# Excerpt: skill challenges



## jaelis (May 5, 2008)

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080505a


----------



## jaelis (May 5, 2008)

Here's the text:

_From the first discussions about D&D 4th Edition, we knew that we wanted a mechanical subsystem as robust as combat that could handle the other things PCs do in an adventure—namely, social encounters and challenge encounters. We didn’t want a system that reduced all the intricacies of a situation to a single die roll; we also didn’t want a system that failed to add to the fun of an adventure. What we did want, for the situations that called for it, was a system full of tension, drama, and risk… the very essence of any D&D encounter.

The Skill Challenges system leaves plenty of room for roleplaying, while providing a sound mechanical rules element that allows for die rolling and the tension of a random element. It’s a robust system that can be used for any social encounter that includes real consequences for failure, as well as for other skill challenges that don’t involve combat—from finding your way out of a mysterious jungle, to taming a savage beast, to researching an ancient spell, and more.

What follows is the opening section of the Skill Challenges chapter, a few key sidebars, and a skill challenge template right out of the Dungeon Master’s Guide.

An audience with the duke, a mysterious set of sigils in a hidden chamber, finding your way through the Forest of Neverlight—all of these present challenges that test both the characters and the people who play them. The difference between a combat challenge and a skill challenge isn’t the presence or absence of physical risk, nor the presence or absence of attack rolls and damage rolls and power use. The difference is in how the encounter treats PC actions.

Skill challenges can account for all the action in a particular encounter, or they can be used as part of a combat encounter to add variety and a sense of urgency to the proceedings.
--Bill Slavicsek_

*The Basics*

To deal with a skill challenge, the player characters make skill checks to accumulate a number of successful skill uses before they rack up too many failures and end the encounter.

Example: The PCs seek a temple in dense jungle. Achieving six successes means they find their way. Accruing three failures before achieving the successes, however, indicates that they get themselves hopelessly lost in the wilderness.

*Is This a Challenge?*
It’s not a skill challenge every time you call for a skill check. When an obstacle takes only one roll to resolve, it’s not a challenge. One Diplomacy check to haggle with the merchant, one Athletics check to climb out of the pit trap, one Religion check to figure out whose sacred tome contains the parable—none of these constitutes a skill challenge.

*Encounters Have Consequences*

Skill challenges have consequences, positive and negative, just as combat encounters do. When the characters overcome a skill challenge, they earn the same rewards as when they slay monsters in combat—experience and perhaps treasure. The consequences of total defeat are often obvious: no XP and no treasure.

Success or failure in a skill challenge also influences the course of the adventure—the characters locate the temple and begin infiltrating it, or they get lost and must seek help. In either case, however, the adventure continues. With success, this is no problem, but don’t fall into the trap of making progress dependent on success in a skill challenge. Failure introduces complications rather than ending the adventure. If the characters get lost in the jungle, that leads to further challenges, not the end of the adventure.

*Sample Skill Challenges*

Use the following skill challenge templates as the basis for skill challenges you design for your adventures. The level and complexity values are suggestions only; adjust as necessary to meet the needs of your adventure.

*The Negotiation*
The duke sits at the head of his banquet table. Gesturing with a wine glass, he bids you to sit. “I’m told you have news from the borderlands.”

This skill challenge covers attempts to gain a favor or assistance from a local leader or other authority figure. The challenge might take only as long as a normal conversation, or it could stretch on for days as the characters perform tasks to earn the NPC’s favor.

Setup: 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.

_Level_: Equal to the level of the party.

_Complexity_: 3 (requires 8 successes before 4 failures).

_Primary Skills_: Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight.

    Bluff (moderate DCs): You try to encourage the NPC to aid your quest using false pretenses. Characters can cooperate to aid a lead character using this skill.

    Diplomacy (moderate DCs): You entreat the NPC for aid in your quest. First success with this skill opens up the use of the History skill (the NPC mentions an event from the past that has significance to him).

    Insight (moderate DCs): You empathize with the NPC and use that knowledge to encourage assistance. First success with this skill reveals that any use of the Intimidate skill earns a failure.

    History (easy DC): You make an insightful remark about the significant event from the NPC’s past. This is available only after one character has gained a success using the Diplomacy skill, and it can be used only once in this way during the challenge.

    Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.

Success: The NPC agrees to provide reasonable assistance to the characters. This could include treasure.

Failure: The characters are forced to act without the NPC’s assistance. They encounter more trouble, which may be sent by the NPC out of anger or antagonism.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 5, 2008)

Nice, Skill Challenges CHAPTER.  Me likey.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 5, 2008)

Yep likey the CHAPTER, however the excerpt tells me nuffin much
Just reiterates what we already know, that it is similar to UA extended skill checks, with fails/success giving concrete game results, but you can use a mix of skills, oh well only a few more weeks to go......


----------



## Hawke (May 5, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> Nice, Skill Challenges CHAPTER.  Me likey.




The more I read about how 4E is going to work the more useful I think the DMG will be...and that's a good thing.


----------



## NebtheNever (May 5, 2008)

Not much new info here, but this does at least tell us the Skill Challenge system isn't a silly "Roll high with a random skill and you succeed" system like some were suggesting. I also like the concept of certain skills opening up other checks, and certain skills being off limits or even detrimental in certain situations.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 5, 2008)

Yeah, the excerpt is a bit dry.  Short on details.  The example challenge is a good example of a social skill based challenge, which we really hadn't seen before.


----------



## jaelis (May 5, 2008)

It's a bit different than what I got from the Escape from Sembia discussion.  There it seemed like you could use just about any skill, while the example here is more limited than that.  (Which is reasonable enough.)

So what would happen if a PC tried to impress the duke with his acrobatics skill?  Would it be an automatic failure, or would it not count for anything?


----------



## AllisterH (May 5, 2008)

It does answer a few questions...

Certain skills can be unlocked as you go and that it isn't JUST pick a skill and roll. As well, you can't simply say "Roll easy DCs and accumulate successes..."


----------



## Cadfan (May 5, 2008)

Simple and efficient.  I heartily approve.  I like seeing the template- its a solid method for a DM to use in designing his own skill challenges.

*waits for mea culpas from everyone who declared the sky to be falling because one DM in a demo game allowed an atypical use of the History skill on a "what the heck, why not" basis*


----------



## jaldaen (May 5, 2008)

Short and sweet... but don't they know good things come in threes... they should give us a couple more examples... just to... umm... make sure we get it... yeah that's the ticket.


----------



## MerricB (May 5, 2008)

A few things of note:

* Not every skill works in every challenge. Note how Intimidate is specifically barred from working in that particular challenge.

* Successful skill use opens up use of other skills. Diplomacy leads to History? Fantastic; if you try to Bluff your way through it doesn't happen.

Me like a lot.

Cheers!


----------



## Hawke (May 5, 2008)

So my questions: 

1) When it says "Level" and the answer is "of the entire party" what does that mean? It implies sometimes levels will be specific? How do these encounters scale with level or is this just an XP thing. 

2) Complexity 3 - any idea what this means?

3) Moderate DCs ... is this a specific number or will there be mechanics about this that we don't really grasp. 

I do also note that it says "Moderate DCs" suggesting they could be used multiple times (each time must be a different character?) but then an easy DC (singular) indicating you can only use the history once. That sound accurate?


----------



## malraux (May 5, 2008)

I like how there's no specific "right" way to pass a skill challenge.  While I can see why the 3e system of skills was a vast improvement over what came before it, you kinda hit a wall wherein there's a specific skill that must be used.  Regardless of what the trap is, for example, all that really matters is what the disable device DC is.  Assuming these are fleshed out, and having a dedicated chapter likely means they will, the 4e DMG would be a worthwhile pickup even for 3e DMs, if only just for this chapter.


----------



## NebtheNever (May 5, 2008)

jaelis said:
			
		

> It's a bit different than what I got from the Escape from Sembia discussion.  There it seemed like you could use just about any skill, while the example here is more limited than that.  (Which is reasonable enough.)
> 
> So what would happen if a PC tried to impress the duke with his acrobatics skill?  Would it be an automatic failure, or would it not count for anything?




For non-primary skills, I think PCs would have to be a little more creative. Perhaps you find the court jester and impress _him_ with your Acrobatics skill, and this opens up a way to get the Jester to speak on your behalf to the Duke.


----------



## NebtheNever (May 5, 2008)

Hawke said:
			
		

> 2) Complexity 3 - any idea what this means?




Probably means 8 successes before 4 failures.


----------



## Kzach (May 5, 2008)

Ok, I'm daft. I don't get it.

How does a skill challenge actually play out?

Also, this looks really complex. Not something I could just whip up on the fly. So far, I'm not keen on it.


----------



## AllisterH (May 5, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> I like how there's no specific "right" way to pass a skill challenge.  While I can see why the 3e system of skills was a vast improvement over what came before it, you kinda hit a wall wherein there's a specific skill that must be used.  Regardless of what the trap is, for example, all that really matters is what the disable device DC is.  Assuming these are fleshed out, and having a dedicated chapter likely means they will, the 4e DMG would be a worthwhile pickup even for 3e DMs, if only just for this chapter.




I wonder about opposed rolls though...Bluff for example was an opposed roll versus Sense Motive in 3E....

Well, it is an excerpt from a chapter...


----------



## charlesatan (May 5, 2008)

Hawke said:
			
		

> 1) When it says "Level" and the answer is "of the entire party" what does that mean? It implies sometimes levels will be specific? How do these encounters scale with level or is this just an XP thing.




Most likely yes to both (challenges scale with party level and dictate how much XP it's worth).



			
				Hawke said:
			
		

> 2) Complexity 3 - any idea what this means?




Basically how "difficult" it is, or how many success vs failures is involved in the challenge. There's probably a chart in the book.



			
				Hawke said:
			
		

> 3) Moderate DCs ... is this a specific number or will there be mechanics about this that we don't really grasp.




There'll most likely be mechanics for it, something along the lines of Moderate DC = 15 + 1/2 level or Easy DC = 10 + 1/2 level.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 5, 2008)

Hawke said:
			
		

> So my questions:
> 
> 1) When it says "Level" and the answer is "of the entire party" what does that mean? It implies sometimes levels will be specific? How do these encounters scale with level or is this just an XP thing.
> 
> ...




1.  I would assume it scales to level by its complexity.  A tough skill challenge, with a small margin for error (only a few failures needed to lose) and/or high DCs would constitute a challenge above party level, I would guess.

2.  Now sure.  It could just be a reference to a table or some guideline about the ratio of successes to failures or the DCs.  

3.  Probably a lot of DM wiggle room.  I did notice there was nothing in that excerpt about "bidding" on difficulty.  It could still be there, and the range is just set by the middle DC, the one for a "normal" try.


----------



## A'koss (May 5, 2008)

More interesting than I was expecting. The idea of using one skill to open up the easy use of another related skill to assist is pretty clever on their part. 

Me likey...


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 5, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I wonder about opposed rolls though...Bluff for example was an opposed roll versus Sense Motive in 3E....
> Well, it is an excerpt from a chapter...



They addressed the issue of opposed rolls in social situations with passive Insight and Perception, I believe.  Dumbed it down too much in my opinion.


----------



## DandD (May 5, 2008)

jaelis said:
			
		

> So what would happen if a PC tried to impress the duke with his acrobatics skill?  Would it be an automatic failure, or would it not count for anything?



Well, depends how you intend to use the "acrobatic skills", if you understand what I mean. 

Though if you only mean doing some funny things like balancing on a ball, or doing backflips for entertainment, it surely is entertaining, but what does it help the duke directly? The goal is to convince the NPC that there is something to gain for him, after all. Unless the NPC asks or demands an acrobatic act from the PCs, I wouldn't see the benefit for the acrobatic skill either. It's rather, why should I send 100 of my best men to aid these adventurers to the Doomdark Castle-ruins (which is infested with Gnoll Marauders, by the way)? What's in for me? That would be an example, I guess. 
That's why insight, following history checks, bluff and diplomacy might and should be applied, but a circus performance won't do it. 
And normally, guests don't perform and beg simultaneously. A rich and influencial host would have his own entertainer to provide amusement for the evening, while the PCs ask/beg for assistance. It would be too shameful for the host, otherwise, if the PC-guests had to do things themselves.


----------



## AllisterH (May 5, 2008)

It does say Primary skills which implies that secondary skills are available to be used...


----------



## AllisterH (May 5, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> They addressed the issue of opposed rolls in social situations with passive Insight and Perception, I believe.  Dumbed it down too much in my opinion.




How so? Did Sense Motive become Insight?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 5, 2008)

I actually like the version that folks here were bandying about. It wasn't "Roll a random skill..." it was, "Do a little roleplaying and convince me that your skill is relevant to the challenge." I _liked_ that. It strongly encouraged players to be engaged and creative.

I also specifically _don't_ like what others have said here they do like: That some skills earn you automatic failures. 

It's the problem of absolutes, again. You're telling me it is IMPOSSIBLE for my character to ever Intimidate the Duke? Just a flat out failure? Bad designers! Bad! It may be a semantic thing, but it's important. Crank the DC up by 5 or 10 points, but don't tell me it's literally impossible.

Overall Skill Challenges are a huge win. One of the best and biggest steps forward for the game, IMO.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 5, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> How so? Did Sense Motive become Insight?



Essentially, Insight covers your ability to read and understand the behaviour and expressions/talking of those around you.


----------



## jaelis (May 5, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Well, depends how you intend to use the "acrobatic skills", if you understand what I mean.
> 
> Though if you only mean doing some funny things like balancing on a ball, or doing backflips for entertainment, it surely is entertaining, but what does it help the duke directly? The goal is to convince the NPC that there is something to gain for him, after all. Unless the NPC asks or demands an acrobatic act from the PCs, I wouldn't see the benefit for the acrobatic skill either. It's rather, why should I send 100 of my best men to aid these adventurers to the Doomdark Castle-ruins (which is infested with Gnoll Marauders, by the way)? What's in for me? That would be an example, I guess.
> That's why insight, following history checks, bluff and diplomacy might and should be applied, but a circus performance won't do it.
> And normally, guests don't perform and beg simultaneously. A rich and influencial host would have his own entertainer to provide amusement for the evening, while the PCs ask/beg for assistance. It would be too shameful for the host, otherwise, if the PC-guests had to do things themselves.



I was being a bit facetious with the example, but I think its still a valid point in general.  For instance, a player might try to use the history skill to see if there was anything in the duke's background that would provide leverage of some kind.  Evidently there actually is.  But what if he tried to use history without first succeeding on a diplomacy check?

And it's not like the DM just says, "you can try bluff, diplomacy or insight."  Because clearly the option to try intimidate is there.


----------



## Cryptos (May 5, 2008)

Hawke said:
			
		

> So my questions:
> 
> 1) When it says "Level" and the answer is "of the entire party" what does that mean? It implies sometimes levels will be specific? How do these encounters scale with level or is this just an XP thing.
> 
> ...




1)  I think that indicates what a low, moderate, or high DC would be for the skill challenge - DCs vary by level.  They'd almost have to, with the way that check modifiers increase (1/2 level + bonus...)  So a skill challenge "equal to the level of the party" would mean that the target DCs are appropriate to the party's level.

2) It's the success / fail threshold, or so it appears.  Complexity 3 is apparently 8 successes against four failures.

3) See #1... a moderate DC for a 1st level party might be 15 or 20, whereas a moderate DC for a level 20 party would likely be much higher (as they're adding 1/2 their level (+10) to their rolls.)


----------



## hong (May 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I actually like the version that folks here were bandying about. It wasn't "Roll a random skill..." it was, "Do a little roleplaying and convince me that your skill is relevant to the challenge." I _liked_ that. It strongly encouraged players to be engaged and creative.
> 
> I also specifically _don't_ like what others have said here they do like: That some skills earn you automatic failures.
> 
> It's the problem of absolutes, again. You're telling me it is IMPOSSIBLE for my character to ever Intimidate the Duke? Just a flat out failure? Bad designers! Bad! It may be a semantic thing, but it's important. Crank the DC up by 5 or 10 points, but don't tell me it's literally impossible.



Eh, what one DM calls "impossible", another DM will call "very hard". It's just a formalised out for DMs who want the ability to call shenanigans on what they perceive to be cheesy exploits.

The "level" of the challenge probably sets the DC for the easy/moderate/hard checks; in turn, this determines how much XP the party gets from the challenge.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 5, 2008)

Even though I have really enjoyed the non combat side of D&D in 3.5, a lot of times it really came down on the DM to just sort of wing it.  There werent any base rules for dealing with getting chased in a city, or having to convince a mob not to listen to the opposition.  At best you had the rules for skills, but even then it still came down to the DM having to fiddle arround and sort of wing it.  Now it always worked out in the end, and it was always a lot of fun, but I am really glad that in 4ed there will be some sort of structure to "social encounters" that a DM can fall back on.


----------



## DandD (May 5, 2008)

jaelis said:
			
		

> I was being a bit facetious with the example, but I think its still a valid point in general.  For instance, a player might try to use the history skill to see if there was anything in the duke's background that would provide leverage of some kind.  Evidently there actually is.  But what if he tried to use history without first succeeding on a diplomacy check?
> 
> And it's not like the DM just says, "you can try bluff, diplomacy or insight."  Because clearly the option to try intimidate is there.



I guess it still is up to the gamemaster to decide if one should roll a skill check in the skill challenge. It's when you try to intimidate him that you have to roll intimidate... But that's either an automatic failure (not so good mechanically, in my opinion), or simply a much much higher DC (which I personally would rather suggest).


----------



## cferejohn (May 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I actually like the version that folks here were bandying about. It wasn't "Roll a random skill..." it was, "Do a little roleplaying and convince me that your skill is relevant to the challenge." I _liked_ that. It strongly encouraged players to be engaged and creative.




I'm pretty sure that's still on the table. This looks like a guideline. I would be surprised if there isn't some text saying "if a character can come up with a convincing reason why another skill would be relevant, you are free to allow it." 



> It's the problem of absolutes, again. You're telling me it is IMPOSSIBLE for my character to ever Intimidate the Duke? Just a flat out failure? Bad designers! Bad! It may be a semantic thing, but it's important. Crank the DC up by 5 or 10 points, but don't tell me it's literally impossible.




Meh. Do it yourself. It's *possible* for you to write a skill challenge like this one, but you are free to disregard absolutes. I mean, if you have a skill challenge where characters have to cross a 50' chasm with some rope, a grappling hook, and a fallen tree, I think you are perfectly within your rights to say "a jump check automatically fails".


----------



## charlesatan (May 5, 2008)

jaelis said:
			
		

> I was being a bit facetious with the example, but I think its still a valid point in general.  For instance, a player might try to use the history skill to see if there was anything in the duke's background that would provide leverage of some kind.  Evidently there actually is.  But what if he tried to use history without first succeeding on a diplomacy check?




It's not in the stated rules but I think the suggested applicable skills are a suggestion (i.e. you're playing from a module) rather than a hard-and-fast definitive skill set.

As for your Acrobat/History question, I'd probably call it that you can make a History roll and success opens up the Acrobat "victory condition" (if applicable) although success in the History roll itself does grant you one step closer to accomplishing the skill challenge (which is different from the diplomacy + history roll as success in both entails 2 "successes").



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I also specifically _don't_ like what others have said here they do like: That some skills earn you automatic failures.
> 
> It's the problem of absolutes, again. You're telling me it is IMPOSSIBLE for my character to ever Intimidate the Duke? Just a flat out failure? Bad designers! Bad! It may be a semantic thing, but it's important. Crank the DC up by 5 or 10 points, but don't tell me it's literally impossible.




For me, it's about GM Fiat. Maybe as GM, I envision the Duke as not the type that responds positively to being intimidated. Sure, you can intimidate him, but instead of being afraid, he responds via anger (even if it might be suicidal). For me, the "penalties" are there so that players don't simply use every skill in their character sheet but have to decide which is optimal in the situation (and rack their brains). Ultimately, if you don't need it, it's easier to remove the Intimidate entry.


----------



## Cadfan (May 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It's the problem of absolutes, again. You're telling me it is IMPOSSIBLE for my character to ever Intimidate the Duke? Just a flat out failure? Bad designers! Bad! It may be a semantic thing, but it's important. Crank the DC up by 5 or 10 points, but don't tell me it's literally impossible.



I don't think the idea is that the Duke is un-intimidatable.  I think the idea is that for this set of player characters, with what they have to use as leverage, they haven't got anything that will scare the Duke at this particular moment.


----------



## hbarsquared (May 5, 2008)

Although I have loved the concept of skill challenges, up to now, I am unfortunately a bit disappointed in the preview.  The "overview" portion said nothing new (besides the fact that we have a "CHAPTER" devoted to skill challenges; yay!), and the example was a lot more constraining than peoples' experiences.

I am hoping that the _"choose your skill, roleplay your action, roll check, DM adjudicates"_ is still a primary method in skill challenges.

With that said...

I like some of the mechanics introduced in the "Template."  I like the idea of having particular skills cause automatic failures, when used sparingly, and when used in conjunction with the DC spectrum (easy, moderate, hard).  I like successful skills "opening up" other skills.  _From a DM perspective._

For instance, if the DM makes sure when presenting this noble NPC as one unswayed by intimidation, it would make sense for the use of Intimidate to result in an automatic failure.  (Just as if you had a challenge where an NPC is portrayed as extremely urbanized: a Nature check should also result in failure).

Or, when a character has a successful Diplomacy check, the DM can then roleplay the NPC as having an obviously link with the History skill - perhaps this is a hint of the "free skill check when succeeding on a Hard DC?

Anyway, my appetite was whetted a long time ago, and the Skill Challenges CHAPTER will be the first page to which I turn when I get my hands on the books.


----------



## malraux (May 5, 2008)

I would hope that the non-primary skills could still be used, just at a penalty.  For the acrobatics example, if the party is trying to convince the NPC that they are the talent needed to infiltrate castle, and the rogue uses acrobatics to leap to the rafters and reach the roof in mere seconds, it indicates great skill in the party, just as the ranger shooting a copper piece in the air from 30 paces does.  Sure, it shouldn't result in automatically "winning" but that's why the system requires many checks.


----------



## Klaus (May 5, 2008)

Many things in 4E are evolutions from UA. Complex Skill Checks -> Skill Challenges. Level-Independent Benefits (and how to build an encounter) -> 4E XP system.


----------



## Fobok (May 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I also specifically _don't_ like what others have said here they do like: That some skills earn you automatic failures.




This to me is a major issue with it too. I can see it being very difficult to intimidate a Duke surrounded by his guards, but I like to leave the option open. That's probably how I'll be running things.


----------



## jaelis (May 5, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> I would hope that the non-primary skills could still be used, just at a penalty.



That sounds like a pretty good way to do it.  Perhaps that's how it is.


----------



## cferejohn (May 5, 2008)

Dating myself here, but if anyone remembers the original release of Gamma World (a TSR post-apocolytic RPG), there were three different flow charts for figuring out weapons or other technological doo-dads. The more complicated the weapon, the more complicated the chart. In each step you rolled a die and depending on the result you went one way or the other on the chart. It could end with success, breaking the doo-dad, or having the doo-dad explode. 

This reminds me of a somewhat more flexible version of that, especially with the idea of some skill checks opening up other ones. I could even see this concept amortized over an entire adventure where the characters had to have 4 "successes" before 2 "failures" where successes could be things like defeating a certain monster, destroying a certain relic of unholy might, etc.

Anyway, just coffeehousing. Looking forward to it!


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I actually like the version that folks here were bandying about. It wasn't "Roll a random skill..." it was, "Do a little roleplaying and convince me that your skill is relevant to the challenge." I _liked_ that. It strongly encouraged players to be engaged and creative.
> 
> I also specifically _don't_ like what others have said here they do like: That some skills earn you automatic failures.
> 
> ...




Its not that you can intimidate the duke, its that intimidating him wont get you to your goal.  Whether he calls the guard and has you locked up, or he is such a whim that if you intimidate him he will flee and lock himself in his mansion.  In the end its not that you didnt succede in intimidating him, its that intimidating him doesnt compleate your task.

But then again thats only for the example given.  What it if in your campaign your PCs found out that the duke was stealing from the local taxes and fudging the numbers before sending them off to the kingdom?  Then the PC might hold it over his head, intimidating him into helping the PCs (you could even make the discovery a quest and then if the PCs succeed they now have an easy DC where before they would only have medium and hard DCs).

Remember, this is your campaign, but the concept of skills that will be a total failure if tried does makes sence, and IMO its a great mechanic.


----------



## VannATLC (May 5, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Ok, I'm daft. I don't get it.
> 
> How does a skill challenge actually play out?
> 
> Also, this looks really complex. Not something I could just whip up on the fly. So far, I'm not keen on it.





I'd like to know the first part as well, as regards the second..

You're not *supposed* to whip it up on the fly.

You're not supposed to whip up combat on the fly either.

Maybe you, personally, can, but that's not the intent, and planning gives better results, most cases.

Good combat challenges are no less complex than this.


----------



## GSHamster (May 5, 2008)

This system seems very "wingable".  The example given is what I'd like to see a module provide, so that you get some direction how things will evolve. 

However, for my own adventures, I think I'd just leave it very open, and see what skills the players come up with.


----------



## Rechan (May 5, 2008)

charlesatan said:
			
		

> For me, it's about GM Fiat. Maybe as GM, I envision the Duke as not the type that responds positively to being intimidated. Sure, you can intimidate him, but instead of being afraid, he responds via anger (even if it might be suicidal).



That's my read of it. Similar to how flattery and "buttering up" a pious, humble monk gets you no where. 

Intimidation hurts you because _This Duke_ doesn't take intimidation kindly. It makes him less likely to help you out. 

In a different situation, with say, talking to a Dragon, bluff may be out, because that dragon is just too dang sharp for your lies.

Or another situation, where you try to bribe a guard, and he, being a Strong Lawful Individual, takes that as a grave offense to the oath he gave as an upholder of the law.


----------



## baberg (May 5, 2008)

Fobok said:
			
		

> This to me is a major issue with it too. I can see it being very difficult to intimidate a Duke surrounded by his guards, but I like to leave the option open. That's probably how I'll be running things.



It all depends on how the challenge is setup.  In this example we're really given no details - maybe the Duke is actually a level 20 Warlord and knows that he could wipe the floor with the party.  Maybe the Duke is a wimpy noble who's never been confronted in his life and thus reacts so negatively to criticism or threats as to be one step away from calling his guards.

I think I will have some auto-fail skills, but only if it's very clear that it won't work to the PCs (the description earlier of a Nature check always failing if the NPC is clearly urban).  I think I'd allow a natural 20 to be a "no bet" situation where it's neither a success nor a failure, mostly because I think most players would say "But I rolled a natural 20!" when I say "The Duke calls in his guards and bellows at you" in this example.

Oh, and as for the non-primary skills?  If my PCs come up with a good reason for why Acrobatics or Singing would help, I'd allow it with a moderately hard DC level, decreasing the DC if the PCs roleplaying and reasoning was especially good.  If he just says "I use Acrobatics to, um, impress the Duke" then he's getting a failure and ridiculed by the NPC.


----------



## hbarsquared (May 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I also specifically don't like what others have said here they do like: That some skills earn you automatic failures.





			
				Fobok said:
			
		

> This to me is a major issue with it too. I can see it being very difficult to intimidate a Duke surrounded by his guards, but I like to leave the option open. That's probably how I'll be running things.




Seriously, there is nothing to take issue _with._  This was one example, provided as a template.  As a DM, you don't need to have Intimidate be an automatic failure, the template is a suggestion.

While at the same time it allows some DMs to say, "Hm, I would like certain skills to result in automatic failures to add a degree of complexity/challenge to the encounter."

I would much rather an example suggest that you can have skills result in automatic failure than to imply that _all skills_ are equally valid and _must_ have an attainable DC.


----------



## Torchlyte (May 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I actually like the version that folks here were bandying about. It wasn't "Roll a random skill..." it was, "Do a little roleplaying and convince me that your skill is relevant to the challenge." I _liked_ that. It strongly encouraged players to be engaged and creative.
> 
> I also specifically _don't_ like what others have said here they do like: That some skills earn you automatic failures.
> 
> ...




I agree, except for the 'huge win' part. I think this is a very bad example to give DMs because it involves cooking up what PCs can or can't do ahead of time. I would probably play skill challenges more openly, because this whole "you can't intimidate the Duke" thing screams railroad to me.


----------



## Rechan (May 5, 2008)

I'm willing to bet there's a chart in the DMG that looks something like the 3e CR/EL chart. Level + Complexity = Easy/Moderate/Hard DCs. That way all you have to do is cross-reference and you have your numbers there instead of pulling them out of your butt.


----------



## Klaus (May 5, 2008)

jeremy_dnd said:
			
		

> Although I have loved the concept of skill challenges, up to now, I am unfortunately a bit disappointed in the preview.  The "overview" portion said nothing new (besides the fact that we have a "CHAPTER" devoted to skill challenges; yay!), and the example was a lot more constraining than peoples' experiences.
> 
> I am hoping that the _"choose your skill, roleplay your action, roll check, DM adjudicates"_ is still a primary method in skill challenges.
> 
> ...



 It's easy to reverse this Encounter Challenge for a less-than-steady type, and include some "good cop, bad cop" mechanics.



> This skill challenge covers attempts to gain a favor or assistance from a local fence or other criminal figure. The challenge might take only as long as a normal conversation, or it could stretch on for days as the characters perform tasks to force the NPC’s hand.
> 
> Setup: For the NPC to provide assistance, the PCs need to convince him or her of their ruthlessness and might and that not helping their cause might hurt the NPC in some way.
> 
> ...


----------



## jaldaen (May 5, 2008)

I actually don't mind the automatic failure for Intimidate b/c I'm reading it as a sample skill challenge template and not a hard and fast rule for all negotions. 

This particular sample has a duke who does not respond well to Intimidate. I think this opens up a lot of possibilities for building an NPCs personality into the skill challenges. 

Another duke or important person might...
...be more easily intimidated by the PCs (Intimidate, perhaps opened up once a History or Streetwise skill check is made to discover something about his past).
...enjoy feats of buffonery (Acrobatics).
...be impressed with a display of athletics (Athletics).
...have a keen interest in religion (Religion).
...hate anything to do with the arcane (Arcane, automatic failure just for bringing up the subject in his presence)

There are all manner of ways to build an NPCs personality into these skill challenges... I really like it.


----------



## Rechan (May 5, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> Oh, and as for the non-primary skills?  If my PCs come up with a good reason for why Acrobatics or Singing would help, I'd allow it with a moderately hard DC level, decreasing the DC if the PCs roleplaying and reasoning was especially good.  If he just says "I use Acrobatics to, um, impress the Duke" then he's getting a failure and ridiculed by the NPC.



Right. I actually like the suggestion someone gave earlier: use the Acrobatics skill on the Jester to teach him a thing or two, win him over, and that either gives a bonus to another PC by the Jester backing them up, Unlocks another skill (the Jester giving them a tip), or some other beanie.

Just "I'll use my underwater basketweaving to get us out of this execution" doesn't fly. They need to think outside the box.


----------



## MindWanderer (May 5, 2008)

Here's what worries me:

Say the party has a half-elf warlock with Diplomacy trained.  That's probably about a +11 Diplomacy at level 1.  The sample encounter is clearly a social skill challenge.  What's to prevent a party deciding, "The warlock's Diplomacy check is the best relevant skill in the party here.  We'll just have this whole challenge be based on that."  And it's probably the best idea.  If you have a tiefling rogue in the party with a +10 Bluff, that character still shouldn't bother participating unless you have some idea that bluffing will be easier in this case (like History is).

For module designers, it's great to come up with all these options, so parties are more likely to be able to give it a shot, but in a typical adventure, one person will probably be doing all the talking, all the time, with the best skill modifier.  It discourages group participation most of the time (possible exception: the Bluff entry says "Characters can cooperate to aid a lead character using this skill."  But that still encourages a single approach.)


----------



## NebtheNever (May 5, 2008)

As far as barring skills in certain situations, this is another instance where I think clever role-playing on the part of the PCs could allow them to use a skill they wouldn't be able to use normally. (Since I just thought of this on the fly, this probably sounds similar to my previous example.) Instead of trying to intimidate the Duke (who's surely not going to capitulate in public with other nobles around), you could intimidate the Duke's wife. Tell her that if the Duke doesn't help, the monsters the PCs are fighting are going to overrun his territory and kill him. So she should really try to convince the Duke to help the PCs, for his own sake.


----------



## jaelis (May 5, 2008)

NebtheNever said:
			
		

> if the Duke doesn't help, the monsters the PCs are fighting are going to overrun his territory and kill him. So she should really try to convince the Duke to help the PCs, for his own sake.



That sounds like diplomacy to me.  I'd have thought intimidate would really involve threats from the PCs themselves.


----------



## NebtheNever (May 5, 2008)

MindWanderer said:
			
		

> Here's what worries me:
> 
> Say the party has a half-elf warlock with Diplomacy trained.  That's probably about a +11 Diplomacy at level 1.  The sample encounter is clearly a social skill challenge.  What's to prevent a party deciding, "The warlock's Diplomacy check is the best relevant skill in the party here.  We'll just have this whole challenge be based on that."  And it's probably the best idea.  If you have a tiefling rogue in the party with a +10 Bluff, that character still shouldn't bother participating unless you have some idea that bluffing will be easier in this case (like History is).
> 
> For module designers, it's great to come up with all these options, so parties are more likely to be able to give it a shot, but in a typical adventure, one person will probably be doing all the talking, all the time, with the best skill modifier.  It discourages group participation most of the time (possible exception: the Bluff entry says "Characters can cooperate to aid a lead character using this skill."  But that still encourages a single approach.)




To prevent PCs from using the same skill over and over again in a skill challenge, all you have to do is role-play the scenario properly. The Warlord uses Diplomacy to explain to the Duke that it's in his best interest to help the PCs because sooner or later, the evil cultists the PCs are investigating might become a real threat.

After that the Warlord uses Diplomacy to... what? Unless the Warlord can think of another good application of the Diplomacy skill, the Duke responds with, "Yes, you already made that point!" which would count as no successes or perhaps a failure if the Warlord player kept going at it.

Mechanics-wise, this represents a fixed number of times a certain skill can be used in an encounter, which you write out beforehand and then adjust based on however the scenario actually plays out and what the PCs do.

Edit: You said Warlock, not Warlord. Whoops.


----------



## NebtheNever (May 5, 2008)

jaelis said:
			
		

> That sounds like diplomacy to me.  I'd have thought intimidate would really involve threats from the PCs themselves.




*shrug* I was envisioning the PCs cornering the wife in her room at night and demanding she talk to him or else.


----------



## charlesatan (May 5, 2008)

MindWanderer said:
			
		

> Here's what worries me:
> 
> Say the party has a half-elf warlock with Diplomacy trained.  That's probably about a +11 Diplomacy at level 1.  The sample encounter is clearly a social skill challenge.  What's to prevent a party deciding, "The warlock's Diplomacy check is the best relevant skill in the party here.  We'll just have this whole challenge be based on that."  And it's probably the best idea.  If you have a tiefling rogue in the party with a +10 Bluff, that character still shouldn't bother participating unless you have some idea that bluffing will be easier in this case (like History is).




If as a player, I saw the GM's notes, that may be very well true.

But as a player, what's probably going through my mind is what skills can I use to help in this encounter?

Sure, the group might think "hey, let's use Diplomacy" at the outset and keep at it. But if the DC is too high, they might think "there must be another useful skill in this encounter or another skill that has a lower DC". Or sometimes, it's just variety ("let's give each player a chance to roll...").


----------



## jelmore (May 5, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> They addressed the issue of opposed rolls in social situations with passive Insight and Perception, I believe.  Dumbed it down too much in my opinion.




Passive Insight and Passive Perception are just the "take 10" rolls for Insight and Perception; they still list the normal Insight and Perception modifiers, which implies they're there to be used. 
I would be surprised if skill challenges use the Passive Insight or Passive Perception scores.

The passive scores are your "walking around" rolls; if someone is trying to sneak past the PCs in a crowd as they're walking through (that the PCs aren't explicitly looking for), the DM will roll a Stealth check vs. the PCs' Passive Perception scores. The same goes for the merchant NPC who's trying to sell the party's Wizard a bum potion; he'll roll a Bluff check vs. the Wizard's Passive Insight score, unless the Wizard has a reason to suspect the merchant is lying; in that case, it'd be an opposed check. (That's how I would run it as a DM, anyways...)


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (May 5, 2008)

since this is a "negotation" template it makes sense that the intimidation don't work

if you want it to work you must use another template (or create another one) say the "interrogation", intimidation is more phisical and surely don't go the right way to get help from someone that must give order to his troops or followers to help you


----------



## ZetaStriker (May 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I actually like the version that folks here were bandying about. It wasn't "Roll a random skill..." it was, "Do a little roleplaying and convince me that your skill is relevant to the challenge." I _liked_ that. It strongly encouraged players to be engaged and creative.
> 
> I also specifically _don't_ like what others have said here they do like: That some skills earn you automatic failures.
> 
> ...




Exactly what he said. I'll likely only use the Skill Challenge chapter as a guideline and houserule them into working as I imagined them... because if this except is indicative of the whole chapter, which I assume it is if they decided to use this as the preview, then their idea of Skill Challenges in awful. It's practically 'jump through the hoops the DM wants you to'.


----------



## hcm (May 5, 2008)

I'm kinda worried this will mean that players just make a series of rolls and the GM tells them how it goes -- now where's the choice/tactics in that? Where's the _game_? Has someone seen any indication that the difficulty of the rolls are open to the players beforehand, so that they can choose the risk/chance at a specific roll? (This would make the challenge a game.) It looks like the dcs are hidden from the players. An example of this is the template with the intimidate skill. There is no tactical choice for the player; it's 'I roll intimidate -- what happens?' and the GM goes 'Ok, you fail.' The player obviously cannot calculate risk or chance in that example, for if he could, he'd never choose intimidate. No fun imo. (The character's choice "Do I dare to try to intimidate him?" is not what I'm looking for, for that kind of choices exist in any rp system and is nothing special.)

I don't see that the skill challenge is anything but a series of rolls, with no actual game-challenge for the players. I very much hope for someone (or the full skill challenge chapter) to show me wrong.


----------



## Simon Marks (May 5, 2008)

There is a big difference between "If you try an intimidate the duke, you are going to get thrown out or into a fight" and hoop jumping.

Still, if people are going to object to a template they can not use a template. This isn't a mechanic, but an example. Nothing indicates it requires a house rule nor even deviating from RAW


----------



## thalmin (May 5, 2008)

In both demo games in which I was involved, the skill check encounters encouraged a lot more than roll the dice. No one said "I will try Acrobatics." Instead, it was "I will try to Jackie Chan through the window." Everyone described the action or skill check in the best way to get a more favorable reaction from the DM to allow them to use that skill. There was even a note in the module for the DM that if anyone came up with a really good idea, a skill roll might not be needed. It did require imagination, both from the palyers and the DM.
I would consider that role playing and not just rolling dice.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 5, 2008)

hcm said:
			
		

> I'm kinda worried this will mean that players just make a series of rolls and the GM tells them how it goes -- now where's the choice/tactics in that? Where's the _game_? Has someone seen any indication that the difficulty of the rolls are open to the players beforehand, so that they can choose the risk/chance at a specific roll? (This would make the challenge a game.) It looks like the dcs are hidden from the players. An example of this is the template with the intimidate skill. There is no tactical choice for the player; it's 'I roll intimidate -- what happens?' and the GM goes 'Ok, you fail.' The player obviously cannot calculate risk or chance in that example, for if he could, he'd never choose intimidate. No fun imo. (The character's choice "Do I dare to try to intimidate him?" is not what I'm looking for, for that kind of choices exist in any rp system and is nothing special.)
> 
> I don't see that the skill challenge is anything but a series of rolls, with no actual game-challenge for the players. I very much hope for someone (or the full skill challenge chapter) to show me wrong.




In any given social encounter there will be more factors then whats in your post.  If a PC has a really high intimidate skill and rolls really high, and still fails, then obviously choosing intimidate is is the wrong thing to do.  That is how he calculates risk, by his own ability.  If his attempt is poor and he succeeds then the PC knows that that particular skill is the key to the encounter.  On the other hand, as state above, if his attempt is exceptional and he still fails then the PC knows that that particular skill isnt going to lead to failure.

As for it being a bunch of rolls, it isnt if you dont want it to be.  You could require the PCs to actually rp their specific skill and give detailed circumstances, phrases, and actions which they are performing.  For example, dont let a PC just say, "ok, I use diplomacy."  Make the PC make a diplomatic statement; "You know duke, helping us out would really be helping yourself.  Once those orcs are done with the city of Whitehall they are going to cross the river and raid your city.  It would be best if you joined forces with Whitehall and made one quick crushing blow to the orc hord before they can do any more harm to this fair land" (or whatever).


----------



## AllisterH (May 5, 2008)

Er, the setup line kind of determines what skills are applicable, is it not?

SETUP: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.


How does Intimidate actually do this? Intimidate seems like it would automatically make the NPC not TRUST the pcs...


----------



## Celebrim (May 5, 2008)

LOL.  Well, so much for 'narrativism' and 'distribution of narrative control'.  Not only does the example skill challenge specify exactly what skills do and do not work, but it even specifies what action is involved in making each skill.  That isn't to say that you couldn't run a skill challenge in a more narrativistic way (obviously some people are already doing so), but obviously that isn't the primary intent of the designers.

With that out of the way, I return to my claim that the primary point of skill challenges is to provide a frame work for non-combat challenges to be used in a tournament (or computer moderated format).  The example skill challenge, for example, is easily translateable into a standard cRPG dialogue system.


----------



## thalmin (May 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> LOL.  Well, so much for 'narrativism' and 'distribution of narrative control'.  Not only does the example skill challenge specify exactly what skills do and do not work, but it even specifies what action is involved in making each skill.



 I think it gives EXAMPLES of what might work, and examples of how they might work.


----------



## AllisterH (May 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> LOL.  Well, so much for 'narrativism' and 'distribution of narrative control'.  Not only does the example skill challenge specify exactly what skills do and do not work, but it even specifies what action is involved in making each skill.  That isn't to say that you couldn't run a skill challenge in a more narrativistic way (obviously some people are already doing so), but obviously that isn't the primary intent of the designers.
> 
> With that out of the way, I return to my claim that the primary point of skill challenges is to provide a frame work for non-combat challenges to be used in a tournament (or computer moderated format).  The example skill challenge, for example, is easily translateable into a standard cRPG dialogue system.




Heh..why am I not surprised you are here...

Anywa, all in all, I think this is good for the game as it isn't something that D&D has really thought about before. This at the minimum gives a novice DM something to work with...it may not be perfect but at least he knows from where to modify and what to change to his liking...

P.S. Um, have people forgotten this is an excerpt for an entire chapter apparently? I would assume there is more to skill challenges...geez, I can see why companies don't do previews..people basically want the entre thing


----------



## Frostmarrow (May 5, 2008)

The example is too detailed but I'm not bothered. They are putting this stuff in a hard-cover book and so they feel the need to flesh it out. Skill challenges as a concept is great and I'm anticipating other RPGs to snag this puppy real soon. We're going to see lots of variations on this particular theme.

The complexity stat is interesting. I think that maybe not all possible sets of 6 (success) / 3 (failure), 5/1, 2/13, or whatever are viable and so their math-guy* have cherry picked the chart for the best ones.

In any event skill challenges is the new black. I'm looking forward to playing through them. In fact I think combat will be less common in 4E because when the DM need to jazz the game up he can chose between combat and challenge.

* What's his name again?


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 5, 2008)

What scares me about this example is that it seems to have been written by someone who has pidgeonholed intimidation as a skill which solely encompasses making direct physical threats.

Which, frankly, is stupid. If that's all it's going to be, then remove the skill from the game because it's worthless and counterintuitive.

Requiring an NPC to bring up a historical example before you can make a roll on knowledge history seems stupid too.

I agree entirely with Wulf on the "don't make it impossible" front. I'd be fine with the two if the skill checks were simply made harder instead of completely written off.


----------



## AllisterH (May 5, 2008)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> What scares me about this example is that it seems to have been written by someone who has pidgeonholed intimidation as a skill which solely encompasses making direct physical threats.
> 
> Which, frankly, is stupid. If that's all it's going to be, then remove the skill from the game because it's worthless and counterintuitive.
> 
> ...




Er, did you read the setup?

SETUP: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

I'm REALLY, REALLY interested in the reasoning that makes "Intimidate" something that would make you trustworthy....I'm honestly blanking here, help me out here guys.

As well, even if you do FAIL the challenge, the excerpt doesn't mean that the adventure is over...just makes it more challenging (so instead of the NPC providing assistance, he decides to hire ANOTHER adventuring party and now you have to race against the clock to get to the borderlands...)


----------



## Celebrim (May 5, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Heh..why am I not surprised you are here...




You have precognition brought about by secret goverment paranormal experiments using nanomachines and the Russian Woodpecker scalar vector device developed by Nicolai Tesla using texts translated from alien overlords that had formerly ruled Ancient Eygpt and Central America?



> Anywa, all in all, I think this is good for the game as it isn't something that D&D has really thought about before. This at the minimum gives a novice DM something to work with...it may not be perfect but at least he knows from where to modify and what to change to his liking...




Agreed.  It's a good set of guidelines for a novice.  I just hope that the guidelines are presented sufficiently as guidelines that they don't end up being DM straight jackets.


----------



## Frostmarrow (May 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> You have precognition brought about by secret goverment paranormal experiments using nanomachines and the Russian Woodpecker scalar vector device developed by Nicolai Tesla using texts translated from alien overlords that had formerly ruled Ancient Eygpt and Central America?




