If I were the GM...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?
I was talking to the original poster, who asked what would I do if I was the GM in this situation. I'm sorry if somehow you took what I said as an argument to something you said.
But, since I also like to argue, here are my replies:
When I GM, I don't strictly follow the rules, so I see no problem in allowing the intimidate to work as intended by the player--effectively scaring the drunk guy off. Usually, I ask my players what they want as an outcome if they succeed at their diplomacy/intimidate/bluff roll (especially when the player isn't as eloquent as the character).
The problem with using intimidate, is that you have now made an enemy, especially so in this situation.
If the other players are complicit with the offending character's actions, and don't seek to distance themselves from that character, then yes, the whole group should be screwed over for the actions of the one.
I don't know if you are out to "get" your player's characters or not, but in this situation, I would be.
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".
^ This.
In this instance the check was made, the Barbarian was intimidated, it's just a matter of how he should have responded to being intimidated. Immediately attacking comes across as kinda cheap.
Heck, that's almost worse than the DM quietly ruling that I threw my glaive instead of made a melee attack.
What glaive? You never said your character picked it up after the last time they set it down. ;)
Ok, sounds like most of the reasonable people agree that the player rolling a die and declaring himself the winner isn't the way the rules work. And that you actually either have to follow the rules, or you have to house rule the situation. House ruling is fine, but you have to let the players know you're not following the RAW ahead of time.
I have, like anyone, been mistaken about what the RAW was. Nobody is perfect. I prefer to follow the RAW or let the players know when there's a house rule. Beyond that, either way is fine. Personally, I prefer to let the player learn the hard way, once they're passed the newbie stage. Why? Because I know I sure as heck remember something when it get's me bashed in the face a lot longer than when I get given a pass on it.
I learned the new poison rules in PF that way, having a character die when he shouldn't have due to a misinterpretation of the poison rules when it affects con. But by jove I sure as heck remember those rules now. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The problem here is that the player did NOT try the full Intimidate. They stated very clearly their actions, then made an Intimidate check without waiting for the DM to call for it. That's not the same, nor does the DM need to specify that the intimidate action failed...or why.
It's a bit like this:
Player: "I climb to the top of the 50' wall." <rattle><rattle> "A 28, I do it. What's there?"
DM: "Well, as you put your hands on the wall a trap triggers..."
...and then complaining bitterly that you should have been at the top of the wall when things happened, because you made the roll. No deal, the effect triggers when you do the wrong thing.
Whether the player was intending this as an opening to a 1-minute long Intimidate attempt, or whether he was just playing fast & loose with the rules or didn't understand them, as soon as he said "**** off" he was going to get an axe to the face and nothing he rolled would make any difference. He chose the wrong tactic to use, and it failed - just like the guy that declared he climbed the wall triggered the trap.
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.
I agree with this.
Fortunately, the guys I play with are pretty good about talking things out. If they'd truly said "F*** off and die" I'd respond with, "That's what you say to him?". If they said yes, then I couldn't care less what their intimidate roll is. If they say, "Well, no, what I mean to say is...." then I'd take into consideration what they say.
That being said, I think Intimidate and Diplomacy, at least by RAW, has the potential to be too much of a game changer. My players know how I handle the skills, so it's not a big deal for our group. If we had a new player come in, I'd explain it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question was about whether, if the Intimidate does go through, and the DM doesn't just say, "sorry, you didn't even get the chance to finish using it" targets can still just be immune to it anyway (or have modifiers tacked on to make them effectively immune).
No, the question was:
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?
That's the question I was answering. You seem to have gone off at a tangent. For me:
a) No, not unfairly as he pretty much nerfed his own check one way or the other by opening with "**** off" - it either wasn't a proper Intimidate attempt, or he wouldn't get to finish it before he got an axe to the face. Either way, just because the player chooses to roll a dice does not bind the DM to go with the player's version of reality.
b) If the player chooses to act hastily, that's his own lookout - it's like failing to check for traps. You don't get reminders if you pretty much specify that you are not bothering.
c) Yes, under some circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think the issue is the GM didn't want/expect the PCs doing anything other than placating the Barbarian. An intimidate check was allowed, it succeeded, and the GM had the Barbarian immediately attack. Is that unfair? Kinda. It comes across as the GM not wanting that encounter to go off the railroad tracks or to punish the PCs for getting away with successfully dismissing the encounter. A little flexibility in that instance wouldn't have hurt, the Barbarian wasn't a major plot point and wasn't beyond persuading anyway.
