Excerpt: skill challenges

[Lizard]

If this is what Intimidate does, then I think it safe to say that there would be no reason whatsoever to ever invest in the skill. Afterall, if all intimidate does is cause the NPC to act in some manner which is reasonable for having been threatened according to the personality of the NPC, then you can force this behavior from an NPC at any time merely by role playing being threatening - no skill check required.

This is true of all social skills, in every RPG which has them. If that's how you want to run the game, more power to you. Lord knows we did it that way in the dark ages, when rocks were soft and dinosaurs walked the Earth and orcs lived in ten by ten rooms.

However, I prefer to back up roleplaying with mechanics, so as to make everyone feel that it's "fair" and to model things which aren't just roleplaying -- no matter how hard he tries, the gnome is probably not as scary as the half-ogre, all other things being equal. (Which they need not be, which is why you can get a gnome fighter with intimidate +12 and a half-ogre cleric with none.)

Someone suggested that intimidate had to be impossible in some situations or else there would be no point in having more than one social skill since they would then all be the same. I would think that there is a very big difference between getting what you wanted from a friendly, trusting, and loyal Duke, and getting what you want from a hostile, furious Duke who will plot his revenge on you at the first oppurtunity.

I'd call the latter a "failed" result for the social challenge, which is the point pretty much everyone has been making. It's not some kind of magical boolean gateway; it's a mechanical framework the DM uses as a guide for roleplaying and campaign plotting. If you garner four "failures", then the consequences are...sub optimal. The Duke might well "help" you in such a way as to get you all killed. The players are not told if they succeed or fail on each roll; they just see the conversation unfold.

I've had plenty of times where players have rolled high on Sense Motive...and the NPC rlled higher on Bluff. I tell them, "He's telling the truth." and let the story unfold. When the treachery is revealed, they don't say "You lied!", they say, "Damn, that bastard had a high bluff skill, didn't he?"

 

[Thasmodious]

Someone suggested that intimidate had to be impossible in some situations or else there would be no point in having more than one social skill since they would then all be the same. I would think that there is a very big difference between getting what you wanted from a friendly, trusting, and loyal Duke, and getting what you want from a hostile, furious Duke who will plot his revenge on you at the first oppurtunity.

That's not what I said. I said if all three social skills are equally effective in all social situations then having three separate skills is a complete waste.

Nor has anyone, including the excerpt, claimed that intimidation is impossible. This is a big sticking point that you haven't been able to read past for three days now. Intimidation is not stated as impossible or removed from the equation. It is counter productive. It is a mistake for the PCs to try it. It is a tactical situation. Not all social skills are equal.

Each of the three social skills have their own uses in different situations, otherwise, what's the point of having three? Intimidation is an immediate skill, that produces immediate results but can have lasting negative consequences, as the person you intimidated is not going to hold you in a favorable light.

The duke doesn't hand you his resources immediately on the spot and then forget all about you. He has to, as I pointed out earlier, inform a large number of people, lay plans, withdraw from his treasury, open up his armory. Intimidation doesn't cover days of an NPC doing exactly what you want, even after he is gone from your presence and surrounded by his guard.

Diplomacy is more long term, it gets someone to agree with your position. The aid they give is done because they believe you have the same or similar aims and are willing to help. That is a long term deal.

Bluff splits the difference. If can be immediate or long term and it can have eventual long negative consequences. It works as long as the victim doesn't realize he has been lied to, which could be almost immediately, days later, or never.

If it stands to reason that each skill actually has a purpose and is different from the other two other than in name (and it does stand to reason), then it also stands to reason that there are situations where one of those skills is the wrong approach to a situation.

It would be like needing to go down into a cave and instead using your climb skill to ascend a nearby tower. Even though you rolled great, and were very successful, you are still up a tower and now even further from your goal of descending into a cave.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If this is what Intimidate does, then I think it safe to say that there would be no reason whatsoever to ever invest in the skill. Afterall, if all intimidate does is cause the NPC to act in some manner which is reasonable for having been threatened according to the personality of the NPC, then you can force this behavior from an NPC at any time merely by role playing being threatening - no skill check required.