I want to play in your game!


----------



## hong (May 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Agreed.  It's a good set of guidelines for a novice.  I just hope that the guidelines are presented sufficiently as guidelines that they don't end up being DM straight jackets.




No DM with proper strength of will recognises straitjackets.


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 5, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Er, did you read the setup?
> 
> SETUP: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



Intimidation is about making people afraid of the consequences of not doing what you say.

It DOES NOT HAVE TO BE "Help me or I'll hit you in the face". If that's all intimidate is, chuck the skill entirely, because characters can threaten to hit people in the face without it, and how scary that prospect is has very little to do with their charisma, and you're basically condemning anyone who takes the skill as their social skill to sit out of 90% of negotiations.

I honestly cannot think of an adventuring scenario where there can be no possible way that the fears of the target simply cannot be played upon at all. Bad things live on the borderlands. Someone else might get the treasure first. Another duke is massing forces.

Bluff apparently covers lying to the NPC in just about any way - so if your players were to tell the NPC that there's horrible things on the borderlands when they know that they're lying, they'd get a success. But if there really ARE horrible things there, then they earn an automatic failure?


> I'm REALLY, REALLY interested in the reasoning that makes "Intimidate" something that would make you trustworthy....I'm honestly blanking here, help me out here guys.



"While you may not trust us too closely lord, surely you trust lord blackheart less" or "While you send your scouts to confirm our story lord, your foes grow ever stronger".

That's the one line summaries. Again - look to bluff for how wide a social skill can be.


> As well, even if you do FAIL the challenge, the excerpt doesn't mean that the adventure is over...just makes it more challenging (so instead of the NPC providing assistance, he decides to hire ANOTHER adventuring party and now you have to race against the clock to get to the borderlands...)




That has nothing to do with the idiocy of making intimidate the skill to take when you want to make someone scared you might punch them in the face.


----------



## FireLance (May 5, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> As well, even if you do FAIL the challenge, the excerpt doesn't mean that the adventure is over...just makes it more challenging



In addition, using Intimidate does not mean that the skill challenge is automatically failed. In this specific example, it's one strike out of four. 

That said, I would probably do one of the following:

1. Set the DC high enough (25 + 1/2 level, maybe) that even a trained character would only have a slim chance of success ([Ability Modifier + 1] in 20, if I have my numbers right).

2. If the failure is automatic, allow an immediate "recovery" roll to negate that failure (DC 20 + 1/2 level, -5 penalty if made by a character other than the one who attempted the Intimidate, further -5 penalty if the player can't come up with a satisfactory explanation why the skill he tries to use would work).


----------



## Incenjucar (May 5, 2008)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Intimidation is about making people afraid of the consequences of not doing what you say.




No, it's about making them afraid of YOU.  It's not "Scare," it's "Intimidate."  It's a personal, martial fear-inducing ability emanating from the perception that you can do HORRIBLE things to people.



> It DOES NOT HAVE TO BE "Help me or I'll hit you in the face". If that's all intimidate is, chuck the skill entirely, because characters can threaten to hit people in the face without it, and how scary that prospect is has very little to do with their charisma, and you're basically condemning anyone who takes the skill as their social skill to sit out of 90% of negotiations.




Intimidation is being able to look someone in the eye and make them wet themselves, not the ability to tell stories about OTHER Intimidating things.

And, yes, it has a lot to do with Charisma.  Intimidation is the difference between a dog that is growling and baring its teeth and a friendly family dog wagging its tail who is about to spontaneously bite someone.

--

Beyond that, skill checks need not and perhaps should not ALWAYS have the ability to work.

A rogue can never climb air (pre-epic at least), and a character, PC or NPC, who can never be made compliant through intimidation will resist regardless of natural 20s.  Otherwise you come to the situation of being able to get a dragon's horde with a knock knock joke.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 5, 2008)

I don't care about the article much, but the art is some of the best i have seen for 4e.


----------



## VannATLC (May 5, 2008)

Intimidation is always about threats.

Which is why this; "While you may not trust us too closely lord, surely you trust lord blackheart less." Is not intimidation, its actually diplomacy.

"While you may not trust us too closely, lord, I am sure we can convince blackheart of the truth of our tale." is more intimidation.

And I'm happy to make cases where a threat of any kind would be treated as a failure.

Intimidation is the art of threat, Diplomacy the art of compromise.

Both may sometimes be inappropriate.

If the party is in a position to put out a threat big enough for the duke to feel the need to comply, then the challenge is unsuitable in the first place.


----------



## DonAdam (May 5, 2008)

> *shrug* I was envisioning the PCs cornering the wife in her room at night and demanding she talk to him or else.




Slow your roll. This is D&D, not FATAL.   

I don't have a problem with making some actions inherently counterproductive to certain challenges. Seems logical and obvious from a broad design standpoint.

As for the Duke scenario in particular, I think the approach of fixed contextual DC's and making some skills irrelevant is vastly more realistic than previous editions. Social skills were basically bludgeons to get what you wanted. I had a problem with it being automatic for the NPCs just as I have a problem with it being automatic for the PCs.  Persuasion of any kind should be context dependent, so I'm happy to see that its decisive here.

I really hope they get the DC's right. Multiple rolls certainly helps. Given the 3.5 DC's, it was all up to circumstance bonuses anyway. Which meant it was all up to DM fiat. That seemed alot more like railroading.

Also, signaling that you can use any skill within reason works great if you've got an active group of good roleplayers.  Two things can break that down:

1) Quiet players.  If I want to highlight their character's abilities, I might need to custom tailor a situation in which they can shine. Completely open-ended skills might allow the more active party members (Thor bless them) to steal the spotlight. Creativity is great, but its not the only thing that matters at the table.

2) Disruptive players.  I'm sorry, but I just can't see designing a scenario with open-ended skill checks for a one-shot, con or gameday.  The average player is just too weird, and in those one-shot scenarios they have hyperbolic discount rates since it's a one-shot. They're going to see what they can get away with. And no, I don't want to deal with that "in game" or after the fact.


----------



## Frostmarrow (May 5, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> No, it's about making them afraid of YOU.  It's not "Scare," it's "Intimidate."  It's a personal, martial fear-inducing ability emanating from the perception that you can do HORRIBLE things to people.




I think intimidate is a stupid skill. First it is stupid that an epic character who lack the skill can't intimidate anyone. Second, the community is not agreeing intuitively on what the skill does. Is it based on strength or charisma? Why don't I get a bonus from being ugly? Why can't I use it to scare people of other threats? Get rid of it and add Authority instead.


----------



## AllisterH (May 5, 2008)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Intimidation is about making people afraid of the consequences of not doing what you say.
> 
> It DOES NOT HAVE TO BE "Help me or I'll hit you in the face". If that's all intimidate is, chuck the skill entirely, because characters can threaten to hit people in the face without it, and how scary that prospect is has very little to do with their charisma, and you're basically condemning anyone who takes the skill as their social skill to sit out of 90% of negotiations."..




I think you might be getting Diplomacy and Intimidate mixed up. Diplomacy is basically convincing the target that your position on a topic is actually THEIR position on a topic.


			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> I honestly cannot think of an adventuring scenario where there can be no possible way that the fears of the target simply cannot be played upon at all. Bad things live on the borderlands. Someone else might get the treasure first. Another duke is massing forces.."..




But that doesn't actually make you trustworthy in the eyes of the duke. At best, you're going to have the Duke say "ok, I'll let you go there" whereas the setup we have is that the players actively want the Duke to help them ("providing troops, equipment, a writ of safe passage through another Duke's land"). Again, this excerpt is too short but you're also assuming that the Duke doesn't KNOW what is out on the borderlands...Maybe he is cut out from regular reports or it is the base of a major military force for the KING and thus private non-military citizens including even the Duke aren't allowed there


			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Bluff apparently covers lying to the NPC in just about any way - so if your players were to tell the NPC that there's horrible things on the borderlands when they know that they're lying, they'd get a success. But if there really ARE horrible things there, then they earn an automatic failure?
> 
> "While you may not trust us too closely lord, surely you trust lord blackheart less" or "While you send your scouts to confirm our story lord, your foes grow ever stronger"..




Why would they earn an automatic failure with the Bluff skill? If the PCs try to Bluff and say, "There are horrible things like Worgs" there, the Duke (the DM) s fully in his rights in my opinion to say, "I know, I have had to send out parties to wipe out those worg packs". It wouldn't constitue a success but neither would it be a failure. Personally, I would allow a Bluff reroll if they PCs go on to describe a Guulvorg and mention that it was protecting the smaller worgs and the Duke or his men had never seen such a creature but had heard about it.

The second part though, this is covered under Diplomacy. Intimidate _IS_  how well you can communicate potential violence towards the subject by yourself if your words are not heeded by the subject.

I can see why Celebrim was so unhappy as different players are going to interpret skill challenges differently.


----------



## AllisterH (May 5, 2008)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> I think intimidate is a stupid skill. First it is stupid that an epic character who lack the skill can't intimidate anyone. Second, the community is not agreeing intuitively on what the skill does. Is it based on strength or charisma? Why don't I get a bonus from being ugly? Why can't I use it to scare people of other threats? Get rid of it and add Authority instead.




Er, that's not true in 4E though...

Untrained in Intimidation is equal to half your level + cha bonus. So even the succubus we saw, has a +10 to her Intimidate roll 

Assuming Intimidate works a la SAGA method, then ys, you can use it untrained...


----------



## Frostmarrow (May 5, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Er, that's not true in 4E though...
> 
> Untrained in Intimidation is equal to half your level + cha bonus. So even the succubus we saw, has a +10 to her Intimidate roll
> 
> Assuming Intimidate works a la SAGA method, then ys, you can use it untrained...




Even though you might get free ranks, intimidate is still a bad choice for a skill. Intimidate has been misunderstood in every RPG I ever tried. There have been numerous attempts at fixing it but I doesn't work. If anything, in 4E, intimidate should be a power that does fear damage in a burst.

Sorry for derailing. Back to topic. (It really doesn't matter what I think about initmidate anyway as the books are printed.)


----------



## Lurker37 (May 5, 2008)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Intimidation is about making people afraid of the consequences of not doing what you say.




Not quite.

Intimidation is about making people afraid of what *you will do* if they do not do as you say. It is, by definition, about striking fear *of you* into them - but not necessarily fear of violence.  You could threaten to reveal a dark secret (blackmail), threaten to foreclose on a loan, threaten to pull out of a treaty they desperately need you to remain in, threaten to pull out of a business deal that will ruin them if it falls through, threaten to publicly humiliate them, etc. The whole point is to convince the other party that you are both capable and willing to make something undesireable happen. It can be used to great effect in social situations, if done subtlety. It's just not something you use when you're trying to build trust, which the example clearly states you are.

Convincing people of danger from a third party is not intimidation. That's more an issue of convincing them of the truth of what you are saying, which is either bluff (if you are lying) or diplomacy (if you are not). You can't cow people into believing you, only into not calling you a liar to your face.


----------



## pemerton (May 5, 2008)

NebtheNever said:
			
		

> Not much new info here, but this does at least tell us the Skill Challenge system isn't a silly "Roll high with a random skill and you succeed" system like some were suggesting.





			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I actually like the version that folks here were bandying about. It wasn't "Roll a random skill..." it was, "Do a little roleplaying and convince me that your skill is relevant to the challenge." I _liked_ that. It strongly encouraged players to be engaged and creative.



I agree with Wulf. It will be interesting to see what the DMG says about this. In HeroWars published adventures suggest particular skills (with modifiers for difficulty, if appropriate) as relevant for particular contests, but not in order to be definitive but rather to give the GM a sense of the specturm of possibilities the contest opens up. Maybe the DMG will be similar.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> LOL.  Well, so much for 'narrativism' and 'distribution of narrative control'.  Not only does the example skill challenge specify exactly what skills do and do not work, but it even specifies what action is involved in making each skill.



Hey, we haven't seen the whole chapter yet! And I don't agree that it "specifies what action is involved in making each skill": "You try to encourage the NPC to aid your quest using false pretenses", "You entreat the NPC for aid in your quest", "You empathize with the NPC and use that knowledge to encourage assistance" are simple descriptions of the skills in question: it is presumably still up to the player to explain in what their encouragement, entreating etc consists.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> With that out of the way, I return to my claim that the primary point of skill challenges is to provide a frame work for non-combat challenges to be used in a tournament (or computer moderated format).  The example skill challenge, for example, is easily translateable into a standard cRPG dialogue system.



I will continue with my claim that what matters is whether the dialogue (narration) produced by the players matters to the overall play experience. If not, then the skill challenge adds nothing to the game. But if it is taken to be in part constitutive of the ingame reality then that is a different matter (and something quite different from a computer-moderated or tournament experience).



			
				NebtheNever said:
			
		

> I also like the concept of certain skills opening up other checks./QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Torchlyte (May 5, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> But that doesn't actually make you trustworthy in the eyes of the duke.




Who cares? This is the big problem with WotC's given example; the DM doesn't decide how the plot goes down, the players do. Why can't the players use intimidation to get what they want? Sure, maybe the DM wants them to negotiate, but when you enforce that will it's railroading.


----------



## AndrewRogue (May 5, 2008)

Intimidate is pretty simple as far as skills go. The problem is most people don't really understand how it was intended (as near as I can discern from how the mechanics work).

Intimidate is supposed to be used to get others, WHO WOULD NOT NORMALLY BE INCLINED TO DO SO, to go along with you out of a fear of harm (with you/your presence as a focal point). What does this mean? It means that your epic fighter doesn't need to roll intimidate against Joe Blow commoner. He simply makes a small display of power, and Joe Blow (unless he has some reason to NOT be afraid of this) will bend over backwards to do whatever he says.

The fact is that intimidate is supposed to be used against people who you can't scare through other means at your disposal. Intimidate is intended to be something far more sinister. Yeah, dude with a big gun pointing at you? Scary? Sure. The natural reaction is to wet yourself and to listen. But what if you can take gunshots at pointblank in the face? Then, no matter how much that guy brandies about that gun, you aren't going to be scared. That's where Intimidate comes in.

Which, really, is why it doesn't work in this encounter and, to me, that makes sense. Hell, it can even work out in a perfectly sensible matter. The PCs repeatedly attempt to intimidate the Duke, thereby failing the encounter. However, they've also put him in a position where he can't decline their help. So, the encounter plays off like it had succeeded... until the Duke's men betray the PCs or something similar.

Really, this is a pretty cool and elegant system that I dig. I'd like to read more about "creating" them and running with off skills, but this satisfies me.


----------



## FireLance (May 5, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> Who cares? This is the big problem with WotC's given example; the DM doesn't decide how the plot goes down, the players do. Why can't the players use intimidation to get what they want? Sure, maybe the DM wants them to negotiate, but when you enforce that will it's railroading.



It's not a railroad. It's a cave-in blocking a tunnel through the mountains. The players can still choose from a few other alternate paths. Railroading is when all the alternate paths are closed _except_ for the tunnel through the mountains (or whichever road the DM wants the PCs to take).


----------



## ObsidianCrane (May 5, 2008)

Lets take a movie example;

Princess Leia is captured and Darth Vader wants to know where the Rebel Base is - Leia can be persuaded to reveal this information through Bluff, Diplomacy or Insight. Intimidate automatically fails. Vader, bad guy he is, goes for Intimidate, but no mater how much he uses the skill it still fails. In the end Vader and co have to resort to other solutions to their problem. ie they fail at the Skill Challenge creating a complication which must be overcome - the DM then brings in people who are going to try and rescue the Princess....viola another solution is possible.

Lets take a more DnD example. A Duke is a landholder of significant power, Dukes are typically subservient to only the King and usually have several Barons and landed Knights in their service, along with many unlanded Knights. These guys have armies at their disposal. So you go to the Duke's court, because you have found some clues that the neighboring Duke is in league with Asmodeus, and you need help to do somethign about it (maybe travel papers or similar diplomatic documents). Now this is a delicate situation, the Duke doesn't have to help you, and if the neighboring Duke has the King's ear helping you could be a problem for him. The best way to get him to help is through Bluff, Insight and Diplomacy. If you Intimidate him into helping he capitulates but betrays you to cover his own butt - after all the other Duke is more influential and getting into his good graces is a good plan.

Remember Failure doesn't mean you stop, it means that things don't work out the way you want. The only absolute is that getting X Failures in the Skill Challenge means it doesn't work out the way the PCs wanted so no rewards, ie complications will ensue (and need to be overcome).

Also you need to remember that there are still Skill Checks - you want to use History to learn something about the Duke before rolling thats fine. That might reveal he responds poorly to intimidation, and he is proud of his family history. The first is a clue not to use Intimidate, the second informs an approach to Diplomacy - an approach that if done well enough might create and auto-success, and open up the History use in the Challenge. Imagine using History as sidetracking him with his favorite topic before hitting him up for help.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 5, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> Why can't the players use intimidation to get what they want? Sure, maybe the DM wants them to negotiate, but when you enforce that will it's railroading.




Um...

This example isn't railroading in the slightest. There are plenty of things the PCs can do to continue the adventure, with or without negotiating with the duke.

But deciding that the PCs only get the duke's aid if they negotiate? That's not railroading. That's DMing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Didn't 4e snag this puppy from other RPGs?



As far as I understood, yes. But this might still leave the hope that,if the market leader uses is, others will follow. 

But then, I am not sure if all skill systems are "fit" for this. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay uses its percentile dice, and the success chances seem relatively low, and that won't improve with adding more rolls. I suppose the system would have to be rigged - like making the number of failures you can achieve higher then the number of successes. In non-level based system (or rather: in systems where skill doesn't improve automatically with level, nor does it give an indication of the range of skill modifier/sucess rates), finding a suitable difficulty for each skill will also be harder.


----------



## illathid (May 5, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> Why can't the players use intimidation to get what they want? Sure, maybe the DM wants them to negotiate, but when you enforce that will it's railroading.




All I could think of when I read was "Why can't the players use this fish to chop down that tree?"

Would you complain that a DM was railroading if he didn't allow you to use a fish to cut down a tree? I think not. Asking why one can't use intimidation in this template is almost the same thing as the fish scenario above (although substantially less silly).


----------



## Mirtek (May 5, 2008)

jaelis said:
			
		

> So what would happen if a PC tried to impress the duke with his acrobatics skill?  Would it be an automatic failure, or would it not count for anything?



Duke: _Wow! You do such great somersaults, I will gladly lend you the help of my army_

No, doesn't really cut it. I like it that there's only a limited set of skills to chose from for solving the current situation. If anything would really be "pick whatever skill you want as long as you succeed" it would indeed be stupid.

So there are situation which allow less skills and others which allow more (or even all) skills, but most of the time it should be a limited set of skills for a given challende.


----------



## Frostmarrow (May 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> As far as I understood, yes. But this might still leave the hope that,if the market leader uses is, others will follow.
> 
> But then, I am not sure if all skill systems are "fit" for this. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay uses its percentile dice, and the success chances seem relatively low, and that won't improve with adding more rolls. I suppose the system would have to be rigged - like making the number of failures you can achieve higher then the number of successes. In non-level based system (or rather: in systems where skill doesn't improve automatically with level, nor does it give an indication of the range of skill modifier/sucess rates), finding a suitable difficulty for each skill will also be harder.




Warhammer does have lots of interesting skills though (even though success rates are low). In Warhammer you could win the duke over with consume alcohol or even hedge magic.

The system could be reworked. Let's say each success adds cumulative +25% to the next skill check. Once you succeed in the first attempt at 100% you win. Failures subtract -10% instead. -Just a suggestion.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2008)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> Warhammer does have lots of interesting skills though (even though success rates are low). In Warhammer you could win the duke over with consume alcohol or even hedge magic.
> 
> The system could be reworked. Let's say each success adds cumulative +25% to the next skill check. Once you succeed in the first attempt at 100% you win. Failures subtract -10% instead. -Just a suggestion.



That's also an interesting approach.


----------



## Mirtek (May 5, 2008)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> I think intimidate is a stupid skill. First it is stupid that an epic character who lack the skill can't intimidate anyone.



Because in the D&D context intimidating someone means to frighten him into obeying you.

An epic character who lack the skill just frightens the other to curl up in the corner, wet his pants and sobbing unintelligibly.

Is he intimidated? Yes, but not in any way that is helpfull to the character who wanted to get him to perform a specific action.


			
				Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> Why don't I get a bonus from being ugly?



You don't. See below for two great description of what charisma means in D&D



			
				Pandaemoni said:
			
		

> As a wise man once wrote on these boards, having a low charaisma doesn't mean your frightening to behold, it means you're unnoticeable. You're the wallflower at the dance who can never think of anything to say. You're the girl who no one asks to the prom or the guy who can't muster the courage to ask anyone.
> 
> A charisma of 3 means that no one wants to talk to you, or cares what you think about any subject. You might offer your opinion, though likely you'll annoy people if you do (and they may well just try to talk over you). If, by chance, they do listen and if you have a good idea people might use it...but they probably will forget who suggested it and give you no credit for thinking it up.
> 
> ...






			
				Thorak said:
			
		

> The big half-orc with the 6 Charisma and 18 Strength? He's the guy who stutters when he talks because he's so nervous. Or who says "uhh" after every second word. A low Charisma means you are socially backward. The half-orc with rippling muscles, massive scars, and a leer that makes women faint and children scream has a high Charisma score. If your Charisma is low, you're not so ugly you're scary. You're unnoticeable, to possibly worthy of pity.


----------



## Primal (May 5, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> I'd like to know the first part as well, as regards the second..
> 
> You're not *supposed* to whip it up on the fly.
> 
> ...




I beg to differ -- I thought it was kind of the primary design thesis and intent in 4E to be able to "whip up" any combat/social encounter in less than 10 seconds? To save all those poor DMs from the agony of pre-play planning and the complexity of 3E? ;P

Alright, all sarcasm aside, I think this seems to be a pretty solid sybsystem, and I like it. If it's clearly presented in the books with solid examples, I could see it adding a whole new level of excitement (both to DMs and players alike) into the game. And, I think I could modify that template to pretty much work for any negotiation challenge.

I also like how the designers have "cleaned up" the skills in 4E. A lot of them make more sense now, although I'm a bit doubtful that some skills may enable you to do "too much" -- at least from a simulationist's POV (i.e. if you're a good liar, you're good at disguising yourself, too). I did not like that "+1/2 rank per level to all class skills"-system initially, but after conceretely recalling all the pains of playing a 3E fighter with average (or low) INT, I can understand why it's probably a lot better that way.  

It may feel a bit intimidating and "complex" for newbies (especially younger ones), but in the hands of a good DM, this skill challenge system will certainly add a lot of excitement and character immersion in D&D. Shortly put: me like! (and this coming from an anti-4E grognard )


----------



## Frostmarrow (May 5, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Because in the D&D context intimidating someone means to frighten him into obeying you.
> 
> An epic character who lack the skill just frightens the other to curl up in the corner, wet his pants and sobbing unintelligibly.
> 
> ...




This is all to convoluted for me.


----------



## doctormandible (May 5, 2008)

The Great Unthinking Duke??

Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.

Really??  Here's my setup:

The PCs are 25th level.  Kingdoms rise and fall at their whim.  All but the mightiest foes cower at their name.  The PCs discover that this Duke has valuable information.  Rather than kill him outright, they mention that they will spare his life - this time - if he gives them the information they require.
RESULT:  The Duke  refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.and the PCs earn a failure.  (WHAT?!?!)

Point is, this is not a level specific encounter.  I certainly hope that this is not indicative of more 3.x shortsighted jilting of high-powered campaigns, ala Epic Level Handbook.


----------



## hcm (May 5, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> In any given social encounter there will be more factors then whats in your post.  If a PC has a really high intimidate skill and rolls really high, and still fails, then obviously choosing intimidate is is the wrong thing to do.  That is how he calculates risk, by his own ability.  If his attempt is poor and he succeeds then the PC knows that that particular skill is the key to the encounter.  On the other hand, as state above, if his attempt is exceptional and he still fails then the PC knows that that particular skill isnt going to lead to failure.
> 
> As for it being a bunch of rolls, it isnt if you dont want it to be.  You could require the PCs to actually rp their specific skill and give detailed circumstances, phrases, and actions which they are performing.  For example, dont let a PC just say, "ok, I use diplomacy."  Make the PC make a diplomatic statement; "You know duke, helping us out would really be helping yourself.  Once those orcs are done with the city of Whitehall they are going to cross the river and raid your city.  It would be best if you joined forces with Whitehall and made one quick crushing blow to the orc hord before they can do any more harm to this fair land" (or whatever).




But there's still not much of a real tactical choice for the _player_. Stripping the encounter down to its mechanics, it looks like this:

Player: I try diplomacy (roll high).
DM: You succeed.
Player: Ok, now I try intimidate (roll high).
DM: You fail.
Player: Ok, back to diplomacy (roll low).
DM: You succeed.
etc

It looks like a very limited (as the skill list is short) guess-what-the-DM-prepared game and not like an interesting tactical game. The player will look down to his sheet, find the highest skill and come up with a way to make it plausible in the situation. There is no tactical choice.

A tactical choice would be for the player to deliberately choose an easy, moderate or hard check while considering the skill levels, the stakes (potential outcomes of the entire encounter) and how many wins/losses the group currently has. But it seems from the excerpt that this is not how the rules are written.

The RP part is not my issue with the excerpt. I would definitely let the group RP through the encounter. When I said the skill challenges look like bunches of rolls, I meant the lack of tactical choices for players, not the lack of RP nor the lack of tactical choice for PCs (just to clarify).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I beg to differ -- I thought it was kind of the primary design thesis and intent in 4E to be able to "whip up" any combat/social encounter in less than 10 seconds? To save all those poor DMs from the agony of pre-play planning and the complexity of 3E? ;P



If "kind of" means that your time frame might be off by a few orders of magnitude, you might be right. But then, the design thesis was certainly reached, since it appears to me as maybe 10 to 20 minutes might be enough to whip up a combat encounter (flipping through the monster manual and picking creatures of the right level, adding XP to match against the PCs), or to find a suitable model of a skill challenge at hand.

If you really meant something close to 10 seconds, no, that might be a design dream, but not a goal.


----------



## Mirtek (May 5, 2008)

doctormandible said:
			
		

> The Great Unthinking Duke??
> 
> Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.
> 
> ...



So the duke is very brave, knows full well what the characters are capable to do if he refuses and still would rather die than betraying XY by giving them the information.

So the PCs fail the challenge, kill the duke and devastade his lands but they still have to find annother way to get the information


----------



## Mirtek (May 5, 2008)

hcm said:
			
		

> is short) guess-what-the-DM-prepared game and not like an interesting tactical game. The player will look down to his sheet, find the highest skill and come up with a way to make it plausible in the situation. There is no tactical choice.



What's the alternative? Any skill goes and the player just selects their highest modifier, make up an excuse why this skill should work, and then roll it over and over.


			
				hcm said:
			
		

> A tactical choice would be for the player to deliberately choose an easy, moderate or hard check while considering the skill levels, the stakes (potential outcomes of the entire encounter) and how many wins/losses the group currently has. But it seems from the excerpt that this is not how the rules are written.



I never really understood this select easy/moderate/hard part. What's stopping a coward like me to always go for easy + my highest skill modifier. Fine, I don't get the bonus to the next roll for making a high check, but since I am only going low DC vs. my best skill, I don't need it anyway


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 5, 2008)

doctormandible said:
			
		

> The Great Unthinking Duke??
> 
> Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.
> 
> ...



The problem with your post is that you are attempting to use a template illsutable for your scenario.  The template given is for a senarion in which the duke will not go through with the goal of the party if he is intimidated.

For example, a scenario in which the PCs are level 3 and the duke has an entire legion of guards at his disposal, and when intimidated instead of cowering and doing whatever the party says he calls his gaurds and the PCs are locked up.  Its not that the duke isnt intimidated, its that intimidating him doesnt give the result the PCs want.  It all depends on the character of the NPC.


----------



## FadedC (May 5, 2008)

doctormandible said:
			
		

> The Great Unthinking Duke??
> 
> Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.
> 
> ...




Presumably if you design an encounter for a party of demi-gods you adjust things accordingly. All skill challenges are ultimately at the discretion fo the DM. If you know they are local heroes negotiating with a more powerful baron you also design the challenge apropriately.

The example you give of 25th level PCs isn't even necesarily a use of the intimate skill or even a skill challenge though. Players are immune to the intimidate skill too, but they often back down from things they know they have no hope against....without a single roll being made.


----------



## Mirtek (May 5, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> Its not that the duke isnt intimidated, its that intimidating him doesnt give the result the PCs want.  It all depends on the character of the NPC.



Exactly. It's

OMG they're scary - slay them before they can make their threats come true

as opposed to

OMG they're scary - I better obey them before they can make their threats come true

or mabye even


OMG they're scary - but I will suffer anything they might to do me and won't betray XY by aiding them


----------



## Pale Jackal (May 5, 2008)

Interesting.  I like what I see... it's not particularly complex (i.e. there's not a lot of mechanics behind it), but it's a useful reminder to DMs about how to make things more interesting.

I did really like the use of "history" in Escape from Sembia? to find out whether or not there are grates.  So I do think players should, if reasonable, be allowed to use other skills than listed, obviously.  Also, I think a really high Intimidate check should allow you to intimidate the duke, though sometimes Intimidation (even a high roll) may not give what you want.  Depends on the situation.

Of course, whether or not the DMG mentions such caveats isn't a big deal, but it'd be better if it did.


----------



## hcm (May 5, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> I never really understood this select easy/moderate/hard part. What's stopping a coward like me to always go for easy + my highest skill modifier. Fine, I don't get the bonus to the next roll for making a high check, but since I am only going low DC vs. my best skill, I don't need it anyway




easy+highest mod is not always the optimal choice (as in it does not always give you the highest chance of winning the entire challenge). That depends on the number of success/failures needed, the number you currently have and your actual skill mod alternatives. You might have a better chance to win the entire challenge by choosing a hard check with a somewhat lower skill, or by doing a moderate check. Take also into consideration that the next guy to roll might not be you, but the player next to you who has other skill modifications (and ideas).

When there is a tactic that is better than the others, but which one it is isn't obvious to you, the game gets interesting. Remove a proper tactical choice and the game gets less interesting. To me at least.


----------



## hong (May 5, 2008)

Why are ppl getting so hung up over Intimidate?

It's just an example. It's showing the parameters for designing a skill challenge, and one of these parameters is that the DM can rule out any skills they consider to be not useful for the situation. In this particular case, such a skill is Intimidate.

The key point is that you, the DM, are empowered by the rules to say that skill X is inapplicable for challenge Y, for whatever values of X and Y you deem appropriate. Quite possibly, you might never say that a skill is inapplicable. It isn't that this specific skill, Intimidate, can't be used to bully barons around or whatever.


----------



## Frostmarrow (May 5, 2008)

hong - the voice of reason.


----------



## Mirtek (May 5, 2008)

hcm said:
			
		

> easy+highest mod is not always the optimal choice (as in it does not always give you the highest chance of winning the entire challenge). That depends on the number of success/failures needed, the number you currently have and your actual skill mod alternatives. You might have a better chance to win the entire challenge by choosing a hard check with a somewhat lower skill, or by doing a moderate check.



If I either need 1 hard, 2 moderate or 6 easy rolls to make it, I would still select the 6 easy rolls. 


			
				hcm said:
			
		

> Take also into consideration that the next guy to roll might not be you, but the player next to you who has other skill modifications (and ideas).



I was under the impression that anyone choses for himself. If all have to live by the same choice, it's even more important to always select easy so that someone untrained can still make it. If the rogue choses a moderate stealth check, it may already be too much for the paladin who is untrained in stealth and wearing heavy armor.


			
				hcm said:
			
		

> When there is a tactic that is better than the others, but which one it is isn't obvious to you, the game gets interesting. Remove a proper tactical choice and the game gets less interesting. To me at least.



To me it's always: The easier and the less risk the better it is


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2008)

So far, the system comes close to what I have expected. More samples would be better, but that's what the actual DMG is for...



			
				Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> hong - the voice of reason.



OMG, where have we come to! The Sky is Falling!


----------



## hong (May 5, 2008)

Sorry.


----------



## hcm (May 5, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> If I either need 1 hard, 2 moderate or 6 easy rolls to make it, I would still select the 6 easy rolls.



That is a suboptimal choice . 


			
				Mirtek said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that anyone choses for himself. If all have to live by the same choice, it's even more important to always select easy so that someone untrained can still make it. If the rogue choses a moderate stealth check, it may already be too much for the paladin who is untrained in stealth and wearing heavy armor.




Yes, everyone choses for himself. That is why it might sometimes be a good idea to try and give the next guy a bonus by choosing a hard check yourself (I'm not sure it works that way, but I think it should).


			
				Mirtek said:
			
		

> To me it's always: The easier and the less risk the better it is



 Well, then you should maybe try to figure out which tactics is optimal in order to win the entire challenge, not just a single roll? 

After reading the excerpt, I'm just afraid that you won't have the opportunity to make an interesting choice.


----------



## Ipissimus (May 5, 2008)

I like it. As hong said, I think people are overreacting to the example given as 'the be all and end all' of skill challenges. Obviously, you'll create skill challenges that suit your group and, as always, the DM is there to filter to a group's taste. Remember, WOTC has to cater for all play styles and there are a great many players who are just plain uncomfortable acting out their characters at the table. Do they deserve to be penalized because of that? No, the game's meant to be fun for everyone involved.

On the subject of intimidate, though, we know very little detail about the situation but the guy IS a Duke. Someone mentioned before that Dukes are supported by whole armies. I'll go one setp further. As a Duke, the one thing we do know about him is that he has the moral, political and maybe even divine mandate to wield the power of life and death over his lands and everything in it of a lesser rank than he. How does a small group of scruffy, rootless, vagabonds (ie adventurers) intimidate someone used to wielding that kind of power as a matter of course? Granted, your PCs may be gentry themselves, but the likelihood of that's rather slim. Heck, as far as the Duke's concerned, the PCs are probably obliged to follow his orders.

Now, I can also see an opportunity here. Imagine that previously, the PCs won another challenge (skill, combat or whatever) so exceedingly well that it was revealed to them that someone involved was the Duke's illegitimate son/daughter as the 'treasure' they receive, opening up the possibility of intimidating the Duke by holding his secret over his head.

I think the system has eormous potential.


----------



## Derren (May 5, 2008)

Better than expected but not perfect.

I am still concerned that with this systems the player will "roll for successes" instead of "rolling for a goal"(meaning that players will simply roll their best skill because that will solve the challenge instead of really trying to get closer to their goal in game).

And how should the PCs be able to know when a new skill can be rolled because of a previous success like with the history check here, especially as I see no reason why you can't start the negotiation with "We are honored to meet the savior of whatevertown" without previous successful diplomacy check. I also wonder how this system will ensure that everyone will get something to do. In this situation everyone with low Cha and who isn't trained in social skills will keep his mouth shut and let the negotiator talk.

Edit:
Another thing I wonder about is if it will be discussed how the use of powers affect skill challenges, like using charm person (if that power exists in 4E) or in a Escape from Sembia like challenge a Eladrin simply Feystepping away instead of fleeing from the guards with a skill. Does that count as success or not? And what happens when the power allows the character to reach the goal of the challenge before the required number of successes are accumulated like a wizard casting invisibility and simply walking out of Sembia?


----------



## Ozdec (May 5, 2008)

I like how if you allow all the skills it becomes - "Oh I just pick my best skill all the time regardless" - ergo Skill Challenge system is Bad

and if you say a particular skill cannot ever work for this situation (may even be negative) then you are being railroaded and ergo Skill challenge system bad.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (May 5, 2008)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> hong - the voice of reason.



It's particularly amusing, considering all the doomsaying about people being able to use any skill, any time, anywhere, to achieve anything. Now, when we get shown that the DM can perfectly well rule that some skills aren't going to help in the challenge, people are screaming about _that_.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 5, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> If I either need 1 hard, 2 moderate or 6 easy rolls to make it, I would still select the 6 easy rolls.




Apart from how the maths works out, there might be a time limit consideration too.


----------



## Simon Marks (May 5, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> It's particularly amusing, considering all the doomsaying about people being able to use any skill, any time, anywhere, to achieve anything. Now, when we get shown that the DM can perfectly well rule that some skills aren't going to help in the challenge, people are screaming about _that_.




Different people, tho'

Meaning that you can't please all of the people, all of the time.

Or that moderates get the best deal.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It's the problem of absolutes, again. You're telling me it is IMPOSSIBLE for my character to ever Intimidate the Duke?




Umm. Yeah.  You are confusing successful use of intimidate with successful use of intimidate to reach a goal.

A single intimidate roll will make the Duke "feel Intimidated".  His "feeling intimidated" will make it less likely to comply with your wishes.  That's not unreasonable.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 5, 2008)

Ozdec said:
			
		

> I like how if you allow all the skills it becomes - "Oh I just pick my best skill all the time regardless" - ergo Skill Challenge system is Bad
> 
> and if you say a particular skill cannot ever work for this situation (may even be negative) then you are being railroaded and ergo Skill challenge system bad.




If any skill can work in any given situation then the game is broken and makes no sense what so ever.  You should not be able to intimidate everyone in order to get what you want in every situation.  If the above is not true, then the game makes no sense.  Al you would ever have to do is use your best skill no matter what the situation is.  Have to convince a duke to let you use his guards but have the most ranks in stealth, use stealth.  Have to escape from the town without getting caught, but you have the most ranks in heal, use heal.  Its simple, there are skills that can not be used in given situations, which is what defines skills in the first place.  It just so happens that in the template given, intimidating the duke doesnt work in the PCs favor.  Whats wrong with that?  And you know what, saying that I have to let my Duke be intimidated by a bunch of PCs when he has legions of guards at his command is ridiculous and I find that to be a lot worse and more restrictive then the choice to have use of certaint skills go badly for the PCs.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (May 5, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Umm. Yeah.  You are confusing successful use of intimidate with successful use of intimidate to reach a goal.



*This.*

People are still, I guess, approaching this from 3.5 mindset.


----------



## hcm (May 5, 2008)

Ozdec said:
			
		

> I like how if you allow all the skills it becomes - "Oh I just pick my best skill all the time regardless" - ergo Skill Challenge system is Bad
> 
> and if you say a particular skill cannot ever work for this situation (may even be negative) then you are being railroaded and ergo Skill challenge system bad.




You seem to think that the alternatives are opposite, while in fact they do the same thing: they remove tactical choice. In the first case the choice gets too obvious, and in the second case the choice is invalidated by the DMs preparations.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> It's particularly amusing, considering all the doomsaying about people being able to use any skill, any time, anywhere, to achieve anything. Now, when we get shown that the DM can perfectly well rule that some skills aren't going to help in the challenge, people are screaming about _that_.



It might - as always -  be different people that worried about the former the the ones that worried about the latter. 
It might be a Fallacy (that is in desperate need of a name) to assume otherwise and use this to dismiss such opinions. 

That said, I am not sure if it's the case here or not. 

I don't like absolutes that much, which is why I am not sure if outright "impossibility to use Intimidate" in the presented scenario is a good approach. But I definitely agree that in some situations, it looks very inappropriate to use a specific skill. 
But the "counter-examples" where Intimidate made sense so far did not fit the scenario described for the skill challenge (which makes the PCs clearly a petitioner, not an interrogator or an equal to the Duke).


----------



## Voss (May 5, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> A few things of note:
> 
> * Not every skill works in every challenge. Note how Intimidate is specifically barred from working in that particular challenge.
> 
> ...




Actually the example annoys me specifically for that Intimidate prohibition.  Why?  Why is this guy immune to getting leaned on?  Offer to feed him to your pet demon and he just laughs? Threaten his family, and he just responds with 'Go ahead'?

It feels too artificial and just a quick band-aid replacement for actual role-playing. 
'Come on guys, roll high 8 times, and we can just hand-wave the whole thing and get back to killing'.

I don't have a problem with 'find the temple in the jungle' example, because that makes sense- it isn't something the players and DM can actually do, so you game it out with dice rolls.  But faking a role-playing session seems to defeat half the point of a game.  Go down that road, and you really are playing a board game.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 5, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Threaten his family, and he just responds with 'Go ahead'?



No - instead he's sly and says "I comply with you", but since he and his family were threatened, he instead (secretly) doesn't comply and sends assassins after the PCs, because he was threatened.#

It's a part of his character - and proud nobility who is intimidated is perhaps more likely to kill such threats instead of giving in - out of fear - because only a dead bully cannot bully you any more.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (May 5, 2008)

doctormandible said:
			
		

> RESULT:  The Duke  refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.and the PCs earn a failure.  (WHAT?!?!)




That's not negotiating with the Duke, though, that's threatening/intimidating him, which I suspect will have its own template/entry.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (May 5, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> I never really understood this select easy/moderate/hard part. What's stopping a coward like me to always go for easy + my highest skill modifier. Fine, I don't get the bonus to the next roll for making a high check, but since I am only going low DC vs. my best skill, I don't need it anyway




I say if you roleplay it right, you can use your highest skill modifier.  

What I plan on doing is, instead of going "roll this skill and then roleplay what you do" is to go "roleplay and we'll decide what skill you need to roll based on that."

Like so, so many things in 4e, it's all in how you look at it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Actually the example annoys me specifically for that Intimidate prohibition.  Why?  Why is this guy immune to getting leaned on?  Offer to feed him to your pet demon and he just laughs? Threaten his family, and he just responds with 'Go ahead'?



You can intimidate the Duke. But it doesn't bring you closer to your goal. That's the idea. You get him to fear you, but that doesn't mean he will lend you troops or whatever you wanted to do. It makes it just likely that he will send his family to safety, ask his mage to improve the magical protection barriers, and, if all that doesn't seem enough, he will have you arrested or betray you at a later point. The NPCs role and personality just doesn't fit being intimidated in this context. That's the idea. 
You have to keep in mind that if you need his help, that means you depend on him. This gives him power over you. 

Imagine trying it in the real world. Go to your mayor, and threaten to kill his family, if he doesn't send his sheriff to help you in taking out a biker-gang. Don't you think this will make him work against you at a later time? He will use every opportunity to hinder your efforts. 

Remember that failing the skill challenge doesn't mean that you are unable to continue. Depending on what happened during the roleplaying part of the challenge, it means you are not in the perfect situation. If you failed barely, maybe the Duke lends you a small and weak unit, but since you threatened him, they have orders to leave you to die if you face real opposition. 



> It feels too artificial and just a quick band-aid replacement for actual role-playing.
> 'Come on guys, roll high 8 times, and we can just hand-wave the whole thing and get back to killing'.



If you're not interested in Roleplaying, that's what you can do. But if you want to role-play, you can use the system as a guide "what" to roleplay. it structures what you do, and you can measure the progress and flow of the roleplay situation. It is more then just fancy-talk and convincing the DM. It's also more then just rolling a single dice and telling a story with them. 
It allows you to tell a story based on the decisions the character make and their skill or success in following their decisions. It provides a more complex structure then "roll a single check against a fixed DC", and you can use this structure to base your roleplaying on, or can use your roleplaying to create the structure. 



> I don't have a problem with 'find the temple in the jungle' example, because that makes sense- it isn't something the players and DM can actually do, so you game it out with dice rolls.  But faking a role-playing session seems to defeat half the point of a game.  Go down that road, and you really are playing a board game.



I disagree. You're really playing a *dice* game, at least during the skill challenges. You don't need a board, just your skill checks. 
Edit: But if you want to roleplay, but either feel a little overwhelmed by the possibilities, or just want to know what your roleplaying means in mechanical terms and how it all worked out, the skill challenge is ready for you.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> It allows you to tell a story based on the decisions the character make and their skill or success in following their decisions. It provides a more complex structure then "roll a single check against a fixed DC", and you can use this structure to base your roleplaying on, or can use your roleplaying to create the structure.



Yep - that's the important point. Free-form role-playing is all fine and dandy, but sometimes isn't actual "role-playing" - it's sometimes acting and using your own ingenuity and charisma to convince the DM of your idea and character.

This system allows you to quantify your character's (not only social) skills in a formal and codified system, allowing people with less ingenuity and charisma to get thing done in accord with their character (basically when they do the no brainer skills, like using diplomacy), while giving the inventive players a way to play their character in accord with their character AND having fun to find a way to use their skills.

Hence, it's a good tool: I have a player who is less good as impromptu conversations - but plays a character with high diplomacy. What now? Just roll?

But I also have a player who is inventive and bent of getting things done - but has crappy skills for that situation. And now he should get things, just because he has good ideas, without fitting the character? What now? Let it slide? Have him giving the other players "tips"?

Skill challenges help in this regard - the improptu-stiffled player CAN indeed say "I try to convince him with the facts" - blam! Diplomacy. While the creative player can say, "I use my understanding of history to show him similar examples that happened before and the crucial importance of his task and how future historians will remember his help!" - blam, History.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Voss (May 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> You can intimidate the Duke. But it doesn't bring you closer to your goal. That's the idea. You get him to fear you, but that doesn't mean he will lend you troops or whatever you wanted to do. It makes it just likely that he will send his family to safety, ask his mage to improve the magical protection barriers, and, if all that doesn't seem enough, he will have you arrested or betray you at a later point. The NPCs role and personality just doesn't fit being intimidated in this context. That's the idea.
> You have to keep in mind that if you need his help, that means you depend on him. This gives him power over you. .




It might, if you do it right.  Sure, it can have repercussions down the road, but the idea that you can't do it at all is fairly ridiculous.  There is leverage you can apply to force help out of someone.  If they send someone after you later, well, thats all part of the game.

