Did I treat my player unfairly here?


Advice

51 to 100 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:

You similarly should understand that Intimidation is inherently a hostile act while Diplomacy isn't. It's in the words. It's in the rules. One makes an NPC friendlier and one doesn't.

Your player didn't need a Sense Motive check... he needed a rule book.

Um, it may not make them actually friendlier, but the "rule book" for the skill does claim that a successful check of "10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier" will earn the user "1d6 × 10 minutes" of the target acting friendly. He beat that check. He did not get the anticipated result.

Again, I appreciate that the DM sometimes needs to bend the rules to make things work, especially with social stuff. But I can also appreciate how that might make the player feel that makes their success or failure just becomes a matter of DM whim. That's exactly why, if you're not going to give the kind of result the player expects from reading the skill description, it's not a bad idea to give them forewarning of that so they can make their choices with that in mind.

Sense Motive is one way to do that.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Unless your PC was Thor, god of thunder, telling a drunk, proud Ulfen who believes you've killed his one true canine friend in life to "f**k off or die" is going to result in a showdown.

The rationale that a roll of the die should replace "role-playing" an encounter lessens the experience of an RPG. While the rules exist to enhance the fun within cognizable boundaries, there will be instances where there is no realistic response other than to ignore a particular roll. Otherwise, the "role-play" associated with the "die roll" becomes meaningless.

Your player did a great job by role-playing his words, and you should encourage players to keep it up. However, he made a poor choice of words that really left the GM with no choice. You made the world more "real" by giving a realistic response.

Suppose your player had said "You're misinformed, and I don't take kindly to strangers accusing me of things I didn't do. F**k off." It's very possible (upon success) that the Ulfen might reconsider his actions and have some doubt based on the sheer conviction of the intimidating player character. On failure, although well said, the Ulfen simply might not be swayed and take it as hiding something.

If it's all just a "die roll," your player could simply say "Snazzle frazzle pink tutus and a snotty nose" and get the same result on an intimidate check. That's not role-playing. I think you handled it well.

Dark Archive

Some people never learn to keep their hands off you until you put your hands on them to defend yourself. So yes, some people cannot be dealt with rationally. Sometimes chest thumpping will work on those types but not all of them. Some people have already made up their mind by the time they confront you and they will not settle for anything less than what they demand.

We do not have the ability to stop the clock and carefully weigh and measure what option seems best. Fallout ames may let you do that but you are only wasting your time I'd you do thatSome people demand an answer sooner. It is also not always good to take everyone's precious group time to debate such things. Especially when confronted on the spot like the drunk guy coming up to you out of the blue. It is something else to come up with a game plan with other players to make sure everyone is on the same page, before you leave the inn.


claymade wrote:

Um, it may not make them actually friendlier, but the "rule book" for the skill does claim that a successful check of "10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier" will earn the user "1d6 × 10 minutes" of the target acting friendly. He beat that check. He did not get the anticipated result.

That is the default DC. You did not take into account the situational modifiers.

10 + 5 (Hit dice) + 2 (Wis) + 5 (Pissed off about dog being dead) + 5 (Drunk) + 5 (Ignored thread of Blood Feud) + 5 (Target believes you killed dog)

Final DC : 37

Second, the rule book says to get the friendly reaction for 1d6 x 10 minutes, you need to spend 1 minute in discussion. "Eff Off or I'll kill you!" is not 1 minute of discussion. So no matter how high they rolled, they failed the check for not taking time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mdt wrote:

That is the default DC. You did not take into account the situational modifiers.

10 + 5 (Hit dice) + 2 (Wis) + 5 (Pissed off about dog being dead) + 5 (Drunk) + 5 (Ignored thread of Blood Feud) + 5 (Target believes you killed dog)

Final DC : 37

...I specifically mentioned the issue of situational modifiers as the key issue in my previous post. Here, let me re-quote the relevant part of it for you:

claymade wrote:

So yeah, I do see where the player is coming from. He invested in a skill whose description said that success would "force an opponent to act friendly toward you", he made a good roll with it that which did make the success threshold he expected from reading the skill rules, then had the DM say "well, okay... but it still doesn't do what it says in the skill that it does because I'm stacking a bunch of modifiers (which aren't described in the skill itself) onto the effect". And these modifiers the player has no way of knowing the extremity of since (unlike Diplomacy, which does specify them, in a way that the player can account for) they're all just coming from inside the DM's head.

Is the target being drunk a +2 to the DC to do what the skill says it does? A +5? A +10? The player can guess what you're thinking, try his best to read your mind, but doesn't have Detect Thoughts and he's really largely going in blind. That's why the Sense Motive in a situation like this (even if you don't normally do passive checks like that) would probably have been good in this situation. If you're going to apply non-standard modifiers to the roll he expects to be making, then it's only fair to give him a hint as to what you're thinking the situation is. Because it's something you'd expect a good face to pick up on to begin with.

Otherwise, you just end up with paranoid PCs constantly saying "I use Sense Motive to check if there are any special-case circumstances going on that the DM thinks would alter the normal nature of my roll beyond what the skill itself describes" before trying every single one of their social checks. And you can't really complain at how it bogs down the game... because you taught them that was what they had to do to be effective.

mdt wrote:
Second, the rule book says to get the friendly reaction for 1d6 x 10 minutes, you need to spend 1 minute in discussion. "Eff Off or I'll kill you!" is not 1 minute of discussion. So no matter how high they rolled, they failed the check for not taking time.

Indeed. To re-quote once again:

claymade wrote:

I disagree that this rule should be enforced as strictly as that. The face was clearly intending, with the threat of death they made if he didn't leave them alone, to invoke the "force an opponent to act friendly toward you" aspect of Intimidate. True, he didn't take the full 1 minute to do it, but at the same time, forcing that penalizes roleplay in an awful way, as it encourages... no, it basically almost forces the player to resort to simple "I intimidate him for a minute" rather than actually roleplaying out the threat he's making.

Seriously, if you're actually going to force the player to "pad out" the threat he wants to make by filibustering for a full minute of real play time, and tell him that if he mistimes it and his speech only lasts for fifty seconds then he fails his attempt by RAW, then no one in their right mind would ever even try to roleplay it, and if they did they'd have to have their stopwatch out when they did so. And that's not even getting into the question of "I feel my character would use this particular shorter, virulent threat rather than blather on for a full minute".

The one-minute time limit keeps it from just being used stupidly in battle to insta-make people friendly, but if it's an out of combat setting where the time really doesn't matter, I would never, ever punish my players for speaking out what they actually said, even if they didn't stretch that to a minute, vs. just saying "I use the Intimidate on them." Because that punishes and de-incentivizes roleplaying, making the far safer option the bland resort to mechanics.


You do realize I was replying to your later posts, and not the earlier, because it didn't take into account your earlier posts, and thus sounded like you were slamming the OP right?


claymade wrote:
Anguish wrote:

You similarly should understand that Intimidation is inherently a hostile act while Diplomacy isn't. It's in the words. It's in the rules. One makes an NPC friendlier and one doesn't.

Your player didn't need a Sense Motive check... he needed a rule book.

Um, it may not make them actually friendlier, but the "rule book" for the skill does claim that a successful check of "10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier" will earn the user "1d6 × 10 minutes" of the target acting friendly. He beat that check. He did not get the anticipated result.

Again, I appreciate that the DM sometimes needs to bend the rules to make things work, especially with social stuff. But I can also appreciate how that might make the player feel that makes their success or failure just becomes a matter of DM whim. That's exactly why, if you're not going to give the kind of result the player expects from reading the skill description, it's not a bad idea to give them forewarning of that so they can make their choices with that in mind.

