Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deadstop" data-source="post: 4204234" data-attributes="member: 61557">The &quot;duke doesn't take well to intimidation&quot; example seems to be part of the new way they're &quot;statting out&quot; NPCs for use in social challenges like this one.Look back at the &quot;vampire caravanserai&quot; Role vs. Roll article. All the NPCs are described in terms of which social skills work best on them, and which are more likely to backfire. As in the current example, non-social skills are also mentioned as handy ways of picking up information that might guide one's choice of social skills or even open up possibilities the players might not have thought of trying on their own.I think that's the reason they made sure to keep Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate as separate skills, even while collapsing a number of other skills together. They represent three general &quot;approaches&quot; to social interaction. Thus, even a character who sticks to the straight social skills (instead of attempting to justify the less-obvious Acrobatics attempt, for example) has multiple possible routes to take, and different NPCs are noted as responding differently to each one.I'll also jump on the bandwagon of folks pointing out that &quot;Using Intimidate always adds a failure&quot; doesn't necessarily mean &quot;You can't intimidate this guy.&quot; It means that taking such an approach in a negotiation/entreaty with this particular guy is counterproductive and will push you toward the less-desirable outcome of the challenge. As others have noted, a strongly intimidation-based approach might even appear to succeed, but the &quot;help&quot; the duke gives under duress will turn into a hindrance somewhere down the road. That would be a failure of the skill challenge through apparent success on Intimidate rolls.Even Escape from Sembia offered that kind of &quot;you kind of 'succeed,' but badness comes later&quot; consequence for failing the challenge. (It goes right along with the advice that failure on a challenge shouldn't bring the adventure to a halt.) IIRC, parties who failed the challenge in EfS still escaped, but were spotted enough times and left enough traces that there was now an ambush laid down the road.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deadstop, post: 4204234, member: 61557"] The "duke doesn't take well to intimidation" example seems to be part of the new way they're "statting out" NPCs for use in social challenges like this one. Look back at the "vampire caravanserai" Role vs. Roll article. All the NPCs are described in terms of which social skills work best on them, and which are more likely to backfire. As in the current example, non-social skills are also mentioned as handy ways of picking up information that might guide one's choice of social skills or even open up possibilities the players might not have thought of trying on their own. I think that's the reason they made sure to keep Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate as separate skills, even while collapsing a number of other skills together. They represent three general "approaches" to social interaction. Thus, even a character who sticks to the straight social skills (instead of attempting to justify the less-obvious Acrobatics attempt, for example) has multiple possible routes to take, and different NPCs are noted as responding differently to each one. I'll also jump on the bandwagon of folks pointing out that "Using Intimidate always adds a failure" doesn't necessarily mean "You can't intimidate this guy." It means that taking such an approach [I]in a negotiation/entreaty[/I] with [I]this particular guy[/I] is counterproductive and will push you toward the less-desirable outcome of the challenge. As others have noted, a strongly intimidation-based approach might even appear to succeed, but the "help" the duke gives under duress will turn into a hindrance somewhere down the road. That would be a failure of the skill challenge through apparent success on Intimidate rolls. Even Escape from Sembia offered that kind of "you kind of 'succeed,' but badness comes later" consequence for failing the challenge. (It goes right along with the advice that failure on a challenge shouldn't bring the adventure to a halt.) IIRC, parties who failed the challenge in EfS still escaped, but were spotted enough times and left enough traces that there was now an ambush laid down the road. [/QUOTE]

Verification