No, the idea is the skill forces a change in behavior from you enemies. If you don't have it, then you can stare into someone's eyes and say "You WILL give me what I want or I will kill you" and without the skill he'll likely laugh into your face. With the skill you can make him frightened. And with someone people, that's all they'll need to start talking or do whatever you want them to. Some people aren't the type you want to back into a corner scared like that. It still has a use, but it isn't a "I win" button.

No. All three social skills cause NPC's to act in particular ways. Diplomacy causes an NPC to agree with you (or become agreeable). Bluff causes an NPC to believe in something that your character does not believe. Intimidate causes an NPC to do something that they don't want to do and which may not even be in thier interests.

But that's the point. What does Diplomacy actually make someone do? It makes them friendly towards you. Which means they are more likely to share information with you. But they aren't obligated and its up to the DM what a friendly person actually does.

What does Bluff actually do? It prevents the people around you from knowing you are lying. Just because it SEEMS like you aren't lying doesn't mean there aren't suspicious people out there who would search you anyways, JUST to be sure. Once again, the DM decides what someone who doesn't beat your bluff actually does.

\Moreover, in a comparitively short time - usually not long after your out of sight or your back is turned - the intimidated person regains sufficient confidence to act on thier new found hostility. They start trying to find ways to work against you. If you turn to intimidate to try to resolve every or even most social confict, pretty soon you find yourself surrounded by enemies.

Not necessarily. I mean, if the Orc was hostile towards you from the moment he saw you, turning him back to hostile isn't going to suddenly make him track you down to the ends of the world to slay you. Heck, despite wanting to kill you, most enemies I've seen players Intimidate will NEVER see the PCs again. Because they were Intimidated after being beaten BADLY by the PCs. There were no negative consequences because the PCs found out what they wanted to know and nothing bad happened to them afterwords. Even if I had the Orc track them down and try to kill them, he'd just be slaughtered by them, so it was pointless running the fight.

Someone suggested that intimidate had to be impossible in some situations or else there would be no point in having more than one social skill since they would then all be the same. I would think that there is a very big difference between getting what you wanted from a friendly, trusting, and loyal Duke, and getting what you want from a hostile, furious Duke who will plot his revenge on you at the first oppurtunity.

There might be, there might not be. If the reason you wanted the Duke's help was so that he'd give you a map to the continent across the ocean so you could find a powerful artifact. Well then there is likely very little difference between a Duke who hands over the map and then gets angry about it afterwords and one who hands over the map and is happy about it afterwords.

To the PCs, the result is the same: They get the map, leave town quickly and get overseas never to hear from the Duke again. Plus, they succeeded on the Skill Challenge, so they get the XP for it.

I mean, the Duke MIGHT plot a revenge. He might also get over it after an hour and realize that he's probably best letting it go.

One thing to note is that a Social Skill challenge is pretty much always a narrativistic experience. It is a rule that is designed for one purpose: Decide which result(positive or negative) comes out of a certain situation and decide the path the adventure takes from this point onward.

What a skill does in a skill challenge may not be exactly what it does outside of one.

 

[Ahglock]

I think the biggest problem with this skill challenge is its developed for a plan of action not a goal.

escape from sembia was the skill challenge to I don't know escape form sembia or was it to sneak under cover of shadows out of sembia.

Make the Duke your best buddy so he helps you is a plan to reach a goal, not a goal. Skill challenges should be goal resolution devices not plan resolution devices.

Skill Challenge: Get Duke to help with trouble up north.

Primary Skills
Diplomacy
intimidation
Bluff

A successful diplomacy check opens up a history check option. But also increases the DC for a intimidate check by 5, and reduces a bluff check DC by 2.

A successful intimidate check opens up a X check and increases the DC of bluff by 5 while decreasing a DC check for diplomacy by 2.

A successful bluff check opens up a X check and increases the DC of diplomacy by 5 while decreasing the DC of intimidate by 2.

If the chain would continue to give benefits and penalties for future actions and opening new options then something like this would encourage players to go down a certain path and not flitter back and forth in counter productive ways while leaving all the options open for the real goal getting help up north.

 

[pemerton]

Each of the three social skills have their own uses in different situations, otherwise, what's the point of having three?