Sense Motive is one way to do that.

Extracted from the rulebook and referenced by several people up-thread...

Action: Using Intimidate to change an opponent’s attitude requires 1 minute of conversation. Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action.


claymade wrote:
I disagree that this rule should be enforced as strictly as that. The face was clearly intending, with the threat of death they made if he didn't leave them alone, to invoke the "force an opponent to act friendly toward you" aspect of Intimidate. True, he didn't take the full 1 minute to do it, but at the same time, forcing that penalizes roleplay in an awful way, as it encourages... no, it basically almost forces the player to resort to simple "I intimidate him for a minute" rather than actually roleplaying out the threat he's making.

The player made plain he was NOT spending a minute, he gave the guy the brush-off. It's not that the player didn't talk for a minute, or state that he talked for a minute, it's that he stated that his character told the guy to **** off and walked past him. There's not many ways you can reinterpret this as a minute's attempt to to Intimidate somebody. Even if the player had been intending to embark on the full attempt...starting with "**** off" is something that can justifiably precipitate an attack in any event, so the rest of the attempt was a moot point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
a) Did I really disregard his Intimidate unfairly?

Yes.

If a player tells you that he's using Intimidate to influence an NPC to change his attitude, making him instead use intimidate to demoralize is about as fair as making him cast a spell when he said they wanted to attack. If you're unsure as to which use of intimidate he wants to use, you should ask him, not use the one that you, admittedly, didn't think he wanted.
Furthermore, a player doesn't need to say anything more than "**** off or I'll kill you" for his character to spend a minute intimidating an NPC. That's why we have skill checks.
Quote:
b) Should I have given him a passive Sense Motive when he did the Intimidate to tell him that's not what his character thinks is the best way?

If you're going to radically alter the rules away from player expectations you should absolutely give them a way to know the rules have changed.

For example, if you created a trap that not only could not be bypassed by Disable Device, but attempting to use Disable Device is guaranteed to set it off, you should let the player be able to find that out. Similarly, if an NPC cannot be influenced by Intimidate or Diplomacy and using one of those skills is guaranteed to have the oppisite of the desired effect, you should let the player know.
Quote:
c) Would you agree some people are just beyond Diplomacy/Intimidate when it comes to that for one reason or another? Or should that at most give them a bonus to resist it but if that's not enough they're still running, abandoning their family or whatever?

I might agree that there could be creatures or magic that would make it so a person's mind could not be changed, but for everyday normals, I would no more have an NPC that is flat out immune to Diplomacy or Intimidate than I would have one that is immune to damage.

I do, however, make liberal use of situational modifiers if an NPC would be harder to convince for some reason.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Quote:
a) Did I really disregard his Intimidate unfairly?

Yes.

If a player tells you that he's using Intimidate to influence an NPC to change his attitude, making him instead use intimidate to demoralize is about as fair as making him cast a spell when he said they wanted to attack. If you're unsure as to which use of intimidate he wants to use, you should ask him, not use the one that you, admittedly, didn't think he wanted.
Furthermore, a player doesn't need to say anything more than "**** off or I'll kill you" for his character to spend a minute intimidating an NPC. That's why we have skill checks.
Quote:
b) Should I have given him a passive Sense Motive when he did the Intimidate to tell him that's not what his character thinks is the best way?

Yes, actually he DOES need to say more than that. He needs to say 'I spend a minute intimidating him, and finish it off with '**** off or I kill you!''. If the player instead says 'I'm using intimidate to get rid of him and tell him to '**** off or die'' then the PLAYER chose to use the quick brush off, not the GM.

Quantum Steve wrote:


If you're going to radically alter the rules away from player expectations you should absolutely give them a way to know the rules have changed.

Except he didn't change the rules, he used the rules as written. If you want to use a rule, make sure you know how it works. The player assumed it was as simple as a roll and a threat, and he failed to properly apply the rules.

Quantum Steve wrote:


I might agree that there could be creatures or magic that would make it so a person's mind could not be changed, but for everyday normals, I would no more have an NPC that is flat out immune to Diplomacy or Intimidate than I would have one that is immune to damage.
I do, however, make liberal use of situational modifiers if an NPC would be harder to convince for some reason.

Nobody said he would be immune, but you have to use the correct rule, not assume you can use A to do B. And, as you admit, situational modifiers for the situation made the DC EXTREMELY high.

You also assume that the player had the option of using the minute long threaten option. This isn't Champions where you get to soliloquy for 30 minutes and it stops all combat. Even if he'd said I intend to use the minute diatribe option to intimidate the guy, if the guy was ready to attack at the first sign of hositility, then the PC again would not have been able to intimidate because he cannot force the NPC to listen for the minute so he can make his roll, and that's a perfectly valid situation. No more than the rogue can make the sand timer stop while he takes a minute to take 10 on the disarm when there's only 30 seconds left on the timer.

Dark Archive

I think its awesome that you had the conversation and were able to communicate this issue. Lack of good communication about expectations between players and GM's is the cause of a lot of problems. Lets look at expectations.

Player wants to have a lot of investment in social skills and have them matter.

GM wants to provide realistic (to a point, probably) reactions from NPC's to keep some semblance of verisimilitude.

I think what we can see from this is that the character should know up front that Sense Motive is probably going to be an important investment, too, because you won't treat Intimidate, Diplomacy, and Bluff as the same thing and they'll each work differently in different situations. If you'd communicated this up front, the player might have made that Sense Motive check and known that there were other ways to handle the Ulfen. In fact, I'm going to communicate this idea to my group's face, right now.

The other issue was that the player assumed he knew enough about Ulfen to know what to do. Was that based on prior knowledge checks where you may have said or implied that this was the case? I try to impress on my players that they know nothing and I know everything and if they want to know something they should ask me. I am, in turn, fairly generous with the amount of information I'll reveal on a successful check, including things that they might be able to infer from the information. This keeps them asking me and cuts down on meta-knowledge or faulty assumptions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mdt wrote:
You do realize I was replying to your later posts, and not the earlier, because it didn't take into account your earlier posts, and thus sounded like you were slamming the OP right?

I don't know how you got "slamming the OP" from my saying (in both posts) that I do appreciate that what he did is often quite necessary. Just with the caveat that if you are going to add (non-standard) modifiers (that unlike Diplomacy aren't described anywhere in a read of the skill description itself) your players will feel less like they're swinging in the dark if the DM finds a way to communicate a feel for how they see the severity of the situation, relative to how they interpret the number of skill points the player has invested.

That way, the players can make informed decisions based on that--in the same way as they already can for all the modifiers that they do know about. And the player's passive Sense Motive suggestion is one way to do that, in a way that fits what one would expect a face to do, and doesn't drag down gameplay by having him explicitly call for a roll for every NPC he wants to socialize.

It doesn't have to be as flat as a "Diplomacy will be better than Intimidate" dictum from the DM--I can see why the OP wouldn't want to be that explicit. But at the same time, a face should be able to read people, and if there are such extreme (+20?!?) modifiers against an Intimidate roll I really think he should at least be able to pick up on them and a get a general feel for how severe they are, relative to his own skill.

I don't think a passive Sense Motive roll prompting an "um, he looks REALLY upset; you can tell this is going to be VERY tough for you to pull off if you try it" from the DM would go a long way toward allowing the player to gauge risk through in-character means without trying to second-guess, out of character, how the DM views/interprets the situation in question.

