Excerpt: skill challenges

[ryryguy]

It might be railroading if the only way to get anything out of the Duke is by using this template. (Definitely if you must get something out of the Duke to proceed with the rest of the adventure.)

But say the PC's do decide they'd prefer to lean on the Duke. (And we're assuming no epic level PC's who can wipe the whole duchy away, then there is maybe a simple skill check, or no skill check, for this option.)

Skill challenge: coerce the Duke into doing X.

Skills:

Bluff: "The king has given us the authority to execute bad nobles."

Gather Information (or whatever this is rolled into in 4e, is it Diplomacy?) finds a blackmailable secret: "You probably wouldn't want the king to find out about all these taxes you've been skimming."

Linguistics (Forgery aspect): "We have documents showing you were skimming taxes." (Whether he actually did or not)

Streetwise: "We may be off in the dungeon, but don't get any smart ideas, local crime lord Tony S. will be watching you and your family."

History: (Duke nearly died from a snake bite as a child) "Do you like my pet snake? Here, I'll let you hold her. No, I insist!"

Insight/Linguistics: "There's an error in these orders to your guard captain that makes them invald... I'm sure it's just an oversight. Here's a quill. I'll hold my pet snake while you correct it."

and of course... Intimidate: "Don't think we're joking about going to the king/sending Tony S. after your family/having my pet snake give birth in your bed. We are deadly serious..."

Et cetera.

My point is, not only does Intimidate being auto-fail in that template does not mean the Duke is "immune" to Intimidate, but also it does not mean Intimidate cannot be used as part of an approach to achieve more-or-less the same ends. It just cannot be successfully used as part of the "petition for aid, gain his trust" approach.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Meh. For me, its just a blind game of rock-paper-scissors taking the place of actual role-playing. I'm not comfortable with But Thou Must/ You Just Can't situations... its crappy in video games, but its inexcusable in PnP games. Its a lazy GM cheat to force players to adhere to the monograph in his head, rather than letting them enjoy themselves.

By that logic, using a clay golem in an adventure is railroading because the clay golem is immune to non-bludgeoning weapons. So long as the PCs have weapons capable of hurting the golem, I don't see it as a bad thing if one player's L33T sword of uberness is useless of one encounter. It forces players to think outside the box rather than resorting to the same boring, repetitive combo (I power attack with my L33T sword of uberness and it dies).

It's not a case of railroading because the PCs need never ask the duke for help. The adventure might be slightly tougher as a result, but that is a CHOICE the players make. Player choice is the opposite of railroading. IF the players choose to negotiate with the duke THEN intimidation will automatically fail in that particular encounter. IF the players decide to fight the clay golem THEN non-bludgeoning attacks automatically fail.

I have no problems with epic heroes cowing a pissant duke, but pissant adventurers cowing a powerful duke is another matter. And if they're asking the duke for his help, odds are these PCs are not particularly powerful.

 

[Lizard]

Meh. For me, its just a blind game of rock-paper-scissors taking the place of actual role-playing. I'm not comfortable with But Thou Must/ You Just Can't situations... its crappy in video games, but its inexcusable in PnP games. Its a lazy GM cheat to force players to adhere to the monograph in his head, rather than letting them enjoy themselves.

I see it as a way to reinforce personality with mechanics, something D&D needs more of (all editions). There's three ways to handle these sorts of things:

Absolute fiat:"I'm not bothering with mechanics, the Duke doesn't care, and that's that."
Let the dice fall where they may:"Well, my notes say the Duke is a man of iron resolve, but hey, you rolled a 52, so he crumbles to his knees and bawls like a little girl, I guess."
Mechanics:"You may succeed in scaring the Duke, but that won't make him help you the way you want."

I don't read the sample skill challenge as saying "The duke is magically immune to intimidation". I see it was saying "If he's intimidated, he won't do what you need him to do." For example, instead of sending aid, he might say, "You're right. Those monsters are too tough. We're packing up and fleeing south. See ya!" or "Well, you guys really are butch. Here's the certificate of ennoblement. This is your dukedom now, I'm outta here. The army's loyal to me, so they're leaving too, but, hey, I'm sure you can bully the peasants into forming a regiment quick enough. Bye!"

It's also worth noting that it's not written as "One intimidate and you lose." Presumably, playing this out, the first intimidate attempt will result in the DM dropping a serious hint that's the wrong way to go. If the players keep pushing the wrong buttons, well, sucks to be them.

