They killed my abbrasive, quarrelsome, violent NPC that I loved so much

[Storm Raven]

Would you not "force" the PC to run away if he failed a save vs. cause fear?

There is a reason that magical fear and charm effects are called compulsions, and skill checks are not.

I definitely don't/wouldn't "force" a PC to take an action the Player didn't want. I do, however, expect the Player to role play the PC within the game world. I expect them to react favorably to a mage who just charmed them, and I expect them to react favorably to a cleric who just diplomacized them. This does not take the character's actions out of the Players hands, but rather gives them something to role play with/to.

Skills checks are not magical compulsions. Constantly trying to equate them just makes your argument ring hollow.

Don't say "the NPC is making an Intimidate check", tell the player what he sees, and let him draw his own conclusions. If the NPC makes an Intimidation roll, do the roll in secret and use that to inform the NPCs actions, then let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Quasqueton]

You appear to think it is somehow similar to a magical fear effect though, which seems to indicate you should look at it more carefully.

No. I was just comparing that both a skill and a magical effect can make a PC do something the Player might not want to do based on "just a die roll"; one is a skill check, the other a saving throw.

The Player might not want his PC to fall down, but it doesn't matter whether he fails his Balance check for mundane ice or his Reflex save for the grease spell: he will fall down due to "just a die roll". Ice is not a magical effect, but the results still come from a die roll.

I might, if they asked. If they walked up and threatened me, I probably would not be so polite.

Trying to push people around frequently just annoys them, rather than making them happy to do what you want. Intimidation is the puffing up of your apparent threat to a level that makes the target believe that not doing what you want will result in serious harm or death. The PC knows to a decent degree what this NPC is capable of, and has several other friends in the room he can rely upon to help him out if the swashbuckler starts a fight over who gets to walk around someone else. This makes Intimidate a less than useful skill in these circumstances.

Noted. In your games, Intimidate doesn't work unless the intimidater is polite and nice to those he tries to intimidate. "Fear me, please."

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

Skills checks are not magical compulsions. Constantly trying to equate them just makes your argument ring hollow.

Never said they were. You are just setting up a strawman argument.

Constantly stating that social skills have no useful effects makes your argument irrelevant.

Quasqueton

 

[shilsen]

And you seriously think that an intimidated person would not step out of the way of the intimidater?

Actually I've seen more than one situation where an intimidated person refused to back down (or step out of the intimidator's way, as in this example), through sheer stubbornness, even though obviously scared.

Also, check the DMG (pg.128) on affecting PC attitudes. Though the specific reference is to using Diplomacy and Charisma checks to influence others, I think the lpoint made there holds true in the situation you describe too - "NPCs can never influence PC attitutdes. The players always make their characters' decisions." The way I handle it is to make the opposed Intimidate checks secretly and describe the NPC accordingly (the same goes for NPCs using Bluff and Diplomacy), and let the players roleplay their PCs, taking my description into account.

 

[Farganger]

Would you not "force" the PC to run away if he failed a save vs. cause fear?

I definitely don't/wouldn't "force" a PC to take an action the Player didn't want. I do, however, expect the Player to role play the PC within the game world. I expect them to react favorably to a mage who just charmed them, and I expect them to react favorably to a cleric who just diplomacized them. This does not take the character's actions out of the Players hands, but rather gives them something to role play with/to.

Quasqueton

I'm going to be taking this approach in my game. An article I read recently (a d20 conversion of Dying Earth rules by Eberron's Keith Baker in issue 6 of "Excellent Prismatic Spray") sort of opened my mind to the possibility. I've always been of the old school "PCs don't have to be influenced by NPC social skill checks" approach, but Keith (and you) make a good point about it actually being an interesting role-playing opportunity.

Keith pointed out how in a setting like the Dying Earth that emphasizes badinage over battleaxes, you want to give social skills a real impact. He suggests players run with it, or if they can't stand being duped invest in sense motive.

As is often pointed out, PCs can be charmed or dominated - is it really so awful to experiment with letting them be fooled, bullied or cowed?

Thanks for provoking a good discussion, Quasqueton!