Dabbler wrote:
The player made plain he was NOT spending a minute, he gave the guy the brush-off. It's not that the player didn't talk for a minute, or state that he talked for a minute, it's that he stated that his character told the guy to **** off and walked past him. There's not many ways you can reinterpret this as a minute's attempt to to Intimidate somebody.

Yes, that's my point. If the threat you want to roleplay out doesn't take up a full minute, you shouldn't even feel compelled to do something as silly as have the player say: "and then, after I threaten him like that, I keep repeating 'I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you...' until I pad out the remainder of the one minute time so my threat attempt doesn't auto-fail." It's just ridiculous. Roleplay out the threat you feel your character should make, and just leave it at that. If it's not actually a time-critical situation it doesn't matter.

Dabbler wrote:
Even if the player had been intending to embark on the full attempt...starting with "**** off" is something that can justifiably precipitate an attack in any event, so the rest of the attempt was a moot point.

I agree. If it was a time-critical situation, if the guy was just going to jump you when you try to Intimidate him, that can definitely preempt an Intimidate attempt from fully succeeding. But that's not what happened here. That's the point. The face, explicitly, got his roll. The question of "should enemies be forced to listen quietly while you intimidate them?" is indeed "no." But raising that objection is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.

The face wasn't complaining that someone jumped him before he finished making his social skills attempt, he was complaining because even though he did get the attempt in before getting attacked, he felt like the DM was just going "lol, no, impossible modifiers, you fail". And I can see how that would be extremely frustrating and leave you feeling subject to the DM's whim if you're not able to guess what kind of abstract numbers the DM is associating in his mind with various conditions not described anywhere for you to use as a common reference. I can certainly see how that would make me feel like I was guessing in the dark whenever I relied on my social skills to navigate a situation, unless we found a better way to communicate those kind of things between us.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
mdt wrote:


Yes, actually he DOES need to say more than that. He needs to say 'I spend a minute intimidating him, and finish it off with '**** off or I kill you!''. If the player instead says 'I'm using intimidate to get rid of him and tell him to '**** off or die'' then the PLAYER chose to use the quick brush off, not the GM.

So if the player says "I want to use intimidate to influence an NPCs attitude," then it doesn't work because he didn't say "I spend a minute using intimidate to influence an NPCs attitude"? That's the absolute worst example of pedantic nonsense I ever heard. That's like saying "You said you cast a Fireball, but you didn't say you used the necessary material components. Your spell fizzles." You, Sir, should be ashamed if you actually try to use such a ridiculous line of reasoning in-game.

If a player is clearly communicating what he wants his character to do, it is irresponsible and priggish to intentionally subvert his meaning by nitpicking his choice of language.

Quantum Steve wrote:

Except he didn't change the rules, he used the rules as written. If you want to use a rule, make sure you know how it works. The player assumed it was as simple as a roll and a threat, and he failed to properly apply the rules.

It IS a simple roll and a threat. You make your threat and then make your roll; you don't have to announce that you're taking the requisite amount of time to complete your desired action. The alternative is to force the players to declare the amount of time they're taking to complete any action (and if they get it wrong, they fail), otherwise, you're treating Intimidate differently than everything else, and should inform your players of the change.

Quote:
You also assume that the player had the option of using the minute long threaten option.

According to the OP, the player had enough time to use Diplomacy, which also takes a minute. I didn't assume anything, it was stated in the OP.


claymade wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
The player made plain he was NOT spending a minute, he gave the guy the brush-off. It's not that the player didn't talk for a minute, or state that he talked for a minute, it's that he stated that his character told the guy to **** off and walked past him. There's not many ways you can reinterpret this as a minute's attempt to to Intimidate somebody.
Yes, that's my point. If the threat you want to roleplay out doesn't take up a full minute, you shouldn't even feel compelled to do something as silly as have the player say: "and then, after I threaten him like that, I keep repeating 'I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you, I'll kill you...' until I pad out the remainder of the one minute time so my threat attempt doesn't auto-fail." It's just ridiculous. Roleplay out the threat you feel your character should make, and just leave it at that. If it's not actually a time-critical situation it doesn't matter.

Well let's see what player said:

Quatar wrote:
What she did instead was basically tell him "F*$§ off or I kill you", pretty much in those words, and shove her way past him.

That is, under no circumstances, taking a minute to intimidate BY THE PLAYER'S OWN DESCRIPTION OF THE CHARACTER'S ACTIONS.

If I say to the DM: "My character attempts Diplomacy to make the NPC friendly. Oh, and I punch him in the face" then I have no business expecting it to succeed regardless of what I roll. My own description of my character's actions preclude success.

claymade wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Even if the player had been intending to embark on the full attempt...starting with "**** off" is something that can justifiably precipitate an attack in any event, so the rest of the attempt was a moot point.
I agree. If it was a time-critical situation, if the guy was just going to jump you when you try to Intimidate him, that can definitely preempt an Intimidate attempt from fully succeeding. But that's not what happened here. That's the point. The face, explicitly, got his roll. The question of "should enemies be forced to listen quietly while you intimidate them?" is indeed "no." But raising that objection is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.

Time critical has nothing to do with it.

Quatar wrote:
What she did instead was basically tell him "F*$§ off or I kill you", pretty much in those words, and shove her way past him.

Then the player rolled the dice and expected this to work. THAT's what happened here. It's not that he didn't specifically say that he spent a minute, it's that he specifically said he DIDN'T spend a minute, he just told them to **** off and shoved them. So he didn't get a minute's effect because he didn't take a minute, and off hand I can't think of a better way of starting a fight with a drunk Viking.

claymade wrote:
The face wasn't complaining that someone jumped him before he finished making his social skills attempt, he was complaining because even though he did get the attempt in before getting attacked, he felt like the DM was just going "lol, no, impossible modifiers, you fail".

But he DIDN'T make the attempt at Intimidate, not for what he wanted. He described his actions, and he got the result. That he looked mean and threatening (a good Intimidate check) when he told the guy to **** off is neither here nor there. He could not get the guy to back down because he didn't - by his own description of his actions - take the time to do so.

claymade wrote:
And I can see how that would be extremely frustrating and leave you feeling subject to the DM's whim if you're not able to guess what kind of abstract numbers the DM is associating in his mind with various conditions not described anywhere for you to use as a common reference. I can certainly see how that would make me feel like I was guessing in the dark whenever I relied on my social skills to navigate a situation, unless we found a better way to communicate those kind of things between us.

I can see it should mean that you take a good look at the rules and learn them. Intimidate is not a scare spell, nor is it a charm person spell, but that is how the player treated it. Hardly surprising that it didn't work.


Quantum Steve wrote:
mdt wrote:


Yes, actually he DOES need to say more than that. He needs to say 'I spend a minute intimidating him, and finish it off with '**** off or I kill you!''. If the player instead says 'I'm using intimidate to get rid of him and tell him to '**** off or die'' then the PLAYER chose to use the quick brush off, not the GM.

So if the player says "I want to use intimidate to influence an NPCs attitude," then it doesn't work because he didn't say "I spend a minute using intimidate to influence an NPCs attitude"? That's the absolute worst example of pedantic nonsense I ever heard. That's like saying "You said you cast a Fireball, but you didn't say you used the necessary material components. Your spell fizzles." You, Sir, should be ashamed if you actually try to use such a ridiculous line of reasoning in-game.

If a player is clearly communicating what he wants his character to do, it is irresponsible and priggish to intentionally subvert his meaning by nitpicking his choice of language.

That's fine, if you want to assume he meant 'I want to take a minute to do it' that's fine, that's a game master style. But there's nothing in the rules that says the NPC shuts up and allows you to continue for a minute. He started out with something hostile and the guy attacked. End of story. If you want to intimidate someone for a minute, you better make sure you're in a position to do so, and if if circumstances escalate before your minute is up, oh boo hoo so sad for you.

