Something makes me doubt that people would be so happy if the example stipulated that bluff or diplomacy never work on the NPC.

 

[Cadfan]

The rolls determine some of those circumstances, weighted against the circumstances represented by the DCs. Kind of like an attack roll, but without the auto success if the DC is really high.

I'm skipping most of your post because I think the issues in it are sufficiently debated above, and that I am clearly right.

But in regards to this point, I have something to add.

I am not of the school that pretends that DMing is about reaching into the ether and pulling out some kind of objective truth about the imaginary gameworld in which my campaign takes place.

Or to put things otherwise, when I set the DC for something, I know darn well that I'm setting it for a particular party of PCs played by a particular set of people.

So when it comes time for me to decide the DC for using Intimidate on a landed gentry with his own private army, I don't do some sort of magical math in my head and set the DC based on his NPC level, his Wisdom score, his ranks in Insight, the average level of the men in his private army multiplied by a weighted inversed average of the number of rounds it takes for each soldier to respond if he calls for help in the middle of a dinner party, divided by his fear of collateral damage to his mead hall during the battle.

I just ask myself, "knowing what this guy has in terms of backup, and what the PCs have in terms of leverage, how hard should it be for the PCs to intimidate this guy?" And then I set a DC. And sometimes, if the answer is "it should be freaking impossible," I don't bother setting a DC.

What this approach lacks in terms of a false pretense of objectivity, it makes up in honesty.

So from my perspective, there's no difference between declaring that the DC of an Intimidate check is 50 when I know darn well the players can't achieve that, and just saying "Intimidate doesn't work here." Except that the first way required making up an arbitrarily big number and lying to myself about where I got it.

If someone wants to go through life doing things the first way, well, they'll function in society just like a normal person. But like Dumbo and his feather, they'll be able to fly even without it.

 

[Thasmodious]

A rewrite of your example

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

Nice try, except that isn't close to an example of intimidation. That's diplomacy (convincing the other party that you share the same concerns and are on the same side) or bluff (if the threat is exaggerated or fabricated).

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.

As long as you keep trying to insist that something about that example contained "absolute no's", then yes, you did misunderstand.

It really is like insisting that by killing the princess you are fulfilling the King's mission of "making sure those dirty goblins don't harm her," and arguing with the DM that you still deserve the reward and XP. After all, that was HIS wording.

 

[The Shadow]

Could we please drop the whole Intimidate argument. I thought there were more interesting aspects to the skill challenge. Everyone seems to have explained his view on the issue, and unless someone of us is capable of mind control, there seems to be no chance of changing opinions at this point.

Fair enough. I will stand down... though I do sometimes get this urge to tilt at windmills.

Questions I am more interested in, since they are ultimately more constructive:
- How do we handle NPCs trying to countermand the PCs efforts? (The Dukes Advisor trying to counter a bluff, for example?)

A very interesting question. An advisor *could* simply be fluff to explain failures ("I can't fault your logic, but on balance I like Baron Evillo's idea better.") or fluff to explain consequences of failures. ("I don't ordinarily send annoying people to the salt mines, but Baron Evillo is right, you're too dangerous.")

Alternatively, he could be an actual character rolling for successes and failures of his own. Now, would he be on the same playing field as the players (his successes counting as their failures, and vice versa), or would he keep separate track of successes and failures?

The easiest way might be to say, "Whoever gets to X successes first convinces the Duke. Failures count as successes for the other side."

On the other hand, it might be very interesting if *both* parties could win (the Duke sends his troops to help, but sends a spy to keep an eye on the PC's that the Baron has secretly ordered to assassinate them) or both could lose (the party doesn't get the Duke's help, but he's pissed at the Baron, who is now out of favor.)

- How could we use the framework for other encounters, like Interrogation (Torture?), Overland-Travel, Crime Scene Investigation...

Interrogation: While this obviously gives Intimidate a huge chance to shine, other skills could potentially useful... Knowledge-type skills to be able to know when the guy's lying; Streetwise in particular to know what to threaten him with, depending on the situation; Diplomacy to play Good Cop; Bluff to make him think you know everything already and spill something... Perhaps Str vs. Fort rolls for torture. (Yuck, but still.)

Or, if the players feel like blowing some cash on the Detect Thoughts ritual, you can avoid a skill challenge entirely.

Overland Travel: As simple or sophisticated as you want. Getting to Example City might be a skill challenge, or maybe each leg of the journey could be. Maybe most of the journey is fine, but you set up a challenge to get through a nasty section of forest. Or, if you prefer, you can just say, "You get there after five day's travel. What do you do?"

One thing that might be fun is, rather than having "random encounters", the GM has some planned encounters along the way that can be circumvented by succeeding at challenges.

CSI: Again, as much or as little as you want. Finding and interpreting a single clue could be a challenge in itself, but that would probably get old. Whereas having a challenge out and out tell you who the murderer is could be a bit much too.

I say, treat it like a cop show or a movie... the challenge is there to give you a significant lead, something tangible to follow up on. Failing in it badly might mean that you just plain don't turn anything up; failing marginally might mean you have a clue but haven't figured out what to do with it yet.

 

[Thasmodious]

The following is the reasoning behind the railroad debate:



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.

You're making an invalid set of assumptions here. A challenge like this doesn't grow in a vacuum. The DM doesn't demand the PCs seek an audience with the Duke to gain his trust. The PCs, through the scenarios leading up to that moment in game, are at a point where they have chosen to seek an audience with the Duke, in order to convince him to lend them aid/money/troops/resources. The only way they can do that is to gain his trust.