It's much like any other kind of decision tree in a game. "If they go down the right corridor, they will trigger the 10d6 fireball trap". This is 'fair' if there's some way to detect/guess this is about to happen; it's pure railroading if there's nothing but dumb luck to guide the players.

I see it playing like this:
Duke:"Why should I give you aid in this quest?"
PC:"It's like this, Duke. Either you give us the Staff Of Plotdevice, or we take it. Either way, we get it, but one way, your castle stays standing and your guards stay living. How 'bout it?"
DM:The Duke's attitude hardens visibly. "Perhaps you have the power, perhaps you don't. You might consider that it is possible the Staff is better protected against theft than you think. I recommend you consider your next words very carefully."

If the PCs keep threatening, they will force the issue to a head, there will be a big fight, and they'll find the staff is warded to explode if anyone but the Duke touches it.

The alternative tends to be a one-skill-fits-all solution. If any social challenge can be solved with Intimidate, that's all anyone will have -- as I suspect it will have in-combat uses Diplomacy will not.

It is also worth noting that, in the Real World TM, men and women of power are often willing to die -- or let their people die -- before admitting weakness or failure. One reason peace negotiations drag out is that the leaders, on both sides, want a way to look like they've won even when they've lost. I can easily see a Duke being willing to let his kingdom burn, or even fight to the death against a superior foe, before simply surrendering.

 

[Thasmodious]

If all three social skills can be used equally in all social encounters, then all you are doing is splitting up skill points for no reason. If all three are the same, then there are two too many. If you feel that way, just houserule that there is only one social skill in your games, because you've removed choice and nuance from the equation with the insistence that all social skills are always appropriate in all social situations.

The options to setup the challenge are not limiting or railroading, they turn a simple dice exercise into a tactical situation. All three social skills having to always be on the table for every social encounter would remove any variance from the system. Each one has its own uses and purpose. Bluff will get you in a party without an invitation, diplomacy will get the duke to help you, intimidate will clear your favorite tavern table of peasants.

You could just as easily imagine circumstances where one of the other primary social skills would be ineffective or counter-productive.

The cowardly Duke Wossisnuts won't commit his troops to help defend the border outpost. The guard captain wants desperately to help his men and the PCs want to defeat the hobgoblin menace. They get an audience with the duke, and the guard captain arranges for the PCs to end up alone with the duke. He won't see reason on the issue, but he is quite open to bluff and intimidation. With the captain on their side, they don't have to fear repercussions from scaring the duke. Well, not as much, anyway.

The PCs have captured a big bad evil sub-boss, an evil paladin. Diplomacy won't work because the evil paladin serves an evil god with evil goals and knows the party is all bright and shiny. Bluff and intimidate are on the table. Or maybe one diplomatic angle is viable if the PCs can learn about it with a successful insight check.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

You can intimidate the Duke. But it doesn't bring you closer to your goal. That's the idea. You get him to fear you, but that doesn't mean he will lend you troops or whatever you wanted to do.

That all depends on how much you get him to fear you. You want something out of him, threatening him into giving it to you is as viable as schmoozing it out of him. He may not like you for it later but intimidation can absolutely get people to do things for you when you are in a position to strike fear into them.

It makes it just likely that he will send his family to safety, ask his mage to improve the magical protection barriers, and, if all that doesn't seem enough, he will have you arrested or betray you at a later point. The NPCs role and personality just doesn't fit being intimidated in this context. That's the idea.

Taking steps to protect his family and ask the court mage to whip something up is entirely reasonable, it's the sort of thing the Duke would do. But doesn't preclude giving in to the PCs demands, in fact it's more likely to occur as a hedge because he's successfully intimidated by the PCs. Arresting or betraying, betraying is entirely likely if he thinks he can get away with it. Arrest? This is a level based game. What level are his guards and how many does he have, for that matter what level is he? This is a game where the PCs could very well be able to lay waste to his entire territory singlehandedly. If they intimidate him that much he isn't going to consider arresting them because they would likely just massacre his guards and precious family and take his land for themselves.

You have to keep in mind that if you need his help, that means you depend on him. This gives him power over you.

It would in RL but in a world described by the mechanics of D&D, not nearly. What the PCs would rather persuade out of him could be gained from brute force, or magic domination, or a ritual that binds his will to theirs. Diplomacy and persuasion in a D&D world appear only when neither side is stronger or wishes to go to the effort to compel obedience through other means.