But yes, I tell my players that they need to articulate which options they are choosing. The intimidate skill has two options for 'intimidate to get rid of him'. The first requires a minute to work, and the other requires a single word or action. If the Player doesn't specify, and acts as if he's using the short form by saying 'I tell him to eff off' then yeah, he's telling me as GM he wants to use the short one unless he specifies. It's not my job to clarify every time the Player says he takes an action. Would you want me to clarify every time he declares an attack exactly how he's swinging the sword? Or perhaps I should make him specify exactly what form of movement he's using if he goes from A to B, flight or running + jump to get over the gorge. Or should I assume from the way he says it 'I hop over the gorge' that he's jumping?

Quantum Steve wrote:


mdt wrote:
Except he didn't change the rules, he used the rules as written. If you want to use a rule, make sure you know how it works. The player assumed it was as simple as a roll and a threat, and he failed to properly apply the rules.

It IS a simple roll and a threat. You make your threat and then make your roll; you don't have to announce that you're taking the requisite amount of time to complete your desired action. The alternative is to force the players to declare the amount of time they're taking to complete any action (and if they get it wrong, they fail), otherwise, you're treating Intimidate differently than everything else, and should inform your players of the change.

Yes you do, if you have two methods of doing something, and one requires a sentence and a roll, and the other requires a minute and a roll, you absolutely do have to specify which you are using. The same way you have to specify when you're taking 10, which weapon is primary and which is secondary when two-weapon fighting, and when you're using special abilities that let you reroll die rolls. Any time you are using a rule, you have to clarify which rule you want to use when there are two equally valid rules to be used. If you don't, the GM is perfectly valid in assuming one over the other based on how you word your answer.

Quantum Steve wrote:


mdt wrote:
You also assume that the player had the option of using the minute long threaten option.
According to the OP, the player had enough time to use Diplomacy, which also takes a minute. I didn't assume anything, it was stated in the OP.

Bull. Just because he had time for a 1 minute diplomacy check does not mean he has time for a 1 minute intimidate check. The 1 minute of talking for the diplomacy check involves talking in a calm voice in a rational manner and not insulting the guy.

The intimidate on the other hand, requires a minute of threatening the guy with various nasty results before you make the roll.

Trying to equate the two is like trying to equate the time it takes to comb someone's hair, and the time ti takes to shave it off with a clipper. If the person you're working on is already hostile, the first is hard but possibly doable, but as soon as you turn on the clipper and try to put it against his head he's going to slug you with the second option.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Quote:
a) Did I really disregard his Intimidate unfairly?

Yes.

If a player tells you that he's using Intimidate to influence an NPC to change his attitude, making him instead use intimidate to demoralize is about as fair as making him cast a spell when he said they wanted to attack. If you're unsure as to which use of intimidate he wants to use, you should ask him, not use the one that you, admittedly, didn't think he wanted.
Furthermore, a player doesn't need to say anything more than "**** off or I'll kill you" for his character to spend a minute intimidating an NPC. That's why we have skill checks.

I strongly disagree. While I agree with the idea that players do not have to roll play an Intimidate or Diplomacy check, they do have to state their intentions up front. Otherwise, how exactly is a GM to know the players meant "Intimidate to force friendly action" or "Intimidate to demoralize"? "I tell him to get bent and make an Intimidate check" doesn't indicate what use of Intimidate the player is going for. And since the NPC was trying to initiate combat, a standard action to demoralize would be the more common use of the skill in that context. And as another poster mentioned, the NPC did not have to sit there and listen to the player for 10 rounds unless the party face convinced him to. A quick brush off is not very convincing.

Also, if a player tries to roll play the skill check, then what they choose to say does influence the check. Most of the time, it gives them bonuses, but not always. Just like sometimes players try to trip a giant spider or cast Charm Person on an ooze, sometimes players screw up a social skill check. Live and learn. (And I say this as a player whose cleric had talked a troll into giving her everything she wanted right up until the moment I thanked him for being so kind. D'oh!)

Quantum Steve wrote:
Quote:
c) Would you agree some people are just beyond Diplomacy/Intimidate when it comes to that for one reason or another? Or should that at most give them a bonus to resist it but if that's not enough they're still running, abandoning their family or whatever?

I might agree that there could be creatures or magic that would make it so a person's mind could not be changed, but for everyday normals, I would no more have an NPC that is flat out immune to Diplomacy or Intimidate than I would have one that is immune to damage.

I do, however, make liberal use of situational modifiers if an NPC would be harder to convince for some reason.

In PFS, we have this situation all the time. A lot of scenarios include comments on how the NPCs react if the players bring up certain subjects or how they react to Intimidate, Diplomacy, and Bluff. Sense Motive does help in these cases, but when the paladin walks into the suspected fence's shop and demands to know where the stolen goods are, if the merchant's tactics say his attitude immediately becomes Hostile if accused, it doesn't really matter how high the Intimidate or Diplomacy check was. This is a lot stricter in organized play, of course, but I've seen similar tactics and morale in APs and modules.

I completely agree that flat out immunity to Diplomacy or Intimidate is too much, but I think the situation here is more comparable to DR. Sometimes, you have to have just the right weapon to get through. In the example with the merchant, he essentially had "DR/empathy", and if you didn't pick the correct approach, most of the "damage" bounced.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you did just fine Quatar. Intimidate and Diplomacy don't allow you to take control of NPCs. I once gamed in a group where the paladin with high diplomacy was outraged because the module's BBEG didn't immediately stop attacking and become best friends with her after a high diplomacy check. No dear, the evil sorceress and her hell-minions aren't going to do whatever you say because you invested in diplomacy. Social skills can only take you so far.

I'm pretty amazed at how some players feel diplomacy and intimidate work. They feel that a high roll should always grant them a positive result. But in-game, as in the real world, sometimes no matter how smooth a talker you are, or how intimidating you are, people have reasons to do what they're going to do.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quantum Steve wrote:
So if the player says "I want to use intimidate to influence an NPCs attitude," then it doesn't work because he didn't say "I spend a minute using intimidate to influence an NPCs attitude"? That's the absolute worst example of pedantic nonsense I ever heard. That's like saying "You said you cast a Fireball, but you didn't say you used the necessary material components. Your spell fizzles." You, Sir, should be ashamed if you actually try to use such a ridiculous line of reasoning in-game.

Heh. Actually, an even closer example to what's being suggested in this thread would be something like the following combat turn:

Player: "Well, first I attack the enemy two squares diagonal from me, using my glaive."

GM: "Okay, roll your attack."

Player: "Fifteen! Definitely landed that one!"

GM: "...not really. The glaive isn't designed to be a thrown weapon, so you take a -4 on your attack roll, and--"

Player: "Wait, what? I didn't mean to throw it! It's a reach weapon! I can hit two squares away with melee!"

GM: "Hahahahaha! You obviously need to brush up on your reading of the Pathfinder rules. Because it's a diagonal anything inside it counts as fifteen feet away--even for the purposes of reach. SKR even confirmed it explicitly."

Player: "...crap, I didn't realize that. Couldn't you have told me beforehand that it wasn't even going to work at all?"

GM: "No way! As I've learned on the Pathfinder forums, any time you are using a rule, you have to clarify which rule you want to use when there are two equally valid rules to be used. You didn't specify, so I went with the method of attack that fit with the rules, whereas a melee attack wouldn't, because of the reach rules. If it wasn't what you intended, oh boo hoo, so sad for you."

