Community

Jun 10, 2012 -- 1:15PM, jorgeo wrote:

I still feel odd about this. It's like saying that diplomacy should work on Klingons. It could, but the players better know the Klingon mentality pretty well (history, streetwise, insight checks?). I give plenty of opportunities for my players to use their other skills to figure out what could work and what wouldn't (and getting related bonuses to other skill checks). I guess that's related to "locking" skills but also "preventing" negative skill use.

An important thing to remember is that things work or don't work because you said so, not because of any other reason. You can offer justifications for limiting options in a fantasy game if you want, but ultimately it boils down to "because I said so." To that end, I find it's better to simply roll with the results and see what happens with an eye toward creating more action and drama using the players' ideas.

Maybe as I said, she does her duty in setting the audience, but makes it more complicated for the PCs by telling lies about them. Or maybe nobody's talked to her like that in 200 years and she becomes fascinated by that PC (blessing and a curse?). Or she backs down, but she quietly seethes and sends undead proxies to deal with the PCs sometime before the time they're supposed to meet with the king. Or a rival to this vampire overhears the exchange and, after she's told the PCs they're out of luck getting an audience, the rival - a lich, perhaps - offers to help them go before the king, if they'll help him deal with the vampire.

Point is, I can keep coming up with reasons why it could work all day long because it's a fantasy game and there's always a good fantasy justification for something happening. But there's only one reason why it can't work - the DM said it can't. Isn't it therefore better to simply use the player's idea and the result of his roll to make the game more interesting rather than shut off potential avenues of exploring the story? Doesn't that make for a happier player and possibly a more exciting tale?

Jun 10, 2012 -- 1:58PM, Neutronium_Dragon wrote:

It isn't the only one. It just the most well-known example. The challenge for getting information out of the spirit (can't remember the name of it) is another.

The Dead Witness? That challenge locks off Religion until Insight is used, but Religion doesn't automatically cause a failure, nor does any other skill in that or any other challenge as far as I can tell.

I have heard that many Living Forgotten Realms skill challenges involving negotiation made Intimidate automatically produce a failure, to the point where people never bothered to try it. I won't say it can't be over used, or used poorly, but causing a skill to automatically fail can be a viable, fair option.

Jun 10, 2012 -- 1:58PM, Neutronium_Dragon wrote:

> It's like saying that diplomacy should work on Klingons. Of course it does. Diplomacy isn't conceptually limited to "quasi-European courtly blathering", and a big part of being adept at it involves presenting yourself (and your arguments) in a way that will impress the audience. Cultural understanding certainly makes it easier, although a good diplomat would know how to size things up and wing it when that understanding is incomplete.

Sometimes some skills will be harder to apply than others, or be locked off behind other skills.

Sometimes skills will have no chance of success and will, in fact, make the situation worse.

Jun 11, 2012 -- 11:20PM, randomvirus wrote:

Just because a skill is bound to fail is no reason to not have the players roll the attempt.

Quite so, though such a situation should be handled with some care. The PCs could be given hints ahead of time not to try to use a particular skill.

Jun 11, 2012 -- 11:20PM, randomvirus wrote:

Some people don't like to be bullied, and respond in kind to that. 

The real problem here is the perception of Intimidate as "bullying." It's potentially much more subtle than that, and doesn't need to have anything to do with physical violence or the threat of it. Even outright seduction can be seen as a form of intimidate. It can be about using the force of your personality to dominate the situation.

And, yes, it's okay if an NPC doesn't like that in a PC. But we should also see NPCs who don't like it when PCs try to sweet talk them with Diplomacy, or read them with Insight, or show off their knowledge. Only Intimidate tends to get the automatic failure treatment. Maybe Bluff sometimes, too.

Jun 12, 2012 -- 10:39AM, jorgeo wrote:

I like the combination of Krusk and iserith's advice. A skill use might be very likely to fail or make things worse, but if the character knows the odds are against him through hints or other skills, and if he is/rolls just that good at intimidate, it should succeed.

The specific skill aside, it's plausible and fair that certain skills won't work and will make things worse sometimes. Ideally it's based upon the fiction being used, but if the DM wants to block the use of a skill and can do it without alienating their players, they should do it.

Jun 12, 2012 -- 10:39AM, jorgeo wrote:

 Big Bads might not like being intimidated, and they might seek vengeance for the embarassement, but that doesn't mean they can't feel threatened. A "partial success" which complicates things later on.

Another way to play this is to just mark the failure, and then integrate the NPC's reaction into the overall outcome of the skill challenge. Some skill challenges already have partial failure mechanics, so the challenge could say that if the PCs suffered any failures (or specifically failures due to the use of Intimidate) the NPC drags his heels or follows the letter of the agreement in a spiteful way.