Imagine trying it in the real world. Go to your mayor, and threaten to kill his family, if he doesn't send his sheriff to help you in taking out a biker-gang. Don't you think this will make him work against you at a later time? He will use every opportunity to hinder your efforts.

The bold part is the problem, D&D is not RL. If I go to my mayor and threaten him he has the police arrest me. In D&D if you threaten the mayor he has to consider whether his police CAN arrest you or will just be mowed down like lawn ornaments. Whether imposing the will of the state is even possible. He may or may not attempt to have you arrested depending on how he judges your personal power. But if you can intimidate him into doing something for you the "police" are likely not a viable option, nor any similar direct action. The most hindrance he could hope to bring to bear is weak sauce consisting mainly of ill-will and backstabbing betrayal to an enemy of greater power. Even then he has to consider the possibility of discovering leading to the PCs just purging suspicious elements related to his plan.

Remember that failing the skill challenge doesn't mean that you are unable to continue. Depending on what happened during the roleplaying part of the challenge, it means you are not in the perfect situation.

This is right, it's why even though the reasoning doesn't match a D&D world the assessment is on target. The Skill Challenge mechanic is not like previous skill systems, it's a conflict resolution device not a task resolution device. Previous editions you set a task and then rolled for success at it. Here there's a goal and the result is either a good solution or an non-solution, either of which can be narrated whatever way seems most appropriate. It doesn't matter what exactly was done just that it resulted in a non-optimal solution. Which may even include getting the forces the party needs but being betrayed and having to kill them all and assassinate the Duke in retribution afterwards and there isn't much more non-optimal than destroying the powerbase you were looking to utilize.

 

[D'karr]

I don't read the sample skill challenge as saying "The duke is magically immune to intimidation". I see it was saying "If he's intimidated, he won't do what you need him to do." For example, instead of sending aid, he might say, "You're right. Those monsters are too tough. We're packing up and fleeing south. See ya!" or "Well, you guys really are butch. Here's the certificate of ennoblement. This is your dukedom now, I'm outta here. The army's loyal to me, so they're leaving too, but, hey, I'm sure you can bully the peasants into forming a regiment quick enough. Bye!"

It's also worth noting that it's not written as "One intimidate and you lose." Presumably, playing this out, the first intimidate attempt will result in the DM dropping a serious hint that's the wrong way to go. If the players keep pushing the wrong buttons, well, sucks to be them.

Not only that, the skill challenge also had this tidbit of information (highlight mine):

Insight (moderate DCs): You empathize with the NPC and use that knowledge to encourage assistance. First success with this skill reveals that any use of the Intimidate skill earns a failure.

So even before attempting to intimidate him you had a possibility of finding out that intimidation would not be a good tactic to use in this situation.

Wow, I can't believe it, I agree with Lizard...

 

[Lacyon]

If all three are the same, then there are two too many.

Precisely.

 

[D'karr]

That all depends on how much you get him to fear you. You want something out of him, threatening him into giving it to you is as viable as schmoozing it out of him. He may not like you for it later but intimidation can absolutely get people to do things for you when you are in a position to strike fear into them.

I guess that the part of the goal of this particular skill challenge was just overlooked.

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.

I would like to hear of any instance in which intimidating him will accomplish that goal.

 

[kilpatds]

I guess that the part of the goal of this particular skill challenge was just overlooked.

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.

I would like to hear of any instance in which intimidating him will accomplish that goal.

The excerpt is a skill challenge template. It it titled "Negotiation", indicating that it will be the model for negotiations. The goal is

The Negotiation

This skill challenge covers attempts to gain a favor or assistance from a local leader or other authority figure.

From this, it seems to me that this is intended to cover most negotiations where you try to gain assistance from a local leader.

So far, I'm on board.

Then the template assumes (in the "Setup" section) that the only way to gain assistance is to gain trust. And thus, intimidation is out of the question. Um ... I missed a step there.

If there are other negotiation templates for different setups, then my complaints are unfounded. If there is text explaining how this template is actually semi-customized for a more-specific situation than was revealed in the excerpt, then my complaints are unfounded.

But in isolation, it looks and smells like railroading.

 

[Felon]

I would like to hear of any instance in which intimidating him will accomplish that goal.

"Look, pal, if we were really villains, we'd just kill you all and take what we wanted off of your corpses, wouldn't we?"

Or something to that effect. The old "if I meant you harm you'd be dead already" line. Works in some situations, though I can see why a king in his throne room surrounded by his elite guard wouldn't fold.