Player: O_O

GM: Anyway, throwing a two handed weapon is a full round action, so now it's the enemies' turn. One of them takes advantage of the fact that you're now completely unarmed to move in and attack..."

Gwen Smith wrote:
"I tell him to get bent and make an Intimidate check" doesn't indicate what use of Intimidate the player is going for. And since the NPC was trying to initiate combat, a standard action to demoralize would be the more common use of the skill in that context.

Personally, I'd hope that the fact that he told him to "F*$§ off or I kill you" would give at least some slight hints that he might, in fact, be trying to convince the other guy to... well, "F*$§ off"? But no, he clearly must be trying to gain an extremely short-term debuff, which he immediately exploits by...

...well, walking away, doing nothing to make use of the debuff whatsoever.

Look, you can argue in favor of slapping down your players if they flavor their RP wrong all you want, but at least don't try to say it wasn't pretty darn obvious which use of Intimidate the face was trying to use here with what he was RPing.

(Heck, if we want to get so ridiculously pedantic as this, "Demoralize" is a specifically called-out, seperately-named sub-effect in the skill that you can attempt, while the "make act friendly" version is just the base version of "Intimidate", with no specific name. Did the guy say he wanted to "Demoralize" or "Intimidate"?)

If I was the DM (and for some reason did want to be absolutely anal about the 1 minute time) I'd at worst have told the player "you haven't yet interacted with him enough to get an Intimidate roll, unless you're just trying to debuff him for some reason. You'll have to keep going if you want me to roll." What I wouldn't do is give him the roll, while snickering behind my hand about "hahahaha, I'm actually giving him the other version without telling him!"

Of course, as I've said repeatedly, I wouldn't be so anal about the 1 minute timeline in the first place. A succinct, RPed threat, even if it explicitly wasn't a full minute, and ruled out as such by the player's own description is something I'd far rather have in my games.

One of the greatest Intimidate scenes in cinema is the scene in Fistful of Dollars where the Man with No Name intimidates a group of enemies into backing down. He doesn't even talk, just makes a slight shift of his weight, but it's absolutely frightening, and it does get the opponents to (temporarily) back down. If one of my players had the inventiveness to come up with something like that and flavor it in such a sweet way, I would be horrified at the idea of punishing them for doing something cool like that when they could have far more easily gone with ${GENERIC_THREATS} instead. Heck, I'd give them a freaking bonus, and have to restrain myself from hugging them.

So no, I view the 1 minute rule as the loosest of guidelines, absolutely not worth an insta-fail in terms of how they RP it.

To clarify, that's not to say I might not say "you didn't have time to fully Intimidate them" and use the 1 minute rule as justification. But if I would have allowed them 1 minute if they'd used ${GENERIC_THREATS} I'm NOT going to worry if their RP didn't include a 1 minute time (or even if it flat-out disallowed a 1 minute time, as Dabbler pointed out).

That's my advice, if you want your players to feel the freedom to get creative and interesting with their RP like that, and not to view ${GENERIC_THREATS} as the safer option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Seems like it was fine.

One of the things I notice with my group is their complete aversion to using things like Sense Motive to figure out the best angles for their diplomacy/intimidate. While there are increases to the DC based on the target's attitude, there are quite often bonuses available to make it easier. For example, no doubt if the player had offered to buy the NPC a drink, and lamented about the loss of his own beloved dog, that would have improved the check.

Knowing what to say, and how to say it, is vital to diplomacy/intimidate, and to obtain that knowledge, your character needs to be able to ferret it out, and you as a player need to be willing to look for it. It is why in Skull and Shackles, my druid actually had success at gaining allies. I may have had a -1 to Diplomacy, but my Sense Motive of 7 ensured that I was at least saying something that the person would like hearing.

Lord Pendragon wrote:
I'm pretty amazed at how some players feel diplomacy and intimidate work. They feel that a high roll should always grant them a positive result. But in-game, as in the real world, sometimes no matter how smooth a talker you are, or how intimidating you are, people have reasons to do what they're going to do.

Something that the group I DM has been learning the hard way. First, that insinuating to a drunken girl that you were sleeping with her paladin boyfriend might upset her, Diplomacy check of 37 notwithstanding. Second, beware what you ask, because asking a chick to lower her veil so you can see her face is not a good idea when she is actually a medusa.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mdt wrote:
That's fine, if you want to assume he meant 'I want to take a minute to do it' that's fine, that's a game master style. But there's nothing in the rules that says the NPC shuts up and allows you to continue for a minute. He started out with something hostile and the guy attacked. End of story. If you want to intimidate someone for a minute, you better make sure you're in a position to do so, and if if circumstances escalate before your minute is up, oh boo hoo so sad for you.

If a creature has a starting attitude of something other than hostile (and if he's doing something other than attacking you, like demanding wereguilds, he isn't hostile) then they won't attack you until their attitude is changed to hostile. That's in the rules.

A failed Intimidate check will change an NPC's attitude to hostile, but a successful one will not. In either case you have to make the check first. That's also in the rules.

If you're basing the success of an Intimidate by what the player is saying, you need to review how skill checks work. You do not determine the success of a Acrobatics check by how far a player jumps, and you do not determine the success of an Intimidate check by what a player says. The success of a skill check is determined by the player's roll. That's in the rules.

Quote:
Would you want me to clarify every time he declares an attack exactly how he's swinging the sword? Or perhaps I should make him specify exactly what form of movement he's using if he goes from A to B, flight or running + jump to get over the gorge. Or should I assume from the way he says it 'I hop over the gorge' that he's jumping?

If he says he's hopping over the gorge, and you assume he's using the tumble application of Acrobatics and therefore plummets to his death, Yes, you should clarify.

Of course, this doesn't apply to the OP's case. The OP knew exactly what the player wanted to do, he just didn't think the player should be able to do it. So, rather than tell the Player he couldn't do it, the OP made the player do something else instead.
The hindsight justification of 'Well, the player didn't say hewas taking a full minute' is an exceedingly poor one. Furthermore, using that same justification during a game to intentionally subvert a player's intentions(as you seem to be suggesting), is downright mean, and a person who does this shouldn't be allowed to GM.

Quote:
Any time you are using a rule, you have to clarify which rule you want to use when there are two equally valid rules to be used. If you don't, the GM is perfectly valid in assuming one over the other based on how you word your answer.

It is also perfectly valid for a GM to say "Rocks Fall, You Die" That GM is being a dick.

If you don't know what a player is trying to do, and can't be bothered to ask, do be surprised if players stop showing up to your table. No one likes a GM who waits in ambush behind the GM Screen for his chance to say "Ha Ha! You misspoke, now I'm taking control of your character!"

Quote:

Bull. Just because he had time for a 1 minute diplomacy check does not mean he has time for a 1 minute intimidate check. The 1 minute of talking for the diplomacy check involves talking in a calm voice in a rational manner and not insulting the guy.

The intimidate on the other hand, requires a minute of threatening the guy with various nasty results before you make the roll.

If the NPC is already hostile (and for some strange reason isn't attacking) then a player shouldn't even have to ask for a sense motive check. Otherwise expect Sense Motive checks whenever an NPC speaks or acts.


claymade wrote:


Player: "Well, first I attack the enemy two squares diagonal from me, using my glaive."

GM: "Okay, roll your attack."

Player: "Fifteen! Definitely landed that one!"

GM: "...not really. The glaive isn't designed to be a thrown weapon, so you take a -4 on your attack roll, and--"

Player: "Wait, what? I didn't mean to throw it! It's a reach weapon! I can hit two squares away with melee!"