I think there is confusion here between the player rolling the dice and an intimidation check being allowed. The two are not the same.
It boils down to the RP and circumstance combination.
Saying "go away you maggot" is a stupid intimidate check. That could certainly result in a bad situation if the intimidate failed, and could even give penalties (bonus to the opposed side) to the check regardess due to being ineffective.
Saying something like "look at our gear. Look at our numbers. Think about our success. Do you really think we'd do something like this? Even if we did, you'd get smashed to pieces attempting anything."
The key likelihood to keep in mind is that diplomacy statements probably shouldn't ever really too different from intimidate statements, there's just differences in tone/inflection/loudness, and a few different words used to threaten more.
I have to disagree with that. If you're basically just making a truthful logical appeal then you might as well never use intimidate and always use diplomacy because you just eliminated the distinction between it and intimidate.
I guess what I've been hearing in this thread is that it's preferred that bullies be more expressive? Intimidation IRL isn't like that. I don't see why it couldn't even be non-verbal. All the roll represent is one's ability to menace & threaten. I don't think its required to be a convincing argument IC or OOC, or particularly detailed. If my GM decided an intimidation check required a monologue he felt moved by, I'd skill the hassle, dump CHA, and aim for winning initiative instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think if the player says he's using an intimidate check on the NPC to influence his attitude, the GM rules he can do so, and the player succeeds, the player should have the expectation that the NPC's attitude will be set to friendly for 1d6 × 10 before changing to unfriendly. That's the rules.
If the GM then says the NPC attacks anyway, despite the check resulting in a friendly attitude, because the PLAYER couldn't roleplay being intimidating in an appropriate fashion, I'd be annoyed.
My ability to be diplomatic, intimidating (or hell, intelligent), should not impact my character's ability to be diplomatic, intimidating, and intelligent. That's what the ability and skill stats are there for.
|
I guess what I've been hearing in this thread is that it's preferred that bullies be more expressive? Intimidation IRL isn't like that. I don't see why it couldn't even be non-verbal. All the roll represent is one's ability to menace & threaten. I don't think its required to be a convincing argument IC or OOC, or particularly detailed.
I agree up to this point, but in order to intimidate the target must believe that it would be dangerous to ignore you; you must have a credible threat.
If you can get the target to believe you are a credible threat then it doesn't matter if it's true, just that he believes it.
You don't need an elaborate story; if you are a hulking barbarian with a 1000-yard stare, that's a credible threat to most people (but not to, say, an ancient red dragon), without needing to speak a word.
The trouble is that the bard did not offer a credible threat. He's not physically threatening, singing badly was not a credible threat to that Viking, and although the bard could have pointed to five of his hardest friends all loaded for bear, he chose not to. He just chose to insult him.
You need a credible threat in order to use intimidate in the same way that you need tools (even improvised) in order to Disable Device, or a wall in order to climb a wall!
Further, a player can't just throw dice and announce a result if the check isn't even possible because he doesn't have what's needed to attempt the check. If a player picks up the dice, rolls and announces that his Fly skill check is 35, that's not going to give him the ability to fly! Similarly, announcing that you rolled 35 on Intimidate is pointless unless you have what is needed to intimidate someone, i.e. a credible threat.
I think there is confusion here between the player rolling the dice and an intimidation check being allowed. The two are not the same.No confusion at all.
If the DM didn't feel an intimidation check should be allowed in the first place, the DM should have explicitly struck the roll, and should have explained that the skill just plain didn't get used (and why it didn't).
In the above-described case, the DM didn't do that.
Oh he did that - he just didn't tell the player/PC why the action they attempted failed. And actually, is there a reason the character would know?
