Excerpt: skill challenges

[D'karr]

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

Originally Posted by excerpt
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.[/quote]

A template is a boilerplate that is meant to be changed according to the circumstances that you (the DM) decide for your skill challenge. In this case it is an example of a negotiation. It is not an example of every single negotiation possible.

It provides an example for you (the DM) to change and mutate to whatever type of challenge he desires. But in the end it is just one example.

By taking it literally you could never have negotiations with a count, as the example only applies to a duke. And "taking it literally" is what most people have been doing to argue that you can or can not use x skill.

 

[Lacyon]

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.

The sample Dungeon in the 3.5 PHB has an encounter with ghouls fairly early on. Does this mean that it failed as a template because not all dungeons will have encounters with ghouls?

 

[kilpatds]

A template is a boilerplate that is meant to be changed according to the circumstances that you (the DM) decide for your skill challenge. In this case it is an example of a negotiation. It is not an example of every single negotiation possible.

No, but it does appear to be an example of a standard negotiation with a local leader. So apparently intimidation is usually useless when negotiating with local leaders. It's bad precedent, because it confuses goal and approach.

By taking it literally you could never have negotiations with a count, as the example only applies to a duke. And "taking it literally" is what most people have been doing to argue that you can or can not use x skill.

That's not a problem. The only Duke reference was flavor text. I'm clear there.

 

[Simon Marks]

No, but it does appear to be an example of a standard negotiation with a local leader.

But it's not - it's not an example of anything. It's a Template. Not to be used without looking at customising it to fit the explicit situation.

 

[Cadfan]

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

Then maybe that's a situation where you SHOULD permit the use of Intimidate. But not all situations fall into that rubric.

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: The Duke sneers. "You think you scare me, barbarian?"
Player: Oh. pausing ..then I swing the axe.... 20! Crit...48 damage!!!
DM: DM blinks... The Duke reels in pain, and screams for his guards. Dozens of armed men pour into the room. "You think I'd meet a mad dog like you without protection?" he yells in rage. Roll initiative.
Player: Uh, how many men was that?
DM: You don't have time to count them all. Probably two dozen, and it looks like there's more waiting behind them that don't quite fit into the room. They're armored and well equipped, though.
Player: Uh, Gorth doesn't think he can kill the Duke's entire army.
DM: Gorth should have thought of that in advance. He knew the Duke had an army, he knew he was in the Duke's castle, and he physically assaulted the Duke with lethal force of his own free will.
Player: Crap. Well, you wouldn't put a challenge in my way if I couldn't beat it, right? This is maybe a Level 6 encounter or so?
DM: Or so. Very much or so. Gorth should consider coming back in his next life as a person less prone to rash decisions.
Player 2: I put my hands up in the air and loudly proclaim that I had nothing to do with this.

 

[Thasmodious]

To reiterate an earlier point: if all three social skills are always valid in all social encounters, then there is no need for three skills. Three skills, representing three different approaches to a social interaction setup a lot of interesting nuance that you want in a well played negotiation or exchange. What tactic is the best to get what we want? Do we scare him, sweet talk em, lie through our teeth? If the answer is "meh, they are all the same, just roll your highest" then its your model robbing the players of options, not the DM who rules that intimidation results in a failure (1 failure in the scope of the encounter).

How exactly do any of you actually think intimidate will work? The orc barbarian can walk up to a person on the street and grunt "gimme your coin sack" while brandishing his knife. On a successful check, the commoner probably does. On a failed check, the commoner is still scared, yipes loudly and runs off screaming for the guard. Like someone else said, its about exerting a measure of control on a frightened person. Even if you are successful and get the purse, what do you think the first thing the commoner is going to do once you are gone? Likely go straight to the guard.

Now, you roll an intimidate check against the Duke whom you are entreating for aid because you are facing a challenge that you cannot overcome alone and need his aid (this automatically implies that you aren't demi-gods that can wipe out his kingdom and low level army with a spell or two, as then you would hardly need anything they could offer).

Even if you are successful to a legendary degree, what do you expect it to accomplish? The duke isn't carrying a large amount of gold, equipment and soldiers in his coinpurse. In order to give you that kind of aid he has to call his small council, instruct the treasury to get the coin from the vault, assign a contingent of troops, under one of his senior captains to aid the party, and sign a writ to hand to the Master-of-arms to make the equipment in the armory available to the PCs. You really think intimidation is the approach that will accomplish this?