GM: "Hahahahaha! You obviously need to brush up on your reading of the Pathfinder rules. Because it's a diagonal anything inside it counts as fifteen feet away--even for the purposes of reach. SKR even confirmed it explicitly."

Player: "...crap, I didn't realize that. Couldn't you have told me beforehand that it wasn't even going to work at all?"

GM: "No way! As I've learned on the Pathfinder forums, any time you are using a rule, you have to clarify which rule you want to use when there are two equally valid rules to be used. You didn't specify, so I went with the method of attack that fit with the rules, whereas a melee attack wouldn't, because of the reach rules. If it wasn't what you intended, oh boo hoo, so sad for you."

Player: O_O

GM: Anyway, throwing a two handed weapon is a full round action, so now it's the enemies' turn. One of them takes advantage of the fact that you're now completely unarmed to move in and attack..."

LOL. :D


You play a very strange version of the game where everyone knows the best way to do something via metagame knowledge. And the GM assumes every possible best situation at every occasion.

I would not like your game. Neither running nor playing in. I hate games where the GM coddles me and stops the game every 5 minutes to ask me if I really want to do what I said, or this other thing he thinks is 20 times better. If I want to be led around by the nose, I'll go read a book or play a video game.

Grand Lodge

Ah.. Intimidate again.

We had something similar in our game.. The rules around intimidate, the specific rules are.. well rather /very/ specific. And sometimes DMs get all "Oh I have to use these rules!"


OP,

Ignoring all of the details, from an absolute unbiased player view...

If I were the player in this situation, I would have been angry AT MYSELF after the game for thinking there would be no in-game repercussions for my actions.
My current DM told me of a player who, before my time in his game, insisted he roll up an immortal character who had full-body tattoos that rendered him completely impervious to damage. The long-time players looked on in horror at his unwillingness to compromise. Last time I checked, this wasn't Superman vs. Dr. Manhattan. The player is NOT always right!

What is the fun in playing in a world like that, where every move/choice the PCs make is a good one? There are choices and consequences, and these are the things that make good roleplaying situations.

Is this the way the party face normally reacts to situations? If not, maybe he should be blaming himself for playing his character poorly. (Please note, this is NOT an attack post. I, and probably many others, am guilty of playing a character, and then looking back at a choice and saying, "Damn, I played that entirely wrong.")

I understand that at least some of you will disagree with me, but I prefer playing in a world where there are -sometimes- severe repercussions for my actions.

My advice is: Don't think of these situations as someone cheating you. Don't get miffed. Have fun with it. Incorporate it into later roleplay. Let your character mature or gain some newfound respect for the martial prowess of the locals. Take something away from it! My current character's favorite line (and she has been whooped a few times) is: When you lose, don't lose the lesson.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Ruler Of The Universe has the bard in chains, prostrate at his feet, surrounded by the Imperial Praetorian Guard with energy lances at the ready.

His Imperial Majesty: How dare you attempt to rape and murder my daughter! What have you got to say for yourself, worm?

Bard: F@+! off out of it! *rolls intimidate check, rolls high*

DM: ....The Ruler Of The Universe agrees to surrender to the bard....

Silver Crusade

Some skills need the right equipment or situation to be useable. Trying to climb a wall without a wall is just climbing thin air! Good luck with that!

'DM! I rolled 35 on my Fly skill check! I fly to the top of the cliff!'

'Can you actually fly, at all?'

What is needed in order to intimidate is a credible threat; something which the target could be afraid of. Even being a huge no-neck thug is enough to be a credible threat to a 90-lb weakling, but not enough to be a credible threat to an ancient dragon.

In the OP, the party's face was a bard, and I don't believe he was physically intimidating to a barbarian with a beef (and an axe!). He simply didn't have a threat which was credible to the barbarian, therefore he didn't have what he needed to intimidate him. Just like not having a wall to climb, the ability to fly, no tools (even improvised) to open a lock, etc.


I like throwing little wrenches into play every once in a while. While it is a game with all these checks and rolls, it is also a role playing game and some things just don't go as planned.

It's up to your discretion what happened and it's not out of anybody's imagination for somebody whose frightened or shaken to attack because of there backstory and motivations.

What I try to do is always give the players a chance to react to what's going to happen. After the intimidation, i'd ask the player to roll a perception check. Unless it was terrible i'd give them some information, such as the other patrons being startled at something behind the pc or the sound of a weapon being unsheathed.

and If something unexpected happens, i like to tie the event back into the story with a greater importance.

Such as after his rage fueled crit, i'd also have ulfen look around in a drunken stupor and run out of the tavern, and thus a new improptu tale of ulfen's blood feud begins. Eventually the two would meet up again and ulfen might be sobbing about almost killing the pc, attack the pc on sight with viking buddies, or any other conclusion to the story.

If your game is too predictable, it gets stale and your players get bored, if it's too unpredictable it becomes unfair and players will leave from frustration.

That's just my view on things. Every accident is an opportunity.


Quatar wrote:
a) Did I really disregard his Intimidate unfairly?

I might have done it differently as a GM...it all depends on the NPC. So no...I do see that as a possible reaction to a intimidate check.

Quatar wrote:
b) Should I have given him a passive Sense Motive when he did the Intimidate to tell him that's not what his character thinks is the best way?

I might have...said make a Sense Motive check to get the player to rethink his actions. It depends on the player though.

Quatar wrote:
c) Would you agree some people are just beyond Diplomacy/Intimidate when it comes to that for one reason or another? Or should that at most give them a bonus to resist it but if that's not enough they're still running, abandoning their family or whatever?

I absoltuely believe there would people immune to certain attempts of diplomacey and intimdate...

For instance I would say a ruler sitting on their throne surrounded by people who will turn the PCs into mincemeat would be immune to a PCs attempt to intimdate them.

Likewise trying diplomacey to convince the Elf King to surrender his kingdom and allow his peoples to be enslaved by a horde of orcs is doomed to auto failure.

It all really depends on the NPC though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I agree that intimidate and diplomacy are discretionary I would suggest that the player would find it fairer if you tell them before hand that "this is going to be really hard (or impossible)". Part of the skill of intimidating is picking your targets. It also stops your players feeling hosed. Just my 2 cents.

The Exchange

Quatar wrote:

spoiler:
(by changing his attitude from

hostile to friendly with a successful Diplomacy check)

Can't you only take someone from hostile to indifferent with Diplomacy?


Quatar wrote:

a) Did I really disregard his Intimidate unfairly?

b) Should I have given him a passive Sense Motive when he did the Intimidate to tell him that's not what his character thinks is the best way?
c) Would you agree some people are just beyond Diplomacy/Intimidate when it comes to that for one reason or another? Or should that at most give them a bonus to resist it but if that's not enough they're still running, abandoning their family or whatever?

a) Yes, you blatantly disregarded the rules there. A successful intimidate check works like a temporarily successful diplomacy check.

b) No that's dumb. But if you are going to ignore a successful skill check roll, you should tell your PCs before you do it. They assume you are following the rules. If you let them know that you aren't before pulling the rug out from under them, then you would have been fine.

c) Circumstance bonuses are a thing, but at no point should a shaken huntsman initiate combat with the party using a crit.

Shadow Lodge

I think this was handled fairly. A GM has the gift/responsibility of running the game and this requires judgement calls. Players can do, as your player did, ask for their GM to be fair and discuss things when it doesn't seem this is the case.

So that all seems pretty healthy.

I do, however, see an incompatibility between how the two of you view social skill checks. You want them to 'nudge' NPCs along a path they're already on, while he wants the rolls to 'matter'. So I would definitely discuss it further, and would even go so far as to allow the player to tweak their character.