You have to balance between giving the player information on how the rules work, and giving the character information he wouldn't have.
It's a judgement call on what information the DM tells the player, and maybe this was wrong, but that's a separate issue to actual judgement on the intimidate attempt itself, and you are confusing the two.
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.
But he might very well say. 'You said what! Okay, roll for initiative!'
as soon as he said "**** off" he was going to get an axe to the face and nothing he rolled would make any difference.
If they'd truly said "F*** off and die" I'd respond with, "That's what you say to him?". If they said yes, then I couldn't care less what their intimidate roll is.
To those who would determine the outcome of a Diplomacy/Intimidate check based on how a Player RP'd:
What would you say if the Player in question never said anything in character?
Player: My character is going to spend a minute trying to use Intimidate to make the Barbarian Friendly for 1d6 X 10 minutes
GM:OK. What is your character saying, exactly?
Player:Well, my character is good at intimidating people, but I'm not, so I can't really say exactly what my character is going to say.
GM:Hmmm...
Player:Besides, in the past I've said the wrong thing (me not being very intimidating or diplomatic), and have auto-failed my roll because of it, or have had my attempt dismissed entirely. Better safe than sorry.
GM:
What would be your response?
I agree up to this point, but in order to intimidate the target must believe that it would be dangerous to ignore you; you must have a credible threat.
Not sure where you got that. The part that lends weight to what the character is saying is in how it's said.
"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."
I don't see a problem with a GM wanting to add modifiers to more realistically represent the exchange every once in a while, but that sort of tinkering can quickly become unfair. A martial character isn't likely to see the same sort of tinkering in combat encounters. "These bandits are thinking about the baby bandits they'd leave behind if you killed them, so they get +2 to AC this round."
Except it's the opposite of that. Intimidate goes off Charisma, so regardless how inhumanly strong a Barbarian is the Bard should still be more threatening unless the GM fiddles with modifiers. Requiring less of the Barbarian doesn't make sense, but I guess they're also less likely to pass the check anyway? It's just a quirk of the system I suppose.You don't need an elaborate story; if you are a hulking barbarian with a 1000-yard stare, that's a credible threat to most people (but not to, say, an ancient red dragon), without needing to speak a word.
The trouble is that the bard did not offer a credible threat. He's not physically threatening, singing badly was not a credible threat to that Viking,
Similarly, announcing that you rolled 35 on Intimidate is pointless unless you have what is needed to intimidate someone, i.e. a credible threat.
The ability to convince others that you are a "credible threat" (whether that's actually true or not!) is exactly what the skill of Intimidate covers.
^ This.
I think a "F*** off" implies hostility in that sort of context. Whether it's Rob Zombie or Joe Pesci saying it, it'd still be pretty intimidating. Maybe for different reasons, but the game doesn't go deeper than that.
To those who would determine the outcome of a Diplomacy/Intimidate check based on how a Player RP'd:What would you say if the Player in question never said anything in character?
Player: My character is going to spend a minute trying to use Intimidate to make the Barbarian Friendly for 1d6 X 10 minutes
GM:OK. What is your character saying, exactly?
Player:Well, my character is good at intimidating people, but I'm not, so I can't really say exactly what my character is going to say.
GM:Hmmm...
Player:Besides, in the past I've said the wrong thing (me not being very intimidating or diplomatic), and have auto-failed my roll because of it, or have had my attempt dismissed entirely. Better safe than sorry.
GM:
What would be your response?
A) You are throwing up a straw man so you can burn it down to prove yourself. Sorry, nobody has said that roleplaying is involved.
What we've said is the player indicated what his character did in such a way as to indicate he was using the demoralize option, and then further we said that it was a meaningless argument because even if he'd intended to use the one minute option, his specification that he said 3 words and pushed past the guy negated that attempt. You can't reconcile the two without house ruling or ignoring the RAW. If you want to do that, you can absolutely do that.
B) To be fair however, I will answer your question. This has actually happened before. If someone did this in game, I would tell them to roll, and take the roll as it was, but I would require them to tell me what they were rolling for, because I can't tell what option they are using because there's no role playing involved. Then, I would not give them any role play XP. I would explain why, and I would offer to help them with role playing, either during game or out of game, and point them to someone in the party who is good at role playing.