Its funny, if they had just done the 'find the lost temple in the jungle' example, I doubt it would have sparked all this.  For example: make 4 Nature checks, after one successful Nature check, the party has their bearings and can substitute a single Relgion check and a single History check for Nature checks as they draw on religious lore and the history of the temple to find landmarks and important features of the area.  That would make sense.  'Neener, neener, you can't intimidate this guy because we say so', doesn't.


----------



## Simon Marks (May 5, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> It might, if you do it right.




But it might not.

Anyway, it's a template - designed to be altered.


----------



## Propheous_D (May 5, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> It might, if you do it right.  Sure, it can have repercussions down the road, but the idea that you can't do it at all is fairly ridiculous.  There is leverage you can apply to force help out of someone.  If they send someone after you later, well, thats all part of the game.
> 
> Its funny, if they had just done the 'find the lost temple in the jungle' example, I doubt it would have sparked all this.  For example: make 4 Nature checks, after one successful Nature check, the party has their bearings and can substitute a single Relgion check and a single History check for Nature checks as they draw on religious lore and the history of the temple to find landmarks and important features of the area.  That would make sense.  'Neener, neener, you can't intimidate this guy because we say so', doesn't.




Ok people this is amusing and all but lets have reality set in. Breath stop and think.

One name I will spout and if it doesn't solve this inane arguement about why intimidate should not work on some individuals then you are obviously an individual who logic should resort to automatic failure when I put you in a skill challenge.

Martin Luther King

How many good ole white boys do you think tried thier intimidate skill on him? I can bring up MANY more examples of people who are just not gonna let you intimidate them. However, I think this one pretty much proves my point.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> It might, if you do it right.  Sure, it can have repercussions down the road, but the idea that you can't do it at all is fairly ridiculous.  There is leverage you can apply to force help out of someone.  If they send someone after you later, well, thats all part of the game.



You can use Intimidate. It just will always count as a failure. Maybe that's just semantics to you, but it is important. A PC can attempt to go for Intimidation, and he might never see how this was what was caused the two soldiers attempting to assassinate him during their travel to the borderlands. 

It might be similar to someone using his daily power for triple damage against a simple Minion in combat (or a 3e example - firing a fireball at a single enemy with some fire resistance). It is a choice you can make, and it has a consequence (you won't have the power available again until the next morning). It still wasn't a useful action. If you had bothered to check that the guy was shivering the whole combat or that he just failed to deal any noteworthy damage, you would have had the chance to avoid losing your daily power for nothing. But you did not, and now you live with the consequences.
In the skill challenge, you could have made a Insight check first, and might have noticed that intimidation isn't going to work in this case.


----------



## Celebrim (May 5, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Why are ppl getting so hung up over Intimidate?
> 
> It's just an example. It's showing the parameters for designing a skill challenge, and one of these parameters is that the DM can rule out any skills they consider to be not useful for the situation. In this particular case, such a skill is Intimidate.
> 
> The key point is that you, the DM, are empowered by the rules to say that skill X is inapplicable for challenge Y, for whatever values of X and Y you deem appropriate. Quite possibly, you might never say that a skill is inapplicable. It isn't that this specific skill, Intimidate, can't be used to bully barons around or whatever.




I think people are commenting on the fact that Intimidate - being a social skill - is seemingly well suited to a social challenge.  It may be true that the Duke is difficult to intimidate (because he is a stern, proud, honorable, and patriotic person), or particularly difficult to intimidate by the PC's (who may be his social and legal inferiors, who may be of lower level, and so forth), and naturally people react badly when you try to intimidate them but fail.  But, suggesting that something is very difficult is quite different than suggesting that it is impossible.  'Impossible' is a word that generally means, 'the plot is on rails', as in, 'You can't march through these woods, its impossible.... No, you can't chop a path through the woods either, its impossible...no you can't go over these mountains except on the road, its impossible'


----------



## hcm (May 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I disagree. You're really playing a *dice* game, at least during the skill challenges.




But it's not much of a game if you can't choose between easy, moderate and hard checks, imo. From the excerpt, it seems that DCs are hidden -- otherwise the players would know intimidate had no chance of success. 

It seems that all the player does is choose a skill, roll and then ask the DM 'do I succeed?', which is the equivalent of 'I attack with <weapon>, do I hit the dude?' followed by 'did we win the challenge?/get the dude's hp down to zero?'. I hope I'm wrong, but this looks like the same kind of boring design that 4e is meant to move away from.

If I'm right, I'll houserule so that the player can say: 'I choose a hard history check. This is why history applies to the situation, and this is why the check should be considered hard'. (And the DM can approve, deny, help out, listen to more arguments from other players etc.) This is still not a super interesting dice game, but it's better than what the excerpt suggests, because it gives the player an actual tactical choice, besides providing the same challenge/support to creative RP. The only problem I can see with such an approach is that it makes immersion potentially harder. But if I wanted deep immersion I wouldn't play DnD anyway.


----------



## Thyrwyn (May 5, 2008)

The example does not say "the Duke cannot be intimidated".  The example says that each attempt to intimidate the Duke makes him less likely "to provide reasonable assistance to the characters." (ie: gaining the benefit of succeeding at the challenge).

Again, it is a general template for a skill challenge.  Arguing that "given specific situation x, with circumstances y, z, and q - giving the duke blanket immunity to Intimidate is silly" is inappropriate.  There are always going to be specific circumstances that require modification to general guidelines (or rules or templates).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think people are commenting on the fact that Intimidate - being a social skill - is seemingly well suited to a social challenge.  It may be true that the Duke is difficult to intimidate (because he is a stern, proud, honorable, and patriotic person), or particularly difficult to intimidate by the PC's (who may be his social and legal inferiors, who may be of lower level, and so forth), and naturally people react badly when you try to intimidate them but fail.  But, suggesting that something is very difficult is quite different than suggesting that it is impossible.  'Impossible' is a word that generally means, 'the plot is on rails', as in, 'You can't march through these woods, its impossible.... No, you can't chop a path through the woods either, its impossible...no you can't go over these mountains except on the road, its impossible'



But what the "no intimidate" is actually to represent is this: 
"Sure, you can use the northern passage over the Mountain of Doom. But it won't bring you closer to the Tomb of Despair, since that one is south!"


----------



## el-remmen (May 5, 2008)

Intriguing, but really doesn't tell us much. I wish it had been a more specific example of play than what they gave us.

This the kind of thing I am looking forward to porting over to my 3.x game - since at this point I fairly certain I will not be playing 4E even though I pre-ordered the books.



			
				Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> I don't care about the article much, but the art is some of the best i have seen for 4e.




Word.  So much better than the crap on the covers or the glossy stuff from those photos from a couple a weeks ago.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And how should the PCs be able to know when a new skill can be rolled because of a previous success like with the history check here, especially as I see no reason why you can't start the negotiation with "We are honored to meet the savior of whatevertown" without previous successful diplomacy check.




You set up the encounter like following:

PCs hear something about a lord rescuing the town, but you don´t tell them the name...

Some days later they meet that particular lord (the DUKE), but the PCs don´t know that it is still the same one... 

(If someone guesses good, i would not forbid using the history skill outright)

If they have their first successfull diplomacy check, you let slip a name the players hopefully connect to the old story. Then that player may use history to remember a bit more of that story... (no names, but some deeds of that lord, which will make him happy when he knows you know about him)


----------



## AllisterH (May 5, 2008)

Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> The example does not say "the Duke cannot be intimidated".  The example says that each attempt to intimidate the Duke makes him less likely "to provide reasonable assistance to the characters." (ie: gaining the benefit of succeeding at the challenge).




Exactly. There's nothing in the actual writeup/excerpt that says you can't use Intimidate.

All it says is that Intimidate leads to one failure and if it leads to three, you don't accomplish your goal. Which can be from "get the Duke to write a writ of passage for a month" to "get the Duke to supply his best (highest level) troops".

If you fail, instead of the above, you get "Duke writes a writ of passage for a week" to "get his worst troops (a.k.a lowest morale/lowest level) troops".

Nowhere in the example does it say "Can't use Intimidate".


----------



## Derren (May 5, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> (If someone guesses good, i would not forbid using the history skill outright)




Isn't the history skill supposed to do exactly that? When someone has a high history skill he doesn't have to guess because he knows such things.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Isn't the history skill supposed to do exactly that? When someone has a high history skill he doesn't have to guess because he knows such things.




yes... right!

And i would make it a very hard or impossible check, if you have no clue which particular lord has saved the town, because usually no one bothered to write his name down. But that successfull diplomacy skill will give you the clue you needed...

A different Lord ruling the town where you studied, and the history skill is a no-brainer...


----------



## Propheous_D (May 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think people are commenting on the fact that Intimidate - being a social skill - is seemingly well suited to a social challenge.  It may be true that the Duke is difficult to intimidate (because he is a stern, proud, honorable, and patriotic person), or particularly difficult to intimidate by the PC's (who may be his social and legal inferiors, who may be of lower level, and so forth), and naturally people react badly when you try to intimidate them but fail.  But, suggesting that something is very difficult is quite different than suggesting that it is impossible.  'Impossible' is a word that generally means, 'the plot is on rails', as in, 'You can't march through these woods, its impossible.... No, you can't chop a path through the woods either, its impossible...no you can't go over these mountains except on the road, its impossible'




Again lets have a reality check.

Having one skill result in something else because it suits role-play and plot is in no way putting the plot on rails. That is a rather silly statement considering it removes 1 of a nearly infinite number of options to the PC's. To properly put the plot ON rails you would have narrow the options significantly.

Plot and Story should and are allowed to throw monkey wrenches into rules when it is deemed appropriate. Also, THIS IS A TEMPLATE AND NOT A RULE!!!!!!!! It shows what options are available. If you feel so pationately that all skills should be allow then feel free to play that way. I won't, and I love the idea that PC's can tread into dangerous ground if they are not carefull that is WHAT role-playing and roll-playing is all about.


----------



## Primal (May 5, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Actually the example annoys me specifically for that Intimidate prohibition.  Why?  Why is this guy immune to getting leaned on?  Offer to feed him to your pet demon and he just laughs? Threaten his family, and he just responds with 'Go ahead'?
> 
> It feels too artificial and just a quick band-aid replacement for actual role-playing.
> 'Come on guys, roll high 8 times, and we can just hand-wave the whole thing and get back to killing'.
> ...




As already mentioned, I think it is due to *this* particular Duke not being swayed by intimidation. And why not? Dukes and other nobles rarely take slights or threats likely -- and in most cases you're lucky if he doesn't order his men to kill you on the spot. 

How would you have handled it if any of your players (in 3.5) would try to get a local duke's help by saying: "Listen, I'm gonna Intimidate this guy witless -- I'll tell him that I'll kill his wife and children if he doesn't give us his castle and all his wealth!". Would you have accepted that? Would you have even let him roll that check? And would you have ruled that there are consequences?

Look, it's very easy to say that it's restrictive, but how many times have you denied your players a skill check that just didn't make sense in a certain situation? It's pretty obvious that although you *CAN* use Intimidation in the challenge, but it's just that the outcome is automatically negative. And if any of my players used Intimidation in such a situation in 3.5, I would probably let him, but there sure as hell would be repercussions -- whether he succeeded or not. Unless, of course, the duke was actually a villain or there was some other logical reason for PCs behaving that way.

And let's not forget that this just an example -- I'm sure that Ari (and other playtesters) can confirm that this is not the "only" way to run a social skill check challenge in 4E. I'm sure that there are rules how to modify the given examples in various situations (i.e. when your players are involved in a skill challenge against an innkeeper).  

I was very doubtful of players abusing the "big intent vs. small intent" problem (which is also handled terribly even in some Indie RPGs), but to me it's clear that they've put some thought into this. I especially like how using certain skills open new options to use other skills. I may not like a lot of stuff in 4E, but I honestly believe that this system will actually *encourage* role-playing and character immersion.


----------



## Propheous_D (May 5, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> yes... right!
> 
> And i would make it a very hard or impossible check, if you have no clue which particular lord has saved the town, because usually no one bothered to write his name down. But that successfull diplomacy skill will give you the clue you needed...
> 
> A different Lord ruling the town where you studied, and the history skill is a no-brainer...




Don't forget it can be insignicant in the eyes of history but that the Duke feels is a bright spot or a thorn in his side. While you might know the fact with out knowing the Duke you would not realize its relevance to him.

For instance it may be that the day the King rode out to be assasinated the Duke warned him not to go, but he didn't listen. This has left the Duke feeling guilty he didn't try harder. You can bring up the fact that you had heard such a rumor and that you consider his councel sound and wise based on it. He may then on some rant about how only if the King had listened and people never listen to him but its good that you take his councel. 

A fact that means nothing in history, but is personal to the duke like that can really away a vote in your favor. The trick is knowing if this will bring up bad memories and anger him or draw him to your side.


----------



## Dausuul (May 5, 2008)

I like the system, though it doesn't tell me much I didn't already know.

As for Intimidate, I read that the way I read any rule--"This is how it works except in extraordinary cases, in which case the DM is expected to adjust on the fly."  The Jump rules tell you how far you can jump under normal circumstances.  They don't include rules for what happens if the party wizard casts _gust of wind_ right behind you at the moment you leap.  Does that mean you can't use _gust of wind_ to help you jump farther?  Of course not; it just means that under normal circumstances, you can't jump farther than 1 foot per point of your Jump check result.

The local leader is proud, arrogant, and used to being in charge.  When you attempt physical intimidation, it just makes him mad; hence, most Intimidate checks actually turn him against you.  You can't lean on him the way you can lean on some cowardly informant.

Does that mean the guy is flat-out immune to intimidation?  No, but the party fighter talking tough isn't going to do it.  If you present yourselves as emissaries of the emperor, and smoothly but menacingly imply that disobedience will mean an Imperial legion sent to lay waste to the NPC's barony, that's got a much better shot at succeeding.  Of course, unless the PCs actually are emissaries of the emperor, a Bluff check would be more appropriate than Intimidate on that one.

For that matter, there are circumstances where I'd house-rule the other way too.  Normally, trying to bluster or threaten just gives you one auto-failure, but if the attempt is really egregious, it could derail the whole negotiation.  For example, if you draw your sword and brandish it, the NPC is likely to call his guards and have you arrested on the spot.


----------



## Andur (May 5, 2008)

Here is what I see:

1)  A Skill ENCOUNTER should have as much (or little) preperation as a Combat Encounter.

2)  Much as a Combat Encounter has rewards and penalties, so should a skill encounter.

3)  Just as a Combat Encounter has a "ideal" solution, so should a skill.

4)  The DM, not the players sets the DC's for different skill checks AND the results for skill usage.  (For example, with the Duke, acrobatics is not listed, but as a DM I"d let a player attempt acrobatic check if it went along the lines of "Your Grace, if we say we can do something, we can do it, for example, I will jump over your throne, without touching neither the throne, nor the banner above it."  Player makes a Hard DC acrobatics check and if he succeeds they get two successes.  However if the Player just states, "I'll tumble around to show him we can be entertaining" would result in neither success nor failure unless he keeps trying.)

5)  Intimidate : to make timid or fearful , neither of which is close to making trusting...

As a DM you can still have all the random skill CHECKS you want, but your Skill ENCOUNTERS, should be planned, have a purpose, and should count toward the "number of encounters for level progression" planning.  So a "one level gained adventure" might have 2 skill encounters and 9 combat encounters, or vice versa, failing more than one encounter could result in that adventure not resulting in level gain.  Failure of any encounter might result in the need for more encounters in order to conclude the adventure.

The fact there is so much fretting over a one page exerpt from an entire chapter shows that there are many people who just like to worry for worry's sake.


----------



## Celebrim (May 5, 2008)

To me, convincing a single person to lend aid is poorly suited to requiring lots and lots of dice checks.  Lots and lots of dice checks might still happen, but I don't see why they should be required.

My general approach would be:

1) Set some high DC on getting the Duke to provide aid to the players.  Allow a single social check (diplomacy, bluff, or intimidate) based on this high DC and modified by the appropriateness of the player's role play.
2) Allow the DC of the social check to be greatly reduced if before making it, a second diplomacy check improved the Duke's reaction to the PC's to friendly.  Modify this roll's DC by the suitableness of the player's role play as well.
3) Allow multiple chances for success (and multiple oppurtunities for role play) so long as the PC's haven't driven the Duke's opinion of the PC's sufficiently negative that he refuses to listen further or takes hostile action against them.

If I wanted to make this a particularly involved situation, I'd require that the PC's change the situational modifiers before recieving an oppurtunity to reroll the check - for example, they may first need to bring the Duke's senior advisor or wife on board or the Duke may need to be bribed before the Duke will seriously reconsider thier arguments.

If I wanted to make the situation the focus of a whole session or more, then I'd have a council of Nobles each of which would need to be persuaded in order to obtain a majority.  To make it particularly difficult or involved, I might require such a resolution be unaminous to be binding.  Or alternately, I could require the PC's to navigate thier way up a bureacracy before obtaining audience with the Duke (or anyone else).  

In short, there are lots of ways of doing this very sort of thing with existing techniques which to my mind are less likely to create problems than arbitrarily requires 8 successes or some such.


----------



## Cadfan (May 5, 2008)

Q. Why can't I use intimidate to get the Duke to do what I want??
A. This skill challenge only makes sense in the context of specific adventurers trying to convince a specific duke to do a specific thing.  Maybe this set of PCs can't intimidate the Duke because he has a big army and will have them hung by morning if they convince him they're a threat.

Q. But what if I'm like, 25th level and capable of demolishing his entire duke-dom or whatever its called.
A. Then the skill challenge would be modified by your DM to match your specific situation.

Q. Why do I have to hear the Duke's comment before I can use my history skill?
A. You could conceivably use your history skill at any time.  But you won't know the particular bit of historical information until your DM tells it to you, so you won't be able to use it in the conversation.

Q. But I'm trained in History!  I should be able to roll to know any historical information I want.
A. Why?  And how would you know to roll to find out this particular piece of information anyways?  Nothing in this prohibits _other_ uses of the History skill.  This is just one bit of pc/npc banter that the DM has written up in advance in his DM-notes.  Its not taking away other possibilities.

Q. Why can't I use skills that aren't listed?  Like, umm, athletics!
A. You can.  But you have to come up with an explanation for why it would help, and the DM might not agree.

Q. Why aren't there other possibilities besides just success and failure?
A. There probably are.  For example, the use of one skill that can't create successes or failures might set you up for the use of another skill that can.  But we don't know this yet.

Q. What if the party succeeds at 8 skill checks that make sense to be successes, but none of them "closes the deal?"
A. Two possible answers.  The first is that what counts as a success may change as the skill challenge moves forwards.  The second is that rules like "8 successes before 3 failures" are essentially guides to DMs to help them narrate.  So if the DM is on the ball, he'll make sure that the deal is about to close after the 7th success or so.

Q. But isn't changing what counts as a success in order to force the use of a particular "deal closing" at the end of a skill challenge a sort of straight jacket?
A. No.  Not if the way things changed is based on player actions.  Suppose your skill challenge is convincing a street tough to roll over on his higher-ups.  You've spent 7 successes worth of time moralizing to him, reminding him of the hard times he went through as a kid, and trying to convince him that he should reform his life and help prevent those things to happening to more innocents.  You've just finished reminding him of his loving grandma, whom he hasn't seen in years.  Then suddenly you try to get your 8th success by holding his face underwater until he begs for mercy.  Your DM rules that your actions are counter productive, and undermine all the successes you've previously earned.  Its not railroading to make such a ruling, since its a logical consequence of your own decisions.  That's the opposite of railroading.

Q. But won't players just figure out the best skill they have available, then use it repeatedly?
A. Not necessarily.  Again, as the situation changes, what helps you achieve your goals changes.  If you're trying to evacuate a burning town, and you start by giving a speech to the fleeing townsfolk to convince them to start a bucket line from the river to the town, a second identical speech won't do any good after they've already been convinced.  You'll have to find something else to do.

Q. But if you strip all of this down to its bare roots, its just a series of d20 rolls.  There's no _game_ here.
A. By that logic most RPGs aren't games at all.  In this case, the roleplaying provides the game.  You are correct in your belief that roleplaying a diplomatic encounter with a Duke is no fun if you skip the roleplaying, just name a skill, and roll a d20.  That's why you're not supposed to do that.


----------



## Deadstop (May 5, 2008)

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 _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 "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.


----------



## Derren (May 5, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Q. Why do I have to hear the Duke's comment before I can use my history skill?
> A. You could conceivably use your history skill at any time.  But you won't know the particular bit of historical information until your DM tells it to you, so you won't be able to use it in the conversation.



The entire point of rolling the history skill is to check if the character knows a particular bit of historical information.  Such a setup defeats the purpose of the skill.







> Q. But I'm trained in History!  I should be able to roll to know any historical information I want.
> A. Why?  And how would you know to roll to find out this particular piece of information anyways?  Nothing in this prohibits _other_ uses of the History skill.  This is just one bit of pc/npc banter that the DM has written up in advance in his DM-notes.  Its not taking away other possibilities.




Why? Because thats what the history skill is for? Its needless railroading which takes away this particular possibility which is bad enough.


----------



## Lizard (May 5, 2008)

NebtheNever said:
			
		

> Not much new info here, but this does at least tell us the Skill Challenge system isn't a silly "Roll high with a random skill and you succeed" system like some were suggesting. I also like the concept of certain skills opening up other checks, and certain skills being off limits or even detrimental in certain situations.




Yes, this is nice, and VERY different from "Escape from Sembia" info, which seemed to imply the main "challenge" was finding a way to make the DM let you get away with a ludicrous excuse to use whatever your highest skill happened to be. I like the 'flowchart' whereby some skills open up other skills, or reveal information. I also like the fact it seems that the results should be secret, otherwise, learning that intimidate==fail would be obvious the first time you tried it and the Insight result would not be useful.

My only complaint is that, right now, it seems to be almost non-interactive; the DM asks the PCs to roll dice, they do so, he checks off 'success' or 'failure' and they roll again until the end. Where does the role-playing fit into this model? What could be an entire session of intensive roleplaying seems to be reduced to just a few formulaic die rolls. How do you mix actual play into this framework?

My preferred style is to roleplay encounters and then roll skill checks at 'dramatic junctures', to help avoid DM fiat and to give players who invested in skills a reward for making the mechanics match their concept -- otherwise, the most charismatic/talkative *player* wins even when his characters is supposed to be unlikable and rude.


----------



## Frostmarrow (May 5, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Q. What if the party succeeds at 8 skill checks that make sense to be successes, but none of them "closes the deal?"
> A. Two possible answers. The first is that what counts as a success may change as the skill challenge moves forwards. The second is that rules like "8 successes before 3 failures" are essentially guides to DMs to help them narrate. So if the DM is on the ball, he'll make sure that the deal is about to close after the 7th success or so.




Third answer: Or maybe closing the deal require no roll at all. If you have earned 8 successes by use of knowledge skills, informing you of everything about a certain trap, you disarm it by flicking a hidden switch. No roll necessary.


----------



## Propheous_D (May 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The entire point of rolling the history skill is to check if the character knows a particular bit of historical information.  Such a setup defeats the purpose of the skill.
> 
> Why? Because thats what the history skill is for? Its needless railroading which takes away this particular possibility which is bad enough.




All ready dealt with this in my post. You can be a font of information knowing everything there is to know. However the real truth lies in a simple yet obscure thing we in this culture are too stupid to grasp. Knowing the answer is only half the equation. What is the question young padawan.

42 means nothing with out the question.


----------



## Lizard (May 5, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> *This.*
> 
> People are still, I guess, approaching this from 3.5 mindset.




I have no problem with "Intimidate==failure".

"Yo, Duke boy! Either give us some help, or we'll just lop your head off, grab the crown, and run this pissant little Dukedom ourselves, savvy?"

"Well, how can I refuse? Oh, Chancellor? These fine gentlemen need our help. Alert Alfonse and have him and his men meet them by the old north gate, then show them the shortcut to the Temple of Certain Doom they've been asking about."

"Right away, sir."

(Alfonse is, of course, the Duke's chief 'remover of troublesome problems' and his men are the toughest cut throats in the land. 'North gate' is a code word for 'kill these bastards and bring me their heads'.)

"Woo hoo! See, guys, THAT'S how you get help. None of this sissy 'diplomacy' crap."


----------



## Propheous_D (May 5, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> My only complaint is that, right now, it seems to be almost non-interactive; the DM asks the PCs to roll dice, they do so, he checks off 'success' or 'failure' and they roll again until the end. Where does the role-playing fit into this model? What could be an entire session of intensive roleplaying seems to be reduced to just a few formulaic die rolls. How do you mix actual play into this framework?




I am really curious as to how you get that from the skill challenge system. Its like saying there is no role-playing in creating my character. I roll my stats and use them to overcome obstacles. I don't need a personality because there is no were in the rules that implies I have one. I just have a bunch of stats that mean I do this well and not that.
Role-Playing is what you make of it. The book deals with the mechanics behind your role-play. I am sure like in all additions there will be circumstance bonus for things like knowledge and good role-playing.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2008)

Propheous_D said:
			
		

> All ready dealt with this in my post. You can be a font of information knowing everything there is to know. However the real truth lies in a simple yet obscure thing we in this culture are too stupid to grasp. Knowing the answer is only half the equation. What is the question young padawan.
> 
> 42 means nothing with out the question.



 good catch!

Also: this discussion reminds me to discussions with "Zeugen Jehowas" who misinterpret stories and examples in the bible with hard facts/rules...


----------



## davethegame (May 5, 2008)

Apparently I have a different problem than everyone else.

This doesn't make sense to me:



> Complexity: 3 (requires 8 successes before 4 failures).




How does 3 = 8s/4f? 

I'm hoping there's some easy formula that's escaping me at the moment, and not some weird chart I have to look up.

And what does a Complexity rating mean by itself anyway? It sure sounds like Level is used for determining XP award, so it wouldn't be that.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 5, 2008)

cferejohn said:
			
		

> I mean, if you have a skill challenge where characters have to cross a 50' chasm with some rope, a grappling hook, and a fallen tree, I think you are perfectly within your rights to say "a jump check automatically fails".




Why would it automatically fail if one of the PCs is capable of making a DC51 Jump check?



			
				ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> Its not that you can intimidate the duke, its that intimidating him wont get you to your goal.




Also known as "Failing the Intimidate check."

If "Getting Your Way, Regardless of What the Victim Would Prefer" is not part of a successful Intimidate check, I don't know what purpose the skill serves.



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> I'm REALLY, REALLY interested in the reasoning that makes "Intimidate" something that would make you trustworthy....I'm honestly blanking here, help me out here guys.




Player: "I swear by my life, no man may besmirch my honor and live. I don't care if you are surrounded by your guards, nor even that I may lose my life in the bargain, but if you dare question my trustworthiness again, I will cut you down where you stand."

DM: "The Duke is taken aback, but clearly impressed by your manner. After a moment he laughs. Standing up, he claps you on the back. 'By the Gods, man, I wish I had a captain among my guard with such balls!'"


----------



## Derren (May 5, 2008)

Propheous_D said:
			
		

> All ready dealt with this in my post. You can be a font of information knowing everything there is to know. However the real truth lies in a simple yet obscure thing we in this culture are too stupid to grasp. Knowing the answer is only half the equation. What is the question young padawan.
> 
> 42 means nothing with out the question.




And what would the question be in this case? 
When you try to gain support of a lord and you are well versed in history you are of course trying to find out about the past exploits of the lord and either you know them (successful roll/history challenge) or you don't (failed roll/challenge).
Saying thats impossible to know defeats the purpose of the skill. Its like only allowing the rogue to try to pick a lock after he found the slightly bend or broken key, not before.

And why would a successful diplomacy check allow you to roll on your history skill? Maybe the discussion went into a direction which doesn't allow this information to be revealed?
Such a static script like shown in the excerpt is too unflexible to handle real roleplaying.


----------



## keterys (May 5, 2008)

You can know all the history you want, but spouting it isn't as useful until you've got the Duke actually listening to you. That's a cool wrinkle to the problem. It looks like they're showing that skill challenges are very customizable (easier or harder DCs for certain skills, some skills can't help, other skills work better, there are potential synergies, etc).

Sounds good. It'll be nice for the rules to not just be 'Roll Diplomacy.' 'Okay, he's your slave.' or 'Okay, you fail'. People who ignored rules for interactions in favor of just roleplaying can, of course, continue to do so, but the skill challenge mechanism seems more suited to support roleplaying than the old make one roll method, too. You can set a tone, ebb and flow, figure out what skills work best, etc.


----------



## Lizard (May 5, 2008)

Propheous_D said:
			
		

> I am really curious as to how you get that from the skill challenge system.




Imagine if we saw a preview of the combat system, and it consisted of "Roll your BAB against a DC. If you roll over it 6 times before rolling under it three times, you win."

Would you think combat had a lot interactivity?

I'm curious as to an example of Actual Play(tm) showing how this works with real player/DM interaction. This example looks like a great framework for resolving player choices, but I'm not seeing how to actually run it as anything but a sterile dice game.


----------



## Celebrim (May 5, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Q. Why do I have to hear the Duke's comment before I can use my history skill?
> A. You could conceivably use your history skill at any time.  But you won't know the particular bit of historical information until your DM tells it to you, so you won't be able to use it in the conversation.




Well sure, but can't you just ask, 'I want to use my history knowledge to see if I can remember anything important about the Duke's life."?

Note, according to the provided framework _you can't_.  Yes, you could just ignore the framework according to your judgement, but then its a 'flexible frame' (ei not a frame).



> Q. Why can't I use skills that aren't listed?  Like, umm, athletics!
> A. You can.  But you have to come up with an explanation for why it would help, and the DM might not agree.




That's entirely reasonable but nothing in the excerpt suggests that that is actually the rules.  The excerpt suggests that a skill challenge has primary skills (those that the PCs are expected to attempt), and secondary skills (those which can be opened up by succeeding at a primary skill).  Nothing in the description suggests that the challenge is expected to be resolved by anything other than 7-8 successes in diplomacy, bluff, and insight and possibly one optional success in history.   Likewise, nothing in the excerpt suggests that in this case players aren't encouraged to sit back (possibly provide an 'aid other' action) and let the main charismatic character handle the majority of the encounter. 



> Q. But isn't changing what counts as a success in order to force the use of a particular "deal closing" at the end of a skill challenge a sort of straight jacket?
> A. No.  Not if the way things changed is based on player actions.  Suppose your skill challenge is convincing a street tough to roll over on his higher-ups.  You've spent 7 successes worth of time moralizing to him, reminding him of the hard times he went through as a kid, and trying to convince him that he should reform his life and help prevent those things to happening to more innocents.  You've just finished reminding him of his loving grandma, whom he hasn't seen in years.  Then suddenly you try to get your 8th success by holding his face underwater until he begs for mercy.  Your DM rules that your actions are counter productive, and undermine all the successes you've previously earned.  Its not railroading to make such a ruling, since its a logical consequence of your own decisions.  That's the opposite of railroading.




While that's entirely reasonable, again nothing suggests that that is actually the rules as written.  Nothing suggests that any skill check is ever responcible for multiple successes or failures or that it can invalidate previous successes or failures.  If this is up to DM judgement, then we haven't really changed from where we've been in the past.



> Q. But won't players just figure out the best skill they have available, then use it repeatedly?
> A. Not necessarily.  Again, as the situation changes, what helps you achieve your goals changes.  If you're trying to evacuate a burning town, and you start by giving a speech to the fleeing townsfolk to convince them to start a bucket line from the river to the town, a second identical speech won't do any good after they've already been convinced.  You'll have to find something else to do.




Again, that's entirely reasonable and may be true of some skill challenges, in the example skill challenge nothing suggests that you aren't supposed to use a primary skill 8 times in a row. 



> Q. But if you strip all of this down to its bare roots, its just a series of d20 rolls.  There's no _game_ here.
> A. By that logic most RPGs aren't games at all.  In this case, the roleplaying provides the game.  You are correct in your belief that roleplaying a diplomatic encounter with a Duke is no fun if you skip the roleplaying, just name a skill, and roll a d20.  That's why you're not supposed to do that.




I half agree with you here.  My problem is, why insist on 8 successes?  However interesting the roleplay may be, I just don't see how 8-12 die rolls add anything to it in particular.


----------



## Derren (May 5, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> You can know all the history you want, but spouting it isn't as useful until you've got the Duke actually listening to you.




You arenot "spounting random historical knowledge", but "You make an insightful remark about the significant event from the NPC’s past.". That doesn't require the duke to listen very well to you, after all he already listens at least a bit as otherwise the skill challenge wouldn't even be possible.


----------



## Dausuul (May 5, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> My only complaint is that, right now, it seems to be almost non-interactive; the DM asks the PCs to roll dice, they do so, he checks off 'success' or 'failure' and they roll again until the end. Where does the role-playing fit into this model? What could be an entire session of intensive roleplaying seems to be reduced to just a few formulaic die rolls. How do you mix actual play into this framework?




DM: The duke sits at the head of his banquet table. Gesturing with a wine glass, he bids you to sit. "I’m told you have news from the borderlands."

Rogue: "Yes, your Grace.  The borderlands prosper under your wise rule."

_DM calls for a Diplomacy check.  The rogue fails._

DM (as Duke): "Don't waste my time on flattery.  You came to tell me something, spit it out."

Rogue: "I apologize, your Grace.  To the point, then.  The swamps near the famous Keep have always been a home to lizard folk, but lately their numbers have been multiplying.  They are beginning to pose a threat to the nearby villages."

_DM calls for another Diplomacy check.  The rogue makes this one._

DM: "I see.  Well, that is information I am glad to have.  I'll send a few men to beef up the garrison at Coldtower."

Rogue: "An excellent decision, your Grace, but if I might suggest... we found evidence that they may be planning to use the Keep on the Borderlands as a staging area for an attack."  (This is a total lie, the PCs have no such evidence.)  "We would like to investigate further, but our resources are limited."

_DM calls for a Bluff check.  The rogue succeeds._

DM: "Hmm.  An attack, you say?  That certainly does warrant some reconnaissance... but you say you want to do this yourselves?  I should think my own rangers are more than adequate to the task."

Cleric: Can I make an Intuition check to see what might encourage him to help us?

DM: Sure.  Roll.

_Cleric makes the Intuition check._

DM: You get the sense he's very proud of his rangers.  If you praise them, he'll be more inclined to listen to you.  (If the cleric had failed, the DM might have told him the Duke appreciates independence and would be impressed if the PCs acted superior to the rangers.)  Also, you're pretty sure trying to intimidate this guy would backfire badly.

Cleric: "Your rangers are famous for their skills, your Grace.  We would like to show you that we are worthy to serve alongside them."

DM: "Well, you've got spirit, I'll give you that.  So what exactly was it you wanted?"

(Et cetera.)


----------



## Frostmarrow (May 5, 2008)

davethegame said:
			
		

> Apparently I have a different problem than everyone else.
> 
> This doesn't make sense to me:
> 
> ...




I guess they have identified a few x/y combinations that makes for an interesting game. I'm betting there is a weird chart to look-up. Complexity 3 just means that the challenge will be fairly long compared to Complexity 1.

If you just make x/y up you might ruin an encounter. Let's say for arguments sake you decide x/y will be 222/2. We can all see this is not a good rate but that is just because I exaggerate to a make the point. Perhaps 2/2 is suboptimal, too.

Now we at least know 8/4 is an okay complexity should we decide to make some encounters.


----------



## Henry (May 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The entire point of rolling the history skill is to check if the character knows _a particular bit of historical information.  Such a setup defeats the purpose of the skill.
> 
> Why? Because thats what the history skill is for? Its needless railroading which takes away this particular possibility which is bad enough._



_

I can see what Cadfan's saying, though.

Imagine the Duke's conversation:

"Why should I lend aid right now?"

vs.

"Why should I lend aid right now? When my father was Duke of these lands, and he was attacked by the Troll Scourge, King Alfric did not step up to lend aid. 'Too hard pressed on his borders', was the answer. His Majesty, the grandson of Alfric, seems now to find himself in need of similar aid, and I find myself hard pressed in resources, much as King Alfric was then..."

In the first one, there's no lead-in. You don't know that the Duke is holding a historical grudge. In the second one, the fact that the Visier of Alfric DID indeed cast some important Oracle Spells, and sent them along as warnings that helped him in a timely fashion, so the King DID send aid as promised, even if it wasn't a military force, then the History check makes that factoid click in the PC's heads. 

On the other hand, let's say the Duke is the type who doesn't give a Kobold's Damn about old history or what his dad did, because he sees his dad as incompetent, or similar. Bringing up the whole business will probaby elicit an "Ancient History doesn't impress me. I need more tangible reasons: What can you, or the King, do for me to risk my border when he may be wiped from the earth by this threat?"

There's the difference, in more exhaustive detail._


----------



## Frostmarrow (May 5, 2008)

Extrapolating...

Complexity 1: 4/2
Complexity 2: 6/3
Complexity 3: 8/4
Complexity 4: 10/5

Formula: ½x = y = c+1


----------



## Derren (May 5, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> You don't know that the Duke is holding a historical grudge.




Why are you not allowed to make a history check to know something like that? And how does this information allow you to make an additional history check? 

Also what happens when the wording of the first diplomacy check did not allow for this answer, what then? Can the PCs still make a history check or not?


----------



## davethegame (May 5, 2008)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> I guess they have identified a few x/y combinations that makes for an interesting game. I'm betting there is a weird chart to look-up. Complexity 3 just means that the challenge will be fairly long compared to Complexity 1.
> 
> If you just make x/y up you might ruin an encounter. Let's say for arguments sake you decide x/y will be 222/2. We can all see this is not a good rate but that is just because I exaggerate to a make the point. Perhaps 2/2 is suboptimal, too.
> 
> Now we at least know 8/4 is an okay complexity should we decide to make some encounters.




Sure, makes sense, but is that better than Easy/Medium/Hard complexity (or however many gradations are needed?)


----------



## TerraDave (May 5, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Why are ppl getting so hung up over Intimidate?
> 
> It's just an example. It's showing the parameters for designing a skill challenge, and one of these parameters is that the DM can rule out any skills they consider to be not useful for the situation. In this particular case, such a skill is Intimidate.
> 
> The key point is that you, the DM, are empowered by the rules to say that skill X is inapplicable for challenge Y, for whatever values of X and Y you deem appropriate. Quite possibly, you might never say that a skill is inapplicable. It isn't that this specific skill, Intimidate, can't be used to bully barons around or whatever.






			
				Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> hong - the voice of reason.




Shocking. Because its true.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (May 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Well sure, but can't you just ask, 'I want to use my history knowledge to see if I can remember anything important about the Duke's life."?
> 
> Note, according to the provided framework _you can't_.  Yes, you could just ignore the framework according to your judgement, but then its a 'flexible frame' (ei not a frame).




I think you're misunderstanding what's happening with the History check here.  Remember that "important to the Duke's life" is a subjective judgement, and the one doing the judging is the Duke himself.  The way the the Diplomacy check "unlocks" History is that it makes the Duke talk enough that he lets slip that he considers a particular event important.  I envision it going something like this:

"...so you see, your Grace, if you don't help us stop the orcs now then they will be a much greater threat later on."

DM: The Duke bites his lip.  He's obviously swayed by your argument, but is not yet convinced.  He says, "Yes, but that would leave my western flank weakened to the sea raiders.  I recall Duke Swintel made a similiar decision during the reign of the Twin Kings, and it cost him dearly."

Todd: Dude, Rhilato the Great has history as a trained skill!  Can I roll to do something with that reference.

DM: Sharp ear.  Yeah, you get a one-time use of History to try and piggy-back off that reference to sway him.

Todd: (rolls a 25)  Sweet.  Okay, I explain to him that in the greater context Swintel made the right call.  Sure he ended up with some coastal villages burn, but that' better than losing half his Dutchy.

The reason it required the Diplomacy skill to open things up is that if the Duke had never heard about Swintel's decision then referencing something he's never heard of wouldn't help sway him.


----------



## Naszir (May 5, 2008)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> I guess they have identified a few x/y combinations that makes for an interesting game. I'm betting there is a weird chart to look-up. Complexity 3 just means that the challenge will be fairly long compared to Complexity 1.
> 
> If you just make x/y up you might ruin an encounter. Let's say for arguments sake you decide x/y will be 222/2. We can all see this is not a good rate but that is just because I exaggerate to a make the point. Perhaps 2/2 is suboptimal, too.
> 
> Now we at least know 8/4 is an okay complexity should we decide to make some encounters.




Could Complexity just look like this:

Complexity 1 = 4/2
Complexity 2 = 6/3
Complexity 3 = 8/4
Completity 4 = 10/5


----------



## Frostmarrow (May 5, 2008)

davethegame said:
			
		

> Sure, makes sense, but is that better than Easy/Medium/Hard complexity (or however many gradations are needed?)




E/M/H is already used for DCs. Besides I think complexity is shorthand for "how long will it take to play this through".


----------



## Andur (May 5, 2008)

Complexity level 3 (8/4)

My guess:

Level 1 (4/2)
Level 2 (6/3)
Level 3 (8/4)
etc.

As far as Derren's point, I think it should actually be more of a circumstancial bonus type thing.  One would make a history check in order to gain a bonus on a diplomacy check.  "Your Grace, we are attempting to thwart what could be the next Fjordian Inflitration of the Crown before it has gained enough influence to warrant another purge."  Versus "Let us help you" (successful Diplo roll) "Like the Dwarven Thane Ungthar, aided your great grandfather" (Successful History roll opened by Diplo roll success)

Just two ways to cut the cookie I suppose.  Once again, it is mre of a guide/template than a hard and fast "rule".  I would expect to see such templates/encounters in 4e official modules, and I'm sure DM's will do with them as they do with all other encounters/info/NPC's in 1e, 2e, 3.xe modules and modify them for their own tastes.


----------



## Lizard (May 5, 2008)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> Extrapolating...
> 
> Complexity 1: 4/2
> Complexity 2: 6/3
> ...




Alternatively, Complexity could make the number of failures smaller, so that you have more tension. Imagine, say, needing 10 successes and blowing it with 2 failures.


----------



## malraux (May 5, 2008)

davethegame said:
			
		

> How does 3 = 8s/4f?
> 
> I'm hoping there's some easy formula that's escaping me at the moment, and not some weird chart I have to look up.
> 
> And what does a Complexity rating mean by itself anyway? It sure sounds like Level is used for determining XP award, so it wouldn't be that.



Well, 2^ successes before 2^(n-1) failures where n is the complexity fits.  Though, i'd hope that's not the case, as that'll scale horribly.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (May 5, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Does that mean the guy is flat-out immune to intimidation?  No, but the party fighter talking tough isn't going to do it.  If you present yourselves as emissaries of the emperor, and smoothly but menacingly imply that disobedience will mean an Imperial legion sent to lay waste to the NPC's barony, that's got a much better shot at succeeding.  Of course, unless the PCs actually are emissaries of the emperor, a Bluff check would be more appropriate than Intimidate on that one.




That sounds almost like using Bluff to _unlock_ Intimidate.


----------



## Propheous_D (May 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And what would the question be in this case?
> When you try to gain support of a lord and you are well versed in history you are of course trying to find out about the past exploits of the lord and either you know them (successful roll/history challenge) or you don't (failed roll/challenge).
> Saying thats impossible to know defeats the purpose of the skill. Its like only allowing the rogue to try to pick a lock after he found the slightly bend or broken key, not before.
> 
> ...




I think alot of people are missing the boat on this one.

No one says its impossible to bring up the past exploits of the Duke through history. What it is saying is that he hears it alot and it has no real bearing on the outcome of this specific challenge. You need something else that makes this personal and ties it directly to the Duke himself, and more important his quirks. The diplomacy check gives you a bit of insight into that and you can use that insight to bring up a rare point of history that you might have thought of as insignificant.

Case in fact. The Duke all ways hears about his exploits in war, and in the court. However, from listening to him you get a sense that these mean nothing to him. He is a humanitarian and you can tell he walks among his people not just for show. You now know to look for something simple that he personally did in history that you can bring to light and spin in your favor. Perhaps it was as simple as rebuilding a church, or as innocent as sparing the life of the maiden Julliane from the blade of one of his gaurds. Something you would have completely missed or brushed past if you didn't have that inside info.

These are like easter eggs the DM can plant with in a skill challenge. Remember the DM doesn't go "Ok that is one success you need 7 more". The DM role-plays the situation till resolution and inacts the consequences and rewards based on the outcome. This will vary greatly from table to table as thier RP requirements are met. You could RP an hour but solve the challenge in the first five minutes. Its up to the DM and the Players how they handle this. 

A failed history check will result in a negative, but a positive will not all ways result in a success basedon relevance. There may even be some failures the DM will ignore because they are irrelevant to the situation at hand. This is were the Advanced DM's will really make this system work to their advantages.


----------



## Frostmarrow (May 5, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> Well, 2^ successes before 2^(n-1) failures where n is the complexity fits.  Though, i'd hope that's not the case, as that'll scale horribly.




But why would you scale this out of proportion? Let's say we will have a complexity 22 skill challenge. That makes it 46 successes before 23 failures. 

No one is wants to play that. It will take ages and add nothing a complexity 3 encounter wouldn't.


----------



## Klaus (May 5, 2008)

A variant of this encounter could be something like this: the leader in this case is a sahuagin warchief. To appeal to Diplomacy is a sign of weakness, and saber-rattling is the standard way of doing things. So A Diplomacy attempt is automatically a failure, whereas Intimidate earns successes as Diplomacy would.


----------



## med stud (May 5, 2008)

I like to with the Exalted interpretation of "impossible" here; it means that it's just very hard. If one of the PCs is the grandmaster of intimidations, that PC can pull it off. But by the time the PCs can reach that level of Intimidation they most likely don't need the help of a duke anyway. In this case, I'd say that context is everything.