One last bit of advice, going forward make sure you try to say 'yes'. Pause, take a breath and think, "is there any circumstances where I could see this happening?" If one never comes, just say so and keep on keeping on...


I think if I were GMing that situation, I would have told the player that if he wanted to use intimidate, it takes more than just shouldering past and making an offhand remark. I don't know if you did, but I also would have rolled initiative when the guy drew his weapon (or at the very least, given Perception and/or Sense Motive checks to determine the guy's intent). Besides, if you're going to use the Demoralize version of Intimidate, you probably ought to have been set up for an encounter, anyway (since it's set up to be used within combat).

As for how the Intimidate played out, I probably wouldn't have had the NPC react that way that quickly. He probably would have been sufficiently cowed (lost his nerve, so to speak). But after he went and collected himself, then worked up the courage again (had the time to get over being scared and decided that the reaction meant they clearly did it), and come storming back to find them and seek his retribution or whatever.

*shrug*

I've had more time to think about it than you probably did, though.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is telling someone to F*ck off an indication of taking 1 minute to try to make them friendly, or is telling someone to F*ck off an indication of taking a standard action in attempt to demoralize them?

Was the PC trying to get assistance and cooperation from the NPC?
Only if he was actually directing (and expecting) the guy to go F*ck himself.

No, of course not. He was being rude. he was being Intimidating. He was trying to demoralize him.
*and he failed*. All he did was further piss the guy off.

COULD the DM have hand-held the character and ask the question? I suppose.
But I wouldn't have. Given the situation and motivation of the NPC I'd have had 'em attack the guy too. And if not- he'd have gone to get some guards. "guard, guards, I found the ones who attacked my dog! they even threatened me when I confronted them about it!"

"F*ck off or I'll Kill you" is demoralization, not a minute long *conversation* intended to get someone to do as you ask or give you information.

DM did the right thing.

-S


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quatar wrote:
a) Did I really disregard his Intimidate unfairly?

Kinda. As written:

"Check: You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities. If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities."

He probably should have came back in 1d6 x 10 minutes more determined than ever to avenge his poor dog. It wouldn't have hurt anything.

Quatar wrote:
b) Should I have given him a passive Sense Motive when he did the Intimidate to tell him that's not what his character thinks is the best way?
No. It doesn't take Sense Motive to realize saying "F*$§ off or I kill you" to a drunken heartbroken barbarian isn't going to make them friends. If they wanted to handle the situation more carefully they would have called for the check themselves or called for a Knowledge check to verify what they assumed the local custom for threats of blood feuds were, or even just explained what they were attempting to really communicate to the guy. They blew past the NPC because they didn't care about this guy, his dead dog, or the threat of a blood feud. Maybe any other night he would have admired that attitude, or if it came from a peer/clansman/ect, but this night his dog was murdered and he wasn't looking to make friends.
Quatar wrote:
c) Would you agree some people are just beyond Diplomacy/Intimidate when it comes to that for one reason or another? Or should that at most give them a bonus to resist it but if that's not enough they're still running, abandoning their family or whatever?

I think so. Diplomacy can be a game breaker. "All the monsters love you, you win." I don't like the idea of stacking the DC to impossible levels, it's just disingenuous. For the next to impossible it's probably better to call for a chance roll. Natural 20 or failure. This one guy, given his importance in the scheme of things, wasn't probably above a simple diplomacy/intimidate check with a moderate modifier, if that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I were the GM, I'd have the guy loudly declare blood feud, and then skulk away (because of the successful intimidate).

Then he goes and gets a bunch of friends to ambush the party later. He boasts around town about how he is going to get revenge (+10 Notoriety Points). Then, at a really bad time for the group, like after a fight, he says "Remember me? This is for Fluffy!", and like 20 barbarians attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mdt wrote:

You play a very strange version of the game where everyone knows the best way to do something via metagame knowledge. And the GM assumes every possible best situation at every occasion.

I would not like your game. Neither running nor playing in. I hate games where the GM coddles me and stops the game every 5 minutes to ask me if I really want to do what I said, or this other thing he thinks is 20 times better. If I want to be led around by the nose, I'll go read a book or play a video game.

I disagree that's how I play, but better that than a version where player input doesn't matter.

I would hate playing in a game where the GM treats every action as a Wish spell, waiting malevolently to twist my words into the worst possible interpretation. If I want to play a game where the GM says "boo hoo, so sad for you" instead of reminding me that Glaives don't threaten on diagonals... well, apparently I should sit in on one of your games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
demontroll wrote:

If I were the GM, I'd have the guy loudly declare blood feud, and then skulk away (because of the successful intimidate).

Then he goes and gets a bunch of friends to ambush the party later. He boasts around town about how he is going to get revenge (+10 Notoriety Points). Then, at a really bad time for the group, like after a fight, he says "Remember me? This is for Fluffy!", and like 20 barbarians attack.

This.


Uncertainty Lich wrote:
Quatar wrote:
a) Did I really disregard his Intimidate unfairly?

Kinda. As written:

"Check: You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities. If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities."

He probably should have came back in 1d6 x 10 minutes more determined than ever to avenge his poor dog. It wouldn't have hurt anything.

Actually, he kinda didn't. You should read the entire skill description, instead of just the first paragraph.

INTIMIDATE wrote:


Intimidate
(Cha)
You can use this skill to frighten an opponent or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.

Check: You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities. If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities.

Demoralize: You can use this skill to cause an opponent to become shaken for a number of rounds. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If you are successful, the target is shaken for 1 round. This duration increases by 1 round for every 5 by which you beat the DC. You can only threaten an opponent in this way if they are within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you. Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition.

Action: Using Intimidate to change an opponent's attitude requires 1 minute of conversation. Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action.

Try Again: You can attempt to Intimidate an opponent again, but each additional check increases the DC by +5. This increase resets after 1 hour has passed.

Special: You also gain a +4 bonus on Intimidate checks if you are larger than your target and a –4 penalty on Intimidate checks if you are smaller than your target.

If you have the Persuasive feat, you get a bonus on Intimidate checks (see Feats).

A half-orc gets a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks.

Face A : I tell him to 'f*** himself' and push him out of the way and keep going.

Face B : I go into details on what I'm going to do if he doesn't back off, and end it with 'F*** off!' and push him out of the way and keep going.

Face A has specifically used the standard action Intimidate of Demoralize. Guess what, it worked, he was shaken, he still critted when he attacked. Too bad, so sad.

Face B has specifically used the 1 minute intimidate to drive the guy off for 1d6x10 minutes.


demontroll wrote:

If I were the GM, I'd have the guy loudly declare blood feud, and then skulk away (because of the successful intimidate).

Then he goes and gets a bunch of friends to ambush the party later. He boasts around town about how he is going to get revenge (+10 Notoriety Points). Then, at a really bad time for the group, like after a fight, he says "Remember me? This is for Fluffy!", and like 20 barbarians attack.

A) He didn't successfully intimidate, he successfully demoralized. There's a difference, one (intimidate) makes you run away. The other, demoralize, makes you shaken.

B) You and Quantum Steve would rather interpret the player's screw up in such a way that punishes the entire party by getting them into a 5 on 1 battle rather than interpret the player actions as he described them and only screw him over? I have that right yes? And I'm the guy who's out to get his players? Really? Seriously?


mdt wrote:
Actually, he kinda didn't. You should read the entire skill description, instead of just the first paragraph.

The check is clearly for out of combat and demoralize is for in combat. Given that time is sort of an abstraction for IRL time, the one minute stipulation just keeps it from being abused to auto win combat in progress.