^ This.
I think a "F*** off" implies hostility in that sort of context. Whether it's Rob Zombie or Joe Pesci saying it, it'd still be pretty intimidating. Maybe for different reasons, but the game doesn't go deeper than that.
Uhm, why do you think that hostility is intimidating? Hostility is an escalation of the situation.
Intimidation is inspiration of fear. Too many people mix the two up (like the player in the OP's post and you apparently). The most intimidating thing is not hostility. Interesting tidbit, response with hostility to hostility is actually the best way in the world to escalate things to violence. On the other hand, response to hostility with a calm clear response is most likely to de-escalate things. Note I didn't say diplomatic response, just a calm clear response.
Think about it, which is more intimidating in response if you yell at someone? The guy who yells back to go F yourself? Or the guy looks at you like you're a moron, tells you in a cold, clear, conversation level voice that he's going to cut your heart out and serve it to your family for dinner if you don't F off?
Intimidation is not the inspiration of fear. People who are simply afraid can be very unpredictable. Intimidation is the art of creating a desired result through the manipulation of fear and anxiety. A raging barbarian isn't necessarily intimidating, although he could be. He is simply frightful. A wizard who isn't intimidated will simply burn him to a crisp or turn him to stone. Intimidation would be the skill of getting the wizard to doubt themselves, to make them imagine the possible negative consequences of attempting to do so and decide not to. That's why browbeating attempts take time. Using ten words to halt an enemy in their tracks is a very specialized ability; barring some special ability, it is up to the player to provide their PC with the right words that will cause an enemy to consider, of their own will, to pause. In the absence of successful intimidation, NPCs will do what they do.
The intent was the 'controlled inspiration of fear', since the very act of making the intimidate check gives control of the fear.
I think it's important to be clear that any action which results in fear is not necessarily the result of an intimidation check. A tiger roaring is scary, and for good reason; but if it's threatening you and you have a gun, you might simply shoot the tiger. Some people assume any axe-wielding Viking is intrinisically intimidating, in the sense of the skill; this is not true. Things that make someone scary are circumstance modifiers; intimidation itself is a science.
EDIT: I do not intend to lessen the points you made about the nature of intimidation, which are spot-on. Rather, I am unpacking the notion that intimidation is simply making someone afraid or uncertain.
Uhm, why do you think that hostility is intimidating? Hostility is an escalation of the situation.Malachi Silverclaw feels that intimidation requires a "credible threat." Just pointing out that the statement, made aggressively, implies a threat. It isn't explicit, but making an aggressive statement dismissively like that in that context is kinda threatening. It could have been a bluff, it wasn't diplomacy, and it wasn't intended to demoralize for a round. Going off to explore the nature of intimidation or what's the most intimidating thing IRL is sort of irrelevant.
Intimidation is inspiration of fear. Too many people mix the two up (like the player in the OP's post and you apparently). The most intimidating thing is not hostility.
I don't think it matters whether or not it is the most intimidating thing or what happens to be the most intimidating thing. I don't think that was ever the point. The GM had no problem with the application of the intimidation check. The specific questions were if the NPC's reaction to being successfully intimidated was fair and if some NPCs ought to be above an intimidation check.
Some NPCs are above an intimidation check. Golems for example, you can't intimidate or diplomacy a golem. Nor can you bribe a solar to kill children, no matter how well you make a diplomacy check. The system inherently has limits that some NPCs simply can't be diplomacy'd or intimidated. You can't diplomacy or intimidate a wild animal (although you can handle animal it, assuming it gives you the time to do so). Again, even on Handle Animal, if the animal in question is a starving lion, or a rabid one, you ain't getting the time to calm it down, you're lunch.
For example, if an NPC in a module is described as 'Very hostile, and will attack if the PCs don't leave when ordered to do so', then attempting to diplomacy check them with the one minute option simply isn't possible, and no matter how well the PC rolls when he declares the attempt can stop it. By the same token, an NPC who is in the hostile mindset to attack at the hint of danger is not going to wait 60 seconds while the PC does a full minute intimidate check. They simply aren't, because you arent' going to get that time to make the check, no matter how much you have in intimidate.