I answered this upthread: they give very different colour/flavour to what is going on, which is potentially very significant in roleplaying terms.

Ahglock also gives an example of how mechanical differences might be implemented in post #464.

Intimidation doesn't cover days of an NPC doing exactly what you want, even after he is gone from your presence and surrounded by his guard.

This is a different question about skill design, not challlenge design. Why should intimidate not last when the NPC is gone from one's presence: if the intimidating character is a mage, and the threat is to kill the Duke with an invisible stalker, why would the Duke feel safe simply because the mage is gone and the Duke is surrounded by guards?

It would be like needing to go down into a cave and instead using your climb skill to ascend a nearby tower. Even though you rolled great, and were very successful, you are still up a tower and now even further from your goal of descending into a cave.

I think the point of those concerned about the intimidate issue is this: it is (as they see it) somewhat railroady for the GM to dictate to the players that the aim of play must be to make the Duke trust them. I have some sympathy for this thought, but am willing to suspend judgement until I see how the DMG describes the whole thing.

 

[pemerton]

Some people are saying that when you use Intimidate successfully then people do what you want, no matter what that is. It is a skill that should be usable on everyone and should be able to succeed as long as you roll high enough.

Other people are saying that Intimidate doesn't make people do what you want, it just Intimidates people and the consequences of being Intimidated are decided upon by the DM based on the character of the person who is being Intimidated(i.e. some people act violently, some crawl into a ball and beg for their lives, some people do what you asked them to, etc).

I wish I could clarify which one is what the 4e PHB says, but I can't. It seems, however, that this is, once again, a matter of playstyles. The first option is very simulationist. It is about finding the exact number required to do something and knowing that it works the same every single time that you roll well enough to achieve that result. The second is a lot more narrativistic. The skill has different effects based on the needs of the storyline that is currently going on.

I actually see the second as less narrativistic and more railroady, because it removes power over the narrative from the players and makes them more beholden to GM fiat.

If this is what Intimidate does, then I think it safe to say that there would be no reason whatsoever to ever invest in the skill. Afterall, if all intimidate does is cause the NPC to act in some manner which is reasonable for having been threatened according to the personality of the NPC, then you can force this behavior from an NPC at any time merely by role playing being threatening - no skill check required.

The opening sentence might be a little strong (eg it might be useful to have a skill that works as a non-magical Cause Fear effect), but overall I agree that this would make Intimidate of little value as a social skill (as opposed, perhaps, to a combat power).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I actually see the second as less narrativistic and more railroady, because it removes power over the narrative from the players and makes them more beholden to GM fiat.

Well, that comes down to how you define narrativistic. It may not be the best word but I'm at a loss to find one that I like.

What I mean when I say narrativistic is probably closer to "story driven" and "structured". What I mean by this is that the DM comes up with a storyline and a plot and everything that happens in the game is designed to further that plot or relate to that plot. The game revolves around it.

It is similar to the fact that you don't expect to see a scene in a Star Wars movie where the characters sit in a bar and chat about that girl they met last week and how awesome that party was. The characters certainly MIGHT have that conversation, but the movie never shows us it because it doesn't relate to the plot of the movie. Because the writer and director of the movie know the plot and they arrange the scenes of the movie around it.

So, that's what I refer to as narrativistic, even if it isn't the same definition other people use. The same concept can be applied to DMing a D&D game. You know the plot and theme of the adventure. You steer the players towards the "ending" of the game. You put NPCs in their path that remind them of what their goal is, you design the responses of the NPCs in order to give them hints exactly when you want to give them out, and so on. You carefully control the pacing of the plot, speeding it up or slowing it down as you need to. You give players choices when you think it is appropriate but you take away nearly all of their choices when it is critical for the plot to continue. You just disguise it so it looks like they had control all along. However, you plan decision points into your adventure where the PCs truly have the ability to choose multiple paths. You just control which paths they can take so you have a plan for each choice.