The "F*$§ off or I kill you" might very well have lasted a full minute, at least for the purposes of in game time. It could have been said and a short stare down ensues until the barbarian leaves. Regardless, doesn't seem like there's any confusion over what the player intended and the GM understood. When you start quibbling over the number of seconds it takes to say something out of combat you begin traveling down a path that can only end with living in a cardboard box full of dice and shame.


The way I look at intimidate is a lot more like Adelei Niska's speech to Mal in Firefly about reputation. Or maybe in Person of Interest when John tells the thug he will burn a quarter million dollars to convince the thug's boss that the thug stole it. Or even in Wizards First Rule when Zed has the peasants describe all the horrible things a warlock can do and then compliments them on their bravery for confronting him. What I'm getting at is, intimidate isn't just flexing your muscles and growling. Or even just saying "I keel you." Intimidate is making the person believe that you will do horrible things to them, their family, their career, or something that they care about. That is why it is charisma based. Can you eloquently and believably state the threat.

In this instance, I probably would have told the players that "f-off or I kill you" isn't enough for any sort of intimidate.

Maybe I am reading too much, but since intimidate specifically uses friendly and unfriendly, I would also be inclined to go back to diplomacy and look at what sort of things friendly and unfriendly allow. And there is a line that states, some requests automatically fail. This might fall in that area.


The check is only clearly defined by the times they take and the effect they have on the opponent.

One takes a minute and makes them friendly.
One takes less than 6 seconds and makes them shaken.

Is "f*ck off or I'll kill you" and then brushing past them 1 minute of trying to make them friendly or less than 6 seconds and trying to demoralize them?

If its 1 minute then he said the words very very slowly while doing a slow-motion walk by, Matrix style.

-S


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Uncertainty Lich wrote:
mdt wrote:
Actually, he kinda didn't. You should read the entire skill description, instead of just the first paragraph.

The check is clearly for out of combat and demoralize is for in combat. Given that time is sort of an abstraction for IRL time, the one minute stipulation just keeps it from being abused to auto win combat in progress.

The "F*$§ off or I kill you" might very well have lasted a full minute, at least for the purposes of in game time. It could have been said and a short stare down ensues until the barbarian leaves. Regardless, doesn't seem like there's any confusion over what the player intended and the GM understood. When you start quibbling over the number of seconds it takes to say something out of combat you begin traveling down a path that can only end with living in a cardboard box full of dice and shame.

If you consider that short speach to be enough for the one minute, that's fine. But in that case, the Barbarian was not in any way required to actually stand still for a full minute. He could attack as soon as the first 5 words were out of the face's mouth, and not be shaken at all.

So you can treat it either way you want, but either way, it's perfectly valid for the barbarian to bash the Face's face in with his axe. Either he started a minute long diatribe and the already angry and ready to kill someone barbarian bashed her face in before she could get to the intimidate part, or the face used the demoralize, it worked, and he critted even though shaken.

Basically, you want to houserule that any attempt at intimidate get's the full minute treatment on npcs, but the PC doesn't have to actually do the time. That time increment on the skill is a limitation the developers put into the skill to balance it. Otherwise, you'd just max out Intimidation and constantly end every fight before they start by intimidating people before combat begins.


mdt wrote:
But in that case, the Barbarian was not in any way required to actually stand still for a full minute. He could attack as soon as the first 5 words were out of the face's mouth, and not be shaken at all.

I concur with that. I've never gotten much utility out of a Ranger's Wild Empathy for the same reason. Monsters are seldom inclined to wait around a full minute to be made friendly.

That said, I don't think it's unreasonable for the Barbarian to wait around even while being threatened; if only because he didn't attack immediately and was wanting a response from the PCs. If the Barbarian wants to hear the PCs out then I suppose it's reasonable that he'd give them the minute it takes to intimidate him.

mdt wrote:
Basically, you want to houserule that any attempt at intimidate get's the full minute treatment on npcs, but the PC doesn't have to actually do the time.
No. I just don't think the GM needs to take out a pocket watch and time the Player for the check. It takes sixty seconds of in game time. Unless there's combat or some unusual sense of urgency, I don't see the problem with a few statements hanging in the air for a minute. The player didn't want to demoralize and the GM understood that it was intended to be a check.
mdt wrote:
That time increment on the skill is a limitation the developers put into the skill to balance it. Otherwise, you'd just max out Intimidation and constantly end every fight before they start by intimidating people before combat begins.

That's a good point and I totally agree. I don't think it would have been wrong for the GM to have called initiative between the "F*$§ off" part and before the "or I kill you" part.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
mdt wrote:

You play a very strange version of the game where everyone knows the best way to do something via metagame knowledge. And the GM assumes every possible best situation at every occasion.

I would not like your game. Neither running nor playing in. I hate games where the GM coddles me and stops the game every 5 minutes to ask me if I really want to do what I said, or this other thing he thinks is 20 times better. If I want to be led around by the nose, I'll go read a book or play a video game.

There's a difference between leading someone by the nose and always telling them the best way to do things, and warning something when they're about to make a stupid mistake that their character is probably too skilled to make over what might be a miscommunication.

It's a bit like the difference between giving someone a detailed recipe and telling them "remember that our dinner guests are vegetarian."


mdt wrote:
If you consider that short speach to be enough for the one minute, that's fine. But in that case, the Barbarian was not in any way required to actually stand still for a full minute.

Yes. This is true. I wouldn't have a problem if a DM had said "well, you were trying to do a full Intimidate, but he just attacked you before you could complete it." In that case (unlike the situation described in the OP) the roll is never even made.

I wouldn't even have a problem if a DM had said "that speech wasn't enough for me to roll Intimidate; talk to him more if you want a roll to be made." In this situation, again, the roll is not made unless I keep going.

I would have had a problem if I tried to Intimidate someone, trying to scare them into "F*$§ing off", and the DM had gone ahead and rolled... but (quietly) used Demoralize instead of Intimidate because he didn't think I dragged out my RP for long enough before I described my exit from the scene, even though that kind of debuff had no chance whatsoever to actually convince the target to actually "F*$§ off".

Heck, that's almost worse than the DM quietly ruling that I threw my glaive instead of made a melee attack. At least throwing the glaive actually still could do a similar effect to what I was hoping it would do.

Silver Crusade

The DM can't stop the player quickly licking up his d20, rolling it and declaring his Intimidate check result!

But the DM shouldn't be bound by that, because it's the DM who says whether that's okay to try. If he says yes, roll away.

But he might very well say. 'You said what! Okay, roll for initiative!'


I run three levels of players:

1) the beginner, anything from people unfamiliar with 3.5/Pf through a 12 yo who has never played pen and paper games. This is a person I want to return and join our community. I will cut them a lot of slack.Yes, I hand hold them through all those awkward moments that embarrassed we grognards decades ago. And woe to the grognard that griefs a new player. No apologies, I want the new player to enjoy the game totally.

2) the Journeyman, someone who has their feet under them and is able to find 'that' rule when needed. I no longer have to worry about their ignorance and can let them play with crayons and then pencils. Entry is when they find something that breaks them from the kiddy table. I still make sure they 'know' world and cultural details they need to know, but I expect them to be on their toes.

3) the players, those who know the rules and the world. Entry is amorphous, one player fleshing out Elven marital customs, another remembering the differences in goblin tribes. These are the players I trust to keep me on my toes. They have taken over games and run me ragged on many occasions. They are like the cheap opera seats that would boo Pavarotti when he 'phoned it in'. They bring out my best and I love that they do.

51 to 100 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Did I treat my player unfairly here? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.