And the GM had no problem with the application of the intimidate check because it's a perfectly fine application to give someone the shaken condition, but not to scare them off. So again, yes it was fair. The NPC reacted to the attempt, it gave them the shaken condition, but they attacked anyway. Oh well, rules followed.
There is "make sure you take 60 seconds to Rp it out or by raw you didn't do it"
and then there is "You took 1.2 seconds to say something and brushed by the guy. If you meant that to be the 1 minute version you should have said so."
If someone is going to RP X, when they really want Y, then they have to inform the DM. Its that simple. It isn't up to the DM to randomly guess what you are doing. You have to inform him.
"I rolled an X on the Intimidate. I tell him to F'off or I'll kill him, then brush past him and keep walking."
Should the DM have to stop and ask? Or should the DM assume the player knows what they are doing?
Sure the DM *can* ask. But I'm not entirely sure I can get behind the idea that every time a player does something the DM has to second guess them about it. There's just no way to assume that a 1.2 second conversation is actually 60 seconds long or that the player intended for it to be.
Now, can the player say |"I tell him to F'off or I'll kill him then I brush past him".| I want to use Intimidate to try to cower him and make him friendlier to me for abit.
Sure they can. It takes 1 minute, presumably of the player hufing and puffing at the guy and standing around being menacing after saying the above, but he can do it.
However, if you are going to Rp X when you really want Y then you need to tell the DM thats what you are doing.
But yes, the RAW does say 1 full minute is necessary. Now whether you as a DM thinks you need to have the PC RP for 1 full minute or if they can tell you the gist of the convo and actions involved is between you, your players, how active and involved they are in that kind of Rp and how much time you want to spend on it. *In Game* though it takes 1 minute to do, unless you are gonna drop a house rule on it.
If you are going to do something and describe it as X, then assume the DM will take it to be X. If you wanted it to be Y you have to tell them.
-S
|
|
...seriously? You're seriously arguing that Bards in Pathfinder games should be flat-out forbidden from using Intimidate by themselves at all on the more martially-inclined classes, period?
That's not what I'm saying at all! I'm saying that even the most skilled intimidator needs to actually use the skill, and to do that the target has to believe that there is a credible threat.
Granted, the idea of being less physically imposing than your target is covered in the rules, but it's a far, far cry from what you're suggesting it is. "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."
That's it. A four point shift. Not an auto-fail, and certainly nothing anywhere about lacking the "proper tools" to threaten someone.
Modifiers are not relevant if you don't actually use the skill.
It makes things harder, it means you have to be more skilled in how you convey yourself as menacing... but if you've invested enough points in the skill that you can win even with a -4 penalty it means you are just that amazingly skilled at conveying a sense of palpable menace through your words and/or demeanor that yes, your little Halfling Bard really can scare a Medium-sized Barbarian into backing down for a while.
The ability to convince others that you are a "credible threat" (whether that's actually true or not!) is exactly what the skill of Intimidate covers.
Yes, you're right! The bard was fully capable of convincing the Viking that there was a credible threat, but the bard couldn't be bothered to do so. He can't be expected to succeed in a check he didn't legitimately make.
Just like a fighter who tries to axe an opponent in the face....without an axe.
Just like a fighter who tries to axe an opponent in the face...but only expends a move action to do so.
The bard could have used his skill to establish a credible threat so that when he told the Viking to f#@@ off then he would....but he couldn't be bothered to establish that threat.
The bard could have told the DM that he was using Intimidate to change the Viking's attitude, and the DM could have said that takes a minute, but you don't have a minute since you initiated hostilities by telling him to f$$$ off so I'll do you a favour and let you use that Intimidate check result to make him shaken (which is the situation, even if the DM didn't explain it at the time).
A barbarian with a 1000-yard stare is a credible threat to a lot of people, but even he has to make a skill check in order to get the benefits of the Intimidate skill. If he doesn't have the skill, or more importantly doesn't even try to use it, then he doesn't get the benefits of the skill no matter how many yards his stare goes.