OTOH, if you don't like that Intimidate is impossible, make it possible. If you think all skills should be possible all the time, make it so. You have the framework for skill challenges and the rules for them work if you allow one skill or if you allow all skills. There is no cascade of weirdness if you change if a skill is applicable or not.

This is the first time I have seen skill challenges like this and I find them interesting. It creates a mechanical frame for chase scenes through wilderness and social interaction. I think this will increase the screentime of the facemen and wilderness guys beyond rolling a single roll. I'm already getting some ideas for skill challenges, 15 minutes after reading the article


----------



## Lacyon (May 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Why are you not allowed to make a history check to know something like that? And how does this information allow you to make an additional history check?




A history check may well tell you that "the Visier of Alfric DID indeed cast some important Oracle Spells, and sent them along as warnings that helped him in a timely fashion, so the King DID send aid as promised."

It doesn't tell you that the Duke actually cares about this fact, and it especially doesn't tell you that the Duke actually has his facts wrong and believes that Alfric sent no aid at all. In other words, without the lead-in, knowing which historical insights are likely to cause the Duke to aid you instead of hinder you will be, in this case, not possible.

Moreover, if you bring up the right fact in the wrong context, you could well do more harm than good to your cause.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Also what happens when the wording of the first diplomacy check did not allow for this answer, what then? Can the PCs still make a history check or not?




The wording of the first diplomacy check doesn't stop the Duke from getting to say some words that reveal his interest in a particular historical topic, as well as some of his perspective on the topic so you don't stick your foot in your mouth when you pontificate on the subject.


EDIT: None of this is to say that using history in negotiations should be _generally_ disallowed. But in at least some circumstances it makes sense to hold it back until the PCs have some ideas on how to _apply_ the skill rather than just "use" it.


----------



## Andor (May 5, 2008)

Re: History. The history in question may not have anything to do with the Duke's life. Perhaps he's a fan the the Great General Wassisname and a scholar of the Battle of Lost Sheep. There is no way your history knowledge can tell you what his hobbies are. However once a diplomacy check gets the conversation rolling he might drop a reference, which allows you to start smoozing with him about the battle until you wind up recreating the famous final charge across the dinning table with the peas at 3 in the morning with your new buddy the Duke.


----------



## Dausuul (May 5, 2008)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> Extrapolating...
> 
> Complexity 1: 4/2
> Complexity 2: 6/3
> ...




Or, perhaps, it's exponential:

Complexity 1: 2/1
Complexity 2: 4/2
Complexity 3: 8/4
Complexity 4: 16/8

Formula: 2^c / 2^(c-1)


----------



## Nahat Anoj (May 5, 2008)

This skill challenge stuff is *fantastic*.  I can't wait to see the full rules.

Right now, I have only two "wonderings" (they aren't really "concerns," because I'm pretty sure they'll be accounted for).  First, I hope there's lots of suggestions and advice on what "failure" means and how to make failure a gameable thing that enhances play.  Most players (myself included!) will have difficulty with the idea that failure =/= death, but instead failure == more complications.  Second, I wonder how transitions from skill challenges to combat will occur.  I want to be able to replicate a scene similar to the wagon chase in the _Willow_ movie, where some PCs can fend off attackers while the "pilot" maneuvers the wagon/car/jet/spaceship/whatever.

If they have answers to both of these "wonderings," then I'll be one happy camper indeed.


----------



## Derren (May 5, 2008)

Propheous_D said:
			
		

> Case in fact. The Duke all ways hears about his exploits in war, and in the court. However, from listening to him you get a sense that these mean nothing to him. He is a humanitarian and you can tell he walks among his people not just for show. You now know to look for something simple that he personally did in history that you can bring to light and spin in your favor. Perhaps it was as simple as rebuilding a church, or as innocent as sparing the life of the maiden Julliane from the blade of one of his gaurds. Something you would have completely missed or brushed past if you didn't have that inside info.




Except that this isn't something you can find out through a diplomacy check. That would require a knowledge local (or however this is called) check, some background research (I know, too much Shadowrun...) or at least a Insight check.
Also this information is very situational and most of the time this topic won't come up unless the PCs follow a script.


----------



## AllisterH (May 5, 2008)

Needless to say, I'm going to be going through this chapter first and foremost when I get my books...

Some questions I have...Is there a time limit to how many actual rolls you can do? How freeform does the skill challenge allow for (a.k.a not using actual primary skills or using magic)?

All in all, I'm liking the potential and I wish the article was beefier, but then again, that's the point of an excerpt is it not? To whet your appetite for more...

re: History

Um, how did people use the History skill in 3.5? I'm seeing WAY different interpretations a la Intimidate...did every group use the non-combat skills in entirerly different manners?


----------



## Lacyon (May 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Except that this isn't something you can find out through a diplomacy check. That would require a knowledge local (or however this is called) check, some background research (I know, too much Shadowrun...) or at least a Insight check.
> Also this information is very situational and most of the time this topic won't come up unless the PCs follow a script.




Yes. You can change the "unlocking" skill based on circumstance. Feature.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And what would the question be in this case?
> When you try to gain support of a lord and you are well versed in history you are of course trying to find out about the past exploits of the lord and either you know them (successful roll/history challenge) or you don't (failed roll/challenge).




sorry, you missed the point:

THIS is a different chellenge... its called research before you meet with the Duke. Trying to find out past exploits of the lord when you stand in front of him seems rather inappropriate....

edit... maybe you didn´t miss the point, but blatantly ignored it in this post...


----------



## Propheous_D (May 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Except that this isn't something you can find out through a diplomacy check. That would require a knowledge local (or however this is called) check, some background research (I know, too much Shadowrun...) or at least a Insight check.
> Also this information is very situational and most of the time this topic won't come up unless the PCs follow a script.




Were does it say that Derren?

Diplomacy is a skill you use to get something done. During your diplomatic overtures you discover something. This is why I called it an easter egg. You are taking the rules in a VERY narrow context and not using them for what they are supposed to be used for.

This skill challenge says that if a character interacts with the Duke in some diplomatic way they will learn something that will lead them to discover how to approach the duke about his past, and may even discover something about his past.

Example:
Player: I use my diplomacy on the Duke to tell him he can trust us. "insert random rp".
DM: I don't trust very easy and I am not sure about you. I can't put my finger on it but I will give you a chance.
Player: I roll history to see if the Duke has something in his past with people like us.
DM: You remember hearing a tale from the Dukes youth about someone who betrayed the Duke. That person was Eldarin like you, but from the southern provinces which we all know about the southern provinces.
Player: Surely you can not fault all Eldarin for the mistakes of a certain group of rabble we deal with. I can't tell you how many times I have heard about those southern country bumpkins leaving a path of deception in their wake. I am from Northern Eldarin from the town of Berkshire were we are renowned for our good nature.
Duke: Hmm perhaps your right, I should be a little more understanding I have a cousin who is the same way, and he is a prince *insert chuckle*

Insight in this case won't reveal that one tidbit because you wouldn't have thought the Duke would distrust you at face value until you engaged him in that manner. You could argue that other skills may have accomplished the same thing, but in reality its up the DM how he hooks in his easter eggs.


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 5, 2008)

It's important to note that this is only one of 2 methods mentioned (so far) for handling non-combat challenges in 4e.  The other is structure-free.  I.e. the players play and the DM adjudicates..  Both are supposedly in this chapter.


----------



## malraux (May 5, 2008)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> But why would you scale this out of proportion? Let's say we will have a complexity 22 skill challenge. That makes it 46 successes before 23 failures.
> 
> No one is wants to play that. It will take ages and add nothing a complexity 3 encounter wouldn't.



Um, no.  If its exponential, then a complexity 22 skill challenge would be 4,194,304 successes before 2,097,152.  Even a complexity 4 (so 16 successes before 8 failures) seems excessive.  And since I have a hard time imagining a resolution of only 3 options (well possibly 4 if there's a 0 complexity challenge, which would be a straight skill check), I'm guessing that my formula is wrong, and that there's just a chart somewhere.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2008)

Propheous_D,

this is the point where giving good arguments doesn´t bring this conversation any further...the points you make are well thought, backed up with good examples and IMHO very convincing...

...but its not in the D&D PHB 3.5, so it must be wrong...

sorry...


----------



## Fifth Element (May 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Why? Because thats what the history skill is for? Its needless railroading which takes away this particular possibility which is bad enough.



This is like arguing that a pit fiend's fire resistance is railroading, because it means you can't use fire spells to defeat it. Fire spells are for killing things, so if I can't use them for that in any one particular situation, the DM is a railroader.


----------



## Propheous_D (May 5, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> Propheous_D,
> 
> this is the point where giving good arguments doesn´t bring this conversation any further...the points you make are well thought, backed up with good examples and IMHO very convincing...
> 
> ...




*chuckles* Thanks

I look at in two ways. I am not worried about convincing grognards, long beards, or 3.X slider rule fanatics that I am right. I figure some of these examples I might not have thought off, and heck even one person sees a good idea then bam I win.


----------



## drjones (May 5, 2008)

jaelis said:
			
		

> So what would happen if a PC tried to impress the duke with his acrobatics skill?  Would it be an automatic failure, or would it not count for anything?



I'd ask what the player wants to do exactly (swinging from the chandelier probably not going to impress the duke) but I think even a great success might earn a gold piece for entertaining him and not effect the challenge unless he is a particularly fond of acrobats.  Bad failure might distract the target from someone elses negotiation and cause a negative on their roll?


----------



## kilpatds (May 5, 2008)

*initimidation*

I also have issues with how the template handles intimidate.  I think the issue is an implicit assumption that won't always be true: That the NPC is more powerful in total than the PCs.  I think I'd prefer something like:


> Setup: 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.  The NPC is in a superior position (more troops/power/control/etc) to the PCs.
> 
> Level: Equal to the level of the party, depending on the power/influence of the NPC.  For example, up to 15 for a regional baron, 20 for an emporer, or 30 for an extraplaner ruler.
> 
> ...




Where an "extrememly hard" check has a DC set to be an auto-failure for all but the most speciallized, and still only counts as one success.  (Assumed stat mod of Level + 5 (trained) + 5 (skill focus) + 1/2 level (scaling)  + 25 (impossible))

As this is a template, it needs to show the underlying assumptions.  Then, if the situation involves 29th or 30th level PCs trying to get the Duke to set up his troops to funnel the 35th level solo Tarrasque toward the party... Well, that's really just a level 15 encounter, so the DCs are no longer that high, and Intimidate is perfectly viable, if still harder than other approaches.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> Um, no.  If its exponential, then a complexity 22 skill challenge would be 4,194,304 successes before 2,097,152.  Even a complexity 4 (so 16 successes before 8 failures) seems excessive.  And since I have a hard time imagining a resolution of only 3 options (well possibly 4 if there's a 0 complexity challenge, which would be a straight skill check), I'm guessing that my formula is wrong, and that there's just a chart somewhere.



Well, it doesn't need to go very far. There might just be 3 or 4 complexities. Complexity might be to skill challenges what Minion, Elite and Solo is to monsters.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2008)

Propheous_D said:
			
		

> *chuckles* Thanks
> 
> I look at in two ways. I am not worried about convincing grognards, long beards, or 3.X slider rule fanatics that I am right. I figure some of these examples I might not have thought off, and heck even one person sees a good idea then bam I win.






thats the good thing about derren... we can grab many good ideas from those trying to expain why a rule might work...


----------



## Derren (May 5, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> This is like arguing that a pit fiend's fire resistance is railroading, because it means you can't use fire spells to defeat it. Fire spells are for killing things, so if I can't use them for that in any one particular situation, the DM is a railroader.




No, that is more akin to the "The Duke can't be intimidated" restriction. 

This history restriction is more like the Pit Fiend having very high defenses and resistances till the PCs hit it with a a certain energy type and they neither know this type or even that there is a way to lower the Pit Fiends defenses.


----------



## Grazzt (May 5, 2008)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> It's important to note that this is only one of 2 methods mentioned (so far) for handling non-combat challenges in 4e.  The other is structure-free.  I.e. *the players play and the DM adjudicates*..  Both are supposedly in this chapter.




And the bolded one is the one I'll be using (in the book or not) in my games. Not a fan of skill challenges from what Ive seen thus far.


----------



## drjones (May 5, 2008)

MindWanderer said:
			
		

> Say the party has a half-elf warlock with Diplomacy trained.  That's probably about a +11 Diplomacy at level 1.  The sample encounter is clearly a social skill challenge.  What's to prevent a party deciding, "The warlock's Diplomacy check is the best relevant skill in the party here.  We'll just have this whole challenge be based on that."  And it's probably the best idea.  If you have a tiefling rogue in the party with a +10 Bluff, that character still shouldn't bother participating unless you have some idea that bluffing will be easier in this case (like History is).



The Duke nods "that does seem reasonable, you are very eloquent Mr. half elf.  And you, grubby street urchin looking halfling, why should I lend my support to your cause?'

So long as you don't frame this to the players as a math problem where they know all variables I don't think it will take heavy role playing to avoid the players using the same skill over and over.


----------



## Propheous_D (May 5, 2008)

kilpatds said:
			
		

> I also have issues with how the template handles intimidate.  I think the issue is an implicit assumption that won't always be true: That the NPC is more powerful in total than the PCs.  I think I'd prefer something like:
> 
> 
> Where an "extrememly hard" check has a DC set to be an auto-failure for all but the most speciallized, and still only counts as one success.  (Assumed stat mod of Level + 5 (trained) + 5 (skill focus) + 1/2 level (scaling)  + 25 (impossible))
> ...




Not to be rude, but this has been rehashed over and over. This is completely MISSING the point of the skill challenge. You *CAN* intimidate the Duke. However, he doesn't like dealing with people who intimidate him, and he will not speak on your behalf or have much to do with you if he can avoid it. That means your goal of having him on your side working for your better good will *NOT* happen. What do you do then kill him? Cause that would be a complete failure of the challenge.

Remember Even if you can do something it might not be in your best interest to do it. For instance I can remove a hot pan from the stove and get it to the counter. However, rather then grabbing it and taking the pain it might behove me to use a towerl or something else to shield me form the heat.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 5, 2008)

Eh.

I'll just note that players and DM who are new with each other rarely "sync up" and really roleplay well the first couple sessions.  There just needs to be a level of comfort and understanding that can't happen immediately.  Or at cons or tournaments.  

I think Skill Challenges will be helpful in certain situations:
1. At Cons when you can be nice and explicit without having to guess what the DM "really means."
2. When dealing with players who are totally new to roleplaying. It gives them a structure to latch on to, and encourages a feel for the "ebb and flow" of non-combat encounters and situations.
3. When dealing with people who have been brainwashed by the "beat a DC 20 Bluff to get result X" form of roleplaying.  If you don't want any more than that, fine, you can play your game as you choose.  But some people may not even realize there's another way, so this will help them break out of the mold.

But barring those situations, I think I'll leave this Chapter un-used.  I don't need a stat block for social encounters, and I certainly don't want to be hemmed in and limited by it.  Except in the situations above, this will be far more limiting than it will be empowering.  I hope the DMG makes that clear, since otherwise WotC is doing a real disservice to new gamers who are counting on the DMG to be teach them how to play.


----------



## Thyrwyn (May 5, 2008)

Remember Leonidas' reaction to being intimidated?  He didn't even bother sending back the heads. . . He knew he was not more powerful than Xerxes and his army - that was not the issue.



> Messenger: No man, Persian or Greek, no man threatens a messenger!
> King Leonidas: You bring the crowns and heads of conquered kings to my city steps. You insult my queen. You threaten my people with slavery and death! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Persian. Perhaps you should have done the same!


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 5, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> And the bolded one is the one I'll be using (in the book or not) in my games. Not a fan of skill challenges from what Ive seen thus far.



For MY game, neither am I.  But like any tool, they can be used safely and productively in some circumstances.


----------



## drjones (May 5, 2008)

Looking at it again I am a little puzzled by the complaints.  It seems to specifically say that the DM can design an encounter to be resolved by:
1. Rp Only
2. One skill roll only + however much Rp you want
3. The Skill Challenge system + however much RP you want

Isn't #1 and #2 how these sorts of things were dealt with in 3.x?  So why does adding #3 take away anything from the DM?  It really seems like a very opened ended system and other than using adventures written by others it does not seem forced on anyone.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> No, that is more akin to the "The Duke can't be intimidated" restriction.
> 
> This history restriction is more like the Pit Fiend having very high defenses and resistances till the PCs hit it with a a certain energy type and they neither know this type or even that there is a way to lower the Pit Fiends defenses.



 This is actually a cool idea!

Maybe a knowledge check gives you a clue which element makes it vulnerable to a diferent element...

or maybe you did a research, because you knew that you will soon face a demon...

Having some surprises for your players (like x stripping someones defeses vs y) seems like a good idea!


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 5, 2008)

Propheous_D said:
			
		

> Not to be rude, but this has been rehashed over and over. This is completely MISSING the point of the skill challenge. You *CAN* intimidate the Duke. However, he doesn't like dealing with people who intimidate him, and he will not speak on your behalf or have much to do with you if he can avoid it.



Er, what's the point of the Intimidate Skill then if you can't intimidate people into doing what you want?  Kind of defeats the purpose of taking that Skill Training if everyone can "just decide" to ignore the result, doesn't it?

By the way, this is why I've decided not to use the Social skills in my next game.  At all.  I want to be able to say some times "Sorry chaps, this guy is wolverine-crazy immune to intimidation."  Or "This guy's just in a bad mood - he won't let you cheer him up."  But since I want the freedom for NPCs to be whoever they are / need to be, I'm not going to encourage PCs to waste resources on stuff I can just ignore at will.


----------



## Derren (May 5, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> Looking at it again I am a little puzzled by the complaints.  It seems to specifically say that the DM can design an encounter to be resolved by:
> 1. Rp Only
> 2. One skill roll only + however much Rp you want
> 3. The Skill Challenge system + however much RP you want
> ...




4. Set a goal and let the PCs do what they want with multiple skill checks but without any restricting X/Y count etc. That has all the advantages of a Skill Challenge and non of its disadvantage because it is much more flexible.

Skill Challenges are good as suggestion, but not as a rule.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> Looking at it again I am a little puzzled by the complaints.  It seems to specifically say that the DM can design an encounter to be resolved by:
> 1. Rp Only
> 2. One skill roll only + however much Rp you want
> 3. The Skill Challenge system + however much RP you want
> ...




the trick is only reading what you don´t like so that you have a reason to argue...

#1 is actually the worst of all: RP only means that you have to supress good ideas, because your character is stupid as hell (or vice versa)

combined skill checks with RP seems the best solution, so you can let your character try something he is not good at (maybe even roleplayed very well), but the skill roll will be hard for you.
With multiple rolls, you can actually try it without hurting the party directly...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> 4. Set a goal and let the PCs do what they want with multiple skill checks but without any restricting X/Y count etc. That has all the advantages of a Skill Challenge and non of its disadvantage because it is much more flexible.
> 
> Skill Challenges are good as suggestion, but not as a rule.




thats actually something we can agree on...

the complexity thingy is not really needed... but if you are flexible, you can just count double for especially good ideas or just ignore some results

having guidelines helps however


----------



## SteveC (May 5, 2008)

It seems that I am going to have to disagree with many here and give a big raspberry to the "intimidate automatically fails." Many years ago in the Complete Fighter book, TSR gave me a quote I took to heart for all of my GMing: "don't say no, determine difficulty." 

Should you be able to intimidate the noble? It may be difficult, even much more difficult, but it should certainly be possible. If the god of intimidation showed up and said a few words, would that still fail? If so, we're back to the system of immunities that have plagued D&D for a long time. The game designers decided to remove things like an immunity to flame for a fire elemental, why would they dream of putting them back in for a social encounter? Intimidate is a social skill, it's a social encounter, they fit together in a way that, say, acrobatics does not (although I wouldn't *absolutely *rule that out either).

Beyond that, I would argue that Intimidate is a VERY appropriate skill for use in negotiation with the nobility. It seems to work far better than diplomacy in most of the movies or books I've seen. Might a noble get a huge morale bonus in resistance? Yes, he most likely would, but as he isn't a construct, it should still have a chance to succeed.

Just my $.02.

--Steve


----------



## Cadfan (May 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Skill Challenges are good as suggestion, but not as a rule.



I must have missed the place where skill challenges were declared to be mandatory for use by all DMs in all situations.


			
				Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Er, what's the point of the Intimidate Skill then if you can't intimidate people into doing what you want? Kind of defeats the purpose of taking that Skill Training if everyone can "just decide" to ignore the result, doesn't it?
> 
> By the way, this is why I've decided not to use the Social skills in my next game. At all. I want to be able to say some times "Sorry chaps, this guy is wolverine-crazy immune to intimidation." Or "This guy's just in a bad mood - he won't let you cheer him up." But since I want the freedom for NPCs to be whoever they are / need to be, I'm not going to encourage PCs to waste resources on stuff I can just ignore at will.



On one hand, I totally respect your decision to remove social skills from the game.  I've played RPGs that didn't have social skill systems, and they worked just fine.

That said, I don't get your reasoning.  There's a big difference between "everyone can just decide" to ignore your intimidation, and acknowledging that different people respond to threats differently based upon context, and that a particular set of PCs may not have any leverage with which to intimidate a particular landed noble into performing a specific task.  This is "just deciding" to ignore the Intimidate skill in the same sense that telling a PC that there's nothing in the room big enough to hide behind is "just deciding" to ignore his Stealth skill.  Skills are used in context of the gameworld, and sometimes the gameworld doesn't facilitate the use of a particular skill.  That's why you get more than one.


----------



## SpydersWebbing (May 5, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> It seems that I am going to have to disagree with many here and give a big raspberry to the "intimidate automatically fails." Many years ago in the Complete Fighter book, TSR gave me a quote I took to heart for all of my GMing: "don't say no, determine difficulty."
> 
> Should you be able to intimidate the noble? It may be difficult, even much more difficult, but it should certainly be possible. If the god of intimidation showed up and said a few words, would that still fail? If so, we're back to the system of immunities that have plagued D&D for a long time. The game designers decided to remove things like an immunity to flame for a fire elemental, why would they dream of putting them back in for a social encounter? Intimidate is a social skill, it's a social encounter, they fit together in a way that, say, acrobatics does not (although I wouldn't *absolutely *rule that out either).
> 
> ...




I don't think they're saying a flat out "You can't intimidate this guy". What they're saying is that the NPC won't put up with it and will have you thrown out, thus ruining the challenge. 

It's not that the man can't be intimidated: it's that he won't let it affect him (unless you are a god, which you aren't, because the difficulty level for this is a seven or an eight, remember?)

Keep it in the context and it makes sense. Remove even one thing (that this is supposed to be for heroic tier characters who-quite frankly-can't do everything), and it seems to be a travesty.


----------



## Derren (May 5, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> It seems that I am going to have to disagree with many here and give a big raspberry to the "intimidate automatically fails." Many years ago in the Complete Fighter book, TSR gave me a quote I took to heart for all of my GMing: "don't say no, determine difficulty."




But what would that achieve? Intimidating a noble is quite hard unless you are massively powerful o have some way to blackmail him, but lets say the PCs manage to intimidate the Duke to support them. What kind of support would the Duke give the PCs? Certainly not honest support but rather unreliable one and as soon as the PCs show a weakness the Duke will exploit it to get rid of the PCs.
That sounds more like the result of a failed Skill Challenge (Don't forget, a failed challenge doesn't have to mean "No" but can also mean"Yes with bad side effects") so its quite logical that a successful intimidate moves you toward the "bad" result.

So the Duke can be intimidated, but both a successful and unsuccessful attempt will in the end get the same, bad, result.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> I must have missed the place where skill challenges were declared to be mandatory for use by all DMs in all situations.




There is a whole chapter about Skill Challenges including imo unnecessary rules about complexity which in the end hinders roleplay because its too restrictive. If Skill Challenges would be presented as a guideline they would need less space which could be used for something else in addition to be better for the game as you can react better to what the PCs do.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 5, 2008)

What I'm wondering is if there will be a mechanism for opposed skill challenges.  For example if there was a debate between the PCs and another party both appealing to the Lord to trust them over the other side.  

It could be a situation where the PCs need to gain a certain number of successes before the other side does, but I then realized the DM is playing the other side and has the advantage of knowing the parameters for the debate, so he couldn't have the NPCs use Intimidate and get a failure without knowing that it was an automatic failure.

I'm thinking opposed rolls in this case might work.  For example: The PCs use Diplomacy to sway the Lord.  The NPC uses History to remind the Lord about the last time they trusted outsiders.  NPC gets higher result = 1 failure for PCs.  NPCs use Bluff to convince the Lord that Noble X trusted them in similar circumstances 2 months ago.  PC use Knowledge to recall that Noble X was away on a hunting expedition during that time.  PCs get higher result = 1 success.  

I guess in this case I would probably even out the number of successes to failures since it isn't as passive as they PCs just having to meet a set DC for success.  

Thoughts?


----------



## Andur (May 5, 2008)

To all of you "intimidate automatically fails" haters.  I say you automatically fail at reading comprehension.

It is simply NOT POSSIBLE to INTIMIDATE someone into TRUSTING you.  There is no DC 10000000000000 check, it is not possible, because WORDS MEAN THINGS.

Intimidate : to make timid or fearful .  That is what intimidate DOES, nothing more, nothing less.  If the goal of the social encounter was to have the duke give you some men, treasure, information, than intimidate could work, but there is simply no way you can intimidate someone into trusting you, period end.  There is absolutely nothing short of changing the meanings of the words intimidate and trust which would accomplish that goal.  (In otherwords you are living in yown fantasy world instead of just playing in one.)

BTW, in my campaigns trying to jump to the moon automatically fails, even if you are on the highest mountiantop.  I guess I railroad too much...


----------



## Fifth Element (May 5, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Er, what's the point of the Intimidate Skill then if you can't intimidate people into doing what you want?  Kind of defeats the purpose of taking that Skill Training if everyone can "just decide" to ignore the result, doesn't it?



Do you mean "what's the point of the Intimidate skill then if you can't intimidate _*all*_ people into doing what you want _*at any time*_?" _This_ Duke, in _this_ situation, according to _this_ example, will not be persuaded by intimidation. This makes the skill useless?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> No, that is more akin to the "The Duke can't be intimidated" restriction.
> 
> This history restriction is more like the Pit Fiend having very high defenses and resistances till the PCs hit it with a a certain energy type and they neither know this type or even that there is a way to lower the Pit Fiends defenses.



Okay, I'll grant you that it is closer to that. Which is _still not railroading_, even in the slightest.


----------



## med stud (May 5, 2008)

I realized one thing when I read the article again. It says that the level of the challenge is the same as the levels of the PCs. In that case, Intimidate could be impossible simply due to scaling DCs. If the PCs are level 28, then it's one hell of a duke, probably one of the pit fiends or maybe something more powerful than that. If the PCs are level 1, then it's your regular duke without any special support.

If, on the other hand, the challenge was set in stone to be a level 3, then it wouldn't make sense if level 28 PCs couldn't use Intimidate.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 5, 2008)

I like having NPCs that have personalities and emotions and react to characters actions and words.  I like using skill rolls to inform that RP and to select likely results.

I HATE the idea that RP skills are like a non-magical dominate power.


----------



## jelmore (May 5, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Um...
> 
> This example isn't railroading in the slightest. There are plenty of things the PCs can do to continue the adventure, with or without negotiating with the duke.
> 
> But deciding that the PCs only get the duke's aid if they negotiate? That's not railroading. That's DMing.




I agree totally. Where is it written that Intimidate must always have a chance of succeeding? Or Bluff, or Diplomacy, for that matter?

Scenario: The PCs attempt to Bluff their way past the guards at the front door of the Baron's estate to see the Baron. However, these guys aren't the stereotypical bored or corrupt or incompetent guards; these are the Silver Wyverns, the personal protection retinue for the Baron, and they have been given explicit orders to not allow anyone into the Baron's residence if they are not in the company of the Baron himself, or on a very short list of well-known people -- the Baron's wife, his master-at-arms, and the court wizard -- as the Baron has recently been the target of an assassination attempt. (The nature of the Silver Wyverns, and word of the assassination attempt, would be information that is available to the PCs with the correct Knowledge or Gather Information checks.)

Why must I, as the hypothetical DM, allow for the possibility that _any_ Bluff result would allow for the PCs to bluster their way past the guards? They're not going to let you "deliver a package" and they're not going to accept that you are a "last-minute security inspection" (since that's their job). The guard's orders are clear: If you're not with the Baron and not one of three people that they are all familiar with, _you are not getting in_. The same goes for Intimidate; the Silver Wyverns take pride in their job, and they're expected to risk their lives if it means protecting their charge, so threatening to break their kneecaps or consign their souls to the Nine Hells aren't going to persuade them to let you in.

It's not "railroading", it's a challenge to be overcome by other means. The same goes for the example Duke in the example negotiation.


----------



## Cadfan (May 5, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> It seems that I am going to have to disagree with many here and give a big raspberry to the "intimidate automatically fails." Many years ago in the Complete Fighter book, TSR gave me a quote I took to heart for all of my GMing: "don't say no, determine difficulty."



Four responses.

1. There's no difference between saying "an effort at intimidate is automatically a failure" and saying "the Intimidate DC is 40" when you know the party's best intimidator has a +10 skill check and his allies, if aiding him, can only provide a further +8.  Even on a 20, that's a 38, and a failure.

2. Some people enjoy a game where, on a natural 20, crazy stuff happens.  I've had DMs who would let you roll for _anything_, and no matter how unlikely it was, if you got a 20 they'd let it happen.  Stroll into the Duke's courtyard, where the Duke sits, flanked by 30 heavily armed warriors, 20 archers, and 10 battlemages, and tell him you'll cut him down where he stands if he doesn't go along with what you want, even though at the moment you're weaponless and wearing rags?  Roll a 20, it happens.  But that's not for everyone, and I don't think the rules should be set up that way.

3. Success at a skill is based on more than just your skill multiplier.  Its based on context.  For some skills thats really obvious.  You can't light a signal fire using only a dead fish, dead fish don't work that way.  For some its middling obvious.  How hard it is to climb a wall depends on what handholds are available.  And as a result, some walls, those without any handholds at all, may be unclimbable.  A wall of sheer, rain-slick glass, for example.  

Social skills are no different.  Whether you can lie to someone about something is dependent on whether they already know the truth, for example.  And whether you can intimidate someone is dependent not only on your skill modifier, but on how credible your threats are under the circumstances.  Some circumstances may make your threats useless for your purposes, just like any other skill.  If the Duke is sitting safe in his own castle surrounded by high level armed guards, you may simply lack the firepower necessary to convince him to comply with your threats.

4. When a DM is preparing, he wastes his time if he assigns DCs to things the players can't accomplish.  If I have my second level 3e PCs visited by an incarnation of Pelor, for example, I don't work out the incarnation's hit points.  I just mentally note that they can't kill it.  Maybe some other set of PCs could kill it under some other circumstances (level 30 PCs wielding artifact weaponry, perhaps), but not this group right now.  So why bother?


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 5, 2008)

I really dislike this term "railroading."  Just because you as a DM want something to go a specific way, the game is bad?  So rule zero and the entire basis of D&D for all these years is wrong?  Im sorry, but why is making intimidate an automatic fail in 4ed railroading, but not letting intimidate work in all other editions for whatever reason whatsoever perfectly ok?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Beyond that, I would argue that Intimidate is a VERY appropriate skill for use in negotiation with the nobility. It seems to work far better than diplomacy in most of the movies or books I've seen. Might a noble get a huge morale bonus in resistance? Yes, he most likely would, but as he isn't a construct, it should still have a chance to succeed.
> 
> Just my $.02.
> 
> --Steve




This particular duke however doesn´t like to be intimidated... he will be frightened, but he won´t help...

if you like him to be succeptive to intimidation then play it that way...


but i could imagine skills whic won´t hurt thatmuch on a failure, but hurt even more on a success...

intimidate fails: the duke responds harsh, but will still negotiate.

intimidate succeeds: the duke is frightened and stops negotiating, acting as you wish for a while, but after he gets support from your enemy, he will betray you... (an insight check may help to negate that effect)


----------



## epochrpg (May 5, 2008)

You know, I think skill challenges are a great way of resolving chase scenes, navigating through a jungle, etc, but not for riddles or negotiations with Dukes.

Those should be "roleplaying challenges"-- one where no dice need to be rolled at all and are entirely done by rp (at most a roll might give you a hint, like "the duke is hiding something" or "the answer is something to do with fruit")


----------



## malraux (May 5, 2008)

Assuming the intimidate skill works more or less like it does in 3e, you couldn't intimidate a duke for long term support or permission in either edition.



			
				srd said:
			
		

> You can change another’s behavior with a successful check. Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear). If you beat your target’s check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.) *The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile).*




So you could get him to say that you can proceed through his territory via intimidate, but as soon as you leave, that permission would be resended and his troops will be after you.  If the effect of a skill is the opposite of the goal, then, no you can use it to succeed.


----------



## malraux (May 5, 2008)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> You know, I think skill challenges are a great way of resolving chase scenes, navigating through a jungle, etc, but not for riddles or negotiations with Dukes.
> 
> Those should be "roleplaying challenges"-- one where no dice need to be rolled at all and are entirely done by rp (at most a roll might give you a hint, like "the duke is hiding something" or "the answer is something to do with fruit")



I think this is primarily present to present a scaffolding to RP for us crappy DMs, or as a guide for new DMs.


----------



## SteveC (May 5, 2008)

Andur said:
			
		

> To all of you "intimidate automatically fails" haters.  I say you automatically fail at reading comprehension.
> 
> It is simply NOT POSSIBLE to INTIMIDATE someone into TRUSTING you.  There is no DC 10000000000000 check, it is not possible, because WORDS MEAN THINGS.
> 
> ...



It may be impossible to intimidate someone into trusting you, but that isn't what this challenge is about: it's about securing the assistance of the noble in question.

Consider this:

Player: _I make a knowledge nobility check_ (I don't know if this is an actual skill, but substitute the appropriate check if it isn't). _I want to know who this lord's liege is, and something that the liege is known to enjoy_. Roll. Success.

GM: I'm not sure where you're going with this, but his liege is Lord Stanley, who enjoys playing cricket.

Player: _Okay. This time it's intimidate. Hmmn, you seem reticent to help us out here. That's certainly understandable. I will have to mention that to Lord Stanley when I play cricket with him next month at Goblin Knob. Yes, it seems we are in a sticky wicket, here, isn't it_. 

Look at the context: I know who your boss is, and I'm going to tell him that you haven't been helping us. He won't like that. That's intimidate, and it's used all the time in noble circles. It's a very low level threat, actually.

The thing is, intimidate gets used all the time to get things done: NPCs do it to the PCs all the time, so why not turn the tables on them? Low level threats are commonplace in these sorts of negotiations, and they can be used to get you what you want now, but then they may also have long term consequences. You don't exactly create a friend out of it, do you? You can, however, make someone who can be almost as useful, just as Machiavelli said: better to be feared than loved, but never hated.

--Steve


----------



## Novem5er (May 5, 2008)

RE: the intimidate skill . . . Yes, the next time my (real life) town has a City Counsel meeting, I'll be sure to bring my war ax and my most intimidating face. Maybe then they'll fix those dang potholes, right?

All kidding aside, I think these Skill Challenges are a great framework for non-combat events. The entire system can be thrown out the window for an RP-heavy group, but for those of us who like a little "game" with our RP, this will serve well. As for Intimidate, of course it will be useful in many negotiations... just not the example given in the excerpt.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2008)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> What I'm wondering is if there will be a mechanism for opposed skill challenges.  For example if there was a debate between the PCs and another party both appealing to the Lord to trust them over the other side.
> 
> It could be a situation where the PCs need to gain a certain number of successes before the other side does, but I then realized the DM is playing the other side and has the advantage of knowing the parameters for the debate, so he couldn't have the NPCs use Intimidate and get a failure without knowing that it was an automatic failure.
> 
> ...



I wondered that too, and playtest reports or blog posts implied that this might be part of the system, too. I certainly hope so.


----------



## Derren (May 5, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Player: _Okay. This time it's intimidate. Hmmn, you seem reticent to help us out here. That's certainly understandable. I will have to mention that to Lord Stanley when I play cricket with him next month at Goblin Knob. Yes, it seems we are in a sticky wicket, here, isn't it_.




As presented that would be a bluff. But if the PC really would play cricket with Lord Stanley intimidate would imo be appropriate.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2008)

Thats rather something between diplomacy and intimidate.

And depending what you want from the duke, it could be usefull...

I however do not like tattletales... nad maybe you will get help fro me, but in the evening you might get mobbed up by some strangers when you are on your way home from the tavern (partial success with consequences)


----------



## beverson (May 5, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> It may be impossible to intimidate someone into trusting you, but that isn't what this challenge is about:




No.  Quoted from the preview: "Setup: 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*.

*bold and italics mine.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> It may be impossible to intimidate someone into trusting you, but that isn't what this challenge is about: it's about securing the assistance of the noble in question.
> 
> Consider this:
> 
> ...



Does the NPC trust you now?


> The thing is, intimidate gets used all the time to get things done: NPCs do it to the PCs all the time, so why not turn the tables on them?



NPCs rarely, if ever, use social skills against PCs, and very rarely are their attempts even succesful. Intimidation certainly never helped an NPC to appear trustworthy to the PCs.


----------



## Stormtalon (May 5, 2008)

Regarding Intimidate and History:

First, Intimidate.  I think it might go over better if folks stopped thinking of Intimidate as being "impossible" to use against the Duke but rather as "counter-productive."  It provides one skill failure out of 4.  It would be railroading if it immediately failed the entire encounter, sure, but that's not what happens.  As a DM, it makes eminent sense to me that in most situations there will be skills which may actively harm your progress; it makes things a bit more fluid and can add suspense to what would be an otherwise rote bit of "Beat the DCs."  There's drama to be milked out of such things, I'm thinking.

On to History.  Can't say I'm buying the argument of "but I know all this historical stuff, why can't I just make use of it right away?"  The answer (and I know it's been stated multiple times by multiple people, but not quite so bluntly) is "Relevance."  Sure, you can _know_ a lot of history -- enough to impress just about anyone.  However, without the knowledge that _this one individual_ considers _this one bit of historical knowledge_ to be personally important, that vast amount of information packed away in your brain is as good as useless in a negotiation setting.  The Diplomacy check opens that door as the Duke makes a reference to something that you might have considered irrelevant.  It's not just about knowing the history of the region.  It's about knowing this one bit of information AND _knowing that it's of value._  It's that last part that's the kicker, and why you need Diplomacy first to let you make use of your vast knowledge of History.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> If Skill Challenges would be presented as a guideline they would need less space which could be used for something else in addition to be better for the game as you can react better to what the PCs do.



The same could be said for the Combat chapter. You need to get out of the old D&D mindset when discussing 4E. That is, combat has detailed, complex rules, while everything is just roleplayed.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (May 5, 2008)

*I like it*

Well, I am on a slow Wifi connection in La Paz, Bolivia, so I can't read this whole thread,
but I want to say that I like what I see about the complex skill resolution.

Contrary to what some others here  think, I like it that only some skills are relevant, and that 
others automatically engender failures.  I really dread the idea of a player maxing one skill out
and relying on it too much.  I think this system has a good mix of complexity and randomness.

On randomness:

I think it's good that there's more randomness in outcome in the social skill resolution system
than in the combat system.  I don't want to see every RP encounter designed so that a balanced party of 4 (5?) should automatically win, expending X percent of their resources. 

 I want to see player skill rewarded, not just character skill.  It's stupid for low level PCs to try to intimidate the duke!

In summary, I was a big critic of the Escape from Sembia writeup ('I use my history skill to remember about the sewer entrance at the end of the alley', etc)  but I like what I see here.

Ken


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 5, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> That said, I don't get your reasoning.  There's a big difference between "everyone can just decide" to ignore your intimidation, and acknowledging that different people respond to threats differently based upon context, and that a particular set of PCs may not have any leverage with which to intimidate a particular landed noble into performing a specific task.



Sure, but the player group isn't broken up and evenly balanced into social roles the way they are into combat roles.  If someone takes the Intimidating Street-Tough role, do I have to provide encounters suitable for that?  What happens if he gets invited to a noble banquet?  I prefer these matters be handled through RP than have char-gen choices force the issue.




			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> This is "just deciding" to ignore the Intimidate skill in the same sense that telling a PC that there's nothing in the room big enough to hide behind is "just deciding" to ignore his Stealth skill.  Skills are used in context of the gameworld, and sometimes the gameworld doesn't facilitate the use of a particular skill.  That's why you get more than one.



Actually, that's why I don't use Stealth either.  In 95% of cases there's either no meaningful chance the other person will hear you if you use simple precautions (e.g., you're wearing soft leather boots and you wait for a heavy grain-wagon to roll past before making your move) or there's no chance of them not hearing you (e.g., you're wearing hobnail boots, the floor is made of marble, and the room is relatively quiet).  Since Skills are so rarely useful, a simple Dex check (Dex+Race/Class mods+1/2 Level) will usually suffice on the odd chance you need to roll something.

This is a rule I've adapted from Castles & Crusades, and it works great. It's much more free form and open ended than a defined and limited Skill system.  It also encourages creative roleplaying on the PCs parts ("What if I take off my shoes?" or "What if we throw some pebbles over into the other bushes?"), which I love encouraging and handing out XP awards for.

You're probably asking yourself, will he use any Skills at all in 4E? The answer is: I don't plan on it.  I'll probably have to do something about Arcana and Religion (since they're probably linked to some class features), but other than that I plan on skipping it.

_But what about Thievery?_  A self-justifying, niche-protecting skill, for the most part.  I'm glad to see that 4E is coming my way by allowing that many skills may be used to solve particular kinds of traps, but it's a shame they didn't follow the logic to its conclusion.  As for real locks, (1) they're rare in any age prior to the 18th century, and (2) you don't need the Thievery skill to use a crowbar or bribe a guard to let you in.


----------



## Lacyon (May 5, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Sure, but the player group isn't broken up and evenly balanced into social roles the way they are into combat roles.  If someone takes the Intimidating Street-Tough role, do I have to provide encounters suitable for that?  What happens if he gets invited to a noble banquet?  I prefer these matters be handled through RP than have char-gen choices force the issue.




Such a character has about a five-point difference between his Intimidate and Diplomacy skills. That matters, but he's still got a chance to contribute if the DCs aren't out-of-whack.

There should definitely be times when characters get to use the skills they put chargen points in, but any single challenge where they can't isn't likely to break the game.



			
				Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> You're probably asking yourself, will he use any Skills at all in 4E? The answer is: I don't plan on it.  I'll probably have to do something about Arcana and Religion (since they're probably linked to some class features), but other than that I plan on skipping it.




Good on ya. Should work out about the same in the long run, I'd think.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2008)

but you can train the use of a skill... you could provide bonuses for having used that skill in such a way before and keep track of it...

but that simple +5 modifier is ok... even +2 or 3 would have been helpfull... a different solution would have been replacing your normal skill modifier by int bonus or something...

that +5 difference here just means beeing able to do DC 15 checks instead of DC 10 checks easily... which may mean you are a bit fast on the cliff etc... its about the ablity bonus difference between a main attribute to an unimportant attribute which seems reasonable to me... so default chance on competing an easy task is 75% is you are under stress... which seems quite good to me


----------



## Lord Zardoz (May 5, 2008)

cferejohn said:
			
		

> This reminds me of a somewhat more flexible version of that, especially with the idea of some skill checks opening up other ones. I could even see this concept amortized over an entire adventure where the characters had to have 4 "successes" before 2 "failures" where successes could be things like defeating a certain monster, destroying a certain relic of unholy might, etc.




Red Hand of Doom almost does this.  It uses Victory Points rather than a flat X success before Y failures method.  You can defeat the module by getting a certain number of points, and you get points for things like clearing road blocks, killing leadership of the Red Hand, slowing the progress of the opposing armies, etc.

The thing about adventures is that you probably do not want the adventure to end in outright failure if the players manage to rack up a few failures early on.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Mirtek (May 5, 2008)

hcm said:
			
		

> That is a suboptimal choice .



Doing something which I am absolutely sure to win 6 times is better than trying something with a high risk of failure.

I'd rather roll 1d20+15 vs. DC 17  six times than to try my luck with 1d20+8 vs. DC 20


			
				hcm said:
			
		

> After reading the excerpt, I'm just afraid that you won't have the opportunity to make an interesting choice.



Yep, not much point in chosing if you don't know which options you can chose from.


----------



## Mirtek (May 5, 2008)

davethegame said:
			
		

> How does 3 = 8s/4f?



Because 4e is so awesome that it gets +1 to everything!


----------



## Wolfwood2 (May 5, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Doing something which I am absolutely sure to win 6 times is better than trying something with a high risk of failure.
> 
> I'd rather roll 1d20+15 vs. DC 17  six times than to try my luck with 1d20+8 vs. DC 20




I think the point you're missing is that one failure doesn't kill you.  So what if it's roll 1d20+15 vs. DC 17  and succeed six times before you fail four times versus roll 1d20+8 vs. DC 20 and succeed once before you fail four times?


----------



## Cadfan (May 5, 2008)

In any case, D&D is not a game in which the "interesting choices" that make up the gameplay stem from efforts at optimizing a series of die rolls by doing quick mathematical calculations in your head.  For one, you haven't got the information that would be necessary for that.  You might know your own skill bonuses, but you don't know the DCs.  You have to infer that sort of information from the situation, and act upon it taking into account not only your character's strengths, but also your opportunities.  This is sometimes referred to as "roleplaying."