 

[JohnSnow]

Then maybe that's a situation where you SHOULD permit the use of Intimidate. But not all situations fall into that rubric.

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: The Duke sneers. "You think you scare me, barbarian?"
Player: Oh. pausing ..then I swing the axe.... 20! Crit...48 damage!!!
DM: DM blinks... The Duke reels in pain, and screams for his guards. Dozens of armed men pour into the room. "You think I'd meet a mad dog like you without protection?" he yells in rage. Roll initiative.
Player: Uh, how many men was that?
DM: You don't have time to count them all. Probably two dozen, and it looks like there's more waiting behind them that don't quite fit into the room. They're armored and well equipped, though.
Player: Uh, Gorth doesn't think he can kill the Duke's entire army.
DM: Gorth should have thought of that in advance. He knew the Duke had an army, he knew he was in the Duke's castle, and he physically assaulted the Duke with lethal force of his own free will.
Player: Crap. Well, you wouldn't put a challenge in my way if I couldn't beat it, right? This is maybe a Level 6 encounter or so?
DM: Or so. Very much or so. Gorth should consider coming back in his next life as a person less prone to rash decisions.
Player 2: I put my hands up in the air and loudly proclaim that I had nothing to do with this.

Priceless!

And proving that this is far from a railroad. A railroad is "I'm sorry, but you can't attack the duke," not "when you take actions, there are consequences."

Similarly, there's nothing railroad-y about deciding that intimidate will not be successful in getting you closer to your goal.

You don't "win friends and influence people" by bullying them. Put another way, how many people became 'friends' with the guys who pushed them around in high school? How many secretly plotted their demise (or ruin)? How many eventually decided they'd had enough and pulled out submachine guns?

That's what I thought. Clearly intimidation only goes so far.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Intimidate could also unlock an insight check:

Player: I intimidate the duke by doing/saying x
Duke: Ok, i will do what you want (bluff check vs passive insight) (if unsuccessfull earning 1 success for the players)

 

[Pbartender]

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.

Or consider the stereotypical interrogation of an evil villain's cringing, toadying flunky...

This guy knows that the Good Guys aren't his friends and that they never will be. He knows that he'll be in a lot of trouble if the Bad Guys hear that he ratted them out. Therefore, any Diplomacy check to get information out of him is an automatic failure.

He is, however, quite used to being bullied about by his superiors in the Evil Organization, and the very least he needs a good excuse so that it doesn't look like he willingly gaave up the goods. Therefore, the first Intimidate check on him always counts as a success, and unlocks Bluff.

Once the Cringer has his excuse, "I didn't mean to... They tortured me, boss! They were gonna KILL me!", the PCs can start picking him for information more effectively. A successful Bluff check can now unlock Diplomacy so that it is no longer an automatic failure. The PCs are now playing "Good Cop, Bad Cop"... Unless the PCs decide that Intimidate or Bluff is working just fine, and simply continue along those lines.




You could have other conditional successes and failures, such as...

Bluff works only during continued success. Once you fail a Bluff check, the Duke becomes suspicious, and all other Bluff checks automatically fail until you succeed at a Diplomacy check.

 

[Thasmodious]

Or consider the stereotypical interrogation of an evil villain's cringing, toadying flunky...

This guy knows that the Good Guys aren't his friends and that they never will be. He knows that he'll be in a lot of trouble if the Bad Guys hear that he ratted them out. Therefore, any Diplomacy check to get information out of him is an automatic failure.

He is, however, quite used to being bullied about by his superiors in the Evil Organization, and the very least he needs a good excuse so that it doesn't look like he willingly gaave up the goods. Therefore, the first Intimidate check on him always counts as a success, and unlocks Bluff.

Once the Cringer has his excuse, "I didn't mean to... They tortured me, boss! They were gonna KILL me!", the PCs can start picking him for information more effectively. A successful Bluff check can now unlock Diplomacy so that it is no longer an automatic failure. The PCs are now playing "Good Cop, Bad Cop"... Unless the PCs decide that Intimidate or Bluff is working just fine, and simply continue along those lines.

Both of those are excellent examples of how the differences and value of the three social skills can change from encounter to encounter and keep social encounters interesting and nuanced, instead of just a matter of specializing in one social skill for all occasions.