Sounds to me like some people think the GM should ignore the player's stated actions, and assume the player actually did whatever the best possible option is for their intention at every step in the game.
Again, that's a very strange and weird way to run a game to me. If I wanted that, I'd just play a video game.
Some NPCs are above an intimidation check. Golems for example, you can't intimidate or diplomacy a golem.Yeah yeah yeah, golems, NPCs with < 3 intelligence, NPCs with a language barrier, and NPCs presently engaged in combat, sure. Though here we're talking about just some human NPC out of combat in a social setting who's unfriendly, but who's given the PCs an opportunity to respond. Are all Barbarians unintimidateable?
Sounds to me like some people think the GM should ignore the player's stated actions, and assume the player actually did whatever the best possible option is for their intention at every step in the game.
It seems to me like some people are turning this into something it isn't. The PC and the GM were on the same page. It was intended as an intimidation check, it was allowed, and it succeeded.
Sounds to me like some people think the GM should ignore the player's stated actions, and assume the player actually did whatever the best possible option is for their intention at every step in the game.
Again, that's a very strange and weird way to run a game to me. If I wanted that, I'd just play a video game.
No, I think a lot of people simply think the GM should ask a question to clarify what the player intends in an ambiguous situation. I understand that people have different GMing styles, but if it's unclear my preference is to ask and clarify. That way you know what the player intends and expects. If the rules don't really work the way the player is thinking they do, then you can say that it's not an option. If there are two ways to adjudicate what the player is wanting to do, I don't think it's really fair to use the way that's more disadvantageous to the player (against his/her expectations) simply because you don't think how s/he described what s/he's intending to do fits right.
Because if the player here was using the demoralize option, initiative ought to have been rolled first. It's an in-combat use of Intimidate. If it's unclear what the player is trying to do, ask.
"Are you trying to intimidate him, demoralize him, or simply dismiss him as you brush past?"
Certainly the players need to know the rules covering the things they're trying to do with their characters. But sometimes people misinterpret rules, think the wrong section applies, or simply forgot that there's "a rule for that". And it's the GM's job to not make assumptions about characters' actions. If anything is unclear, ask about it. You don't have to spell out consequences, but something like, "If you intend to demoralize him, then we'll need to roll initiative. But I'll let you have a surprise round to demoralize him" would give a pretty clear indication of what could happen if that option is selected. Then it's up to the player.
It seems to me like some people are turning this into something it isn't. The PC and the GM were on the same page. It was intended as an intimidation check, it was allowed, and it succeeded.
Yes, it did. It gave the Viking the Shaken condition. That doesn't stop him from getting a crit and axe-facing the intimidator.
No, I think a lot of people simply think the GM should ask a question to clarify what the player intends in an ambiguous situation.
Except it wasn't an ambiguous situation. The player clearly stated what he was doing, and it wasn't taking a minute to do a scare away check. We're back to the GM having to stop every time the player says something to say 'You said you are going to attack the guy, are you using any of your feats?' every time. That's no way to run the game.
If there are two ways to adjudicate what the player is wanting to do, I don't think it's really fair to use the way that's more disadvantageous to the player (against his/her expectations) simply because you don't think how s/he described what s/he's intending to do fits right.
Again though, we are back to either granting the person the best way to do something every time, or we are back to stopping the game every time someone says something. Because the OP's player wasn't ambiguous. It was very clear they were not using a minute to do anything.
Because if the player here was using the demoralize option, initiative ought to have been rolled first. It's an in-combat use of Intimidate. If it's unclear what the player is trying to do, ask."Are you trying to intimidate him, demoralize him, or simply dismiss him as you brush past?"
If you want to stop the game every time, that's fine, but you are absolutely wrong on the combat part. There is nothing in the rules saying you can only demoralize in combat.
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.
Nothing in there about 'in combat'. Only how long it lasts, rounds. Rounds exist outside combat. If you don't think so, then you can't cast any spell that lasts in rounds outside combat, which is not true. So, again, no combat required for this. It just makes them shaken for a few rounds.