----------



## Torchlyte (May 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> But what would that achieve? Intimidating a noble is quite hard unless you are massively powerful o have some way to blackmail him, but lets say the PCs manage to intimidate the Duke to support them. What kind of support would the Duke give the PCs? Certainly not honest support but rather unreliable one and as soon as the PCs show a weakness the Duke will exploit it to get rid of the PCs.
> 
> That sounds more like the result of a failed Skill Challenge (Don't forget, a failed challenge doesn't have to mean "No" but can also mean"Yes with bad side effects") so its quite logical that a successful intimidate moves you toward the "bad" result.
> 
> So the Duke can be intimidated, but both a successful and unsuccessful attempt will in the end get the same, bad, result.




That's something to remember as a DM. If the players use intimidation to get their way, they just supplied you a free plot hook that, when used, will increase immersion by showing them that their choices have real consequences. As for success vs failure, I would say it's a success if they get what they want (at least temporarily) and a failure if they get kicked out.



			
				Andur said:
			
		

> To all of you "intimidate automatically fails" haters.  I say you automatically fail at reading comprehension.
> 
> *It is simply NOT POSSIBLE to INTIMIDATE someone into TRUSTING you.  There is no DC 10000000000000 check, it is not possible, because WORDS MEAN THINGS.*
> 
> BTW, in my campaigns trying to jump to the moon automatically fails, even if you are on the highest mountiantop.  I guess I railroad too much...




Exactly. The question then isn't whether or not intimidate should be an automatic failure, but whether the stated goal for the skill challenge was chosen properly. The DM is railroading because there's no reason that the PCs shouldn't be able to use intimidation to get what they want (except for "cuz I decided that the plot should go like this, guys"). If that brings later troubles, so be it. The example challenge here sucks because it makes a dumb assumption.



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> This is like arguing that a pit fiend's fire resistance is railroading, because it means you can't use fire spells to defeat it. Fire spells are for killing things, so if I can't use them for that in any one particular situation, the DM is a railroader.




Fire resistance is an innate physical quality that all Pit Fiends have. The capacity to understand social situations is an innate physical quality that normal human beings have. The Duke understands intimidation just like anyone else, even if he is in a position where effectively intimidating him would be difficult.



			
				Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> Remember Leonidas' reaction to being intimidated?  He didn't even bother sending back the heads. . . He knew he was not more powerful than Xerxes and his army - that was not the issue.




Messenger-man failed his intimidation check. Maybe he rolled a 19 or 20 or whatever, but the DC was higher than what he had. It is concievable that LEonidas could be intimidated successfully by someone else through the clever use of circumstances.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> Four responses.
> 
> 1. There's no difference between saying "an effort at intimidate is automatically a failure" and saying "the Intimidate DC is 40" when you know the party's best intimidator has a +10 skill check and his allies, if aiding him, can only provide a further +8.  Even on a 20, that's a 38, and a failure.




Yes there is. For the latter to be equal to the former, the DM would have to check the player's skill modifiers and design around them specifically.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> 2. Some people enjoy a game where, on a natural 20, crazy stuff happens.  I've had DMs who would let you roll for _anything_, and no matter how unlikely it was, if you got a 20 they'd let it happen.  Stroll into the Duke's courtyard, where the Duke sits, flanked by 30 heavily armed warriors, 20 archers, and 10 battlemages, and tell him you'll cut him down where he stands if he doesn't go along with what you want, even though at the moment you're weaponless and wearing rags?  Roll a 20, it happens.  But that's not for everyone, and I don't think the rules should be set up that way.




This is not RAW, so assuming it when making decisions about RAW would be dumb.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> 3. Success at a skill is based on more than just your skill multiplier.  Its based on context.  For some skills thats really obvious.  You can't light a signal fire using only a dead fish, dead fish don't work that way.  For some its middling obvious.  How hard it is to climb a wall depends on what handholds are available.  And as a result, some walls, those without any handholds at all, may be unclimbable.  A wall of sheer, rain-slick glass, for example.




In order to be truly immune to intimidation you'd have to have no emotional attachments whatsoever.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> 4. When a DM is preparing, he wastes his time if he assigns DCs to things the players can't accomplish.  If I have my second level 3e PCs visited by an incarnation of Pelor, for example, I don't work out the incarnation's hit points.  I just mentally note that they can't kill it.  Maybe some other set of PCs could kill it under some other circumstances (level 30 PCs wielding artifact weaponry, perhaps), but not this group right now.  So why bother?




This is why #1 is not true.


----------



## Mirtek (May 5, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> ts based on context.  For some skills thats really obvious.  You can't light a signal fire using only a dead fish, dead fish don't work that way.



But I have such a high modifier in stealth, why can't I use a stealth check to light the fire with the dead fish?


PS: Maybe I can hide from the laws of physics so they won't notice me doing it   



			
				Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> I think the point you're missing is that one failure doesn't kill you.  So what if it's roll 1d20+15 vs. DC 17  and succeed six times before you fail four times versus roll 1d20+8 vs. DC 20 and succeed once before you fail four times?



If there's no penatly except having to roll five more times, I am going easy.


----------



## jaldaen (May 5, 2008)

I'm wondering if this whole Intimidate debate might be solved by the idea of a "false positive" result. Sure you can use Intimidate on the duke, you might even convince him to give into your demands, however you have not proved yourself trustworthy and therefore although you get the aid requested, you get it with stings attached, or dagger in your back at some inconvient time... so you seem to succeed at the skill challenge, but actually fail it.

I like the idea of "false positives"... I wonder if there would be a way to work in "false negatives" too...


----------



## Lord Zardoz (May 5, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> I'd like to know the first part as well, as regards the second..
> 
> You're not *supposed* to whip it up on the fly.
> 
> ...




I see much of that 4th Edition advises as establishing a common gaming doctrine.  It is easier to whip up something plausible on the fly if you have some good guidelines on how to do so successfully.  Some examples:

If your players manage to start an unexpected fight, you may need to whip up a combat on the fly.  You can do this in 3rd edition, but with the CR system, you have a lot of uncertainty about how to scale the difficulty in an appropriate manner.  With 4th edition, you have a fixed XP amount tied to the actual difficulty of each monster, and you will know that you need a total of X amount of xp for the encounter to make it level appropriate.  So with maybe 3 minutes of notice, you can look up in the MM the XP values for the monsters you have on hand, and then use the right amount for a level appropriate encounter.  And with clearly defined monster roles and fewer miscellaneous powers, you will be able to use those monsters more effectively.

Similarly, you have things ready to go for a Level 14 combat.  But your players refuse to co-operate and instead start trying to use various skills to acheive the goal at hand.  All you will need to do is look up the appropriate skill DC's for the party level, decide how many Successes and Failures you want, and run from there.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Nine Hands (May 5, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> <snip>
> 
> I think I will have some auto-fail skills, but only if it's very clear that it won't work to the PCs (the description earlier of a Nature check always failing if the NPC is clearly urban).  I think I'd allow a natural 20 to be a "no bet" situation where it's neither a success nor a failure, mostly because I think most players would say "But I rolled a natural 20!" when I say "The Duke calls in his guards and bellows at you" in this example.
> 
> <snip>




Actually it would be really cool if the Duke does this then later contacts the party for a more private conversation afterwards, away from the eyes and ears of his courtiers.


----------



## Creeping Death (May 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I actually like the version that folks here were bandying about. It wasn't "Roll a random skill..." it was, "Do a little roleplaying and convince me that your skill is relevant to the challenge." I _liked_ that. It strongly encouraged players to be engaged and creative.
> 
> I also specifically _don't_ like what others have said here they do like: That some skills earn you automatic failures.
> 
> ...




I know I'm late in responding to this, and I have not read the whole thread yet, so apologies if this has already been addressed.

The absolute failure in this circumstance could be that no matter what you roll and no matter who you are, the Duke does not like to be bullied.  You may scare him, you may not, but the fact is he doesn't like it.  If he is the type of person that would die for the sake of principle, then intimidate wouldn't work, not matter how good you are.  I could actually see this as a false success.  He is intimidated and will aid you with 10 archers or something like that, but as soon as the chance arises, those archers will turn on you.

I see far more RP opportunities for this type of mechanic.  Imagine 3.xe Abyss, Diplomacy won't work, but intimidate will.  The PC's must research where they are going and who they are going to deal with to determine the skills necessary to succeed.


----------



## Ingolf (May 5, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Sure, but the player group isn't broken up and evenly balanced into social roles the way they are into combat roles.  If someone takes the Intimidating Street-Tough role, do I have to provide encounters suitable for that?  What happens if he gets invited to a noble banquet?  I prefer these matters be handled through RP than have char-gen choices force the issue.





Fair enough - how do you handle it when the PC is in a situation that you'd resolve through "roleplay" without touching the dice - and he is in direct competition with another NPC? Both the PC and a prominent NPC are attempting to convince the Duke to back them in some conflict. The NPC in question has a reputation as a smooth talker. The player is trying to convince the Duke towards his side, but you as the DM are forced to take on the role of both the smooth-talking NPC and the Duke himself.

How do you resolve that situation without resorting to DM fiat, unless you let both the PC and the NPC roll a few dice against their appropriate skills?


----------



## Cadfan (May 5, 2008)

Ok, ok, I can't resist any longer.

Ahem.  By rules as written, 3e does not permit you to Intimidate a Duke into loaning you troops.  Ever.  For any Duke at all.  No matter what.  Go read the rules for Intimidate.  Its purely a "smash people against the wall and make them comply" skill.  By RAW, an Intimidated target functions as a Friendly NPC.  But 1d6x10 minutes after you cease to pose an immediate risk of physical harm, the target shifts to Unfriendly or Hostile.  Long term intimidation violates RAW.


----------



## Remathilis (May 5, 2008)

Wow. Just wow.

A couple of points I'd like to make.

1.) Auto Failure.

It's absolutely blowing my mind there are DMs who think that using intimidate to secure trust and aid from a local lord is not only viable, but acceptable. Its like trying to hammer in a nail with a screwdriver. I'm surprised if there wasn't a 6th line: Initiative (very easy): the noble is surprised as the PCs draw steel, so he summons his guards.

I'm all for creative OotB thinking, but I do think there are some skill checks that shouldn't succeed. You can't intimidate someone into trusting you, you can't make a jump check leap over a mountain, and you can't impress a local lord with your stealth check (BOO!)

2.) Railroading.

This phrase you keep using, I do not think it mean what you think it means. Railroading is when the PCs are powerless from changing the plot, regardless of any option. If the noble MUST live so that he can do something important and the PCs cannot lay a finger on him for that reason, that's railroading. Deciding that a certain skill or skills only work in a particular combination or that the NPC has a particular agenda he will be furthering no matter how smooth/suave/menacing the PCs are IS NOT RAILROADING, ITS ADDING TO THE PLOT. 

Remember kids: if your standing still and the plot keeps moving, your on a railroad. If you walk up to a T section and are miffed you can't go straight, that NOT railroading, that's limiting your particular options at that junction.

3.) successes and failures

This is great IMHO. I can play social meetings like encounters. Each "round" the PCs describe their actions, and one of them roles. Their success/failure in that given round moves the conversation in that direction. It allows a round-to-round structure and keeps the game from turning into "8 people talk. one person rolls diplomacy. You roll a 2, you fail to impress the duke. No retries." Instead, you know if things are going good or bad as they advance, and the multiple rolls allow more chances to succeed on the dice, rather than one "save or fail" skill check.


----------



## Remathilis (May 5, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Ok, ok, I can't resist any longer.
> 
> Ahem.  By rules as written, 3e does not permit you to Intimidate a Duke into loaning you troops.  Ever.  For any Duke at all.  No matter what.  Go read the rules for Intimidate.  Its purely a "smash people against the wall and make them comply" skill.  By RAW, an Intimidated target functions as a Friendly NPC.  But 1d6x10 minutes after you cease to pose an immediate risk of physical harm, the target shifts to Unfriendly or Hostile.  Long term intimidation violates RAW.




Thanks Cadfan!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 5, 2008)

Creeping Death said:
			
		

> The absolute failure in this circumstance could be that no matter what you roll and no matter who you are, the Duke does not like to be bullied.




By extension I suppose all the folks that Intimidate does work on just really _love_ being bullied.

The Duke also doesn't like being lied to, so he's immune to Bluff.

He also doesn't like having to capitulate under any circumstances-- he's used to getting his way and he's just not the sort of person who is ever going to give an inch, no matter what-- so he's immune to Diplomacy.


----------



## billd91 (May 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Player: "I swear by my life, no man may besmirch my honor and live. I don't care if you are surrounded by your guards, nor even that I may lose my life in the bargain, but if you dare question my trustworthiness again, I will cut you down where you stand."
> 
> DM: "The Duke is taken aback, but clearly impressed by your manner. After a moment he laughs. Standing up, he claps you on the back. 'By the Gods, man, I wish I had a captain among my guard with such balls!'"




If you want the Duke to react that way to intimidation attempts... then *template the situation that way!* But don't expect every Duke to behave the same way and don't expect that intimidate will work the same against everybody. It happens to be counter-productive in this situation. How is that a problem?


----------



## Harr (May 5, 2008)

Why is everyone having such a fit over the Intimidate thing. *It's an example.* It has nothing to do with tha actual rules.

I mean, unless the skill challenge rules actually say, "Every skill challenge must have at least one skill which automatically fails," or "In every negotiation challenge against a Duke, Intimidate must always be made to fail *always*," it's irrelevant.

The DM who wrote that one example thought that it would be interesting to bar Intimidation. Big whoop. How does that affect anybody? Clearly the rules say that the DM may bar a skill if he wants to. We already knew that anyway. That's always been like that.

Chances are overwhelminfly good that I can write the same encounter with no skills automatically barred and have it be 100% legal 4e D&D.

By the same token, unless the rules actually say "Skill challenges must never have any more than 6 possible skills, and some of those skills must lead into using others," there is nothing anywhere that says that all skills can't be used in one challenge. So I can write a challenge that is bacially "use whatever skill you want and convince me how it's relevant" and have it be 100% legal 4e D&D.

The problem with this is that it's just an example, it says nothing concrete. Sure, you may or may not choose to do these things as a DM, but nothing is saying that you have to, or that the majority or even the average game will have them.


----------



## Dausuul (May 5, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Doing something which I am absolutely sure to win 6 times is better than trying something with a high risk of failure.
> 
> I'd rather roll 1d20+15 vs. DC 17  six times than to try my luck with 1d20+8 vs. DC 20
> 
> Yep, not much point in chosing if you don't know which options you can chose from.




That's a pretty extreme case.  Let's assume something more reasonable.  For instance, your choice is to make five "easy" rolls of 1d20+9 vs. DC 15; or to make two "moderate" rolls of 1d20+9 vs. DC 20; or to make one "difficult" roll of 1d20+9 vs. DC 25.  We'll say one failure dooms your attempt.

If you choose the first option (five rolls against DC 15), your odds of success are a bit under 24%.
If you choose the second option (two rolls against DC 20), your odds of success are 25%.
If you choose the third option (one roll against DC 25), your odds of success are also 25%.


----------



## Vendark (May 5, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Ok, ok, I can't resist any longer.
> 
> Ahem.  By rules as written, 3e does not permit you to Intimidate a Duke into loaning you troops.  Ever.  For any Duke at all.  No matter what.  Go read the rules for Intimidate.  Its purely a "smash people against the wall and make them comply" skill.  By RAW, an Intimidated target functions as a Friendly NPC.  But 1d6x10 minutes after you cease to pose an immediate risk of physical harm, the target shifts to Unfriendly or Hostile.  Long term intimidation violates RAW.




Thank you.

I think if people would actually read what Diplomacy and Intimidate do, instead of assuming what they do based on their names, a lot of the issues here would disappear. Most especially, you can't use Intimidate to impress someone into liking you or agreeing with you. That's Diplomacy; even if you do it by flexing your muscles and boasting about how much ass you kick, it's still Diplomacy. Intimidate is solely for threatening people, and you can't do it in a way that won't make them see you as an enemy in the long-term.


----------



## Spatula (May 5, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> Not quite.
> 
> Intimidation is about making people afraid of what *you will do* if they do not do as you say. It is, by definition, about striking fear *of you* into them - but not necessarily fear of violence.  You could threaten to reveal a dark secret (blackmail), threaten to foreclose on a loan, threaten to pull out of a treaty they desperately need you to remain in, threaten to pull out of a business deal that will ruin them if it falls through, threaten to publicly humiliate them, etc. The whole point is to convince the other party that you are both capable and willing to make something undesireable happen. It can be used to great effect in social situations, if done subtlety. It's just not something you use when you're trying to build trust, which the example clearly states you are.
> 
> Convincing people of danger from a third party is not intimidation. That's more an issue of convincing them of the truth of what you are saying, which is either bluff (if you are lying) or diplomacy (if you are not). You can't cow people into believing you, only into not calling you a liar to your face.



I'm guessing the discussion has moved past the "what does Intimidate mean?" stage (I'm only up to page 9) but I just wanted to say, this is a damn good explination of what a social Intimidate is.  And it is a social skill, not a "I scare them with my muscles" skill - which is probably better represented with a strength feat.

Also,


			
				hong said:
			
		

> No DM with proper strength of will recognises straitjackets.



QF-motherbleeping-T.


----------



## doctormandible (May 5, 2008)

Why are we assuming long term aid?  I certainly didn't.  My scenario was "tell us what we want to know."  There are no prolonged troop deployments or long-term goals which require the Duke to stay helpful.  So I don't buy your "Intimidate wouldn't work in 3.x", because clearly it would it my scenario.


> It's absolutely blowing my mind there are DMs who think that using intimidate to secure trust and aid from a local lord is not only viable, but acceptable. Its like trying to hammer in a nail with a screwdriver.




I don't recall anyone suggesting that Intimidate breeds trust.  Why are we assuming that we need trust?  AGAIN, we're talking about "Tell me what I want to know or Tiny over there is gonna start pulling off fingers.  And when we're done with that, he's gonna start doing that to your kids and servants."  TRUST?!  Hell no.  Information?  From any but the most fearless (and I mean magically) kind of Duke.  We can't be assuming that the book example of a Duke is some sort of fearless ubermenche with nothing to lose and only the ties of his irreproachable moral convictions keeping him to this mortal realm.


----------



## billd91 (May 5, 2008)

doctormandible said:
			
		

> Why are we assuming long term aid?  I certainly didn't.  My scenario was "tell us what we want to know."  There are no prolonged troop deployments or long-term goals which require the Duke to stay helpful.  So I don't buy your "Intimidate wouldn't work in 3.x", because clearly it would it my scenario.




Well, that's _your_ scenario. You are free to template up the challenge as you see fit. Intimidation might well work. But it isn't going to be helpful in the initial setup that sparked this scintillating debate, is it? Why? Because in _that_ situation with _that_ Duke, it's a hindrance.


----------



## Stormtalon (May 5, 2008)

doctormandible said:
			
		

> Why are we assuming long term aid?  I certainly didn't.  My scenario was "tell us what we want to know."  There are no prolonged troop deployments or long-term goals which require the Duke to stay helpful.  So I don't buy your "Intimidate wouldn't work in 3.x", because clearly it would it my scenario.




Ummmm, because the encounter template being referred to _explicitly_ states that the scenario revolves around winning the Duke's trust so he will provide aid, possibly in the form of men and materiel?  That's long-term aid in my book.  This isn't a "Grill the Duke and pump him for info so we can get on our way," situation.  It's a "Befriend the Duke and hope to hell he will finance our expedition or at least provide escorts and a writ of passage through territory X."


----------



## kclark (May 5, 2008)

jaldaen said:
			
		

> I'm wondering if this whole Intimidate debate might be solved by the idea of a "false positive" result. Sure you can use Intimidate on the duke, you might even convince him to give into your demands, however you have not proved yourself trustworthy and therefore although you get the aid requested, you get it with stings attached, or dagger in your back at some inconvient time... so you seem to succeed at the skill challenge, but actually fail it.
> 
> I like the idea of "false positives"... I wonder if there would be a way to work in "false negatives" too...



Love this idea.

A fun "false negative" would be the duke rejecting your seemingly convincing arguments and entreaties. Despite your best efforts you end up getting rudely ushered out of the audience chamber with the duke bellowing at you to never show your face here again. Reality is the duke suspects one of his closest advisors and does not want to let on that he suspects him. So he sets up this ruse and sends the one man that he knows he can trust to rendevous with the party. The duke knew his trusted man couldn't handle everything by himself, but the party actually convinced the duke that they could.

I think a scene like that could be fun to roleplay every now and then. The group seem to be doing everything right yet everything seems to go wrong. That right there should set some cogs spinning in their heads and you can choose to use the trusted man as the instigator of the party getting involved, or just be the reward for winning the social encounter as the trusted man can pull some strings along the way that they would not have been able to otherwise and get them on their way to the borderlands and stomping some lizardmen. Or best of all both, do some lizard stomping and now you got a fun hook that they can pursue afterwards.


----------



## Ingolf (May 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> By extension I suppose all the folks that Intimidate does work on just really _love_ being bullied.
> 
> The Duke also doesn't like being lied to, so he's immune to Bluff.




Isn't the point of Bluff that the target doesn't recognize it as a lie, though? And isn't it fairly obvious when someone is trying to intimidate you?



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> He also doesn't like having to capitulate under any circumstances-- he's used to getting his way and he's just not the sort of person who is ever going to give an inch, no matter what-- so he's immune to Diplomacy.




That's a perfectly valid if annoying personality trait. I've known people like that in real life - as has any parent of a two-year-old. It makes for un-fun NPCs, though, as any interaction with them feels like the DM is just stonewalling. But on occassion even that might be appropriate.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the DM deciding that certain skills just will not work in certain situations, and the people screaming "railroad" don't understand the term. I am all in favor of the players taking some measure of control over the narrative - I love it, in fact - but that doesn't mean I have to let them do whatever they please, whenever they please, no matter how nonsensical it is.

Try to bully the head of the Duchy in my campaign and you can bet your sweet ass you'll be talking to the jailer in short order.


----------



## Spatula (May 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Player: "I swear by my life, no man may besmirch my honor and live. I don't care if you are surrounded by your guards, nor even that I may lose my life in the bargain, but if you dare question my trustworthiness again, I will cut you down where you stand."
> 
> DM: "The Duke is taken aback, but clearly impressed by your manner. After a moment he laughs. Standing up, he claps you on the back. 'By the Gods, man, I wish I had a captain among my guard with such balls!'"



Eh, I don't think that being prickly about your honor really qualifies as an Intimidate check.  The PC isn't trying to convince the Duke that the Duke's life is in danger, so much as impressing on him that the PC is prepared to die to defend his own honor.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2008)

jaldaen said:
			
		

> I'm wondering if this whole Intimidate debate might be solved by the idea of a "false positive" result. Sure you can use Intimidate on the duke, you might even convince him to give into your demands, however you have not proved yourself trustworthy and therefore although you get the aid requested, you get it with stings attached, or dagger in your back at some inconvient time... so you seem to succeed at the skill challenge, but actually fail it.
> 
> I like the idea of "false positives"... I wonder if there would be a way to work in "false negatives" too...



I think that's the idea. The PCs are not neccessarily supposed to know how much successes and failures they got. (That's also why a "total" failure doesn't mean the adventure stops, they just don't get what they wanted, and the individual skill checks and the narration combined with it can explain what will go wrong later...)


----------



## Celebrim (May 5, 2008)

Gee, we've devolved into a thread about what the intimidate skill means.

Intimidate refers to the skill of getting people who do not like you and who do not agree with you to do what you want them to do anyway.

You can recognize the use of the Intimidate skill by the fact that it has a threat in it - that is the proposition stakes that if the target doesn't agree you will do something negative in responce.  The threat can be as unsubtle as 'Do this or I'll beat you up', to as subtle as, 'If you don't do what I want, I won't be your friend anymore'.  

One can imagine an intimidate check being, "Your Grace, if you value our friendship, then you will send your troops to Pickford." 

Friends try to intimidate friends in this manner pretty regularly.  Sometimes it spells disaster (failed check) and the friendship (or marriage or whatever) is over.  Done regularly, and the friendship sours failed check or not.  But its a natural human tactic, and we can even imagine honorable heroes like Conan or John Carter making this very sort of claim, "If you have ever valued the friendship of John Carter, then send your warships to the lost sea or else count me no more a friend."... sort of thing.

The fact that the challenge is set up such that you can only get the aid by winning the Duke's trust is itself a railroad.  The challenge ought to be 'Get the Duke's Aid'.  Winning his trust and support is just one way to do it.  Scaring the Duke into going along by repeatedly intimidating him every time he works against you would be another, albiet probably more difficult path (assuming you are less terrifying than Zeus).  

Likewise, there are middle grounds.  As part of a larger social challenge, dangling carrots via diplomacy and displaying sticks via intimidate is a perfectly acceptable strategy.  Maybe the Duke reacts badly to intimidation, but saying that he's immune to it is IMO poor design.  Better design might be to say that intimidate has hard difficulty amd each time intimidate is used (successful or not) the DC of all charisma based checks in the challenge goes up by 2.


----------



## Spatula (May 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The fact that the challenge is set up such that you can only get the aid by winning the Duke's trust is itself a railroad.  The challenge ought to be 'Get the Duke's Aid'.  Winning his trust and support is just one way to do it.



The challenge is an example with no context.  Why should it be anything other than what it is?  A "get the Duke's aid" challenge makes sense, too, but that's not what this example is.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 5, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> That's something to remember as a DM. If the players use intimidation to get their way, they just supplied you a free plot hook that, when used, will increase immersion by showing them that their choices have real consequences. As for success vs failure, I would say it's a success if they get what they want (at least temporarily) and a failure if they get kicked out.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The question then isn't whether or not intimidate should be an automatic failure, but whether the stated goal for the skill challenge was chosen properly. The DM is railroading because there's no reason that the PCs shouldn't be able to use intimidation to get what they want (except for "cuz I decided that the plot should go like this, guys"). If that brings later troubles, so be it. The example challenge here sucks because it makes a dumb assumption.




To quote the article:
Success or failure in a skill challenge also influences the course of the adventure—the characters locate the temple and begin infiltrating it, or they get lost and must seek help. In either case, however, the adventure continues. With success, this is no problem, but don’t fall into the trap of making progress dependent on success in a skill challenge. Failure introduces complications rather than ending the adventure. If the characters get lost in the jungle, that leads to further challenges, not the end of the adventure.

Furthermore, the Failure result states:
Failure: The characters are forced to act without the NPC’s assistance. They encounter more trouble, which may be sent by the NPC out of anger or antagonism.

It's fine if you want to define failure results for templates that you write differently, but it's fairly clear from this article that for this particular template it would be reasonable for the duke to appear to capitulate to the PCs' intimidate-based demands while in truth attempting to kill them.  (The duke agrees to send his troops with you, but orders his men to kill you at the first opportunity).  IMO, if the duke sends his men along simply to "take care" of the PCs, he isn't assisting them.


----------



## Celebrim (May 5, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> The challenge is an example with no context.  Why should it be anything other than what it is?




If it was your job to publish excerpts and sample material to sell a product, wouldn't you use the best examples you had?  Wouldn't you want to publish material that made people go, "Wow, this is so great!".



> A "get the Duke's aid" challenge makes sense, too, but that's not what this example is.




Agreed.  'Get the Duke's aid' is a well designed challenge, and this isn't.

My point is that claiming that intimidate being impossible isn't a railroad by pointing out that the scenario was described in such a way that intimidate was at odds of the goal of the encounter is no defence, because the goal itself is then described in terms which are also a railroad.  A well stated goal only explains the primary outcome in the event of success or defeat.  It doesn't explain how it is to be accomplished.  By definition, if the scenario states that the only way to get from point A to point B is to do this, then its a railroad.


----------



## Simon Marks (May 5, 2008)

"No-one minds a railroad if it leads to awesome town" - SteveD


----------



## Lacyon (May 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> My point is that claiming that intimidate being impossible isn't a railroad by pointing out that the scenario was described in such a way that intimidate was at odds of the goal of the encounter is no defence, because the goal itself is then described in terms which are also a railroad.  A well stated goal only explains the primary outcome in the event of success or defeat.  It doesn't explain how it is to be accomplished.  By definition, if the scenario states that the only way to get from point A to point B is to do this, then its a railroad.




Point of Fact: Getting to point B is likely to happen whether the PCs pass or fail the skill challenge. The challenge resolves whether or not the Duke _assists_ the party in reaching B. Claims of railroading still fall short.


----------



## Mort_Q (May 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> By extension I suppose all the folks that Intimidate does work on just really _love_ being bullied.
> 
> The Duke also doesn't like being lied to, so he's immune to Bluff.
> 
> He also doesn't like having to capitulate under any circumstances-- he's used to getting his way and he's just not the sort of person who is ever going to give an inch, no matter what-- so he's immune to Diplomacy.




That's just silly.

If you intimidate the Duke, he _knows_ he's been intimidated.

If you successfully bluff the Duke, he _doesn't know_ he's been lied to.

The last one would work, but in that case, there is no point in having the skill challenge in the first place.


----------



## Nine Hands (May 5, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> I like to with the Exalted interpretation of "impossible" here; it means that it's just very hard. If one of the PCs is the grandmaster of intimidations, that PC can pull it off. But by the time the PCs can reach that level of Intimidation they most likely don't need the help of a duke anyway. In this case, I'd say that context is everything.
> 
> OTOH, if you don't like that Intimidate is impossible, make it possible. If you think all skills should be possible all the time, make it so. You have the framework for skill challenges and the rules for them work if you allow one skill or if you allow all skills. There is no cascade of weirdness if you change if a skill is applicable or not.
> 
> This is the first time I have seen skill challenges like this and I find them interesting. It creates a mechanical frame for chase scenes through wilderness and social interaction. I think this will increase the screentime of the facemen and wilderness guys beyond rolling a single roll. I'm already getting some ideas for skill challenges, 15 minutes after reading the article




Hmm...that gave me an idea for a feat...

Makes the Impossible Possible
Prerequisites: Skill Training.
Benefits: Choose a skill you have Skill Training with, you may perform otherwise impossible tasks during Skill Challenges at a Hard DC.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If it was your job to publish excerpts and sample material to sell a product, wouldn't you use the best examples you had?  Wouldn't you want to publish material that made people go, "Wow, this is so great!".
> 
> 
> 
> ...




IMO, if all the PCs accomplish is to convince the duke that they are a threat that he needs to get rid of, they have failed, whether they believe they have succeeded or failed.  It seems to me that it is entirely reasonable for the DM to create an NPC duke who responds poorly to threats to his power.  Perhaps he rose to his position by murdering his siblings, and has no compunctions about having his guardsmen rid him of a few ragamuffin mercenaries who dared threaten his rule.

If the writers failed to point out that this is just one example and that not every NPC (or not even most) is like this, then that would be a failure on their part, but seeing that this is merely an excerpt of a larger chapter it's impossible to know.  I personally think that this was just an example meant to demonstrate that in certain situations it is okay for the DM to decide that particular skills have no chance of success, but that's simply my opinion.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (May 5, 2008)

I don't see why such a fuss is being kicked up at the concept that some people can't be intimidated.  Other folks can't be reasoned with (Diplomacy).  Some people are even so mule-headed that they can't be bluffed.  This notion that social skills are magic spell, where if you pile up a high enough modifier they'll work, is a bad carry-over from third edition.  To quote an example from earlier in the thread, are you going to let the PCs intimidate Leonidus of Sparta?  I don't see that working too well even if they're 30th level demigods descending down upon a thundercloud.

There are also going to be situations where Diplomacy doesn't work.  That gnoll sizing you up for his dinner pot may be immune to your charms.  For him, intimidation and bluffing may be the only thing that are going to work.

The DM determines the applicability of skills.  The stats of the PC determine how good they are at the skill, if it's applicable.


----------



## Thyrwyn (May 5, 2008)

But that is not what the scenario says: the scenario says you can get from point A to point B using a methods a, b, or c; but not method d.  The scenario never says they have to get to point B (in fact, it is specifically cautioned against) only that getting to point B will eventually make getting to point F easier.

There is no railroad; the players do not have to negotiate with the duke if they don't want to; IF they choose to negotiate, then they will have to deal with the fact that one of their skills will not help.

In fact, many of their resources are inappropriate by definition - is that railroading?

Example: The wizard knows 10 powers, 1 of which is fear based.  You prepare an encounter with a group of monsters which are immune to fear effects.  If "intimidate fails" qualifies as railroading, then so does the above encounter.


----------



## Creeping Death (May 5, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> By extension I suppose all the folks that Intimidate does work on just really _love_ being bullied.
> 
> The Duke also doesn't like being lied to, so he's immune to Bluff.
> 
> He also doesn't like having to capitulate under any circumstances-- he's used to getting his way and he's just not the sort of person who is ever going to give an inch, no matter what-- so he's immune to Diplomacy.






Overt vs covert.  Bluffing the duke into thinking the threat is worse is different that I'll slit your throat if you don't help.

But you get a culture where the strongest are in charge, then you must intimidate them into helping, becase that is their culture.  The duke, not so.  He's the guy in charge and won't trust you if you threaten (intimidate) him.  That does not mean he's immune to intimidate, it just means you won't accomplish your goal.


----------



## SteveC (May 5, 2008)

So here are my last comments on the Intimidate thing:

First, in the real world, intimidation is used to get assistance all the time. Wealthy and powerful individuals (which, if the PCs are any level, they most certainly are) get things done their way all the time by threats. "Do what I say or my business, X jobs and Y dollars leaves the area," is a common tactic. "Do what I say or our group's protection over your point of light will be withdrawn," might be a powerful motivation in the world of 4E. It's not a nice thing to do, but then if you're intimidating you're likely not a nice person.

Second, does this immunity apply only to the PCs? I mean if later on in the adventure, when the PCs discover that the lord in question has been helping the bad guys (as happens many times), and demand to know why. Should this NPC respond, as many NPCs have over the history of gaming: _what could I do? They threatened my wife and family, I had to help them_. If so, I'd say your players could immediately call BS and say "I'm sorry, this NPC is immune to being intimidated! Come up with another story, because I'm not buying that one!"

Because of course you can intimidate someone to help you. Heck, you can even intimidate them to keep helping you over an extended period of time and being your 'friend.' How do you think bullies work? That Cobra-Kai dojo attracts students using the intimidation skill (okay, Karate Kid reference = bad, but still...)  

Pretty much every topic we are banned about discussing on this very site has people, even powerful ones, being manipulated by intimidation. So my last point: once you say that someone is *immune *to a particular form of persuasion, rather than just being very resistant, you're closing off plotlines and removing roleplaying opportunities from the game.

If the players succeeded with their skill challenge and used intimidation, that would open up many options to me as a GM that I didn't have before. If I were sitting behind the screen at that moment, I'd be happy that my players had given me more options for how to present a future adversary to them: they have given me a new plotline in the long term in exchange for some short term help. With the players I have, they would most likely give the intimidating player no end of grief several months later when they found out that Duke they were talking with and "intimidated" was the one giving the BBEG all of the most up to date information on what they were doing.

Of course if it's your game you're in charge and you can feel free to ignore my rantings.

--Steve


----------



## Stormtalon (May 5, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Second, does this immunity apply only to the PCs? I mean if later on in the adventure, when the PCs discover that the lord in question has been helping the bad guys (as happens many times), and demand to know why. Should this NPC respond, as many NPCs have over the history of gaming: _what could I do? They threatened my wife and family, I had to help them_. If so, I'd say your players could immediately call BS and say "I'm sorry, this NPC is immune to being intimidated! Come up with another story, because I'm not buying that one!"




Actually, in this case, I'd use the fact that [insert ruthless bad guys] are using threats of violence towards the Duke's family as the _reason_ the PC's aren't able to successfully Intimidate him.  His back's already against the wall, everything he cares about is in jeopardy and he may take a threat of personal death as a possible way out of the situation, freeing his family from the threats hanging over their heads.  Meanwhile, Diplomacy may convince him to hand them covert aid in the hopes that the party'll be able to remove the problem themselves.  In sum, the party can't intimidate him because far worse people have already beaten them to it.


----------



## Spatula (May 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Agreed.  'Get the Duke's aid' is a well designed challenge, and this isn't.



How can something that does not exist, beyond a title, be well designed?

You think "getting aid" is a better concept than "gaining trust."  That's fine, but there's nothing wrong with giving the players the goal of gaining the trust of a powerful individual, and I see nothing wrong with the design of this particular challenge.  You want the duke to trust you, ergo threatening him is counter-productive.  Seems perfectly logical to me.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> My point is that claiming that intimidate being impossible isn't a railroad by pointing out that the scenario was described in such a way that intimidate was at odds of the goal of the encounter is no defence, because the goal itself is then described in terms which are also a railroad.  A well stated goal only explains the primary outcome in the event of success or defeat.  It doesn't explain how it is to be accomplished.  By definition, if the scenario states that the only way to get from point A to point B is to do this, then its a railroad.



There is no railroad.  A railroad is the DM saying, "you must do THIS" despite the players wishes.  If the players don't want to gain the Duke's trust, they automatically fail the skill challenge and the adventure continues.  Or a railroad could be interpreted as there only being one way to bypass an obstacle.  But of course, there are more than a few ways to successfully get past this particular obstacle, which are clearly laid out for the DM.  DM adjucation might lead to more paths to success.

Anyway, using Intimidate on the Duke is not impossible, the Duke is not immune to Intimidate, etc. etc.  Using Initimdate just works against the stated goal of the challenge, which again, is to gain the trust of the Duke.  This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 5, 2008)

An important part of the DM's job has always been to maintain internal consistancy.  If I created an NPC who doesn't respond to intimidation well, I wouldn't later allow the bad guys to successfully intimidate the duke without some exceptionally good reason.  There are always alternate options.  If the DM wants to have the duke cooperate with the enemy while simultaneously exonerating his actions, simply have him brainwashed (perhaps the bad guys are a demon cult who had a succubus infiltrate the duke's court and charm him), or something to this effect.


----------



## Mort_Q (May 5, 2008)

Mearls' latest skill challenge.


----------



## Imp (May 5, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> First, in the real world, intimidation is used to get assistance all the time. Wealthy and powerful individuals (which, if the PCs are any level, they most certainly are) get things done their way all the time by threats. "Do what I say or my business, X jobs and Y dollars leaves the area," is a common tactic. "Do what I say or our group's protection over your point of light will be withdrawn," might be a powerful motivation in the world of 4E.



See, I'd file many negotiations of this sort under "Diplomacy," since after all that is what is going on there and diplomacy is not synonymous with "hugs" no matter how much cable news tries to tell us otherwise. "Intimidate" covers threatening behaviors. In fact I think turning the sound off, so to speak, is a good guide for where the dividing line is between the two.


----------



## jasin (May 5, 2008)

I think that the sample presented makes much more sense if viewed as a (potential) piece of an adventure rather than a system.

The NPC isn't inherently immune to intimidation, but the one particular situation is such that using intimidate will yield no favorable result. Meeting the same NPC in some other circumstances will constitute a new skill challenge, where Diplomacy might be fruitless (because the NPC's mind is now dead set), but a difficult Religion check might present the opportunity for an easy Intimidate checks (as you dredge up some obscure stricture that makes the NPC's view questionable, and then threaten him with fire and brimstone).

The argument about monster stats not being meant to describe the entirety of its functioning but just the way it behaves in play goes doubly for skill challenges, I think.


----------



## malraux (May 5, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> See, I'd file many negotiations of this sort under "Diplomacy," since after all that is what is going on there and diplomacy is not synonymous with "hugs" no matter how much cable news tries to tell us otherwise. "Intimidate" covers threatening behaviors. In fact I think turning the sound off, so to speak, is a good guide for where the dividing line is between the two.



Yeah, the intimidate skill, at least as it is in 3e, really only covers immediate threats.  If its not something the individual would change his mind about after the PCs leave, its not something the intimidate skill would cover.  All those threats are really better covered under diplomacy, or possibly bluff.


----------



## Torchlyte (May 6, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> IMO, if all the PCs accomplish is to convince the duke that they are a threat that he needs to get rid of, they have failed, whether they believe they have succeeded or failed.  It seems to me that it is entirely reasonable for the DM to create an NPC duke who responds poorly to threats to his power.  Perhaps he rose to his position by murdering his siblings, and has no compunctions about having his guardsmen rid him of a few ragamuffin mercenaries who dared threaten his rule.




When the PCs succeed in doing what they want, it isn't a failure. It may have negative consequences, but it shouldn't be a skill challenge failure. The PCs are losing _____ because they didn't do things The DM's Way (tm).



			
				Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> To quote the article:
> Success or failure in a skill challenge also influences the course of the adventure—the characters locate the temple and begin infiltrating it, or they get lost and must seek help. In either case, however, the adventure continues. With success, this is no problem, but don’t fall into the trap of making progress dependent on success in a skill challenge. Failure introduces complications rather than ending the adventure. If the characters get lost in the jungle, that leads to further challenges, not the end of the adventure.
> 
> Furthermore, the Failure result states:
> ...




The point you quoted wasn't really a point, it was an alternate suggestion for framing a specific scenario. Anyone can define failure however they want.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Intimidate refers to the skill of getting people who do not like you and who do not agree with you to do what you want them to do anyway.
> 
> You can recognize the use of the Intimidate skill by the fact that it has a threat in it - that is the proposition stakes that if the target doesn't agree you will do something negative in responce.  The threat can be as unsubtle as 'Do this or I'll beat you up', to as subtle as, 'If you don't do what I want, I won't be your friend anymore'.
> 
> ...




++



			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> You think "getting aid" is a better concept than "gaining trust."  That's fine, but there's nothing wrong with giving the players the goal of gaining the trust of a powerful individual,




The players decide on their own objectives. You suggest it through plot, but they get to decid what they want and how they want to get it.



			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> Or a railroad could be interpreted as there only being one way to bypass an obstacle.  But of course, there are more than a few ways to successfully get past this particular obstacle, which are clearly laid out for the DM.




That's exactly the issue we're pointing at. This example leaves two real options: bluff and diplomacy, and both of these are a subset of one option (get the Duke to trust you). The stated goal is to get the NPC to trust the PCs, but if the PCs are using intimidation in the first place they obviously have a different goal in mind. Therefore, the direction of this example is self-defeating.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 6, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> When the PCs succeed in doing what they want, it isn't a failure. It may have negative consequences, but it shouldn't be a skill challenge failure. The PCs are losing _____ because they didn't do things The DM's Way (tm).




I'll grant you that, lacking context, that's reasonable.  

Nonetheless, if the context of the adventure is that the PCs' liege lord (Baron Somethingorother) sent the PCs to investigate the borderlands and told the PCs to try to earn the duke's trust and aid, then it makes sense that failing to do so would result in failure of the challenge.

I'd say that it's really a matter of perspective.


----------



## Torchlyte (May 6, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> I'll grant you that, lacking context, that's reasonable.
> 
> Nonetheless, if the context of the adventure is that the PCs' liege lord (Baron Somethingorother) sent the PCs to investigate the borderlands and told the PCs to try to earn the duke's trust and aid, then it makes sense that failing to do so would result in failure of the challenge.
> 
> I'd say that it's really a matter of perspective.




If that is the context, it would be acceptable. My worry is that this was intended as a general example, and I think in that case it would encourage the wrong mindset in new/inexperienced DMs.


----------



## Rechan (May 6, 2008)

Mort_Q said:
			
		

> Mearls' latest skill challenge.



I liked that. But I ALSO liked the soul eater. I want to see that sucka!

But I also wonder why the soul eater didn't just vamoose after it had killed Xarn.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 6, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> If that is the context, it would be acceptable. My worry is that this was intended as a general example, and I think in that case it would encourage the wrong mindset in new/inexperienced DMs.




You might be right and, if so, I agree.  Hopefully though, it's only intended as one specific example of several.  One way or the other, we'll know in a month.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 6, 2008)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> "No-one minds a railroad if it leads to awesome town" - SteveD





"The problem is choice." - The Matrix


----------



## Spatula (May 6, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> That's exactly the issue we're pointing at. This example leaves two real options: bluff and diplomacy, and both of these are a subset of one option (get the Duke to trust you). The stated goal is to get the NPC to trust the PCs, but if the PCs are using intimidation in the first place they obviously have a different goal in mind. Therefore, the direction of this example is self-defeating.



Then they fail the objective, which was to secure the Duke's trust, and the adventure continues.  Still not a railroad.

The DM makes it clear the PCs should try to earn the Duke's trust.  The PCs decide to do something different.  There's nothing wrong with that!  You can apply that contrarian spirit to any proposed skill challenge.  That doesn't make the challenge self-defeating.

Challenge: Escape the city guards!
Players: Fleeing is for cowards!  We fight the guards instead.

Challenge: Find the hidden jungle temple!
Players: We rig up a hot air balloon and spot it from the air instead of going through the jungle.

Challenge: Get something of value from the Duke!
Players: We kill the Duke and take over his fiefdom.  Now all his assets are ours!


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 6, 2008)

Unfortunately this excerpt did not really answer all my questions about the skill challenge system. I like the idea of the characters being free to sue skills more freely, but not to a ridiculous extent where the character finds a way to use his acrobatics in every single encounter. But still there should be some freedom

Also I think there should be more choice to make an easy, medium or hard roll. If I'm great at Diplomacy, I want to go got the High roll for more successes. 

Also, does the party get to roll the same skill more than once an encounter. I sure hope not. 

Or even put a limit on how many successes or failures once character can generate, like half? 

I still have way too many questions.


