Excerpt: skill challenges

[Felon]

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.

Seems to me that the excerpt states the spirit of the skill challenge system is specifically *not* to reduce things to a static set of routine checks. I doubt a History knowledge check is intended to be useful in every situation.

So basically, they've come to realize that they should design non-combat challenges with some combat elements--namely, that there's a pace where things are over too quickly or drag out too long. The number of successes are the equivalent of the hit points of the challenge. And there are some tactical choices to make, because different skill uses yield different benefits. This is pretty good.

Can't wait to see some traps built using skill challenges.

 

[Voss]

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.

I find it notable that none of your scenarios involves immunity to intimidation. Its all role-playing. Thats the point. The immunity discourages role-playing and just going with die rolls coupled with arbitrary limits, rather than dealing with the consequences of the players' actions.

 

[Celebrim]

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!"

Except success at intimidation doesn't just mean that your target gets scared.

This is the flaw behind thinking that intimidation ought to depend on Strength or that hulking halforc barbarians are inherently more intimidating than effette high charisma bards.

Intimidation isn't the skill of frightening people. It is the skill of getting frightened people to behave in the way you want them to. This is naturally hard because frightened people are prone to being irrational, spontaneous, emotional, and erratic. Supposing the low charisma hulking half-orc barbarian fails his intimidation check, it doesn't mean that the target isn't terrified. It means that the terrified target does something other than what the half-orc wanted. If you try to intimidate someone into signing a pass to get you in to see the duke, and instead he pees in his pants and falls to the floor quivering and begging for mercy - its a failed intimidation check. Fear isn't the issue. Cooperation is.

When the challenge says the Duke can't be intimidated, we don't have to read that as immune to fear. It just means that its impossible to intimidate him. We do have to read that as immunity to intimidation. Unless he's mindless or otherwise immune to fear though, this is a bit much. It's like claiming that the Duke always wins initiative because he's paranoid. Claiming that the Duke is difficult to persuade or intimidate because he percieves the PC's as inferior is one thing. Claiming that threatening a Duke has negative reprocusions is one thing. But claiming that its impossible is bad design. The only reason you'd do it is if you wanted to avoid disruptions to the plot so you are dropping hints at how you won't tolerate attempts to circumvent the established plot line by rullng any such attempt automatically fails. Personally, I'd only do that kind of thing in a tournament situation. But given how well known arguments against having absolutes in your game are, I don't see how saying absolutes are bad design for general gameplay requires a huge justification.

 

[ryryguy]

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.

I provided such a template at the top of page 29.

Of course my template is not official WotC out of the DMG. But doesn't it make more sense, that you either take a coercive approach, or you take a negotiation approach, and set up the skill challenge appropriate to that approach?

(People may still say, "intimidation has a use in negotiation", and that's fine, change the template if you want... but I like it better this way, you distinguish the skills better by having them be more or less useful depending on your chosen approach.)

 

[kilpatds]

I provided such a template at the top of page 29.

I saw that, and think it looks good for a "lean on someone" template. I'm mostly upset that the goals (get something from the authority figure) got conflated with the approach. I think the basic mechanism seems sound, although I'm going to have a hard time weaving the rolls in with the roleplaying without breaking the (fragile) roleplaying mood. But the chosen template leaves a foul taste in my mouth, for reasons well covered by others in the last 29 pages.

 

[Warbringer]

Player: Gorth holds up his big battleaxe and quietly suggests that the Duke tells them where they can find the leader of the Crimson Fist. Gorth doesn't care that the leader is his second cousin.
DM: So you're trying to intimidate into telling him you?
Player: Well I'm hinting that if he doesn't I'll get physical
DM: He can't be intimidated
Player: Oh. pausing ..then I swing the axe.... 20! Crit...48 damage!!!
DM: DM blinks...He's dead
Player: Now turning to the Duke's advisor, Gorth holds up his big battleaxe and quietly suggests that the advisor tells them where they can find the leader of the Crimson Fist.... or is he immune to intimidate as well

Over all nice concepts, not happy with the execution.

In 4e demos I've run this as each player telling me how their character interacts in story form and what skill they want to use.... Worked a charm. Now... meh

 

[Stormtalon]

I find it notable that none of your scenarios involves immunity to intimidation. Its all role-playing. Thats the point. The immunity discourages role-playing and just going with die rolls coupled with arbitrary limits, rather than dealing with the consequences of the players' actions.

And that's why using the Intimidate skill in that situation simply provides one failure out of four -- it doesn't instantly derail the whole setup (unless they've blown 3 other skill rolls first), but it does serve as a bit of a setback and proves itself to be counterproductive.

The funny thing is, Lizard's little conversation between the party and the Duke is exactly by the setup of the challenge. They haven't failed -- yet. They have made it a bit dicier, however, and is leading to interesting territory in the conversation.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Every encounter, combat or non, in any edition of D&D could have been reduced to a die roll off. The skill challenge system is no different. It's the style of playing at the table that is the determining factor.

There ya go.

To be honest, folks, there's probably a lot of stuff in all the games I've played that I didn't like as a DM and I don't even remember it, because if I don't like something my eyes just skip over it while I'm reading and I make something else up. More to the point, I don't understand the problem people have with the game "forcing" the DM to do something a certain way. In my experience, that just doesn't happen.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

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

More like didn't necessarily follow from. The template was for negotiation, then it jumps to "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." Which is a little specific and restrictive in the greater context of negotiation. Ever seen Wind & the Lion? There negotiation involved shooting up the harbor then marching troops in for the pertinent official to give his "permission" and offer of his own forces in assistance at bayonet point. Which might I add was a real incident and portrayed reasonably close to the way it actually happened.

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

The problem is not that intimidation might lead to bad responses that would be deemed a failure. It's that gaining assistance requires convincing them of your trustworthiness, which is a little bit of a leap to be making for a broad template unless they've got another for gaining assistance through intimidation specifically. Did you note the last part of my post?

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.

 

[JohnSnow]

On the issue of intimidate (which I can't believe is still going), I understand what both sides are saying. I do think we are caught up in the difference between whether it's possible to intimidate someone and whether intimidating that person will accomplish the goal you're after.

Yes, you probably can intimidate the Duke into doing a small thing. However, attempting to intimidate someone into providing long-term aid can only get you a result ranging from grudging assistance to outright revolt.

You want the signet ring? No problem. You want a batallion of troops to assist you in taking out the gnolls of the High Forest? They probably have secret orders to murder you in your sleep. Or maybe they're utterly worthless conscripts.

There's nothing wrong with designing challenges so that certain avenues of approach don't work at all. It's up to the DM to provide multiple options, but you don't have to say "yes" to every single approach the characters try. "I'm sorry Bob, the dragon just isn't interested in swapping dirty limericks with you to decide whether you get its treasure."

As others have said, restrictions like this sound like an excellent way to build personality into a roleplaying encounter. Similarly, the notion of "unlocking" some skills with others sounds like an excellent way to make an interaction more interesting. For example, I'm reminded of the Canim from Jim Butcher's Codex Alera. The Cain are roughly 8-foot tall lupine humanoids, and they don't respect weakness - at all. Before you can "negotiate" with a Cain, you must first demonstrate strength. In other words, you must successfully intimidate a Cain before diplomacy can work. Attempts to negotiate without first showing strength are worthless. That would be characterized by a skill challenge where a successful intimidate check unlocks diplomacy as an option.

I'm intrigued by the possibilities inherent in the system, and I can see making adventures that involve purely skill encounters or, better yet, adventures that have skill challenge encounters alternating with combat encounters.

Hmmm...potentially very interesting.