Certainly the players need to know the rules covering the things they're trying to do with their characters. But sometimes people misinterpret rules, think the wrong section applies, or simply forgot that there's "a rule for that". And it's the GM's job to not make assumptions about characters' actions. If anything is unclear, ask about it. You don't have to spell out consequences, but something like, "If you intend to demoralize him, then we'll need to roll initiative. But I'll let you have a surprise round to demoralize him" would give a pretty clear indication of what could happen if that option is selected. Then it's up to the player.
The GM's job is to adjudicate the rules, and the player's job is to specify what they are doing. If the player specifies something that is perfectly legal within the rules, get's a result that wasn't what they wanted, that is there fault. The GM is not supposed to second guess the players at every step. You truly want to play in a game where the GM makes you stop and point to the rule and verse on every thing you do? Have you actually ever played in a game like that? Do you run your own games like that, where you stop every time someone does something? Because, again, the OP's player wasn't 'imprecise' they explained EXACTLY what they did. They told the guy to F-Off and pushed him out of the way. That's not the description of any thing other than a Demoralize check per the Rules. Again, you advocate that every GM should stop every player in every game and confirm which rule they are using.
Why are you guys arguing over an event 4 months past?
BECAUSE!!!
The Internet is Wrong!
:)
Some NPCs are above an intimidation check. Golems for example, you can't intimidate or diplomacy a golem.Yeah yeah yeah, golems, NPCs with < 3 intelligence, NPCs with a language barrier, and NPCs presently engaged in combat, sure. Though here we're talking about just some human NPC out of combat in a social setting who's unfriendly, but who's given the PCs an opportunity to respond. Are all Barbarians unintimidateable?Sounds to me like some people think the GM should ignore the player's stated actions, and assume the player actually did whatever the best possible option is for their intention at every step in the game.It seems to me like some people are turning this into something it isn't. The PC and the GM were on the same page. It was intended as an intimidation check, it was allowed, and it succeeded.
It did succeed. but the player didn't like that the DM used the short version "the F'off or I'll kill you" version" rather than the minute long version despite the fact that the player described a very quick action and a very short dialogue and didn't specify that he wanted to use the longer version.
Could the DM have asked? Yep. Was it his responsibility to? Nope.
The responsibility for dictating the actions of the PC falls on the PC. If something has options and you are going to use one of the options to the exclusion of the others then you have to inform the DM of it- especially if your description of what you are doing is option 1 when you really want to use option 2.
Imagine the area of effect of the Grease spell.
Imagine a player discussing the DC to jump over the effect.
Imagine the PC telling the DM he's going to move back so he can get the requisite running space prior to the grease.
Imagine the player rolling a die and telling the DM the result of the acrobatics check.
Imagine the player getting pissed that the DM had him jump over it instead of walking through it.
"but I wanted to walk through it! the DC is so easy. Jumping it would be way harder."
Maybe. But when you take actions that sound like you are doing X and describe actions that are part of X and then do something without telling the DM you aren't doing X.. then you just did X.
Intimidate has two modes. If you specify dialogue and actions that take less than 3 seconds, especially when one of them is to brush past the guy (and thus presumably to keep going) then you can't really be upset that the DM doesn't assume you are taking the 1 minute "discuss it" version. He can't assume it. He won't assume it. "F'off or I'll kill you" as you brush past Is Not the 1 minute version u nless you tell the DM that it is. (in which case, the DM will probably ask what you are doing for the other 57 seconds of the use of the skill. or will just take your die roll and assume you did something appropriately menacing or whatever.)
You do what you say you do. You don't do what you don't say you do.
If you describe X to your DM then expect your DM to think X is what you are doing. If you describe X but are actually doing Y then it is on YOU to inform them of that fact.
-S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it did. It gave the Viking the Shaken condition. That doesn't stop him from getting a crit and axe-facing the intimidator.
The PC didn't intend to demoralize and the GM knew that. The GM decided to go with that in place of what the PC intended because he felt the Barbarian shouldn't be dismissed.