You can't intimidate the duke into giving you gold, soldiers, and equipment. You could try, but it would be a failure. If you tried really well, and successfully scared the pants off him, you might leave his chamber with a promise of aid. But you'd be dead or arrested before you hit the castle gate. And that would make the challenge a failure.

There are no absolutes and there is no railroading in the example given. The PCs have a variety of ways to accrue the successes needed to convince the duke. And if they fail, the game continues. It's just like any other encounter. There are conditions that result in win and conditions that result in fail. The PCs are free to try and win in the manner they see fit. It is not railroading if their choices lead to failure. That's actually kind of a core mechanic to gaming in general.

 

[The Shadow]

Or to put things otherwise, when I set the DC for something, I know darn well that I'm setting it for a particular party of PCs played by a particular set of people.
[snip]
So from my perspective, there's no difference between declaring that the DC of an Intimidate check is 50 when I know darn well the players can't achieve that, and just saying "Intimidate doesn't work here." Except that the first way required making up an arbitrarily big number and lying to myself about where I got it.

Kudos, sir. You said it much better than I did. In fact, I found myself wanting to quote each paragraph separately, but restrained myself. (Still chuckling over "divided by his fear of damage to his mead hall"!)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Fair enough. I will stand down... though I do sometimes get this urge to tilt at windmills.



A very interesting question. An advisor *could* simply be fluff to explain failures ("I can't fault your logic, but on balance I like Baron Evillo's idea better.") or fluff to explain consequences of failures. ("I don't ordinarily send annoying people to the salt mines, but Baron Evillo is right, you're too dangerous.")

Alternatively, he could be an actual character rolling for successes and failures of his own. Now, would he be on the same playing field as the players (his successes counting as their failures, and vice versa), or would he keep separate track of successes and failures?

The easiest way might be to say, "Whoever gets to X successes first convinces the Duke. Failures count as successes for the other side."

On the other hand, it might be very interesting if *both* parties could win (the Duke sends his troops to help, but sends a spy to keep an eye on the PC's that the Baron has secretly ordered to assassinate them) or both could lose (the party doesn't get the Duke's help, but he's pissed at the Baron, who is now out of favor.)



Interrogation: While this obviously gives Intimidate a huge chance to shine, other skills could potentially useful... Knowledge-type skills to be able to know when the guy's lying; Streetwise in particular to know what to threaten him with, depending on the situation; Diplomacy to play Good Cop; Bluff to make him think you know everything already and spill something... Perhaps Str vs. Fort rolls for torture. (Yuck, but still.)

Or, if the players feel like blowing some cash on the Detect Thoughts ritual, you can avoid a skill challenge entirely.

An interesting question might be if Rituals or Spells can be used as a way to solve a part of a challenge (there was a blog post to that effect, but I still wonder how this works).

On a larger scale, can even individual encounters be used to "solve" a part of the skill challenge - when gaining the favor of the duke, it might be helpful to arrest some criminals that bothered him, or something like that. But we might be leaving the realms of the skill challenge at this point...

Overland Travel: As simple or sophisticated as you want. Getting to Example City might be a skill challenge, or maybe each leg of the journey could be. Maybe most of the journey is fine, but you set up a challenge to get through a nasty section of forest. Or, if you prefer, you can just say, "You get there after five day's travel. What do you do?"

One thing that might be fun is, rather than having "random encounters", the GM has some planned encounters along the way that can be circumvented by succeeding at challenges.

One take might be to make the success of a skill challenge determine the encounter setup of random encounters. If you fare well, you will face less opposition and can surprise it. If you fail, you might run into more monsters, and they might ambush you.

CSI: Again, as much or as little as you want. Finding and interpreting a single clue could be a challenge in itself, but that would probably get old. Whereas having a challenge out and out tell you who the murderer is could be a bit much too.

I say, treat it like a cop show or a movie... the challenge is there to give you a significant lead, something tangible to follow up on. Failing in it badly might mean that you just plain don't turn anything up; failing marginally might mean you have a clue but haven't figured out what to do with it yet.

I think it might matter how important the "CSI"-stuff is to the plot at hand. If the whole adventure is based on it, a single challenge might be a bit to little. But who knows, if you have to gather 16 successes and avoid the 8th failure, this can take some time, if each roll is accompanied with a skill check. Basically, you use the challenge to structure an entire adventure. But if it's only a small part, determining the real perpetrator could be handled with a regular skill challenge. The next step might be finding and catching him.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

An interesting question might be if Rituals or Spells can be used as a way to solve a part of a challenge (there was a blog post to that effect, but I still wonder how this works).

On a larger scale, can even individual encounters be used to "solve" a part of the skill challenge - when gaining the favor of the duke, it might be helpful to arrest some criminals that bothered him, or something like that.

"You gain wisdom, my child..."

I think it might matter how important the "CSI"-stuff is to the plot at hand. If the whole adventure is based on it, a single challenge might be a bit to little. But who knows, if you have to gather 16 successes and avoid the 8th failure, this can take some time, if each roll is accompanied with a skill check. Basically, you use the challenge to structure an entire adventure. But if it's only a small part, determining the real perpetrator could be handled with a regular skill challenge. The next step might be finding and catching him.

Or, take it a step further and make each success of the Skill Challenge "Solve the Crime" require a success on a skill challenge of "Find a Clue". Then, if you solve 8 "Find a Clue" Skill Challenges before you fail 4 of them then you solve the crime.

Ok, maybe that one would be rather boring or at least a bad idea. Still, now you are beginning to think how this can be used on a larger scale.