Thus, why I said before that I don't think "Railroading" is always bad. As a player, I know that every dungeon I've ever walked into is pretty much railroading. I know that once I step in there I will have a very small number of choices(maybe even none), all of them decided upon by the DM. I see no problem with structuring an adventure that isn't a dungeon crawl in the same manner. The only difference is that the walls of the dungeon are replaced by "walls" of plot that carefully keep the players on one of a couple of paths you have chosen for them. They can choose to go "left" or "right" but "forward" there is a "wall" in their way. If you can do it well, players don't even see the "walls". They even think it is their decision to follow the "hallways".

This philosophy is in direct opposition of what I see as "simulation" which I define as "let the rules define the world and let the players do whatever they want and then react to it."

It's a philosophy that says to plan in terms of "The players will have to find an artifact. It is across the ocean on another continent. The Duke has a map that leads to it." then see if the players can figure out that the Duke has the map, see if they figure out to go talk to him, see if they can find a way to convince the Duke and let them use whatever skills they want to do it. It is more a focus on the rules and less on the "whys" behind the scene.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Don't insult other people who you disagree with. Your post could be just as easily categorised as ignorant by people who would suggest that you've not understood their position.

This leads to anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to the dark side (aka suspensions and bannings).

Nobody wants to go there, OK?

Thanks

 

[aybkamen]

This philosophy is in direct opposition of what I see as "simulation" which I define as "let the rules define the world and let the players do whatever they want and then react to it."

I think the definition you give is more accurate for "rule-driven" than for "simulationist"

Most people thinks about roleplaying as a rule-narrativist binomy.

I think it's a triangle. Draw a triangle and put "narrativist", "rule-driven" , "simulationist" in each vertex. Then try to find the point inside the triangle in which you are comfortable.

"Narrativist" means story driven. When you reach a point in story where you need to choose, your choice is dictated by what is good or bad to the story. It doesn't matter if it's not logic that the villain survives to 300 hundred meters fall, or if the rules say he cannot survive with only 3 hp left, he will appear again later so he's alive.

"Simulationist" means physics-logic driven. When you reach a point in story where you need to choose, your choice is dictated by world logic. You don't care if the rule states that the griffin cannot grapple the halfling because he did 1hp in an opportunity attack and this breaks the grapple attempt, or if the halfling is the last standing member of the party. The logic dictates that a 500 Kg griffin diving to a halfling at 80 mph with four claws prepared to grapple and that hits in an attack roll is not stopped by 1 hp damage.

"Rule-driven" means that the rules decide the outcome of the story. In the above situations you throw falling damage and let the dice decide, or you accept that the griffin cannot grapple the halfling because he doesn't have "improved grapple" feat

 

[Cadfan]

Skill challenges should be goal resolution devices not plan resolution devices.

Why?

One of my best quantum leaps in DMing skill, lets call it, came when I realized that I should be prepping plan resolution instead of goal resolution. I didn't use those words, but that was the insight. By decreasing the scope, I increased the focus, and provided a richer immersion. All that was necessary was to keep a constant eye on ensuring that the PCs telegraphed their intentions in advance, so that I could prepare for them.

For example, suppose the PCs have a preexisting friendly relationship with this Duke. They investigated the northern border at his request, and now they want him to loan them troops to nip a possible problem in the bud. The Duke, meanwhile, has other commanders who all compete for his attention and his resources. The PCs challenge is convincing the Duke that a potential problem on the northern border is important enough to redirect soldiers away from known problems on the southern border, and they're opposed by the commander of the southern border fortress, who naturally believes that his needs are more important.

Now, from context and from the PCs past, I know they're most likely to try to convince the Duke with logic, reason, and a few appeals to emotion. They're not likely to threaten him with bodily harm. In fact, if they did, it would be a "lets become pirates!" moment.* I'm confident enough in my skills and my rapport with my players to think that this isn't going to happen.

So I encourage the players to talk things over before they go to the Duke. To plan ahead, and get everyone "on message." They roleplay a little bit. This has two purposes. First, it lets them act in character, and that's healthy. Second, it lets me listen in, and write my notes on the encounter to explicitly address the player's plan.

Everyone has a richer experience as a result.

*We need a good name for this trope. You know, where the players chafe at the established plotline, and intentionally derail it by abandoning it to adventure elsewhere, far from the current game. "Screw this! I'm sick of trying to rescue this stupid princess from this stupid necromancer. Lets become pirates!"