----------



## Jasperak (May 6, 2008)

I cannot read 21 pages of stuff, so my only questions are:

Is this system really saying that I don't have to role-play anymore if I don't want to? Can I really say to my wanna-be-thespian DM, nah I don't feel like roleplaying anymore; show me the loot? Here are my last 8 d20 rolls in order. I rolled them while you were reciting the  monologue of Anthiphunicles. Do I win the encounter?


----------



## Rechan (May 6, 2008)

Dice4Hire said:
			
		

> Unfortunately this excerpt did not really answer all my questions about the skill challenge system.



I believe that every excerpt we have seen does not answer all the questions. That's why it's an excerpt, and not a full discloser.


----------



## AllisterH (May 6, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Gee, we've devolved into a thread about what the intimidate skill means.
> 
> Intimidate refers to the skill of getting people who do not like you and who do not agree with you to do what you want them to do anyway.
> 
> .




Well, a 21 page thread always is a good thing...That said, that's not Intimidate in either SAGA or 3E at ALL. If you were using it like that, that's not RAW.

Intimidate

What you're referring to is still considered under Diplomacy (Diplomacy works on people that don't like you either)

And again, the skill challenge explicitly says "Gain the trust of the Duke". If you were to try to use it in 3.5, the effect would be that about 10 minutes after you leave, the Duke would be ACTIVELY working against you since he would shift from Neutral towards you to Unfriendly...

Using Intimidate in such a scenario in 3.5 is automatic failure and so it should be in 4E.


----------



## Mort_Q (May 6, 2008)

Jasperak said:
			
		

> Is this system really saying that I don't have to role-play anymore if I don't want to?




No.



			
				Jasperak said:
			
		

> Can I really say to my wanna-be-thespian DM, nah I don't feel like roleplaying anymore; show me the loot? Here are my last 8 d20 rolls in order. I rolled them while you were reciting the  monologue of Anthiphunicles. Do I win the encounter?




You can if you want, but he'll I'd say no.


----------



## Rechan (May 6, 2008)

Jasperak said:
			
		

> Is this system really saying that I don't have to role-play anymore if I don't want to? Can I really say to my wanna-be-thespian DM, nah I don't feel like roleplaying anymore; show me the loot? Here are my last 8 d20 rolls in order. I rolled them while you were reciting the  monologue of Anthiphunicles. Do I win the encounter?



No more than roleplaying in a fight scene by saying, "While you were describing the monster, I rolled my next ten attacks. Here are the numbers. Here are my defenses and HP. Did I win the encounter?"


----------



## small pumpkin man (May 6, 2008)

Jasperak said:
			
		

> I cannot read 21 pages of stuff, so my only questions are:
> 
> Is this system really saying that I don't have to role-play anymore if I don't want to? Can I really say to my wanna-be-thespian DM, nah I don't feel like roleplaying anymore; show me the loot? Here are my last 8 d20 rolls in order. I rolled them while you were reciting the  monologue of Anthiphunicles. Do I win the encounter?



Short answer, no.

3.x Diplomacy was "I get 57, Thor is now my butt-monkey!". If you _Look at the example_ there are 3-4 "pre-established" rolls, and it requires 8 to "beat" it, for the other 5, you have to actually explain to the DM what you are doing, and why it will help.


----------



## The Shadow (May 6, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> That's exactly the issue we're pointing at. This example leaves two real options: bluff and diplomacy, and both of these are a subset of one option (get the Duke to trust you). The stated goal is to get the NPC to trust the PCs, but if the PCs are using intimidation in the first place they obviously have a different goal in mind. Therefore, the direction of this example is self-defeating.




Why are you assuming this is the only skill challenge on the table?  The GM could easily have several for different scenarios:

1)  The PC's might try to ask the Duke for help.  Whip up Skill Challenge A for that.  I already know they're in a position of weakness with respect to the Duke, so Intimidation is Right Out - they need to win his trust.  (A novice DM, or an experienced one in a rush, might just grab the Negotiation template straight out of the DMG rather than making one up in detail.  That one is generic, and so makes certain assumptions about the Duke that a DM might well want to change in his own game.)

2)  They might try to find the bad guy's secret entrance on their own and sneak their way in, reasoning that having lots of troops with them would only draw attention.  I'll use Skill Challenge B for that.

3)  They might try to disguise themselves as soldiers of the bad guy.  Here's Skill Challenge C for that...

And so on.  I think peoiple are reading way too much into this one simple example.


----------



## Torchlyte (May 6, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Then they fail the objective, which was to secure the Duke's trust, and the adventure continues.  Still not a railroad.




Whose objective? Certainly not the players'.



			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> The DM makes it clear the PCs should try to earn the Duke's trust.  The PCs decide to do something different.  There's nothing wrong with that!




I wouldn't tell the characters, "Your objective is this;" I think that hurts immersion. If it's implied, then it should still be their decision and you shouldn't penalize them for choosing their own path.



			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> You can apply that contrarian spirit to any proposed skill challenge.  That doesn't make the challenge self-defeating.




If their objective actually was to gain trust, they probably wouldn't be going for intimidation in the first place. If they're trying intimidation, their goal is probably different from the stated objective, and there's no reason they should be penalized for that.



			
				Jasperak said:
			
		

> Is this system really saying that I don't have to role-play anymore if I don't want to? Can I really say to my wanna-be-thespian DM, nah I don't feel like roleplaying anymore; show me the loot? Here are my last 8 d20 rolls in order. I rolled them while you were reciting the monologue of Anthiphunicles. Do I win the encounter?




No.

...MortQ took my exact answer.  



			
				The Shadow said:
			
		

> Why are you assuming this is the only skill challenge on the table?




I'm not. I'm saying this particular example, regardless of what other examples may or may not exist, is bad. 



			
				The Shadow said:
			
		

> 1)  The PC's might try to ask the Duke for help.  Whip up Skill Challenge A for that.  I already know they're in a position of weakness with respect to the Duke, so Intimidation is Right Out - they need to win his trust.




This is only true if they're not good at intimidation. Mook with sword = bad at intimidation. Mafia = good at intimidation. If the players are creative, they might be at an advantage you didn't expect. If that's the case, you'll hear it when they describe how they go about intimidating the guy.


----------



## Jasperak (May 6, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Short answer, no.
> 
> 3.x Diplomacy was "I get 57, Thor is now my butt-monkey!". If you _Look at the example_ there are 3-4 "pre-established" rolls, and it requires 8 to "beat" it, for the other 5, you have to actually explain to the DM what you are doing, and why it will help.




Thank you for your lack of snark and quick explanation.

Looking at the excerpt from WOTC I don't see anything about 3-4 pre-established rolls or having to explain anything about any other rolls. What I see from the excerpt is this:

DM: The duke has granted an audience with you.
Player 1: I use Diplomacy Attack 1.
DM: You Succeed. He mentions something about the Halls of Moria.
Player 1: I use History Attack 1.
DM: You Fail, your knowledge is not great enough to move the duke.
Player 1: Fine, I'll Use Bluff Attack 1.
DM: You Succeed. He mentions something about a battle in the Halls of Moria.
Player 1: I'll use my Bluff Attack 1 again.
Player 2: I thought Bluff Attack 1 was an Encounter power.
Player 1: No it's At-Will
Player 2: Oh good, it would be terrible if you had to wait 5 minutes after you stop talking to the duke to use it.
DM: You succeed so well he thinks you have actually been to the Halls.
Player 1: Do I get any bonuses or anything for succeeding so far.
DM: No
Player 1: Maybe I will try an use Intimidate Attack 1 next.
Player 2: Why, they're all charisma based? Don't you have all of those maxed out?
Player 1: Well, when I used the Diplomacy Attack 1 power, I unlocked the History Attack 1 Power. maybe I will unlock something else. Maybe he will gain more respect for us. We just have to figure out what combos to use to beat him.
Player 2: Why not, its better than rolling five more Diplomacy Attacks....

Where am I wrong?


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 6, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> [...]
> 
> If their objective actually was to gain trust, they probably wouldn't be going for intimidation in the first place.
> 
> [...]



And if they did then it would be an automatic fail right?  This entire template is based on a situation in which "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."

If you change the scenario then the template no longer applies.


----------



## Jasperak (May 6, 2008)

Mort_Q said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> 
> 
> You can if you want, but he'll I'd say no.




Really, what from the excerpt says that I have to say anything other than I use my Diplomacy Power?

Do I have to explain how I am attacking to roll against the mooks AC?

If you are my DM at an RPGA event and I say I want to use my Diplomacy Power. Who are you to force me to explain how I use the power? I roll a d20. I don't have to know how to fight IRL to attack a creature, why should I have describe how I talk to the duke if I have the conversation skills of a tree IRL?


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 6, 2008)

Jasperak said:
			
		

> Thank you for your lack of snark and quick explanation.
> 
> Looking at the excerpt from WOTC I don't see anything about 3-4 pre-established rolls or having to explain anything about any other rolls. What I see from the excerpt is this:
> 
> ...



Where in reality it might go something like:

DM: The duke has granted an audience with you.
Player 1: I use Diplomacy Attack 1.
DM: You loose 10XP, and from now on roleplay or you will loose more.

You can take the roleplaying out of any aspect of D&D, but usually a player who constantly does so is one who you might not want at your table.


----------



## Cadfan (May 6, 2008)

The most important part of the blog post is where Mearls mentions that his players never knew they were in a skill challenge.  They just used skills as it seemed appropriate, roleplayed as it seemed appropriate, and the DM used the skill challenge structure to handle the details behind the scenes.

It was kind of obvious that things could work that way, but some people insisted on not seeing it, so... its nice to hear it officially.


----------



## Rechan (May 6, 2008)

Jasperak said:
			
		

> Where am I wrong?



Probably because you're going by a glimpse of a Skill Challenge _template_ and the first what, half dozen paragraphs from a *chapter* dedicated to Skill Challenges? 

There must be at least a little bit more nuance to it.

Especially given what we saw at DDXP.


----------



## heretic888 (May 6, 2008)

Jasperak said:
			
		

> Really, what from the excerpt says that I have to say anything other than I use my Diplomacy Power?
> 
> Do I have to explain how I am attacking to roll against the mooks AC?
> 
> If you are my DM at an RPGA event and I say I want to use my Diplomacy Power. Who are you to force me to explain how I use the power? I roll a d20. I don't have to know how to fight IRL to attack a creature, why should I have describe how I talk to the duke if I have the conversation skills of a tree IRL?




Hi Jasperak,

First off, you crack me up. 

Secondly, the rules can't force you to roleplay. That was true in 3E and its true in 4E. The main difference now is that more than one skill (and skill check) is involved in any given non-combat encounter AND the entire party participates (instead of just The Face or The Skillmonkey doing all the social heavy lifting).

If you really hate skill challenges that much, I'm confident that binary opposed skill checks are still in the game. Honest.

Laterz.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 6, 2008)

Jasperak said:
			
		

> Thank you for your lack of snark and quick explanation.
> 
> Looking at the excerpt from WOTC I don't see anything about 3-4 pre-established rolls or having to explain anything about any other rolls. What I see from the excerpt is this:
> 
> ...




You forgot what was on the rest of the pages in the _Chapter_ on skill challenges. Which I'm guessing aren't entirely devoid of text.

I assume that part of telling the DM how to run a skill challenge will be something to the effect of "ways to encourage your players to describe their attempts."

People need to stop assuming that an excerpt less than 1 page long is all the rules have to say on the subject. Especially when the excerpt specifically tells us otherwise.



			
				4th Edition Excerpts: Skill Challenges said:
			
		

> What follows is the opening section of the Skill Challenges chapter, a few key sidebars, and a skill challenge template right out of the Dungeon Master’s Guide.




So...hardly the whole system.


----------



## Jasperak (May 6, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> Where in reality it might go something like:
> 
> DM: The duke has granted an audience with you.
> Player 1: I use Diplomacy Attack 1.
> ...




Try your punishment at an RPGA event.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 6, 2008)

Jeebus, are you people still going on about this?

Look, it's simple.  Its ONE example of a skill challenge.  In that ONE example, the imaginary DM decided that intimidation would be counter productive.  That was not a statement on the effectiveness of intimidation in all negotiations, or some method of railroading players, cutting off options or robbing the situation of roleplaying.  All it is, is an example of how the DM can define the parameters of a skill challenge, adding to the tactical depth of the encounter.  Not every skill is going to work in every case.  Some skill challenges will be really open, some others will be more narrowly defined.  The DM is still there, in person.  The challenge is not being applied by a computer overlord.  If a player RPs an attempt at intimidation so well he convinces the DM it should work, the DM is free to allow it, even though he wrote in his adventure notes, "intimidation counts as a failure". 

It's like a combat encounter - there's a near infinite variety to what you can do.  You can fight in an empty 10x10 room over a pie or in a 300' radius cavern with multiple levels, bridges, tunnels, pools, lava and anything else you can think of.  The DM sets the parameters of every combat encounter, and he will set the parameters of every skill challenge.  That isn't the same thing as railroading, it's called adventure design.


----------



## Voss (May 6, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> Where in reality it might go something like:
> 
> DM: The duke has granted an audience with you.
> Player 1: I use Diplomacy Attack 1.
> ...




You might.  But there isn't any indication given that the core rules have that expectation.  He is quite correct that you could run the skill challenges, as presented, as a series of 8-10 dice rolls in under 60 seconds.

So, Jasperak, in answer to your original question, Yes, you can handwave the roleplaying part of the encounter.  Its kind of sad, but as presented, you totally can.


----------



## Rechan (May 6, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> Jeebus, are you people still going on about this?



I'm pretty much convinced that some people are bound and determined to look at every single thing that comes out with brown-colored glasses. I'm shocked that when we were given a glimpse of feats, there wasn't an outcry that these were the only feats we would have.

These excerpts aren't word for word. They are _trailers_ for 4e rules. "How ever will the PCs solve the problem with these rules? FIND OUT IN JUNE!"


----------



## Lacyon (May 6, 2008)

Jasperak said:
			
		

> Really, what from the excerpt says that I have to say anything other than I use my Diplomacy Power?




Nothing.

Likewise, nothing in 3E says that you have to say anything other than "I roll Diplomacy."

Likewise, nothing in 2E says that you have to say anything other than "I convince the dude to help me."

Whether or not this is acceptable practice depends, as it always has, on the (typically unspoken) customs and preferences of an individual playgroup.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 6, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> You might.  But there isn't any indication given that the core rules have that expectation.  He is quite correct that you could run the skill challenges, as presented, as a series of 8-10 dice rolls in under 60 seconds.
> 
> So, Jasperak, in answer to your original question, Yes, you can handwave the roleplaying part of the encounter.  Its kind of sad, but as presented, you totally can.




This isn't any different from any past edition of D&D though, so why should it matter?  I've never seen any rules forcing one to role play.  If I crack open the skills chapter of my 3.x books there's virtually nothing on the subject (of RP).

A group RPs because they want to (or not).  This just gives a solid mechanical framework to underlay all that RP, which is all the rules have ever done, to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## Jasperak (May 6, 2008)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Hi Jasperak,
> 
> First off, you crack me up.
> 
> ...




Thanks. I don't hate Skill Challenges so much as I am concerned with the ONE template that we saw from the INCREDIBLY SHORT excerpt, there was not a single sentence leading me to believe that there would be any benefit to actually role-playing the encounter instead of roll-playing it. 

I apologize to all for my snark; it comes as much from 3e as well as this excerpt with regards to social encounters. I look forward to seeing more info, but right now I am not impressed.

And really I participated in ONE RPGA event. The DM was such a moron that I wanted to boil everything down to a simple die roll, because he had the adventure running abilities of a sandwich. Game Parlor, Chantilly VA 2002.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 6, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> It's not a railroad. It's a cave-in blocking a tunnel through the mountains. The players can still choose from a few other alternate paths. Railroading is when all the alternate paths are closed _except_ for the tunnel through the mountains (or whichever road the DM wants the PCs to take).



True.  Besides, I don't think railroading is even bad in all cases.  A lot of people on these boards shout "Railroad!" all the time like its the end of the world.

(I'd like to state in advance that although some of my ideas may be similar to some of the ideas presented in the 4e DMG, that I'm not trying to break my NDA for anyone who might be reading this.  A lot of them are common sense and things I knew about role playing long before I read it.  Please don't hurt me.)

That being said, let's move on.

The idea of designing and running an adventure is fairly simple.  You, as a DM, are supposed to come up with framework and basic "shell" of the adventure.  The players interact with that shell and provide the details.

It's a lot like a choose your own adventure novel.  As a DM, you design a "problem" or "conflict".  Then you present the idea to the players.  There are large portions of the adventure that you'll be able to predict in advance as they will be so obvious or completely out of the player's hands.

For instance:  There is an evil wizard who is trying to take over the world.  In order to do this, he has summoned a Demon Prince who will eventually provide him with an army of demonic creatures to take it over.  However, he has to do something for the Demon Prince first.  He must provide the Prince's minions with a large amount of humans to be used as food.  The wizard doesn't want to draw too much attention to him so he has paid some slavers for that many slaves.  Problem is that the slavers don't have that many.  So they are traveling around the country kidnapping people who are walking down the road or in the middle of the night in alleys.

So, you have the plot of an adventure.

Next, you need a framework of how an adventure will likely play out:  The PCs are in a city when they hear rumors about people going missing mysteriously.  They will likely investigate and be lead to the slavers who will give up the wizard who the PCs will track down and defeat.

That's the basic framework.  It plays out in a couple of different modes:

Exploration: The players interact with their immediate environment.  You narrate what their environment looks like, what the NPCs around them do, and answer questions.
Combat: The players battle some enemies.
Decisions: The players are given the choice as to which direction the plot takes(either short term or long term)

The point of all this?

Players aren't supposed to be able to make decisions ALL the time during an adventure.  They don't get to decide what the NPCs do, they don't get to decide what rooms look like, they don't get to decide what happens to them if they choose to go left rather than right.  In all those cases, it is up to the DM to "railroad" them.  It is only at the Decision points that the PCs are given the choice of which way to go or what to do.

How does this all relate to Skill Challenges?  Well, one thing to keep in mind is that a Skill Challenge should be run in Exploration mode.  In the same way that you would describe a room of a dungeon and allow the players to interact with it, so should a skill challenge provide the players a chance to do something, have the results of the action explained to them and try something else.

Some skills might never be used because the chance to use them doesn't come up in the running narrative of the skill challenge.  I think that's the key to understanding them.  At least it was for me.  I can say that running skill challenges has not been easy for me.  It is a whole new skill to learn and it requires thinking in a bit different way than I am used to.


----------



## Torchlyte (May 6, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> And if they did then it would be an automatic fail right?  This entire template is based on a situation in which "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."
> 
> If you change the scenario then the template no longer applies.




Refer to this exchange:



			
				Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> I'll grant you that, lacking context, that's reasonable.
> 
> Nonetheless, if the context of the adventure is that the PCs' liege lord (Baron Somethingorother) sent the PCs to investigate the borderlands and told the PCs to try to earn the duke's trust and aid, then it makes sense that failing to do so would result in failure of the challenge.
> 
> I'd say that it's really a matter of perspective.






			
				Torchlyte said:
			
		

> If that is the context, it would be acceptable. My worry is that this was intended as a general example, and I think in that case it would encourage the wrong mindset in new/inexperienced DMs.




-------------------------------



			
				Thasmodious said:
			
		

> Jeebus, are you people still going on about this?
> 
> Look, it's simple.  Its ONE example of a skill challenge.  In that ONE example, the imaginary DM decided that intimidation would be counter productive.  That was not a statement on the effectiveness of intimidation in all negotiations, or some method of railroading players, cutting off options or robbing the situation of roleplaying.  All it is, is an example of how the DM can define the parameters of a skill challenge, adding to the tactical depth of the encounter.  Not every skill is going to work in every case.  Some skill challenges will be really open, some others will be more narrowly defined.  The DM is still there, in person.  The challenge is not being applied by a computer overlord.  If a player RPs an attempt at intimidation so well he convinces the DM it should work, the DM is free to allow it, even though he wrote in his adventure notes, "intimidation counts as a failure".
> 
> It's like a combat encounter - there's a near infinite variety to what you can do.  You can fight in an empty 10x10 room over a pie or in a 300' radius cavern with multiple levels, bridges, tunnels, pools, lava and anything else you can think of.  The DM sets the parameters of every combat encounter, and he will set the parameters of every skill challenge.  That isn't the same thing as railroading, it's called adventure design.




Why don't you read the arguments that have already been presented with regards to each of your points, and then respond to them? That's how I would do it.



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> I'm pretty much convinced that some people are bound and determined to look at every single thing that comes out with brown-colored glasses. I'm shocked that when we were given a glimpse of feats, there wasn't an outcry that these were the only feats we would have.
> 
> These excerpts aren't word for word. They are trailers for 4e rules. "How ever will the PCs solve the problem with these rules? FIND OUT IN JUNE!"




Actually, a few of the people that are usually anti-4e liked this example. I, on the other hand, am fairly positive about 4e but think this is a bad example.


----------



## Voss (May 6, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> This isn't any different from any past edition of D&D though, so why should it matter?  I've never seen any rules forcing one to role play.  If I crack open the skills chapter of my 3.x books there's virtually nothing on the subject (of RP).
> 
> A group RPs because they want to (or not).  This just gives a solid mechanical framework to underlay all that RP, which is all the rules have ever done, to the best of my knowledge.




Thats... uh... fine.  However he wasn't asking about any of that.  He was asking about this specific subsystem of 4e and getting a bunch of answers that amounted to 'Well, *I* wouldn't do it that way, so you can't.'  

I just figured someone ought to address his actual question rather than wander off on tangents about personal preferences.  And given the presentation, the answer is yes, you can ignore the RP aspect with this system.  It isn't a commentary on whether its good, bad whether you could do it in 3e or while playing Tunnels and Trolls.  Just an answer to whether or not the skill challenge system can reduce an RP encounter to a roll-off.


----------



## ferratus (May 6, 2008)

My opinion about the skill checks is that social skills should have a "x action fails to sway this particular character".  This is for the same reason that you can't intimidate or sway a PC with diplomacy if he doesn't feel like it.  It forces the character to change his personality in an awkward way compared to how he usually acts.

So instead of viewing the Duke as an NPC, you should probably view him as a DMC (Dungeon Master Character).  In this case, the DM wants the players to view a character who wields authority and demands respect.  To be successfully intimidated by the character goes against the Duke's rank, his experience, against the power he wields, and most importantly the DM's conception of the character.   I suppose you could make the DC of intimdate skill check so high that the players can't reach it... but if that is the case why not call it impossible?

I can see situations where the diplomacy might be an automatic failure, but intimidate might work.  For example, you might have a revolutionary zealot who is secretly a coward.  However, the bluff skill, insight skill, and other opposed skills should not be automatic failures, because they don't change behavior of the PC or NPC engaging in them.

This is simply giving the DM the tools to do what he has been doing all along anyway.  Allowing the DM to act out his character the way he intends it to act.  It isn't railroading, it is preventing PC's from bulldozing over every plot with a skill check.

P.S. Am I the only one who notices that the evil advisor is Scott Rouse?


----------



## Jasperak (May 6, 2008)

I think my issue stems from two things:

1. In any of my home games we WOULD role play a dynamic encounter like the above with the duke. The Skill Challenge system may work well for that with bonuses for good role-playing and catching the bit-and-pieces the DM throws out there in his responses. None of us would resort to just opposed rolls; I don't think.

2. With 4e becoming more of a tactical game, I guess I am more paranoid that the role-playing aspects are going out the window. I could foresee a Diplomat-type class that gains Encounter and Daily powers that would work in non-combat situations. I'm looking at you Bard PHB2. I miss the simplicity of BD&D and AD&D1e in this regard; it seems to take more power away from the DM to keep an adventure moving without having to hand wave away skill failures.


----------



## heretic888 (May 6, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Thats... uh... fine.  However he wasn't asking about any of that.  He was asking about this specific subsystem of 4e and getting a bunch of answers that amounted to 'Well, *I* wouldn't do it that way, so you can't.'
> 
> I just figured someone ought to address his actual question rather than wander off on tangents about personal preferences.  And given the presentation, the answer is yes, you can ignore the RP aspect with this system.  It isn't a commentary on whether its good, bad whether you could do it in 3e or while playing Tunnels and Trolls.  Just an answer to whether or not the skill challenge system can reduce an RP encounter to a roll-off.




Hi Voss,

Oh, ok.

This subsystem does not force you to roleplay so, yes, it could just be a "roll-off". 

In that regard, it is not unlike any other rule in 4E. Or any other rule in previous editions, either.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (May 6, 2008)

Jasperak said:
			
		

> 2. With 4e becoming more of a tactical game, I guess I am more paranoid that the role-playing aspects are going out the window.




Hi Jasperak,

Well, look at it this way.

In 3E, all you had to mechanically represent non-combat encounters were opposed skill checks (Hide vs Spot, Move Silently vs Listen, Bluff vs Sense Motive, etc).

In 4E, you still have opposed skill checks AND you have skill challenges. From where I'm standing, this adds a level of depth and complexity to non-combat encounters that was heretofore non-existent in Dungeons & Dragons.

The great thing about this subsystem is that it is seemingly optional in nature. Nobody is forcing you to use skill challenges and you can excise them from your adventures without changing anything else. Groups that prefer simple opposed skill checks can keep playing that way. Groups that enjoy the added depth and social complexity that skill challenges provide can use those in addition to opposed skill checks.

Laterz.


----------



## Lizard (May 6, 2008)

Jasperak said:
			
		

> Thanks. I don't hate Skill Challenges so much as I am concerned with the ONE template that we saw from the INCREDIBLY SHORT excerpt, there was not a single sentence leading me to believe that there would be any benefit to actually role-playing the encounter instead of roll-playing it.




Can't speak for other people's tables, but at mine, for any game with social skills -- Hero, GURPS, BESM, D&D 3x, etc -- if anyone just says "I'm going to convince the Duke to help us" and rolls a die, he will get the Glare Of Doom and told to hang on a minute. Dice rolling is done to avoid simple DM fiat, not to avoid roleplaying. Saying "I roll diplomacy to convince the Duke" is as meaningless, to me, as "I use my combat skills to defeat the orcs". You play it out and roll to see the consequences of your choices.

If you roleplay well, I will give you a circumstance bonus, or a penalty if you're an idiot about it.

My players do things like Knowledge checks to know the proper mode of address for a particular ruler, or Gather Information checks to find out useful tidbits, which they then incorporate into roleplay.


----------



## Voss (May 6, 2008)

I'm puzzled by the distinction between NPC and DMC.  All NPCs are run by the DM, so...

As for the intimidate... I really dislike being told that a) something that isn't actually physically impossible is impossible.  (can't turn myself inside out?  Fine with that.  This guy can't be talked to a certain way?  Absurd)

b) autofail makes my teeth ache.  Particularly in a world that has magic and divine intervention to back up the characters.  Its a especially annoying when its an RP situation and the DM essentially fiats an option out because he feels like it.  And having a handful of skilled adventurers leaning on you shouldn't be a situation that a random pissant duke can just ignore.  If they're the ones being called in to deal with problems that they kingdom (and therefor the duke) can't, there should be a reason for it.  If monster > kingdom and PCs potentially > monster, then PCs > kingdom.

Mostly though, we've been told before that the pages of the DMG suggest that the DM should get used to saying yes instead of no.  The first example we get?  Smack the players down with a big NO. And follow it up with a 'because we said so'.
Disappointing.  Doubly so because its truly arbitrary.  It smacks of a DM deciding he wants a certain flavor to the campaign and is preemptively fiating certain possibilities away because thats how the dialog in his head goes.  It doesn't matter what the players might enjoy at all.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 6, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Thats... uh... fine.  However he wasn't asking about any of that.  He was asking about this specific subsystem of 4e and getting a bunch of answers that amounted to 'Well, *I* wouldn't do it that way, so you can't.'
> 
> I just figured someone ought to address his actual question rather than wander off on tangents about personal preferences.  And given the presentation, the answer is yes, you can ignore the RP aspect with this system.  It isn't a commentary on whether its good, bad whether you could do it in 3e or while playing Tunnels and Trolls.  Just an answer to whether or not the skill challenge system can reduce an RP encounter to a roll-off.




I'm aware, but you had already answered his question so there seemed no point in my doing so as well.  I was just pointing out that there has never been a rule in D&D (to the best of my knowledge) to prevent an RP situation being reduced to a roll or series of rolls.  It seemed to me to be relevant to the topic in question.

To paraphrase, this was my point:
Q: Is there any rule requiring me to role play during skill challenges?
A: Nope, D&D has never had any rules requiring role play, and will probably continue thusly.


----------



## Benimoto (May 6, 2008)

Jasperak said:
			
		

> Try your punishment at an RPGA event.



Huh?  I play RPGA events pretty regularly, and players losing XP for roleplaying badly is something that happens.  In many instances, roleplaying XP forms 10-20% of the adventure XP and the GM is well within his rights to dock it for stuff like that.-

In the newer systems, where the DM fills out a little form at the end of the adventure there is a part where the DM is asked to rate the group's roleplaying, effectively on a scale of 1-5.  That result will determine your roleplaying experience.

I realize that you had a bad experience at an RPGA event.  I've had some too, but I've also had many more fun experiences.  The RPGA are (mostly) not a bunch of roleplay-free rules junkie robots, I promise.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 6, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> DM: The duke sits at the head of his banquet table. Gesturing with a wine glass, he bids you to sit. "I’m told you have news from the borderlands."
> 
> Rogue: "Yes, your Grace.  The borderlands prosper under your wise rule."
> 
> ...



You pretty much got it exactly.


----------



## Jasperak (May 6, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I'm puzzled by the distinction between NPC and DMC.  All NPCs are run by the DM, so...
> 
> As for the intimidate... I really dislike being told that a) something that isn't actually physically impossible is impossible.  (can't turn myself inside out?  Fine with that.  This guy can't be talked to a certain way?  Absurd)
> 
> ...




While I was a bit of an ass about it, I think some kind of social-encounter flowchart is what we will see in the rest of the chapter. Use one skill to unlock the use of other skills. In this case Intimidate would not be unlocked, and the players would either intuit that or the DM would flat out say so. I agree this is a very poor example that slaps any role-players in the face.

What I didn't see though is a mechanism that rewards the PCs for their success. In a combat encounter the more successful rolls you make, the less combatants you face, thereby making the encounter easier. With this excerpt all I see are a series of opposed rolls that have nothing to do with each other except to unlock other skill uses. Although I wonder what use that is going to be if my character is trained in Diplomacy and Bluff but not History or Acrobatics, should any of those other skills become unlocked.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 6, 2008)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> Huh?  I play RPGA events pretty regularly, and players losing XP for roleplaying badly is something that happens.  In many instances, roleplaying XP forms 10-20% of the adventure XP and the GM is well within his rights to dock it for stuff like that.



Must not have been playing Living Greyhawk then.  Don't get me wrong, I love LG and I'm a Triad member and everything.  However, XP in LG is almost always listed:

Defeat Encounter 1: 780 XP

Defeat Encounter 2: 900 XP

Defeat Encounter 3: 1200 XP

Optional Roleplaying Reward: 50 XP


----------



## Andor (May 6, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> As for the intimidate... I really dislike being told that a) something that isn't actually physically impossible is impossible.  (can't turn myself inside out?  Fine with that.  This guy can't be talked to a certain way?  Absurd)
> 
> b) autofail makes my teeth ache.  Particularly in a world that has magic and divine intervention to back up the characters.  Its a especially annoying when its an RP situation and the DM essentially fiats an option out because he feels like it.  And having a handful of skilled adventurers leaning on you shouldn't be a situation that a random pissant duke can just ignore.  If they're the ones being called in to deal with problems that they kingdom (and therefor the duke) can't, there should be a reason for it.  If monster > kingdom and PCs potentially > monster, then PCs > kingdom.




Gah. It's been said about a hundred times already but I'll try again. 

The example is not saying that the Duke is immune to Intimidate. If you think it is you are misreading it. It says that in an attempt to gain his favor or assistance Intimidation is counter-productive. 

And it is.

And the rules of 3.0/3.5 work exactly the same way. Intimidation does not make you friends. It makes people act friendly while you are present and ticks them off when you leave.



			
				D20srd said:
			
		

> You can change another’s behavior with a successful check. Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear). If you beat your target’s check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.) The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile).




Hey look! Intimidate does not make people your friends! Go figure. The example is not saying that if the PCs try to shake the Duke down for cash they cannot. It simply says that trying to use a skill _which says right in it's skill description that it makes people dislike you_ to make someone like you is not going to work.

As for why a Duke might be immune to intimidation anyway take a look at the modifiers to the target numbers. The fact that fear save mods apply could easily be interpreted to mean that any character immune to fear to also immune to the intimidate skill. Perhaps the Duke has a few levels of Paladin.


----------



## Jasperak (May 6, 2008)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> Huh?  I play RPGA events pretty regularly, and players losing XP for roleplaying badly is something that happens.  In many instances, roleplaying XP forms 10-20% of the adventure XP and the GM is well within his rights to dock it for stuff like that.-
> 
> In the newer systems, where the DM fills out a little form at the end of the adventure there is a part where the DM is asked to rate the group's roleplaying, effectively on a scale of 1-5.  That result will determine your roleplaying experience.
> 
> I realize that you had a bad experience at an RPGA event.  I've had some too, but I've also had many more fun experiences.  The RPGA are (mostly) not a bunch of roleplay-free rules junkie robots, I promise.




Maybe I should have bothered staying around. I think part of the problem was I wasn't playing the way he played or wanted to play. I guess sanctioned play doesn't allow for thinking outside the box, although I didn't think I was that far off. At least I didn't think what I was trying to do would not have been covered by the module with minor tweeks. 

Maybe these Skill Challenges will allow people with different play styles to play together easier. Though they don't SEEM to incorporate any benefits with respects to role-playing. I reserve judgment until the full rules come out.

BTW Not much RPGA action in Central VA so I don't have to worry too much about that anymore.    Although finding a group down here sucks, but that is for a different thread.

EDIT-My location is listed because of our area (Virginia) in the RPGA. I had looked forward to playing but really one bad DM and a enough people bad mouthing turned me off to the whole idea.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 6, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I'm puzzled by the distinction between NPC and DMC.  All NPCs are run by the DM, so...
> 
> As for the intimidate... I really dislike being told that a) something that isn't actually physically impossible is impossible.  (can't turn myself inside out?  Fine with that.  This guy can't be talked to a certain way?  Absurd)
> 
> ...




This is the attitude that makes me question some's skill ranks in reading comprehension.  You aren't being told no or that something is impossible.  You are being told that in this situation, something you might consider doing is counter productive.  You can try and intimidate the duke.  You could succeed and scare the everloving crap out of the poor man.  But that isn't going to help you convince him that you are a trustworthy group of adventurers with the regions best interests at heart and who need resources and aid to solve a problem he wasn't even aware of.  

Its a perfectly reasonable part of the overall guidelines for the negotiation.  Negotiations are like that.  You can say the wrong thing or take the wrong path of convincing and set yourselves back in the negotiations.  

(middle of the challenge)
Duke: "I'm just not sure if you are the ones for this task..."
Cleric: religion check success
DM: Duke is known to be pious and friendly to Pelor (cleric's religion)
Cleric: Recites some scripture "...and like St. Todd's band, I can vouch for the sincerity and piety of this group." diplomacy success
Fighter: he's almost there, guys, I'll take him over the finish line "besides, if you don't help us  I'll tear your 'crown jewels' off like a paper towel." intimidate success
DM: The duke jumps back, alarmed and clearly frightened.  His guard captain and personal guards step forward, hands on hilts, the captain bristling at the threat. "y-y-ou call that sincere and p-p-pious?"

There have to be victory conditions and failure consequences.  I wouldn't like it if the only option for failure was poor dice rolling.  Being able to succeed and still hurt the cause adds an interesting, dynamic aspect to the encounter, above simply rolling.  The failure is not a "no", it is an avoidable encounter condition.    

The party is in a challenge to cheer up the sad, 6 year old emperor.  Unknown to the party, but could be known with a successful hard history check, the kid was traumatized by a troupe of clowns at his 4th birthday and has an irrational fear of acrobatic displays.  If the party doesn't learn this, the rogues first attempt at an entertaining aerial display results in a dismal failure as the young emperor, who is prone to having people tossed out a hole in his sky castle, begins to bawl.


----------



## DandD (May 6, 2008)

People who complain about the duke being immune should stop, and go read the text again. It says:
"Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure." He refuses to be intimidated into helping the PCs. This is why it's a failure to get his assistance. He still can, but it results in a failure, and if enough failure are accumulated, especially by Intimidation attempts, he might very well try to antagonize the PCs. 
"Failure: The characters are forced to act without the NPC’s assistance. They encounter more trouble, which may be sent by the NPC out of anger or antagonism."

I really think most people simply don't read enough at all and just write without thinking for one second. If I didn't knew that such things simply happened, I would have really guessed that some people were trying to be purposefully obnoxious. But it's the internet, people often simply write as fast as possible, so I guess we have to live with it. 

I'm sad that wednesday, we're going to have such a boring excerpt like weapons. I'd prefer something better, but I guess we'll have to take what is offered.


----------



## Sojorn (May 6, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> I'm sad that wednesday, we're going to have such a boring excerpt like weapons. I'd prefer something better, but I guess we'll have to take what is offered.



Boring?

They're probably going to show off the buster swords at last!


----------



## AZRogue (May 6, 2008)

I would suggest we forget the silly Intimidation debate (which really is silly--the Duke is obviously immune to Intimidate because the scenario said so, end of story). Instead, let's look at what Skill Challenges, as they seem to be shaping up, will help us with:

Surviving being stranded in the desert. Attempting to discover hidden ruins. Recovering valuable and fragile scrolls and books from a time-wasted trash heap of a library. Guiding hurtling mine carts down a twisted track without splattering into a wall or dead end. 

Even beyond the social encounters themselves, Skill Challenges promise to provide a nice template to help resolve situations that, in the past, may not have been given the full "drama" treatment. I, for one, am looking forward to them.


----------



## Shroomy (May 6, 2008)

I don't have an issue with restrictions on what will skills will ultimately work.  For example, I've had people try to intimidate me with varying degrees of success; generally speaking, they didn't get what they wanted, and if I did get what they wanted, I did it without much enthusiasm (to say the least) and I usually tried to find a way to screw them over.

In any case, the real reason why I don't mind this restriction is because I see that there is a clear difference between success and failure in terms of the skill task resolution system and the conflict resolution system.  Even if you do something successfully, it doesn't necessarily advance your overall goal and I could easily instances where it could be counterproductive.


----------



## Spatula (May 6, 2008)

Jasperak said:
			
		

> 2. With 4e becoming more of a tactical game, I guess I am more paranoid that the role-playing aspects are going out the window.



*shrug*  People said the same thing when 3e came out.  A Diplomacy skill?!  Why roleplay at all!?  And yet, we still roleplay.  3e just gave us a mechanical measure of how effective a character, as opposed to a player, is at arguing their case.  4e isn't any different in that regard - the whole skill challenge thing is actually entirely edition-independant; any game with a skill resolution system could use it.  It's simply a way to structure a non-combat encounter to potentially make them more interesting than a single die-roll.  Convincing the Duke to trust you could be boiled down to one Diplomacy check (depending on his starting attitue), but the challenge attempts to draw the encounter out, which should really give the players opportunities for _more_ roleplaying, if anything, if they wish to take advantage of it.

Of course you can always say, "I talk the Duke into trusting us.  That's a 30 on my Diplomacy check."  Some groups probably work like that, and if that's how they like to play I'm not going to tell them they're wrong.  Groups that want to roleplay will.  Those that do not will not, same as it's always been.



			
				Jasperak said:
			
		

> I could foresee a Diplomat-type class that gains Encounter and Daily powers that would work in non-combat situations. I'm looking at you Bard PHB2.



Not going to happen.  Powers are explicitly combat abilities, and class mechanics are balanced entirely around combat effectiveness.  Roleplaying is up to the players.



			
				Jasperak said:
			
		

> I miss the simplicity of BD&D and AD&D1e in this regard; it seems to take more power away from the DM to keep an adventure moving without having to hand wave away skill failures.



Having no rules at all is indeed simpler.   No one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use skill challenges.  They're a non-combat encounter design tool, an area of the game where D&D has not given DMs much guidance in the past.  But as the excerpt states, the challenges should not be structured so that failing one brings the adventure to a halt, so there should be nothing to handwave away.  The challenge is a possible branch in the unfolding story - if the players succeed, good thing X happens; if they fail, bad thing Y happens instead.


----------



## Jasperak (May 6, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> *shrug*  People said the same thing when 3e came out.  A Diplomacy skill?!  Why roleplay at all!?  And yet, we still roleplay.  3e just gave us a mechanical measure of how effective a character, as opposed to a player, is at arguing their case.  4e isn't any different in that regard - the whole skill challenge thing is actually entirely edition-independant; any game with a skill resolution system could use it.  It's simply a way to structure a non-combat encounter to potentially make them more interesting than a single die-roll.  Convincing the Duke to trust you could be boiled down to one Diplomacy check (depending on his starting attitue), but the challenge attempts to draw the encounter out, which should really give the players opportunities for _more_ roleplaying, if anything, if they wish to take advantage of it.
> 
> Of course you can always say, "I talk the Duke into trusting us.  That's a 30 on my Diplomacy check."  Some groups probably work like that, and if that's how they like to play I'm not going to tell them they're wrong.  Groups that want to roleplay will.  Those that do not will not, same as it's always been.
> 
> ...




Very good points, I coming down off my tree; until I see the rules that is


----------



## Kraydak (May 6, 2008)

That... was an amazingly useless excerpt.  Given the existence of primary skills, one can expect secondary skills to exist, which reraises a lot of questions.

My take: difference between what we've seen of 4e skill challenges and, well, post WSG 1st/2nd/3rd editions under modestly experienced (competent or no) DMs?  None.  For most people reading this board, skill challenges are irrelevant.

The good: it provides novice DMs with a framework.

The bad: the framework is mediocre.  It trains railroading: "I designed this skill challenge and you *will* follow it".  It trains PC level dependent skill DCs (does the survival DC for traveling through jungle really depend on PC levels?).  On top of that, the statistics behind it are going to be *wonky*, unless guessing the primary skills that unlock easy (read free) successes is a key component of the design.  I am somewhat curious about how skill challenges fit with 4e's version of Take 10.  Or even Take 20 (and yes, in the Jungle Trek example, taking 20 could easily be justified).


----------



## malraux (May 6, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> (does the survival DC for traveling through jungle really depend on PC levels?).



Better question:  Does the jungle the PCs travel through depend on their level?  Do first level PCs travel to Xen'drik?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 6, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> 4. Set a goal and let the PCs do what they want with multiple skill checks but without any restricting X/Y count etc. That has all the advantages of a Skill Challenge and non of its disadvantage because it is much more flexible.
> 
> Skill Challenges are good as suggestion, but not as a rule.



It lacks one of the main advantages of Skill Challenges:  Static difficulty.

If you are giving out XP for a challenge, its good to be able to approximate the actual difficulty of the challenge.  With skill challenges you can say that it will require at least X successful rolls to win and is therefore worth X xp because of how hard that is.

If you simply let people do whatever they want with skills then they may complete the challenge in 1 roll or in 30 depending on your whims.  How much XP do you give out that isn't an arbitrary amount.

It's about providing a definite risk/reward mechanic that is more involved than "If they make a DC 35 Diplomacy roll then they convince the Duke and they get 1500 xp."


----------



## Benimoto (May 6, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Optional Roleplaying Reward: 50 XP



Okay, okay, well sometimes you're right.  I looked through a few LG modules, and it looks like the combined total XP for story and roleplaying rewards is almost always exactly 20% of the total XP.  The exact split is up to the author.  I found a few with the full 20% allocated for roleplaying and a few with none.  So I guess I should have said 0-20%, but still 3 of the 5 modules I looked at had some XP allocated for roleplaying.

I'm curious to see how the organized play community reacts to these skill challenges.


----------



## Kraydak (May 6, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> Better question:  Does the jungle the PCs travel through depend on their level?  Do first level PCs travel to Xen'drik?




If the failure resulted in encountering local, hostile wildlife, the DC will scale, not directly with the PCs, but rather with the jungle (or more specifically, the hunting skills of said local, hostile wildlife).  If failure is, as in the example, merely getting lost, the DC shouldn't.


----------



## malraux (May 6, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> If the failure resulted in encountering local, hostile wildlife, the DC will scale, not directly with the PCs, but rather with the jungle (or more specifically, the hunting skills of said local, hostile wildlife).  If failure is, as in the example, merely getting lost, the DC shouldn't.



More foreign environments should be harder to navigate in.  Presumably as the PCs advance in level, they end up traveling further afield.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 6, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> If the failure resulted in encountering local, hostile wildlife, the DC will scale, not directly with the PCs, but rather with the jungle (or more specifically, the hunting skills of said local, hostile wildlife).  If failure is, as in the example, merely getting lost, the DC shouldn't.



Why not?  The point to the Skill Challenge system is to use it when something poses an actual challenge.  If something is easy for the PCs to accomplish, then it doesn't deserve a skill challenge.  The idea is to create a "fork" in the adventure based on the results.

So, "The PCs must find their way through the magical forest filled with shifting trees, illusionary terrain, invisible walls, and poisonous plants" is a skill challenge for high level characters.  "Follow the path through the normal forest to the other side" is not.

Then again, part of the reason that skills scale the way they do in 4e is that 4e assumes that ALL challenges will be appropriate for the PCs.  The goal is to challenge the players with problems that they may or may not resolve rather than ones that are a forgone conclusion.