 

[enrious]

Page 128, DMG(R)

"However, NPCs can never influence PC Attitudes. The players always make their character's decisions."


Why?

Because this is a role-playing game, not an iron-shod dice version of scripted acting. IMO.


In the scene described, I could see and justify a number of responses the PC could have made. The manner in which he responded helped define his character, something forcing him into one way of acting would not have allowed.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Actually I've seen more than one situation where an intimidated person refused to back down (or step out of the intimidator's way, as in this example), through sheer stubbornness, even though obviously scared.

That would be a failed intimidate check then. Honestly, the rules are quite clear. Succeed at the check, and it changes the targets attitude. If the target's attitude is NOT changed, you failed.

Page 128, DMG(R)

"However, NPCs can never influence PC Attitudes. The players always make their character's decisions."

Why?

Because players bitch about that kind of thing. Hell, I've known players who quit a game because the DM transported them to an alternate dimension (temporarily), and that was too much of a loss of creative control for them. A good player will LISTEN to the GM when he says "this guy is quite likeable" or "the guy seems to be telling the truth as he understands it".

Because this is a role-playing game, not an iron-shod dice version of scripted acting. IMO.

You're supposed to play to the stimulus that the DM gives you - if he tells you someone is being intimidating, they're being intimidating, and you should play to that, not totally ignore it because you counted how many sneak attack dice they rolled.

In the scene described, I could see and justify a number of responses the PC could have made. The manner in which he responded helped define his character, something forcing him into one way of acting would not have allowed.

Ignoring the results of a social skill check isn't 'defining your character', it's being a jerk. It's the equivalent of having your character be more afraid of an NPC who sunders gear than of the guy who will kill you, because after all, you can just be resurrected or roll up a new character if you die, right?

Frankly, it's not conducive to a good game.

 

[IcyCool]

Would you not "force" the PC to run away if he failed a save vs. cause fear?

I definitely don't/wouldn't "force" a PC to take an action the Player didn't want. I do, however, expect the Player to role play the PC within the game world. I expect them to react favorably to a mage who just charmed them, and I expect them to react favorably to a cleric who just diplomacized them. This does not take the character's actions out of the Players hands, but rather gives them something to role play with/to.

Quasqueton

I see no reason why the intimidated character wouldn't or couldn't stand up to this bully, especially with friends in the room (did you give the player a bonus to his opposed roll?). He could indeed stand defiantly in her way, staring at her with fear filled eyes and say, *gulp* "Walk around, b****."

Would she know he's scared of her? Yes. Would she likely try to murder him in a public place? Unless she is a raging psychopath, no. Based off your description of her, I'd say she is. Perhaps rather than stabbing someone (lethal, intent to kill) as her first response to an insult, she might kick or punch them (subdual, intent to hurt and belittle)?

Did the player role play the intimidate roll well? If he portrayed his fear in some way, yes. As was said earlier, this is a defining moment for the character.

I may be mistaken (it's been known to happen on a regular basis), but the intimidate skill does not require that the intimidated individual act according to the intimidater's wishes. It merely makes them much more likely to comply with said wishes. The Cause Fear spell is a magical compulsion effect which, if you fail your save, requires you to run away. Why you insist on comparing it to the Cause Fear spell is beyond me though. Apples to Oranges, mate, apples to Oranges.

 

[Quasqueton]

Why you insist on comparing it to the Cause Fear spell is beyond me though. Apples to Oranges, mate, apples to Oranges.

I'm very close to cussing now. I DID NOT COMPARE THE EFFECTS OF AN INTIMIDATE SKILL CHECK TO THE EFFECTS OF THE CAUSE FEAR SPELL!!! Read what I friggin' typed. I compared the facts that both give a result based on a die roll. READ MY DAMN POST! Don't infer. Don't twist my meaning.

Quote where I said Intimidate = cause fear. Quote it or shut up about it.

Quasqueton

 

[Sammael]

At any rate, it seems as if you were forcing this rather bitchy and haughty NPC on the PCs who aren't the nicest bunch around anyhow (a cleric of Hextor? LE, presumably? and probably wants to be in charge?). I'll re-iterate what I said that it's a surprise they didn't attempt to get rid of her before.