----------



## drjones (May 6, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> As for the intimidate... I really dislike being told that a) something that isn't actually physically impossible is impossible.  (can't turn myself inside out?  Fine with that.  This guy can't be talked to a certain way?  Absurd)



As has been said a few hundred times already you have not been told that you cannot _try_ to intimidate the Duke, but that if you do try you will not get what you want, which is his trust.

This is no more a railroad then having an orc guarding the pie.  "But I want to use my arrow of dragon slaying to kill the orc!!!" you can try, but it will not work.


----------



## malraux (May 6, 2008)

Its more like attack the person your supposed to protect.  It's not that your weapons won't hit them, its that a success in attacking that person runs counter to the larger success of protecting them.


----------



## Andor (May 6, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> People who complain about the duke being immune should stop, and go read the text again. It says:
> "Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure." He refuses to be intimidated into helping the PCs. This is why it's a failure to get his assistance. He still can, but it results in a failure, and if enough failure are accumulated, especially by Intimidation attempts, he might very well try to antagonize the PCs.
> "Failure: The characters are forced to act without the NPC’s assistance. They encounter more trouble, which may be sent by the NPC out of anger or antagonism."
> 
> ...




The irony is you're snarking at people for not reading when you seem to have missed this bit: 


			
				Wizards said:
			
		

> This skill challenge covers attempts to gain a favor or assistance from a local leader or other authority figure. The challenge might take only as long as a normal conversation, or it could stretch on for days as the characters perform tasks to earn the NPC’s favor.
> 
> *Setup:* 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.




So the skill challenge is not governing all possible social interaction with this NPC. Nor does it say that intimidation won't work on him. It says that in order to convince him that they are trustworthy, intimidation is counter-productive.

If someone felt like being particularly finicky about it they could insist that there is an implication that Intimidation won't work at all since this challenge covers "Provide assistance" and Intimidate doesn't work.

At this point I feel the need to point out that we don't really know who the NPC is, or what the PC want from him. Any form of assistance that strays outside the "Present + 1d6X10 minutes" that the intimidation skill covers _should_ be out of bounds for the skill.

Example 1: The PCs need the Duke signet ring. Of course they can intimidate him into giving it to them, since they are present during the transfer.

Example 2: The PCs need a potion of Flight and know the Archmage has one. They can use intimidate to get it from him.

Example 3: The PCs need the Duke to loan them a regiment of men to fight a war with the Orcs. Intimidate will not work, becuase the Duke will not be with them in the field and if they try it the regiment will have secret orders to kill them. They might try taking the Duke hostage I suppose. Good luck with that.

Example 4: The PCs need the Archmage to make them an item to help them bind a powerful demon. Because item construction takes days it is well outside the use of intimidate and when they try to use the item they'll probably get a _programmed image_ of the Archmage telling the demon "Bon appetite."


----------



## Ahglock (May 6, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> This is the attitude that makes me question some's skill ranks in reading comprehension.  You aren't being told no or that something is impossible.  You are being told that in this situation, something you might consider doing is counter productive.  You can try and intimidate the duke.  You could succeed and scare the everloving crap out of the poor man.  But that isn't going to help you convince him that you are a trustworthy group of adventurers with the regions best interests at heart and who need resources and aid to solve a problem he wasn't even aware of.
> 
> Its a perfectly reasonable part of the overall guidelines for the negotiation.  Negotiations are like that.  You can say the wrong thing or take the wrong path of convincing and set yourselves back in the negotiations.
> 
> ...





A rewrite of your example

middle of the challenge)
Duke: "I'm just not sure if you are the ones for this task..."
Cleric: religion check success
DM: Duke is known to be pious and friendly to Pelor (cleric's religion)
Cleric: Recites some scripture "...and like St. Todd's band, I can vouch for the sincerity and piety of this group." diplomacy success
Fighter: he's almost there, guys, I'll take him over the finish line "If you don't help us, who will be there to help you when the horde reaches here.  Who is going to protect your daughter when the savages are tearing down your door, you willing to help out we can be around and make sure bad things don't happen to you" intimidate success
DM: The duke slump back, clearly worried about the what the future may hold.  His guard captain and personal guards step forward, hands on hilts, the captain bristling at the threat. "We can handle any horde, even the oe to the north"
DM The duke says, "As powerful as we are captain the horde to the north we can not defeat if they turn there attention to us."

Oh wait, maybe we do understand what was written we just thought it was shortsighted and unduly limiting on skill usage.  Absolute no's are almost always bad.


----------



## Torchlyte (May 6, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> As has been said a few hundred times already you have not been told that you cannot _try_ to intimidate the Duke, but that if you do try you will not get what you want, which is his trust.
> 
> This is no more a railroad then having an orc guarding the pie.  "But I want to use my arrow of dragon slaying to kill the orc!!!" you can try, but it will not work.




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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is the reasoning behind the railroad debate:



			
				WotC said:
			
		

> *The Negotiation*
> The duke sits at the head of his banquet table. Gesturing with a wine glass, he bids you to sit. “I’m told you have news from the borderlands.”
> 
> *This skill challenge covers attempts to gain a favor or assistance from a local leader or other authority figure.* The challenge might take only as long as a normal conversation, or it could stretch on for days as the characters perform tasks to earn the NPC’s favor.
> ...




There are two possible scenarios relevant to this debate:

1. The players want to be diplomatic.

2. The players want to intimidate the Duke.

If (1) is true, then by definition there's no need to put a ruling on intimidation because the players don't want to use that skill. If a player wants to use Intimidate, then that means that (2) must be true and the challenge's stated goal is not the players' goal.

_If the players use intimidate, then earning the NPC's trust is not their goal._

3. Therefore, the only reasonable reason to fiat that Intimidate will not work is if you're forcing the players to solve the problem your way, because in any other case the rule is irrelevant. This is railroading.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, having already found the objective to be out of sync with the rules contained therein, we can come to the debate over the fiat itself.

Given: The DM is only allowing the players to solve the challenge his way.

The following proposition is given:


> Intimidate: The NPC refuses to be intimidated by the PCs. Each use of this skill earns a failure.




Clarification given by posters who don't actually understand what the debate is about: "He's not immune to intimidation; he just doesn't respond to it."

Rebuttal to the quoted proposition: If you feel that you have options (such as ignoring me or calling your guards) other than doing as I say, I have not successfully intimidated you. This interpretation is backed up by the following definition:



			
				Dictionary.com said:
			
		

> in·tim·i·date
> 1. to make timid; fill with fear.
> ...
> *3. to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear*: to intimidate a voter into staying away from the polls.




If you use the first definition, then the Duke can "not respond" to intimidation as mentioned. However, there is a problem with using that definition - it assumes that you have no skill or persuasive ability, which is belied by the fact that intimidation is a CHA stat.

It does not take skill to cause fear, it takes skill to make someone feel as if they have no other options. The KKK was good at intimidation not because Whites were inherently more scary, but because Blacks felt like they had no choice (because the Whites controlled all the consequences). The mafia is good at intimidation because they make you feel as if you cannot escape them, and therefore you must do as they say.

In sum of the above: If you feel like you have a choice, you have not been successfully intimidated. As a result, it makes no sense to say, "No matter how convincing you are (how successful you are at eliminating his perception of choice), he can't be intimidated."


----------



## Torchlyte (May 6, 2008)

Andor sorta ninja'd me. = /

Edit: I disagree with him here:



> Example 3: The PCs need the Duke to loan them a regiment of men to fight a war with the Orcs. Intimidate will not work, becuase the Duke will not be with them in the field and if they try it the regiment will have secret orders to kill them. They might try taking the Duke hostage I suppose. Good luck with that.




Intimidate will only work if they are able to threaten him or his stuff without being present, like if they have an accomplice. Of course, they don't have to really have an accomplice, they just have to convince the Duke that they do.



> Example 4: The PCs need the Archmage to make them an item to help them bind a powerful demon. Because item construction takes days it is well outside the use of intimidate and when they try to use the item they'll probably get a programmed image of the Archmage telling the demon "Bon appetite."




Same as above.


----------



## Andor (May 6, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> A rewrite of your example
> 
> middle of the challenge)
> 
> ...




So you feel that having the PCs state that they are perfectly willing to see a dutchy overrun and it's lands and people savaged if they have a personal dislike of the duchys ruler should somehow inspire said rule to find them trustworthy?



			
				wotc said:
			
		

> Setup: 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.


----------



## Torchlyte (May 6, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> So you feel that having the PCs state that they are perfectly willing to see a dutchy overrun and it's lands and people savaged if they have a personal dislike of the duchys ruler should somehow inspire said rule to find them trustworthy?




No, and I don't think anyone is arguing that it would cause him to trust them. However, it's the PCs' choice whether they want that trust*, not the DM's.

* = or whether they just want access to his human/material resources.


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 6, 2008)

I had a big rant typed out, but I'm pretty sure everyone is set in their ways, so they're not really worth the effort. Have a small rant instead.

To those who say "by definition, intimidate means direct personal threats etc." go and actually read the definitions. There are words that specifically cover that. Intimidation is a broader term.

The classic example of intimidation is the good-cop-bad-cop bit. Is the bad cop threatening to beat the suspect? Or is he suggesting that they'll let him go with a big public pat on the back so he looks like a stoolie? Or that jail will not be easy on him? Since the first option is generally frowned upon in most civilised countries, I dare say it's the second or third one.

Are you honestly, honestly saying that those are all diplomacy (they're not lies, so it cannot be bluff)?

Does diplomacy really cover "if you do what I say, I won't murder you"? Is the reasoning behind a negative answer "because intimidate does that"? But when it comes to a larger scale, suddenly diplomacy IS the answer?

Finally, if nothing else, think of skill balance. Bluff can do basically anything as long as you're lying. Diplomacy can do basically anything as long as your telling the truth. Intimidate can make someone do something as long as you stand over them the whole time brandishing a weapon.

Do we really want intimidate to be the 'use rope' of skills?


----------



## Simon Marks (May 6, 2008)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Do we really want intimidate to be the 'use rope' of skills?




I tell you what - until we find out in the 4e PHB what the intimidate skill covers we are all just guessing.

The best example we have is 3.5 version which explicitly won't work in the template given.


----------



## Cadfan (May 6, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> (does the survival DC for traveling through jungle really depend on PC levels?).



Does the CR of the monster depend on the PCs fighting it?

I mean, in a way, yes.  But also no in another way.  Its like the chicken and the egg.  Which came first?


----------



## Cadfan (May 6, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Fighter: he's almost there, guys, I'll take him over the finish line "If you don't help us, who will be there to help you when the horde reaches here.  Who is going to protect your daughter when the savages are tearing down your door, you willing to help out we can be around and make sure bad things don't happen to you" intimidate success



By rules as written, that is not an Intimidate check.  Intimidate is not Diplomacy with a frowny face.  Intimidate is convincing an NPC that you are capable of inflicting harm upon them, and will do so if they do not comply.

At least that's true in 3e.  And it makes sense.  Its silly to think that you need a different skill to say "If you help us, it will be profitable for all involved" in comparison to saying, "If you don't help us, it will be ruinous for all involved."


----------



## Torchlyte (May 6, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> At least that's true in 3e.  And it makes sense.




Does it, though? Does it make sense that the intimidate skill doesn't represent a skill, and that it can only work in way X for Y length of time?

I think the original rule was dumb.


----------



## Cadfan (May 6, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> It does not take skill to cause fear, it takes skill to make someone feel as if they have no other options. The KKK was good at intimidation not because Whites were inherently more scary, but because Blacks felt like they had no choice (because the Whites controlled all the consequences). The mafia is good at intimidation because they make you feel as if you cannot escape them, and therefore you must do as they say.



Your refutation refutes itself in a sort of weird logical mobeus strip.

In both of your real world examples, the intimidation factor of the organizations involved depended not only on the personal charisma of the person issuing the threats, but also on the real life capacity and demonstrated willingness of the organization to carry out those threats.

Or in other words, the Mafia doesn't "make you feel as if you cannot escape them" in some kind of theoretical vacuum.  They make you feel that way because you know, from context, history, and familiarity with the Mafia, that you probably cannot escape them, just as they say.

Now, logically, _this also works in reverse_.

Take the threats issued by the Mafia.  Have them issued by a whiny six year old to his own Mom, after having watched movies at his friend's house that his Mom normally wouldn't let him see.

I don't care if he rolls a freaking 20, he's just getting paddled.

PS- for those of you who find it inexplicable that player characters couldn't intimidate a lousy duke, find and replace "duke" with the drago "Allenyo, the Golden Daughter of Tiamat, who is by the way a Level 30 solo monster and you're a level 2 character in a solo campaign."

If nothing else, that should persuade you that, in some circumstances, for some parties, certain social skills shouldn't work on certain people.


----------



## Cadfan (May 6, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> Does it, though? Does it make sense that the intimidate skill doesn't represent a skill, and that it can only work in way X for Y length of time?
> 
> I think the original rule was dumb.



The original rule provided a framework.  As long as you could physically threaten someone, they acted as if they were Friendly towards you, with all that implied (see description of Friendly NPC behavior, etc).  Once you couldn't physically threaten them, they acted as if they were Unfriendly or Hostile.

This didn't actually mean they wouldn't do what you ordered.  Even an Unfriendly or Hostile NPC can be coerced.  Of course, you're outside straight skill rolls at this point, and back to roleplaying and DM discretion.

But it did mean that you couldn't declare Intimidate to eat Diplomacy as a skill, simply because you were talking about dangers instead of mutual advantages.  That's ridiculous, once you think about it.

Diplomacy: Aid us, and we will save your kingdom from the fierce dragon!
Still diplomacy: Fail to aid us, and who will save your kingdom from the fierce dragon!
Intimidate: Aid us, or my pet worg will eat your face!


----------



## TreChriron (May 6, 2008)

Hawke said:
			
		

> So my questions:
> 
> 1) When it says "Level" and the answer is "of the entire party" what does that mean? It implies sometimes levels will be specific? How do these encounters scale with level or is this just an XP thing.



I imagine there is an average going on here.



			
				Hawke said:
			
		

> 2) Complexity 3 - any idea what this means?



Probably maps back to a complexity table that lists complexities and the commensurate number of successes you have to achieve before you roll the listed number of failures.


			
				Hawke said:
			
		

> 3) Moderate DCs ... is this a specific number or will there be mechanics about this that we don't really grasp.



I am going to guess ranges based on level\capability.  Another table that maps a range of DCs so the game scales equally across levels (instead of DC 25 being say “hard” it’s 20 + level = hard.  Or something along those lines.)



			
				Hawke said:
			
		

> I do also note that it says "Moderate DCs" suggesting they could be used multiple times (each time must be a different character?) but then an easy DC (singular) indicating you can only use the history once. That sound accurate?



I don’t know, could be a typo…  but that sounds interesting.


----------



## TreChriron (May 6, 2008)

charlesatan said:
			
		

> (snip)




Great minds think alike?


----------



## Torchlyte (May 6, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Your refutation refutes itself in a sort of weird logical mobeus strip.
> 
> In both of your real world examples, the intimidation factor of the organizations involved depended not only on the personal charisma of the person issuing the threats, but also on the real life capacity and demonstrated willingness of the organization to carry out those threats.
> 
> Or in other words, the Mafia doesn't "make you feel as if you cannot escape them" in some kind of theoretical vacuum.  They make you feel that way because you know, from context, history, and familiarity with the Mafia, that you probably cannot escape them, just as they say.




Does the Duke really know what the PCs are capable of? Their ability to convince him that they can back it up is their skill level. It's a CHA-ability. They don't have to have the accomplice, they just need to intimidate the Duke with the perception that they have an accomplice.



> Now, logically, _this also works in reverse_.
> 
> Take the threats issued by the Mafia.  Have them issued by a whiny six year old to his own Mom, after having watched movies at his friend's house that his Mom normally wouldn't let him see.
> 
> I don't care if he rolls a freaking 20, he's just getting paddled.




I think we can agree that PCs =/= children because their threats are plausible. How plausible they are able to make themselves is their skill check.



> PS- for those of you who find it inexplicable that player characters couldn't intimidate a lousy duke, find and replace "duke" with the drago "Allenyo, the Golden Daughter of Tiamat, who is by the way a Level 30 solo monster and you're a level 2 character in a solo campaign."




Even a weakling can use poison.



> If nothing else, that should persuade you that, in some circumstances, for some parties, certain social skills shouldn't work on certain people.




The rolls determine some of those circumstances, weighted against the circumstances represented by the DCs. Kind of like an attack roll, but without the auto success if the DC is just too high.


----------



## Torchlyte (May 6, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Your refutation refutes itself in a sort of weird logical mobeus strip.
> 
> In both of your real world examples, the intimidation factor of the organizations involved depended not only on the personal charisma of the person issuing the threats, but also on the real life capacity and demonstrated willingness of the organization to carry out those threats.
> 
> Or in other words, the Mafia doesn't "make you feel as if you cannot escape them" in some kind of theoretical vacuum.  They make you feel that way because you know, from context, history, and familiarity with the Mafia, that you probably cannot escape them, just as they say.




Does the Duke really know what the PCs are capable of? Their ability to convince him that they can back it up is their skill level. It's a CHA-ability. They don't have to have the accomplice, they just need to intimidate the Duke with the perception that they have an accomplice.



> Now, logically, _this also works in reverse_.
> 
> Take the threats issued by the Mafia.  Have them issued by a whiny six year old to his own Mom, after having watched movies at his friend's house that his Mom normally wouldn't let him see.
> 
> I don't care if he rolls a freaking 20, he's just getting paddled.




I think we can agree that PCs =/= children because their threats are plausible. How plausible they are able to make themselves is their skill check.



> PS- for those of you who find it inexplicable that player characters couldn't intimidate a lousy duke, find and replace "duke" with the drago "Allenyo, the Golden Daughter of Tiamat, who is by the way a Level 30 solo monster and you're a level 2 character in a solo campaign."




Even a weakling can use poison.



> If nothing else, that should persuade you that, in some circumstances, for some parties, certain social skills shouldn't work on certain people.




The rolls determine some of those circumstances, weighted against the circumstances represented by the DCs. Kind of like an attack roll, but without the auto success if the DC is really high.


----------



## MindWanderer (May 6, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> PS- for those of you who find it inexplicable that player characters couldn't intimidate a lousy duke, find and replace "duke" with the drago "Allenyo, the Golden Daughter of Tiamat, who is by the way a Level 30 solo monster and you're a level 2 character in a solo campaign."
> 
> If nothing else, that should persuade you that, in some circumstances, for some parties, certain social skills shouldn't work on certain people.



Even though I generally agree with you, this is a bad example.  You can't pass that Intimidate check because the DC for intimidating Allenyo is probably around 45--feasible for a level 30 character, impossible for a level 2 character.  It's not that you lack the muscle to back it up, it's that you suck at intimidating.  If that level 2 character had some ridiculous item from a splatbook like a potion of +30 Intimidate, then no, I don't think that should be an impossible check.

However, I do think there are other circumstances where Intimidate should be an auto-fail.  Say you're a terrorist, holding hostages and making demands.  If the person you're asking the demand from is a super-Lawful bureaucrat who plays by the rules no matter what, then it doesn't matter how good you are at imtimidating.  You could have his daughter captured and threaten to do all kinds of vile things to her, and it will just make him all the more devoted to not giving you what you want.  I think people like that are rare, but they do exist.


----------



## Torchlyte (May 6, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Diplomacy: Aid us, and we will save your kingdom from the fierce dragon!
> Still diplomacy: Fail to aid us, and who will save your kingdom from the fierce dragon!
> Intimidate: Aid us, or my pet worg will eat your face!




There are others making weird arguments about what intimidate is, so I understand your confusion here. I agree with the quoted statements, but still disagree with the claim that a person can be immune to intimidation while they still have something they care about.

Plus, returning to my main point over the course of this thread, the whole point of the Duke being immune to intimidation (Oh, he's just really stubborn!) is railroady, as explained in the long post at the top of this page.

Edit: Page 25, I mean.


----------



## Lurker37 (May 6, 2008)

if you're stuck for working out which social skill applies, looking at the outcome of the mechanics and trying to match them to the gist of the conversation is usually helpful.



			
				Ahglock said:
			
		

> Fighter: he's almost there, guys, I'll take him over the finish line "If you don't help us, who will be there to help you when the horde reaches here.  Who is going to protect your daughter when the savages are tearing down your door, you willing to help out we can be around and make sure bad things don't happen to you" intimidate success




Intimidate clearly state that after 1d6x10 minutes the target's attitude drops to unfriendly or even hostile.

What about the quoted statement is going to wear of within an hour, leaving the Duke hating the fighter's guts?

Nothing.

So, by the RAW, this cannot be an intimidate roll. Q.E.D.

Intimidate is *making* a threat, not trying to convince the target of an existing one. 

The fighter is not making a threat - in fact he is claiming that he and his group are the only protectors the Duchy has, but they're going to fail, leaving the duchy in danger, without help! That's pretty much the opposite of a threat! 

So yes, it falls under diplomacy or buff, depending on whether this horde really is intent on attacking the Duchy.


----------



## Torchlyte (May 6, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> if you're stuck for working out which social skill applies, looking at the outcome of the mechanics and trying to match them to the gist of the conversation is usually helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Under 3.x rules, about which I already made my opinion clear.


----------



## doctormandible (May 6, 2008)

I don't think that's necessarily true.  Ahglock's scenario could be making a threat.  It's like Al Capone making people pay bribes for protection.  It's a threat to expose the NPC to an existing threat.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 6, 2008)

Could we please drop the whole Intimidate argument. I thought there were more interesting aspects to the skill challenge. Everyone seems to have explained his view on the issue, and unless someone of us is capable of mind control, there seems to be no chance of changing opinions at this point.

Questions I am more interested in, since they are ultimately more constructive: 
- How do we handle NPCs trying to countermand the PCs efforts? (The Dukes Advisor trying to counter a bluff, for example?)
- How could we use the framework for other encounters, like Interrogation (Torture?), Overland-Travel, Crime Scene Investigation...


----------



## The Shadow (May 6, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> 1. The players want to be diplomatic.
> 
> 2. The players want to intimidate the Duke.
> 
> If (1) is true, then by definition there's no need to put a ruling on intimidation because the players don't want to use that skill. If a player wants to use Intimidate, then that means that (2) must be true and the challenge's stated goal is not the players' goal.




You've never seen players try something boneheaded, something completely at odds to their stated goals?  I certainly have.  (Sometimes I've done it myself!)  Whether it's in the name of roleplaying or just plain stupidity, it happens.  Pointing out in the template which maneuvers are just not going to be productive might not be needed by every DM, but it's not useless either.

If the characters are capable of intimidating a duke with an army into putting his army at their disposal, then more power to 'em.  That plan clearly would not call for a Negotiation skill challenge, now would it?  A single Intimidate roll should be good enough.

Of course, most characters _just plain won't be able to do that._  And then this skill challenge becomes relevant.  *If* the party in that position decides *on their own* to solicit the Duke's aid, then the GM could choose to use this template.  Maybe they don't decide to ask the Duke for help;  maybe they decide on a totally different approach to the problem.  This is railroading?

You seem to think it's somehow wrong for the GM to design an actual adventure - to say there are two forks in the road instead of three.

I mean, I don't have to let someone roll the dice on a skill when it's plainly ludicrous.  If you're in chains, naked, and in an antimagic field, I just don't care, as a GM, how high your Intimidate skill is.  You're not going to browbeat the Evil King into abdicating and giving you his crown.  It will not happen.  I mean, if you insist, I can set a DC of 1500, but it's just easier to say, "You can't do it."



> _If the players use intimidate, then earning the NPC's trust is not their goal._




That's quite obvious, yes.  And in the sort of situation in which the Negotiation template is going to be a useful tool for the GM, not wanting to earn the NPC's trust is a bad idea.  If it isn't a bad idea, and the party decides to go for Intimdation, the GM would probably use a different template, or make up a custom one.

Perhaps this is the nub of the problem?  You appear to be assuming that the GM is committed to using the Negotiation template, come hell or high water, regardless of the PC's position and circumstances?  But why should he be?  Maybe the party won't even decide to talk to the Duke at all!

But *if they do*, knowing that they (as, say, 4th level heroes) have no real chance of intimidating the Duke into ordering his army around, he figures that a Negotiation is what will be called for, and preps that template, perhaps tweaking it.  Not because he's a meanie-head who arbitrarily decides it, but because it makes sense in the adventure - sort of like not being able to intimidate the Evil King into abdicating while totally helpless.

If the party is 30 level demigods with a penchant of threatening measly mortals with fates far worse than death, probably the GM will decide to use something other than Negotiation, yes?  They'd use that template only with a greater god or something.  Against a mere Duke, they'd say, "Borrowing your army.  Might bring it back later."  Not even worth a skill challenge.



> 3. Therefore, the only reasonable reason to fiat that Intimidate will not work is if you're forcing the players to solve the problem your way, because in any other case the rule is irrelevant. This is railroading.




No, it isn't railroading to say, "This particular sort of plan just won't work."  That's adventure design.  Now, I grant you, in a given case it might be *bad* adventure design.  But it needn't be.

Railroading is where there is only One Right Plan.  Banning Intimidate in the Negotiation template is just saying there are at most N-1 good plans, where N is All The Plans There Are.    Surely not all plans have to be good?  In fact, I'd say of All The Plans There Are, most of them aren't very good, and some of them are very, very bad.



> Given: The DM is only allowing the players to solve the challenge his way.




I don't accept that as a premise, so the argument fails.


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 6, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Your refutation refutes itself in a sort of weird logical mobeus strip.
> 
> In both of your real world examples, the intimidation factor of the organizations involved depended not only on the personal charisma of the person issuing the threats, but also on the real life capacity and demonstrated willingness of the organization to carry out those threats.
> 
> Or in other words, the Mafia doesn't "make you feel as if you cannot escape them" in some kind of theoretical vacuum.  They make you feel that way because you know, from context, history, and familiarity with the Mafia, that you probably cannot escape them, just as they say.




The same way you know, from context, history and familiarity with heroes and monsters that if the heroes don't do something the monsters eat your town? You've just successfully argued that implying that an organisation not directly under your control might do something is within the bounds of intimidate.

And for the record - yeah, it's fine if there are some individuals who are basically sociopaths and for whom one particular social skill won't work, but it should be an exception to the rule. Saying that basically anyone in any position of power is immune to intimidate is rubbish, and putting an automatic fail on intimidate in one of the examples of skill checks means that it becomes the accepted state of affairs. All of a sudden every adventure will specify that intimidate doesn't work any time the writer thinks that the person involved is the slightest bit brave.

Something makes me doubt that people would be so happy if the example stipulated that bluff or diplomacy never work on the NPC.


----------



## Cadfan (May 6, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> The rolls determine some of those circumstances, weighted against the circumstances represented by the DCs. Kind of like an attack roll, but without the auto success if the DC is really high.



I'm skipping most of your post because I think the issues in it are sufficiently debated above, and that I am clearly right.

But in regards to this point, I have something to add.

I am not of the school that pretends that DMing is about reaching into the ether and pulling out some kind of objective truth about the imaginary gameworld in which my campaign takes place.

Or to put things otherwise, when I set the DC for something, I know darn well that I'm setting it for a particular party of PCs played by a particular set of people.

So when it comes time for me to decide the DC for using Intimidate on a landed gentry with his own private army, I don't do some sort of magical math in my head and set the DC based on his NPC level, his Wisdom score, his ranks in Insight, the average level of the men in his private army multiplied by a weighted inversed average of the number of rounds it takes for each soldier to respond if he calls for help in the middle of a dinner party, divided by his fear of collateral damage to his mead hall during the battle.

I just ask myself, "knowing what this guy has in terms of backup, and what the PCs have in terms of leverage, how hard should it be for the PCs to intimidate this guy?"  And then I set a DC.  And sometimes, if the answer is "it should be freaking impossible," I don't bother setting a DC.

What this approach lacks in terms of a false pretense of objectivity, it makes up in honesty.

So from my perspective, there's no difference between declaring that the DC of an Intimidate check is 50 when I know darn well the players can't achieve that, and just saying "Intimidate doesn't work here."  Except that the first way required making up an arbitrarily big number and lying to myself about where I got it.

If someone wants to go through life doing things the first way, well, they'll function in society just like a normal person.  But like Dumbo and his feather, they'll be able to fly even without it.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 6, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> A rewrite of your example
> 
> Fighter: he's almost there, guys, I'll take him over the finish line "If you don't help us, who will be there to help you when the horde reaches here.  Who is going to protect your daughter when the savages are tearing down your door, you willing to help out we can be around and make sure bad things don't happen to you" intimidate success




Nice try, except that isn't close to an example of intimidation.  That's diplomacy (convincing the other party that you share the same concerns and are on the same side) or bluff (if the threat is exaggerated or fabricated).  



> Oh wait, maybe we do understand what was written we just thought it was shortsighted and unduly limiting on skill usage.  Absolute no's are almost always bad.




As long as you keep trying to insist that something about that example contained "absolute no's", then yes, you did misunderstand.  

It really is like insisting that by killing the princess you are fulfilling the King's mission of "making sure those dirty goblins don't harm her," and arguing with the DM that you still deserve the reward and XP.  After all, that was HIS wording.


----------



## The Shadow (May 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Could we please drop the whole Intimidate argument. I thought there were more interesting aspects to the skill challenge. Everyone seems to have explained his view on the issue, and unless someone of us is capable of mind control, there seems to be no chance of changing opinions at this point.




Fair enough.  I will stand down... though I do sometimes get this urge to tilt at windmills. 



> Questions I am more interested in, since they are ultimately more constructive:
> - How do we handle NPCs trying to countermand the PCs efforts? (The Dukes Advisor trying to counter a bluff, for example?)




A very interesting question.  An advisor *could* simply be fluff to explain failures ("I can't fault your logic, but on balance I like Baron Evillo's idea better.") or fluff to explain consequences of failures.  ("I don't ordinarily send annoying people to the salt mines, but Baron Evillo is right, you're too dangerous.")

Alternatively, he could be an actual character rolling for successes and failures of his own.  Now, would he be on the same playing field as the players (his successes counting as their failures, and vice versa), or would he keep separate track of successes and failures?

The easiest way might be to say, "Whoever gets to X successes first convinces the Duke.  Failures count as successes for the other side."

On the other hand, it might be very interesting if *both* parties could win (the Duke sends his troops to help, but sends a spy to keep an eye on the PC's that the Baron has secretly ordered to assassinate them) or both could lose (the party doesn't get the Duke's help, but he's pissed at the Baron, who is now out of favor.)



> - How could we use the framework for other encounters, like Interrogation (Torture?), Overland-Travel, Crime Scene Investigation...




Interrogation:  While this obviously gives Intimidate a huge chance to shine, other skills could potentially useful...  Knowledge-type skills to be able to know when the guy's lying;  Streetwise in particular to know what to threaten him with, depending on the situation;  Diplomacy to play Good Cop;  Bluff to make him think you know everything already and spill something...  Perhaps Str vs. Fort rolls for torture.  (Yuck, but still.)

Or, if the players feel like blowing some cash on the Detect Thoughts ritual, you can avoid a skill challenge entirely. 

Overland Travel:  As simple or sophisticated as you want.  Getting to Example City might be a skill challenge, or maybe each leg of the journey could be.  Maybe most of the journey is fine, but you set up a challenge to get through a nasty section of forest.  Or, if you prefer, you can just say, "You get there after five day's travel.  What do you do?"

One thing that might be fun is, rather than having "random encounters", the GM has some planned encounters along the way that can be circumvented by succeeding at challenges.

CSI:  Again, as much or as little as you want.  Finding and interpreting a single clue could be a challenge in itself, but that would probably get old.  Whereas having a challenge out and out tell you who the murderer is could be a bit much too.

I say, treat it like a cop show or a movie... the challenge is there to give you a significant lead, something tangible to follow up on.  Failing in it badly might mean that you just plain don't turn anything up;  failing marginally might mean you have a clue but haven't figured out what to do with it yet.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 6, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> The following is the reasoning behind the railroad debate:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You're making an invalid set of assumptions here.  A challenge like this doesn't grow in a vacuum.  The DM doesn't demand the PCs seek an audience with the Duke to gain his trust.  The PCs, through the scenarios leading up to that moment in game, are at a point where they have chosen to seek an audience with the Duke, in order to convince him to lend them aid/money/troops/resources.  The only way they can do that is to gain his trust.  

You can't intimidate the duke into giving you gold, soldiers, and equipment.  You could try, but it would be a failure.  If you tried really well, and successfully scared the pants off him, you might leave his chamber with a promise of aid.  But you'd be dead or arrested before you hit the castle gate.  And that would make the challenge a failure. 

There are no absolutes and there is no railroading in the example given.  The PCs have a variety of ways to accrue the successes needed to convince the duke.  And if they fail, the game continues.  It's just like any other encounter.  There are conditions that result in win and conditions that result in fail.  The PCs are free to try and win in the manner they see fit.  It is not railroading if their choices lead to failure.  That's actually kind of a core mechanic to gaming in general.


----------



## The Shadow (May 6, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Or to put things otherwise, when I set the DC for something, I know darn well that I'm setting it for a particular party of PCs played by a particular set of people.
> [snip]
> So from my perspective, there's no difference between declaring that the DC of an Intimidate check is 50 when I know darn well the players can't achieve that, and just saying "Intimidate doesn't work here."  Except that the first way required making up an arbitrarily big number and lying to myself about where I got it.




Kudos, sir.  You said it much better than I did.  In fact, I found myself wanting to quote each paragraph separately, but restrained myself.   (Still chuckling over "divided by his fear of damage to his mead hall"!)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 6, 2008)

The Shadow said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  I will stand down... though I do sometimes get this urge to tilt at windmills.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



An interesting question might be if Rituals or Spells can be used as a way to solve a part of a challenge (there was a blog post to that effect, but I still wonder how this works). 

On a larger scale, can even individual encounters be used to "solve" a part of the skill challenge - when gaining the favor of the duke, it might be helpful to arrest some criminals that bothered him, or something like that. But we might be leaving the realms of the skill challenge at this point...




> Overland Travel:  As simple or sophisticated as you want.  Getting to Example City might be a skill challenge, or maybe each leg of the journey could be.  Maybe most of the journey is fine, but you set up a challenge to get through a nasty section of forest.  Or, if you prefer, you can just say, "You get there after five day's travel.  What do you do?"
> 
> One thing that might be fun is, rather than having "random encounters", the GM has some planned encounters along the way that can be circumvented by succeeding at challenges.



One take might be to make the success of a skill challenge determine the encounter setup of random encounters. If you fare well, you will face less opposition and can surprise it. If you fail, you might run into more monsters, and they might ambush you.



> CSI:  Again, as much or as little as you want.  Finding and interpreting a single clue could be a challenge in itself, but that would probably get old.  Whereas having a challenge out and out tell you who the murderer is could be a bit much too.
> 
> I say, treat it like a cop show or a movie... the challenge is there to give you a significant lead, something tangible to follow up on.  Failing in it badly might mean that you just plain don't turn anything up;  failing marginally might mean you have a clue but haven't figured out what to do with it yet.



I think it might matter how important the "CSI"-stuff is to the plot at hand. If the whole adventure is based on it, a single challenge might be a bit to little. But who knows, if you have to gather 16 successes and avoid the 8th failure, this can take some time, if each roll is accompanied with a skill check. Basically, you use the challenge to structure an entire adventure. But if it's only a small part, determining the real perpetrator could be handled with a regular skill challenge. The next step might be finding and catching him.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> An interesting question might be if Rituals or Spells can be used as a way to solve a part of a challenge (there was a blog post to that effect, but I still wonder how this works).
> 
> On a larger scale, can even individual encounters be used to "solve" a part of the skill challenge - when gaining the favor of the duke, it might be helpful to arrest some criminals that bothered him, or something like that.



"You gain wisdom, my child..."


			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think it might matter how important the "CSI"-stuff is to the plot at hand. If the whole adventure is based on it, a single challenge might be a bit to little. But who knows, if you have to gather 16 successes and avoid the 8th failure, this can take some time, if each roll is accompanied with a skill check. Basically, you use the challenge to structure an entire adventure. But if it's only a small part, determining the real perpetrator could be handled with a regular skill challenge. The next step might be finding and catching him.



Or, take it a step further and make each success of the Skill Challenge "Solve the Crime" require a success on a skill challenge of "Find a Clue".  Then, if you solve 8 "Find a Clue" Skill Challenges before you fail 4 of them then you solve the crime.

Ok, maybe that one would be rather boring or at least a bad idea.  Still, now you are beginning to think how this can be used on a larger scale.


----------



## Tuft (May 6, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Kraydak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I guess this will drown in the big "what is Intimidate _really_" debate, but anyway:

It is my theory that the automatic increase in skills by 1/2 levels is connected to skill target numbers increasing by pretty much the same amount. Go up ten levels, become five steps better at climbing, and you will face walls that all have five steps harder target number. The way target numbers are formulated for the skill challenge strengthens that theory a bit...


----------



## The Shadow (May 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> An interesting question might be if Rituals or Spells can be used as a way to solve a part of a challenge (there was a blog post to that effect, but I still wonder how this works).




I wonder too.  We don't yet know if rituals can fail, even.  But for ordinary powers, it would make sense that if they "hit", they count as a success, maybe?



> On a larger scale, can even individual encounters be used to "solve" a part of the skill challenge - when gaining the favor of the duke, it might be helpful to arrest some criminals that bothered him, or something like that. But we might be leaving the realms of the skill challenge at this point...




Very situation dependent.  I can see a bunch of scenarios.

1) You had a whole adventure capturing criminals to even get the audience with the Duke in the first place.  "Baron Evillo argued I shouldn't meet with riff-raff like yourselves, but I appreciate the fact that you've rid my town of these scum."

2) The Duke says, "Well, I don't know.  You seem like decent sorts, but Baron Evillo isn't so sure.  Perhaps you could catch the noted thief, the Prince of Shadows, for me to prove your good will?"  The next adventure is devoted to catching the Prince of Shadows... depending on how it goes, it might be worth anywhere from, say, 1 failure to 3 successes.

3) The Duke says, "I'm too busy dealing with rioting in the slums to deal with this right now."  The PC's go out and end the riot, bringing in the ringleaders.  This could be an encounter, or it could even be a single skill check!

4) Or it could be as simple as a character saying, "Do recall, your Grace, how we worked with your Guard a year ago to capture the Prince of Shadows. Surely that shows you we respect the rule of law?"  Diplomacy check, based on previous adventures.  Or a Bluff check, if you've bribed Captain Dastardly to lie about it when the Duke asks him to refresh his memory.



> One take might be to make the success of a skill challenge determine the encounter setup of random encounters. If you fare well, you will face less opposition and can surprise it. If you fail, you might run into more monsters, and they might ambush you.




I like it!  In fact, I'll likely use it.



> I think it might matter how important the "CSI"-stuff is to the plot at hand.




That's a given.  I was assuming it was integral to the whole adventure, at the very least.



> If the whole adventure is based on it, a single challenge might be a bit to little. But who knows, if you have to gather 16 successes and avoid the 8th failure, this can take some time, if each roll is accompanied with a skill check. Basically, you use the challenge to structure an entire adventure. But if it's only a small part, determining the real perpetrator could be handled with a regular skill challenge. The next step might be finding and catching him.




The idea of structuring the whole adventure around a *big* challenge is an interesting one.  I'll mull it over some more.


----------



## Torchlyte (May 6, 2008)

The Shadow said:
			
		

> You've never seen players try something boneheaded, something completely at odds to their stated goals?  I certainly have.  (Sometimes I've done it myself!)  Whether it's in the name of roleplaying or just plain stupidity, it happens.  Pointing out in the template which maneuvers are just not going to be productive might not be needed by every DM, but it's not useless either.
> 
> If the characters are capable of intimidating a duke with an army into putting his army at their disposal, then more power to 'em.  That plan clearly would not call for a Negotiation skill challenge, now would it?




So far so good.



> A single Intimidate roll should be good enough.




I disagree, you could do all sorts of stuff to alter circumstances so that the NPC can be properly coerced.



> Of course, most characters _just plain won't be able to do that._  And then this skill challenge becomes relevant.  *If* the party in that position decides *on their own* to solicit the Duke's aid, then the GM could choose to use this template.  Maybe they don't decide to ask the Duke for help;  maybe they decide on a totally different approach to the problem.




My reply to this somehow disappeared in the multi-quoting. If they're taking a different approach then there's little need for the intimidate skill to be ruled over.



> This is railroading?




What specifically, are you referring to with this question? I think it's railroading to say that the PCs have to get the Duke to agree to something when it's plausible for them to force him to do something... and if the players are creative, it's most likely plausible.



> You seem to think it's somehow wrong for the GM to design an actual adventure - to say there are two forks in the road instead of three.




It's more like having the PCs sink into quicksand when they try to take the third road.



> I mean, I don't have to let someone roll the dice on a skill when it's plainly ludicrous.  If you're in chains, naked, and in an antimagic field, I just don't care, as a GM, how high your Intimidate skill is.  You're not going to browbeat the Evil King into abdicating and giving you his crown.  It will not happen.  I mean, if you insist, I can set a DC of 1500, but it's just easier to say, "You can't do it."




It depends what the players do. If they find a plausible way to do it, sure. If not, I might mentally raise the DC to "I think not." If they try to threaten a Cleric with a sword to go against his religion, it probably won't work. If they come up with something devious, why shouldn't it? A flat ban is weak.



> That's quite obvious, yes.  And in the sort of situation in which the Negotiation template is going to be a useful tool for the GM, not wanting to earn the NPC's trust is a bad idea.  If it isn't a bad idea, and the party decides to go for Intimdation, the GM would probably use a different template, or make up a custom one.




It's the players' idea. 

I read once about how a group of PCs were threatened with an army, and the DM thought they'd run. Instead, they decided to train the commoners into an army as well. It wasn't what the DM intended and it probably wasn't the smartest move given the DM's setup, but it turned out to be a really cool adventure. It's posted on the Order of the Stick forums, SilverClawShift's group. Pretty cool read.

Anyways, the point is that just because it's not the smartest choice doesn't mean you have to put your foot down as a DM.



> Perhaps this is the nub of the problem?  You appear to be assuming that the GM is committed to using the Negotiation template, come hell or high water, regardless of the PC's position and circumstances?  But why should he be?  Maybe the party won't even decide to talk to the Duke at all!




Like I said though, if they talk to the DM and decide to use some intimidation, why give them DM fiat in return?



> But *if they do*, knowing that they (as, say, 4th level heroes) have no real chance of intimidating the Duke into ordering his army around,




I'd say that's not necessarily true.



> he figures that a Negotiation is what will be called for, and preps that template, perhaps tweaking it.  Not because he's a meanie-head who arbitrarily decides it, but because it makes sense in the adventure - sort of like not being able to intimidate the Evil King into abdicating while totally helpless.




Did I once say that they should be able to intimidate the Evil King while helpless? No, that was a straw man.



> If the party is 30 level demigods with a penchant of threatening measly mortals with fates far worse than death, probably the GM will decide to use something other than Negotiation, yes?  They'd use that template only with a greater god or something.  Against a mere Duke, they'd say, "Borrowing your army.  Might bring it back later."  Not even worth a skill challenge.




This is highly subjective.



> No, it isn't railroading to say, "This particular sort of plan just won't work."  That's adventure design.  Now, I grant you, in a given case it might be *bad* adventure design.  But it needn't be.




I think it's okay to say, this particular plan won't work (because it's implausible). You know, this form of intimidation or whatever. This _sort_ of plan, on the other hand...



> Railroading is where there is only One Right Plan.




Like, "Get the Duke to trust you?"


----------



## Torchlyte (May 6, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I'm skipping most of your post because I think the issues in it are sufficiently debated above, and that I am clearly right.




Oh, clearly. 



> So from my perspective, there's no difference between declaring that the DC of an Intimidate check is 50 when I know darn well the players can't achieve that, and just saying "Intimidate doesn't work here."  Except that the first way required making up an arbitrarily big number and lying to myself about where I got it.




Actually, you don't really have to make DCs at all. The point here is that you should be looking at how the players have designed their characters and what they want to do with them.



			
				Thasmodious said:
			
		

> You're making an invalid set of assumptions here.  A challenge like this doesn't grow in a vacuum.  The DM doesn't demand the PCs seek an audience with the Duke to gain his trust.  The PCs, through the scenarios leading up to that moment in game, are at a point where they have chosen to seek an audience with the Duke, in order to convince him to lend them aid/money/troops/resources.  The only way they can do that is to gain his trust.




I've already addressed the context question. The example we have doesn't give that context.



> You can't intimidate the duke into giving you gold, soldiers, and equipment.




Sure you can. Say you have an accomplice who's got something nasty up his sleeve.

Fire Emblem Spoiler:


Spoiler



Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn involves a major plot twist when it turns out the King is being intimidated into sending his armies to do things he doesn't like. It's the PCs' adventure, guys.





> If you tried really well, and successfully scared the pants off him, you might leave his chamber with a promise of aid.  But you'd be dead or arrested before you hit the castle gate.  And that would make the challenge a failure.




Yes, that would mean you failed to properly intimidate him.



> There are no absolutes




That's not even subject to debate. There /are/ absolutes in the example.




> The PCs have a variety of ways to accrue the successes needed to convince the duke.




Like, "trust us," "trust us," and "history says trust us."



> It is not railroading if their choices lead to failure.




PC: I attack the Drow guy.
DM (about his little DMPC): He looks really strong.
PC: I still choose to attack the Drizzt clone.
DM: He does 30d6 subdual damage to you in a surprise round. You fail.


----------



## Simon Marks (May 6, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> Like, "trust us," "trust us," and "history says trust us."






			
				WotC said:
			
		

> The challenge might take only as long as a normal conversation, or it could stretch on for days as the characters perform tasks to earn the NPC’s favor.




Yeah, that's right.

It's a template, not to be used in it's naked form but to be modified by what's going on in your game.

I mean, it even says 


			
				Wotc said:
			
		

> Use the following skill challenge templates as the basis for skill challenges you design for your adventures. The level and complexity values are *suggestions only; adjust as necessary to meet the needs of your adventure.*




Don't like it? Change it. The Rules as Written say "Adjust as necessary"

It's a template.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 6, 2008)

*putting finger in ears* Nanananananana.. I can't hear you talking about this Intimidation thingy anymore... Nanananananana

Please, guys, you're running in circles on a boring topic! Focus on something constructive and interesting!



> We don't yet know if rituals can fail, even. But for ordinary powers, it would make sense that if they "hit", they count as a success, maybe?



What's with powers that don't have a too-hit? Auto-success? Or make a Arcana check? 
I also wonder if rituals can fail - or are they are subtype of skill challenge?



> Or, take it a step further and make each success of the Skill Challenge "Solve the Crime" require a success on a skill challenge of "Find a Clue". Then, if you solve 8 "Find a Clue" Skill Challenges before you fail 4 of them then you solve the crime.
> 
> Ok, maybe that one would be rather boring or at least a bad idea. Still, now you are beginning to think how this can be used on a larger scale.



A kind of "meta"-challenge. Doesn't sound like such a bad idea. In the end, it's just a way to structure or organize your adventure.


----------



## Torchlyte (May 6, 2008)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> It's a template.




The funny thing is, my opinion isn't even all that extreme. I like the idea of using skill challenges, I just didn't like this example. That's what my position has been from the beginning.



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> *putting finger in ears* Nanananananana.. I can't hear you talking about this Intimidation thingy anymore... Nanananananana
> 
> Please, guys, you're running in circles on a boring topic! Focus on something constructive and interesting!




15+ pages of the thread are devoted to this debate. If you don't want to read it, don't. I'm not interested in the alternate path of discussion that some person randomly decided to force on me.


----------



## Simon Marks (May 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I also wonder if rituals can fail - or are they are subtype of skill challenge?




This is all kinds of awesome, but what are the consequences of failing and is doing a ritual identical each time.

Hmmm....

Template: Ritual under pressure.
"Quick, set up those candles"
"The rain keeps putting them out!"
"Then MAKE them stay alight, if we don't finish the rite successfully all hope will be lost"

This skill challenge covers attempts to perform a ritual under heavy environmental duress. Sometimes this is a hostile area (like a storm) and sometimes it means you have to get it perfectly right the first time. 

Setup: For the ritual to work, the party have to deal difficulties. Normally rituals are performed in calm and ideal situations, but in this case compromise must be made and difficulties overcome.

Level: Equal to the level of the entire Party +2.

Complexity: 3 (8 Success before 4 Failures)

Primary Skills: Arcana, Nature, Endurance.

    Arcana (moderate DCs): You try and perform the ritual, or aid the person performing the ritual. Each failure using this skill counts as two failures. At least one successful Arcana check must be made by the person performing the ritual during the challenge.

    Nature (moderate DCs): You try in some way to shelter the ritual and ritualist from the elements. A successful use of this skill allows you to reduce the difficulty of the Endurance checks to a moderate DC.

    Endurance (Hard DCs): You try to ignore your own tiredness and struggle on through the hard times. A successful use of this skill allows the use of a Intimidate check to help the Ritualists concentrate.

    Religion (moderate to hard DC): You set up the ritual in a familiar and comforting way, by mimicing the religious practices of the participants. Can only be done once.

    Intimidate (Hard DC): You brow beat everyone into working harder and faster, NPCs will work ignoring their own discomfort - PC's may chose to expend Healing Surges to add to this.
This can only be done once. If PCs are involved in the ritual, they may (as a whole) expend 4 healing surges each and gain 2 successes instead of 1.

Success: The ritual is a success.

Failure: The ritual is a failure, and all resources used are wasted. The players may well have to find another way to deal with the problem.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 6, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> The funny thing is, my opinion isn't even all that extreme. I like the idea of using skill challenges, I just didn't like this example. That's what my position has been from the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 15+ pages of the thread are devoted to this debate. If you don't want to read it, don't. I'm not interested in the alternate path of discussion that some person randomly decided to force on me.



Sorry, I would agree with you if I thought that part of the discussion would get some new insights. But it does not. Every participant is rehashing the same arguments, just adding a slighly different perspective, but no new substance. Having been in some similar lenghty debates without any progress (per encounter resources  many months ago was such a topic), I just strongly recommend going away from it. You're wasting your own energy and time, and ignore the possibility of much more fruitful topics.


----------



## hong (May 6, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> 15+ pages of the thread are devoted to this debate. If you don't want to read it, don't. I'm not interested in the alternate path of discussion that some person randomly decided to force on me.




I agree. Can we get back to discussing dragonborn breasts now?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 6, 2008)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> This is all kinds of awesome, but what are the consequences of failing and is doing a ritual identical each time.
> 
> Hmmm....
> 
> ...



On a failure, I'd like the idea of unintented side effects more. 
Like "Okay, you performed the Ritual of Ashkente, but for some reason, Death does not appear in the circle. And while his face might just be a skull, his grinning seems intentional and discomforting". Or summoning an uncontrolled spirit. Or, possibly better, a summoned devil betraying you at a later time. The Divination giving you false, misleading or incomplete information. The Teleport sending you a few miles off. Or your Dragonbane Arrow only working if you hit a specific spot. A Curse that hits more targets then intented (or a break enchantment that just transfers the curse to someone else).


----------



## Simon Marks (May 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> On a failure, I'd like the idea of unintented side effects more.




Yes, that is better.

*Flash of Inspiration*

The new ENWorld site is going to need a "Skill Challenge Template" forum. And that's a good thing.


----------



## Phaezen (May 6, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I agree. Can we get back to discussing dragonborn breasts now?




But would you be able to use intimidate to get them to show them to you, or would diplomacy be more suitable?

what?

Phaezen


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 6, 2008)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> Yes, that is better.



Example for the challenge at hand: After having "successfully" intimidated the Duke, he sends them 20 of his best men. In secret, he tells their Captain "These guys are just as dangerous as the enemy you're helping them to take out. They were willing to threaten my wife, my kids and my life. After you have completed the mission, at your first opportunity, take them out. You'll have my best men at your disposal. Don't fail me, or we might see each other soon again in after-life."



> *Flash of Inspiration*
> 
> The new ENWorld site is going to need a "Skill Challenge Template" forum. And that's a good thing.



The WotC boards gets the new "Party Optimization"-board, we get the "Skill Challenge Template" forum. Sounds like a fair deal, doesn't it?


----------



## Torchlyte (May 6, 2008)

Phaezen said:
			
		

> But would you be able to use intimidate to get them to show them to you, or would diplomacy be more suitable?
> 
> what?
> 
> Phaezen




Diplomacy. 

Intimidate would bring back the Half-Orcs.



> Example for the challenge at hand: After having "successfully" intimidated the Duke, he sends them 20 of his best men. In secret, he tells their Captain "These guys are just as dangerous as the enemy you're helping them to take out. They were willing to threaten my wife, my kids and my life. After you have completed the mission, at your first opportunity, take them out. You'll have my best men at your disposal. Don't fail me, or we might see each other soon again in after-life."




That's a success in my book. ^^


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 6, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> Diplomacy.
> 
> Intimidate would bring back the Half-Orcs.
> 
> ...



It looks like one, for the moment. But remember, skill challenges are not purely about "success, you get all you want" and "failure, you all die". That's what combat is for. 
Failing a challenge means further complications. The Escape from Sembia scenario didn't end with the players in prison if they failed, but instead, they faced harder opposition at a later time. That's one of the fundamental difference between a skill challenge and a skill check. The check is binary - you climb the wall, or you don't. A challenge means you try to climb the Mountain of Yrthak. If you fail the challenge, you're slow, lose resources, and your rival is there before you, lying in ambush. If you succeed, you're there before him, can secure the top, and prepare an ambush for him.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> It looks like one, for the moment. But remember, skill challenges are not purely about "success, you get all you want" and "failure, you all die". That's what combat is for.
> Failing a challenge means further complications. The Escape from Sembia scenario didn't end with the players in prison if they failed, but instead, they faced harder opposition at a later time. That's one of the fundamental difference between a skill challenge and a skill check. The check is binary - you climb the wall, or you don't. A challenge means you try to climb the Mountain of Yrthak. If you fail the challenge, you're slow, lose resources, and your rival is there before you, lying in ambush. If you succeed, you're there before him, can secure the top, and prepare an ambush for him.



Maybe.  I mean all that is required is that there is a benefit to succeeding and a consequence to failing to make it so the results of the Skill Challenge matters in some way.

The consequence certainly could be death.  However, that result normally ends the adventure for everyone and is probably no fun.

It's the same reason most DMs design combat encounters so that the PCs will win.  If you are running an adventure that is about defeating the cultists of Tharizdun and stop them from destroying the world, you want that to happen and the adventure to reach its satisfying conclusion.  You want the rolls in the Skill Challenge to matter, but you don't want it to end your adventure(either through the deaths of all of the PCs or due to derailing the plot enough that it no longer becomes possible for the PCs to win).

So, maybe the PCs are at a disadvantage in a later combat.  Maybe it takes another adventure to complete the overall plot as the PCs look for a clue they missed.  Maybe it just gives them negative modifiers when dealing with the duke in the future.

As an example, while thinking of ideas a while back I came up with a chase Skill Challenge.  The goal was to chase after some monsters who had kidnapped someone.  Success meant arriving at the cave they were living in just a couple of rounds after the monsters.  This meant that they didn't have time to station extra guards at the entrance yet and the first combat was easier.  As well, the traps in the cave weren't enabled yet.

The traps would certainly make things harder.  However, they were designed to be not overwhelming so I knew they'd make it to the end and save the kidnapped person anyways.  That was the idea.  He was the plot hook for the rest of my adventure.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> It looks like one, for the moment. But remember, skill challenges are not purely about "success, you get all you want" and "failure, you all die". That's what combat is for.



After thinking about this one again, I think what I wrote about combat is wrong. The extreme end of a combat "failure, you all die". But that's usually not what you want. Most of the time, a "failed" combats means you spend more resources on it then you can recover in time, or some monsters escaping, either leading to later complications (no fireball left for this horde of enemies, out of healing surges for the final encounter, monsters are warned and prepared for your arrival). 

Ultimately, when you roll multiple dice, the end result is not supposed to be binary. There are extremes you can reach (walk-over fight vs. Total Party Kill, the Duke kissing your ass and giving you an army vs the Duke putting you to prison or having you killed by assassins), but the actual result will usually be inside a continuum of possibilities. The rolls you succeed and the rolls you fail shape up to what comes true inside this continuum.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 6, 2008)

I dont understand why this is still an issue.  The template is for a scenario in which the PCs are trying to gain the trust of the duke.  Everyone here agrees that intimidating the duke would be against that goal, right?  So whats the problem with the template?

The only counter is that if the PCs are using intimidate then they arent really trying to gain the dukes trust.  But that isnt true, they could just be making a mistake.  Either way, the template still stands.  Using intimidate does not gain the trust of anyone.  People are trying to apply a template to a scenario that it doesnt cover.  

A scenario in which the PCs are trying to simply gain assistance by whatever means (friendly or unfriendly) would call for intimidate, as well as the other social based skills.  But that is a different scenario.

Its simple, the template is for a very specific scenario in which the PCs are trying to gain the dukes trust.  If you change the scenario then the template no longer applies; but that doesn't invalidate the template for its given scenario.  It simply means that the template doesnt apply to the scenario given and another template is required, one which is appropriate for the other scenario.


----------



## billd91 (May 6, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Thats... uh... fine.  However he wasn't asking about any of that.  He was asking about this specific subsystem of 4e and getting a bunch of answers that amounted to 'Well, *I* wouldn't do it that way, so you can't.'
> 
> I just figured someone ought to address his actual question rather than wander off on tangents about personal preferences.  And given the presentation, the answer is yes, you can ignore the RP aspect with this system.  It isn't a commentary on whether its good, bad whether you could do it in 3e or while playing Tunnels and Trolls.  Just an answer to whether or not the skill challenge system can reduce an RP encounter to a roll-off.




But it really did answer the question. 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.


----------



## LostSoul (May 6, 2008)

Here are my scattered thoughts:

1. This isn't the direction I thought they would go - this looks very gamist to me.  If it works, I think it will be brilliant.  I'm thinking it's a mechanical way to get what 1st edition had - with less fiat, but with the same creativity from players & DMs to solve challenges.

2. "Intimidate = fail" isn't railroading, in my opinion, it's fiat.  Which is fine when it's handled in the way your group likes.  This example of fiat seems to be to make the choices of skills the players use more important - they have to find the _right_ one.

It's great that each DM can decide on his own.  I doubt I'll have many pre-written auto-failures.

3. Coming up with cool results for failure is a skill that I have been learning recently.  It looks like that training will be put to good use with the skill challenges.

In my opinion, failures (from bad to good) are:

The adventure comes to a crashing end.
The status quo - nothing changes.
The situation is resolved in the expected way, and the conflict is slightly escalated. 
The situation is resolved in an unexpected way due to the input of the players, and the conflict is changed or escalated because of it.


----------



## Keenath (May 6, 2008)

On the idea of Intimidate always failing, I don't really see the issue.

If the guy is convinced of his own power/importance and the PCs are trying to secure his assistance in a matter, intimidation certainly shouldn't work.  Why WOULD it?  He's gonna look at them and say, "You're asking ME for help, and now you're threatening my people with slavery and death..."  Er... well, you get the idea.  No matter how powerful the PCs are, some people are going to simply react badly to threats and intimidation, preferring to say, "Find, let's go!" than knuckle under.

There will always be situations where some of your skills aren't applicable even though they're related to some that are.  Acrobatics won't help you get across a chasm; Insight won't help you notice a trap; and Diplomacy won't stop a rampaging demon.  That intimidate fails doesn't mean the target doesn't believe you'll do it -- it just means he won't let that threat stop him.


----------



## Lizard (May 6, 2008)

Speaking as the resident anti-4e grognard, let me say I see nothing wrong with "Intimidation=Failure", esp. if this is not known to the PCs by fiat but must be inferred from the DM's roleplaying or proper skill use. Why? Because otherwise, the system becomes what I was afraid it would be -- a comic farce where everyone just finds their highest skill, no matter how irrelevant, and we have D&D Marx Brothers as each PC uses a ludicrous justification to roll on their highest skill and everyone "participates" in a ridiculous way. Instead, the system has interesting challenges, options, and tactics, which the players must deduce. It also looks easy to improvise, and for the DM to decide on the spur of the moment if a given skill can be used effectively or might open up new options. If it's combined with roleplaying, it provides a nice structure to challenges that otherwise can get frustrating.


----------



## Lacyon (May 6, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Speaking as the resident anti-4e grognard, let me say I see nothing wrong with "Intimidation=Failure", esp. if this is not known to the PCs by fiat but must be inferred from the DM's roleplaying or proper skill use. Why? Because otherwise, the system becomes what I was afraid it would be -- a comic farce where everyone just finds their highest skill, no matter how irrelevant, and we have D&D Marx Brothers as each PC uses a ludicrous justification to roll on their highest skill and everyone "participates" in a ridiculous way. Instead, the system has interesting challenges, options, and tactics, which the players must deduce. It also looks easy to improvise, and for the DM to decide on the spur of the moment if a given skill can be used effectively or might open up new options. If it's combined with roleplaying, it provides a nice structure to challenges that otherwise can get frustrating.




I always knew there was some good in you.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 6, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Speaking as the resident anti-4e grognard, let me say I see nothing wrong with "Intimidation=Failure", esp. if this is not known to the PCs by fiat but must be inferred from the DM's roleplaying or proper skill use. Why? Because otherwise, the system becomes what I was afraid it would be -- a comic farce where everyone just finds their highest skill, no matter how irrelevant, and we have D&D Marx Brothers as each PC uses a ludicrous justification to roll on their highest skill and everyone "participates" in a ridiculous way. Instead, the system has interesting challenges, options, and tactics, which the players must deduce. It also looks easy to improvise, and for the DM to decide on the spur of the moment if a given skill can be used effectively or might open up new options. If it's combined with roleplaying, it provides a nice structure to challenges that otherwise can get frustrating.



I am afraid that you might have to give away your anti-4e grognard badge now. You can't just randomly go around and choose an aspect to like. 
Either you're with 4E, or you're against it. There is no middle ground, and anyone trying to convince you otherwise is just trying to manipulate you.


----------



## Voss (May 6, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Speaking as the resident anti-4e grognard, let me say I see nothing wrong with "Intimidation=Failure", esp. if this is not known to the PCs by fiat but must be inferred from the DM's roleplaying or proper skill use. Why? Because otherwise, the system becomes what I was afraid it would be -- a comic farce where everyone just finds their highest skill, no matter how irrelevant, and we have D&D Marx Brothers as each PC uses a ludicrous justification to roll on their highest skill and everyone "participates" in a ridiculous way. Instead, the system has interesting challenges, options, and tactics, which the players must deduce. It also looks easy to improvise, and for the DM to decide on the spur of the moment if a given skill can be used effectively or might open up new options. If it's combined with roleplaying, it provides a nice structure to challenges that otherwise can get frustrating.




It isn't really an either/or situation though.  Most people won't have trouble with the concept that you can't use Endurance to 'out-wait' the duke into aiding you, or not being able to Bluff a boulder out of the mine shaft, but that doesn't justify taking social skills out of a social situation, because thats exactly when they're appropriate.  Its akin to saying a greatsword can't hurt a given monster.  Not swords, or slashing weapons, but just greatswords.


On a lighter note, I hate to break this to you, but you don't come across as an anti-4e grognard.  Resident or not.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 6, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> It isn't really an either/or situation though.  Most people won't have trouble with the concept that you can't use Endurance to 'out-wait' the duke into aiding you, or not being able to Bluff a boulder out of the mine shaft, but that doesn't justify taking social skills out of a social situation, because thats exactly when they're appropriate.  Its akin to saying a greatsword can't hurt a given monster.  Not swords, or slashing weapons, but just greatswords.
> 
> 
> On a lighter note, I hate to break this to you, but you don't come across as an anti-4e grognard.  Resident or not.




Actually, it's a lot more like saying a monster is immune to bludgeoning weapons, but can be hurt by slashing or piercing (not to mention magic).  [Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidate vs Piercing, Slashing, Magic, and Bludgeoning].

IMO, there's nothing wrong with giving an NPC, in a particular scenario, blanket immunity to a particular social skill.  If it was the Oracle of Whatchamacallit (who can see through all deception) that the PCs are trying to convince it makes sense that Bluff automatically fails whereas Diplomacy, Insight and Intimidate all have a reasonable chance of success.  It keeps social encounters interesting and varied, IMO.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 6, 2008)

I cannot believe this intimidate issue is still going.  

OK, it is a social skill in a social encounter, so what?  Why does that mean it has to be allowed?  As so many people have pointed out, the goal if the encounter is to gain the trust of the noble, and you _cannot_ effectively intimidate your way to trust.  What if the goal is to get some NPC to fall in love with you?  Can you use intimidate there?  Sure, you could scare the crap out of the person to the point where they will do as you ask, but they will do it out of fear, not love.  Same thing in this situation; you might be able to intimidate the noble into cooperating with you, but he will be doing so from fear, not from trust.  

In my mind the best case scenario you could end up with is a situation where the adventure moves forward because you have the cooperation of the noble, but you do not gain experience for the encounter because you failed in the stated goal - gaining his trust.  Oh, and I would fully expect that the intimidated noble would do his best to "forget" certain details that you would have learned if he trusted rather than feared you.


----------



## Voss (May 6, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> Actually, it's a lot more like saying a monster is immune to bludgeoning weapons, but can be hurt by slashing or piercing (not to mention magic).  [Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidate vs Piercing, Slashing, Magic, and Bludgeoning].
> 
> IMO, there's nothing wrong with giving an NPC, in a particular scenario, blanket immunity to a particular social skill.  If it was the Oracle of Whatchamacallit (who can see through all deception) that the PCs are trying to convince it makes sense that Bluff automatically fails whereas Diplomacy, Insight and Intimidate all have a reasonable chance of success.  It keeps social encounters interesting and varied, IMO.




Meh.  For me, its just a blind game of rock-paper-scissors taking the place of actual role-playing.  I'm not comfortable with But Thou Must/ You Just Can't situations... its crappy in video games, but its inexcusable in PnP games.  Its a lazy GM cheat to force players to adhere to the monograph in his head, rather than letting them enjoy themselves.


----------



## D'karr (May 6, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Meh.  For me, its just a blind game of rock-paper-scissors taking the place of actual role-playing.  I'm not comfortable with But Thou Must/ You Just Can't situations... its crappy in video games, but its inexcusable in PnP games.  Its a lazy GM cheat to force players to adhere to the monograph in his head, rather than letting them enjoy themselves.




If a DM creates his own adventures and puts some combat encounters in it, that must count as a monograph in his head too.  According to this logic.


----------



## ryryguy (May 6, 2008)

It _might_ be railroading if the only way to get anything out of the Duke is by using this template.  (Definitely if you _must_ get something out of the Duke to proceed with the rest of the adventure.)

But say the PC's do decide they'd prefer to lean on the Duke.  (And we're assuming no epic level PC's who can wipe the whole duchy away, then there is maybe a simple skill check, or no skill check, for this option.)

Skill challenge: coerce the Duke into doing X.

Skills:

Bluff: "The king has given us the authority to execute bad nobles."

Gather Information (or whatever this is rolled into in 4e, is it Diplomacy?) finds a blackmailable secret:  "You probably wouldn't want the king to find out about all these taxes you've been skimming."

Linguistics (Forgery aspect): "We have documents showing you were skimming taxes."  (Whether he actually did or not)

Streetwise: "We may be off in the dungeon, but don't get any smart ideas, local crime lord Tony S. will be watching you and your family."

History: (Duke nearly died from a snake bite as a child) "Do you like my pet snake?  Here, I'll let you hold her.  No, I insist!"

Insight/Linguistics: "There's an error in these orders to your guard captain that makes them invald... I'm sure it's just an oversight.  Here's a quill.  I'll hold my pet snake while you correct it."

and of course... Intimidate: "Don't think we're joking about going to the king/sending Tony S. after your family/having my pet snake give birth in your bed.  We are _deadly_ serious..."

Et cetera.

My point is, not only does Intimidate being auto-fail in that template does not mean the Duke is "immune" to Intimidate, but also it does not mean Intimidate cannot be used as part of an approach to achieve more-or-less the same ends.  It just cannot be successfully used as part of the "petition for aid, gain his trust" approach.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 6, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Meh.  For me, its just a blind game of rock-paper-scissors taking the place of actual role-playing.  I'm not comfortable with But Thou Must/ You Just Can't situations... its crappy in video games, but its inexcusable in PnP games.  Its a lazy GM cheat to force players to adhere to the monograph in his head, rather than letting them enjoy themselves.




By that logic, using a clay golem in an adventure is railroading because the clay golem is immune to non-bludgeoning weapons.  So long as the PCs have weapons capable of hurting the golem, I don't see it as a bad thing if one player's L33T sword of uberness is useless of one encounter.  It forces players to think outside the box rather than resorting to the same boring, repetitive combo (I power attack with my L33T sword of uberness and it dies).

It's not a case of railroading because the PCs need never ask the duke for help.  The adventure might be slightly tougher as a result, but that is a CHOICE the players make.  Player choice is the opposite of railroading.  IF the players choose to negotiate with the duke THEN intimidation will automatically fail in that particular encounter.  IF the players decide to fight the clay golem THEN non-bludgeoning attacks automatically fail.

I have no problems with epic heroes cowing a pissant duke, but pissant adventurers cowing a powerful duke is another matter.  And if they're asking the duke for his help, odds are these PCs are not particularly powerful.


----------



## Lizard (May 6, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Meh.  For me, its just a blind game of rock-paper-scissors taking the place of actual role-playing.  I'm not comfortable with But Thou Must/ You Just Can't situations... its crappy in video games, but its inexcusable in PnP games.  Its a lazy GM cheat to force players to adhere to the monograph in his head, rather than letting them enjoy themselves.




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.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 6, 2008)

If all three social skills can be used equally in all social encounters, then all you are doing is splitting up skill points for no reason.  If all three are the same, then there are two too many.  If you feel that way, just houserule that there is only one social skill in your games, because you've removed choice and nuance from the equation with the insistence that all social skills are always appropriate in all social situations.

The options to setup the challenge are not limiting or railroading, they turn a simple dice exercise into a tactical situation.  All three social skills having to always be on the table for every social encounter would remove any variance from the system.  Each one has its own uses and purpose.  Bluff will get you in a party without an invitation, diplomacy will get the duke to help you, intimidate will clear your favorite tavern table of peasants.

You could just as easily imagine circumstances where one of the other primary social skills would be ineffective or counter-productive.  

The cowardly Duke Wossisnuts won't commit his troops to help defend the border outpost.  The guard captain wants desperately to help his men and the PCs want to defeat the hobgoblin menace.  They get an audience with the duke, and the guard captain arranges for the PCs to end up alone with the duke.  He won't see reason on the issue, but he is quite open to bluff and intimidation.  With the captain on their side, they don't have to fear repercussions from scaring the duke.  Well, not as much, anyway.  

The PCs have captured a big bad evil sub-boss, an evil paladin.  Diplomacy won't work because the evil paladin serves an evil god with evil goals and knows the party is all bright and shiny.  Bluff and intimidate are on the table.  Or maybe one diplomatic angle is viable if the PCs can learn about it with a successful insight check.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> You can intimidate the Duke. But it doesn't bring you closer to your goal. That's the idea. You get him to fear you, but that doesn't mean he will lend you troops or whatever you wanted to do.



That all depends on how much you get him to fear you.  You want something out of him, threatening him into giving it to you is as viable as schmoozing it out of him.  He may not like you for it later but intimidation can absolutely get people to do things for you when you are in a position to strike fear into them.


> It makes it just likely that he will send his family to safety, ask his mage to improve the magical protection barriers, and, if all that doesn't seem enough, he will have you arrested or betray you at a later point. The NPCs role and personality just doesn't fit being intimidated in this context. That's the idea.



Taking steps to protect his family and ask the court mage to whip something up is entirely reasonable, it's the sort of thing the Duke would do.  But doesn't preclude giving in to the PCs demands, in fact it's more likely to occur as a hedge because he's successfully intimidated by the PCs.  Arresting or betraying, betraying is entirely likely if he thinks he can get away with it.  Arrest?  This is a level based game.  What level are his guards and how many does he have, for that matter what level is he?  This is a game where the PCs could very well be able to lay waste to his entire territory singlehandedly.  If they intimidate him that much he isn't going to consider arresting them because they would likely just massacre his guards and precious family and take his land for themselves.


> You have to keep in mind that if you need his help, that means you depend on him. This gives him power over you.



It would in RL but in a world described by the mechanics of D&D, not nearly.  What the PCs would rather persuade out of him could be gained from brute force, or magic domination, or a ritual that binds his will to theirs.  Diplomacy and persuasion in a D&D world appear only when neither side is stronger or wishes to go to the effort to compel obedience through other means.


> _Imagine trying it in the real world_. Go to your mayor, and threaten to kill his family, if he doesn't send his sheriff to help you in taking out a biker-gang. Don't you think this will make him work against you at a later time? He will use every opportunity to hinder your efforts.



The bold part is the problem, D&D is not RL.  If I go to my mayor and threaten him he has the police arrest me.  In D&D if you threaten the mayor he has to consider whether his police CAN arrest you or will just be mowed down like lawn ornaments.  Whether imposing the will of the state is even possible.  He may or may not attempt to have you arrested depending on how he judges your personal power.  But if you can intimidate him into doing something for you the "police" are likely not a viable option, nor any similar direct action.  The most hindrance he could hope to bring to bear is weak sauce consisting mainly of ill-will and backstabbing betrayal to an enemy of greater power.  Even then he has to consider the possibility of discovering leading to the PCs just purging suspicious elements related to his plan.



> Remember that failing the skill challenge doesn't mean that you are unable to continue. Depending on what happened during the roleplaying part of the challenge, it means you are not in the perfect situation.



This is right, 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.


----------



## D'karr (May 6, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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.




Not only that, the skill challenge also had this tidbit of information (highlight mine):


> Insight (moderate DCs): You empathize with the NPC and use that knowledge to encourage assistance. *First success with this skill reveals that any use of the Intimidate skill earns a failure.*




So even before attempting to intimidate him you had a possibility of finding out that intimidation would not be a good tactic to use in this situation.

Wow, I can't believe it, I agree with Lizard...


----------



## Lacyon (May 6, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> If all three are the same, then there are two too many.




Precisely.


----------



## D'karr (May 6, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> That all depends on how much you get him to fear you.  You want something out of him, threatening him into giving it to you is as viable as schmoozing it out of him.  He may not like you for it later but intimidation can absolutely get people to do things for you when you are in a position to strike fear into them.




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



> Setup: 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.




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


----------



## kilpatds (May 6, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

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




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



			
				excerpt said:
			
		

> 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.

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.


----------



## Felon (May 6, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

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



"Look, pal, if we were really villains, we'd just kill you all and take what we wanted off of your corpses, wouldn't we?"

Or something to that effect. The old "if I meant you harm you'd be dead already" line. Works in some situations, though I can see why a king in his throne room surrounded by his elite guard wouldn't fold.


----------



## Felon (May 6, 2008)

kilpatds said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (May 6, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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."
> ...




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 (May 6, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> 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."
> ...




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 (May 6, 2008)

kilpatds said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2008)

ryryguy said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2008)

_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 (May 6, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> 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?



			
				HSB said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2008)

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.


----------



## D'karr (May 6, 2008)

kilpatds said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				D'karr said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2008)

kilpatds said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2008)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> _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
> ...



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 (May 6, 2008)

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 (May 6, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 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?
> ...




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 (May 6, 2008)

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 (May 6, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2008)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## billd91 (May 6, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> 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.




I fail to see how a particular immunity to a particular negotiation tactic somehow discourages role playing any more than not being immune would. Am I missing something about the immunity that prevents the DM from role-playing the Duke's reaction and the consequences that fall from it?


----------



## billd91 (May 6, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 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.




Let's relate this back to the example of the skill challenge. Making an intimidation check counts as a failure on the road to achieving success and a failure at the whole thing may lead to actual antagonism from him. Well, there you go. Threatening the Duke, even if the PC is successfully intimidating has negative repercussions that will prevent them from achieving the ultimate goal of the encounter - the NPCs assistance through trust and mutual gain. Instead, you get the failure option, which you will notice is left open to some interpretation and can include antagonism from the Duke.

It looks to me that the sample skill challenge really is giving you what you say you want.


----------



## pemerton (May 6, 2008)

I don't know where I stand overall on the Intimidate issue, but a few responses to what has been said so far:



			
				Thasmodious said:
			
		

> If all three social skills can be used equally in all social encounters, then all you are doing is splitting up skill points for no reason.  If all three are the same, then there are two too many.





			
				Thasmodious said:
			
		

> 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.



I don't agree with this. The skills have quite different flavour/colour, and (depending on the play experience the players and GM are after) this can be pretty important.



			
				ryryguy said:
			
		

> you distinguish the skills better by having them be more or less useful depending on your chosen approach.



Importance can be RPing importance rather than mechanical/tactical importance.



			
				Warbringer said:
			
		

> 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.



Sounds good to me. The different RPing implications of using different approaches (Diplomacy vs Intimidate) are important in themselves.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> A railroad is "I'm sorry, but you can't attack the duke," not "when you take actions, there are consequences."



Although if the consequences are determined unilaterally by the GM, without the players being able to predict it via the mechanics (or GM forewarning) it can become problematic. (I'm not saying that this is the case for the template, which allows Insight to predict the Intimidate failure.)



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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.



Except, as Torchlyte has emphasised, a successful Intimdate skill check means that the person does what the PC wants. If the Intimidate doesn't produce what the PC wants, then (as Celebrim also notes) this means it failed.


----------



## Warbringer (May 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 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?
> ...




funny  ...


----------



## Warbringer (May 7, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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."




It is a railroad when the option is not available. To say you cannot intimidate is saying that you can't attack the Duke, within the confines of social encounter



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

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




There is a difference between having a clearly defined consequence for an action, and not allowing an action. The latter is railroading...



> How many eventually decided they'd had enough and pulled out submachine guns?




_edited..._



> Clearly intimidation only goes so far.




Especially when the encounter says it can go nowhere.


----------



## Spatula (May 7, 2008)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> There is a difference between having a clearly defined consequence for an action, and not allowing an action. The latter is railroading...



The clearly defined consequence is that attempting to Intimidate the Duke results in one failure for the purpose of completing the skill challenge.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2008)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> It is a railroad when the option is not available. To say you cannot intimidate is saying that you can't attack the Duke, within the confines of social encounter



You *can* intimidate the Duke. He is *not* immune to Intimidate. But the consequences of the intimidation, which you are free to do, are undesirable in the circumstances. It's like casting _lighting bolt_ at a creature that is healed by electricity. You can do it, but the consequences are undesirable.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 7, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> You *can* intimidate the Duke. He is *not* immune to Intimidate. But the consequences of the intimidation, which you are free to do, are undesirable in the circumstances. It's like casting _lighting bolt_ at a creature that is healed by electricity. You can do it, but the consequences are undesirable.



I think the problem here is that people are approaching this from 2 different angles.  Perhaps I can explain both of them so there can be a little more understanding here.

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.


----------



## Celebrim (May 7, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> 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).




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.  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. 

Of the three, conceptually intimidate is actually the most powerful since it works even on people who don't like you.  However, intimidate carries a huge drawback.  Whoever you intimidate or try to intimidate becomes more hostile to you.  This makes other sorts of social interaction more difficult - its harder to convince an enemy with diplomacy than a friend.  It's easier to lie to someone who doesn't have good reason to be suspicious of you.  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.

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 wish I could clarify which one is what the 4e PHB says, but I can't.




Well, if 4E is written as badly as 3E's social skills, even knowing what the PH says won't clarify how it is supposed to work.


----------



## Lacyon (May 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 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.




For example, the Duke you tried to intimidate might say he's going to give you what you want and then not actually do so once you're no longer in a position to bully him.


----------



## Lizard (May 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> \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.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2008)

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 (May 7, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Thasmodious said:
			
		

> 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?



			
				Thasmodious said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> 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!"


----------



## Celebrim (May 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 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 think you are really talking about two different things at this point.  It's good to be able to plan for PC actions.  Nothing sucks worse as a DM than the PC's deciding now is a great time to sneak into the foil's fortress, when you weren't planning on direct conflict between the foil and the PC's for many sessions and never bothered to map out his fortress.  It's a really good thing when this plan emerges near the end of a session so you can prep for the plan.  There is nothing wrong with avoiding painting anywhere but where the PC's plan to travel if you can. 

It's quite another thing to insist that the PC's can only go where you've already painted.  The skill challenge seems to suggest the later more than the former.  It's more along the lines of 'The road is lined on both sides with an impassably dense forest.... No you can't just chop down the trees, they are too dense.  Didn't you here me say it was impassable?... Now, do you want to go down the road or not?'



> 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.




*sigh*  You know, I don't know where you find those players.  Even the best most mature most fun players to game with I've ever had weren't nearly so agreeable.  Do you find 'Knights of the Dinner Table' funny?  Cause I find it freaking hilarious and I'm inclined to think you don't really get the joke because its stuff that doesn't happen to you.

You mean you've never had that hyper competititve schemer in the party who never reveals any of the details of his plan until the very last minute so that a) he gets to look cool for having thought of such a creative plan and b) he gets to see just how quickly the DM can cope and maybe catch him off gaurd?

You've never had that group that either goes into the other room or spends the whole week emailing each other to create a master plan so that the DM won't be able to 'cheat' by prepping for a particular course of action?



> "Screw this!  I'm sick of trying to rescue this stupid princess from this stupid necromancer.  Lets become pirates!"




There are DMs on this boards that will tell you that they prefer players like that because when the players take control of thier own destiny, then they are having the sort of game that they want to play and they aren't bored.   BA's equivalent of 'Let's become pirates!' was 'Let's become big game hunters!'  And heck, I played in one game where we really did become pirates.


----------



## hong (May 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> You mean you've never had that hyper competititve schemer in the party who never reveals any of the details of his plan until the very last minute so that a) he gets to look cool for having thought of such a creative plan and b) he gets to see just how quickly the DM can cope and maybe catch him off gaurd?
> 
> You've never had that group that either goes into the other room or spends the whole week emailing each other to create a master plan so that the DM won't be able to 'cheat' by prepping for a particular course of action?




These issues go away once you realise you should game only with people who know not to think too hard about fantasy.


----------



## LostSoul (May 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Why?




It's the difference between "Task Resolution" and "Conflict Resolution".  If we resolve the plan - to make the Duke trust the PCs - we haven't resolved if he's going to help the PCs or not.  That we have to leave up to DM fiat.

(That's assuming the PC's goal is to get his help, and not to become his friend.)


----------



## Cadfan (May 7, 2008)

> It's quite another thing to insist that the PC's can only go where you've already painted.



The fundamental secret to my l33t ninj4 DM skillz- the lines are where _they've_ already painted.  I provide the hooks, and color in the details.



> *sigh* You know, I don't know where you find those players. Even the best most mature most fun players to game with I've ever had weren't nearly so agreeable. Do you find 'Knights of the Dinner Table' funny? Cause I find it freaking hilarious and I'm inclined to think you don't really get the joke because its stuff that doesn't happen to you.



I find it hilarious as well.  But you know what?  Its hilarious because its a comic strip about conflict between a DM and his players.  Its NOT a comic strip about conflict between player characters and a gameworld.  I strive to play the latter type of game, not the former.  At the end of a KoDT plotline, the players have typically defeated _the dungeon master_, not the big bad guy or the plotline.  Its funny because its an archetypal example of a completely dysfunctional gaming group.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> You mean you've never had that hyper competititve schemer in the party who never reveals any of the details of his plan until the very last minute so that a) he gets to look cool for having thought of such a creative plan and b) he gets to see just how quickly the DM can cope and maybe catch him off gaurd?
> 
> You've never had that group that either goes into the other room or spends the whole week emailing each other to create a master plan so that the DM won't be able to 'cheat' by prepping for a particular course of action?



No.  Never.

Reason 1: Suppose the player is doing it to look cool for having thought of a surprise plan.  That player is an absolute moron.  I don't game with morons.  He's a moron because, if you think about that course of action for two lousy seconds, _its obvious that it won't work._

Blindsiding me with unlikely, unexpected plans doesn't make it more likely that your plans will go in your favor because, instead of me working out logical and plausible ways for the world to react to your characters, I'm ad libbing.

So when I've prepped with the assumption that the players will reason with the Duke, and instead they shoot him in the knee with a crossbow, it doesn't mean that things will work out the way they hope.  Instead, it means things will work out the way they pop into my head at that exact moment.  God only knows what will happen then.

Meanwhile, if the player comes up with a creative plan and telegraphs it to me in advance, I can make sure that the creative plan is matched with a logical outcome.  That's... kind of my job.

Reason 2: As for the players who do it purely to see "how well the DM can cope," I find it best to kill their characters in the resulting chaos.  Then not game with them anymore.

Reason 3: Take the player who's doing it because he's afraid I will "cheat" by prepping the outcome of his plan.  If one of my players feels this way, somewhere there is a total breakdown of the group going on.  Maybe its him, maybe its me.  But someone has utterly failed.

I work to establish trust with my players so that they learn that by telegraphing their actions to me, I will make sure that a richer game is achieved.  Instead of, you know, screwing them over by laying down rails that lead them back to where I want them to go.



> There are DMs on this boards that will tell you that they prefer players like that because when the players take control of thier own destiny, then they are having the sort of game that they want to play and they aren't bored. BA's equivalent of 'Let's become pirates!' was 'Let's become big game hunters!' And heck, I played in one game where we really did become pirates.



When I wrote that, I cringed a bit because I just knew someone was going to try to "beat" me by pointing out the wonderful game he played in where he was a pirate.  I'm referring to a trope.  The trope where there's a disjoint between the DM and the players, and the players respond by completely kicking over the apple cart of the gameworld.  Maybe its because the DM is railroading them and they respond by metaphorically disrailing the train in as spectacular a crash as they can engineer.  Maybe its because they're just punks and want to run amuck.  In either case, I think I'll start calling it a "Screw this, lets become pirates!" moment.


----------



## Mallus (May 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> You know, I don't know where you find those players.



I find them in Philadelphia.



> You mean you've never had that hyper competititve schemer in the party who never reveals any of the details of his plan until the very last minute so that a) he gets to look cool for having thought of such a creative plan...



Not in a long time. My players know they're clever. They don't often feel the need to show off, and when they do, they do so in an agreeably public manner that more often that not entertains everyone at the table.



> You've never had that group that either goes into the other room or spends the whole week emailing each other to create a master plan so that the DM won't be able to 'cheat' by prepping for a particular course of action?



My current players realize that I'm a partner in their fun and not some opposing general from whom they need to guard their 'secret plans'.

Loose lips might sink ships, but they sure as hell improve D&D campaigns.


----------



## Lacyon (May 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *sigh*  You know, I don't know where you find those players.  Even the best most mature most fun players to game with I've ever had weren't nearly so agreeable.  Do you find 'Knights of the Dinner Table' funny?  Cause I find it freaking hilarious and I'm inclined to think you don't really get the joke because its stuff that doesn't happen to you.




KoDT-style Players-vs.-DM mentality hasn't happened to me since I got out of High School, except in those games where I specifically encouraged it (either because I was a moron, or because that particular game/group combination had more fun with it).


----------



## Baka no Hentai (May 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> In either case, I think I'll start calling it a "Screw this, lets become pirates!" moment.





I think a scientific term is a "Yarrrr!" moment. And... well, if not, then it should be!     

These accusations that limiting a particular skill in a particular skill challenge equates to railroading are based on a false premise.... that the only way you can achieve your primary goal (to remove the threat from the borderlands) is to get the help of the duke. This is obviously not the case, as they have stated clearly that a skill challenge should not be the sole determining factor of an adventure.... players would have the choice to skip it entirely, or to try it and fail miserably. Doing either of those two may make their primary goal harder, but that doesnt change the fact that those options are available.

Because those options are available, limiting intimidate in this skill challenge is not railroading. Players still have multiple routes of success for their primary objective. Just because not all of those routes are as optimal as others doesnt make it railroading, it makes it _interesting_.


----------



## rkanodia (May 7, 2008)

Baka no Hentai said:
			
		

> I think a scientific term is a "Yarrrr!" moment. And... well, if not, then it should be!



The werd ye be lookin' fer is "Yarrrrr-eka!"


----------



## Mallus (May 7, 2008)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> The werd ye be lookin' fer is "Yarrrrr-eka!"



Thank you for next supers PC: Yarrueka the Science Pirate. 

"Did I mention me new peg-leg's a railgun? Built her meself using me old peg-leg and a load of superconducting vanadium we 'liberated' from CERN".


----------



## Celebrim (May 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The fundamental secret to my l33t ninj4 DM skillz- the lines are where _they've_ already painted...I'm referring to a trope.  The trope where there's a disjoint between the DM and the players, and the players respond by completely kicking over the apple cart of the gameworld.  Maybe its because the DM is railroading them and they respond by metaphorically disrailing the train in as spectacular a crash as they can engineer.  Maybe its because they're just punks and want to run amuck.  In either case, I think I'll start calling it a "Screw this, lets become pirates!" moment.




Or you know, maybe they just want to be pirates.  Maybe thats the line they've painted.  Irony, no?

Part of the funny in OotS is that BA has these elaborate plans laid out that never come to fruitation.  In OotS, all the good moments occur after the applecart has been kicked over.  Often, the whole campaign results from what happens when the players kick over the apple cart.  When BA finally gives up and goes along with the lines that his players paint instead, things generally turn out pretty well both from the standpoint of his ability to out think his players and keep them entertained and from the standpoint of his frustration level with the players because they are no longer feeling confined.  He gives up and goes along with the 'Let's become pirates!" moment.  

So maybe are l33t ninja DMing skills aren't so different at all.


----------



## Celebrim (May 7, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> KoDT-style Players-vs.-DM mentality hasn't happened to me since I got out of High School, except in those games where I specifically encouraged it (either because I was a moron, or because that particular game/group combination had more fun with it).




I'm not sure that's really so different than what I said.

Let me rephrase, "KoDT-style Players vs. DM mentality hasn't happened to me except in those games where I specifically encouraged it (either because I was a moron, or because thier were particular players that had more fun with the game that way.)"

And really, its rarely dysfunctional.  (I'm not even sure that I'd say that BA's table was dysfunctional as a gaming table, though it is obviously filled with people who are fairly dysfunctional anywhere but gaming.  Nitro's table on the other hand...) The only time I've ever been involved in a disfunctional player vs. DM mentality was when I was co-DMing specifically as the antagonist side and the co-DM had a radically different DM style than me and the player didn't have the experience with me as a DM to have a trust in my style.  But even that sort of two headed DM monster has worked out spectacularly on occassion.


----------



## Lacyon (May 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that's really so different than what I said.




Why would it be?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> And really, its rarely dysfunctional.




Precisely. I expect Cadfan finds his players the same place you do. He just sets expectations differently, and they respond, for the most part, like mature adults.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> But even that sort of two headed DM monster has worked out spectacularly on occassion.




There's no reason it shouldn't.

EDIT: Actually, I missed your post at the end of the last page. It seems we're not so far in disagreement as it first appeared.


----------