It did succeed. but the player didn't like that the DM used the short version "the F'off or I'll kill you" version" rather than the minute long version despite the fact that the player described a very quick action and a very short dialogue and didn't specify that he wanted to use the longer version.
Only there wasn't any confusion over what was rolled. The GM chose to grant shaken rather than what the intimidated check would have done because it fit how he wanted to play the NPC. This is from the OP.
For me that meant however he was now convinced that they really did it, he's drunk and he feels honor-bound now to his threat before to declare a blood-feud (which apparently is a big thing to Ulfen), so while he was shaken from the Intimidate he'd still rage and attack.
It comes across like "Sure you hit him, but I'm going to half the damage he takes because you weren't suppose to hit him."
A) You are throwing up a straw man so you can burn it down to prove yourself. Sorry, nobody has said that roleplaying is involved.
*facepalm*
You mean, other than yourself, in this very post.What we've said is the player indicated what his character did in such a way as to indicate he was using the demoralize option,
Then why did the OP say he assumed he wanted to influence the NPCs and therefore felt conflicted about disregarding the character's option? No, the player was quite clear in indicating what he wanted to do. Nobody on this thread, not even you, thought the player wanted to use the demoralize option.
then further we said that it was a meaningless argument because even if he'd intended to use the one minute option, his specification that he said 3 words and pushed past the guy negated that attempt. You can't reconcile the two without house ruling or ignoring the RAW. If you want to do that, you can absolutely do that.
Unless you mean to say the player, i.e. the guy sitting at a table with a character sheet in front of him, said 3 words and tried to push past somebody, your referring to the player's character.
When the player said 3 words and pushed passed a guy, he was playing the role of his character.According to you, the player roleplayed the situation incorrectly, (he shouldn't have said "**** off" or tried to push his way past the NPC) and so the player should have his Intimidate attempt negated because of his bad roleplaying.
Sounds to me like some people think the GM should ignore the player's stated actions, and assume the player actually did whatever the best possible option is for their intention at every step in the game.
More like,
Some people think the GM should ignore the player's stated actions when the GM is reasonably certain of the player's intentions, and assume the player actually did what he meant to do instead of doing something else.
If a player insists on having their PC walk off a cliff, I don't care how high their Climb skill is. If the player is under the misapprehension that the Intimidation skill is cause fear or frightful presence, I think it's the GM's purview to correct them, but not the GM's responsibility primarily to know this.
If you RP through an encounter, you are explicitly granting the GM to call it like they see it. In this case, the player precisely enacted the speech and actions they wished, and the GM adjudged them an invalid or ineffective use of intimidate, and had the NPC respond naturalistically.
Simple question, if you approach someone on the street, and they tell you "F off or I'll kill you!", and push past you, would you ask for clarification as to whether they are trying to scare you or coerce you into treating them like a friend? Because that is, in a nutshell, what happened. To me, it is obvious said person is not trying to coerce me into treating me like a friend, he is scaring me and hoping that I will flee in fear.
The full minute Intimidate is meant to represent coercion due to fear. It is the, "Tell me where the weapon is, or you shall suffer!". The person wouldn't normally do this task, but you are being so scary and threatening that they are bending to your will and acting as though you were a friend out of fear.
The shorter version is the "Fear me puny mortal!" effect. Now, there is some overlap, because a shaken person might act differently than normal. Would someone normal run away in terror from another person? Probably not. If they were really scary and threatening to kill them? Much more likely. The question really is, whether the "f off" was part of the "I'm scary!" bit, or was it an attempt to get them to act friendly toward you. In my mind, a command to flee really does not meet the criteria of wanting them to act friendly toward you. If your friends flee from you in terror, and you expect/desire that, then you have some issues.
All that being said, Intimidate is innately nebulous, and at times silly. In one of my parties, the most intimidating person by raw Intimidate skill, even after factoring in size modifiers, is the happy-go-lucky gnomish sorcerer. The least intimidating? The horribly scarred dwarven fighter who has been banned from every bar in the country for brawling and believes waraxes are critical tools for "diplomacy". Yeah . . . makes a ton of sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ruling aside, I want some of this magic alcohol for all my PCs. It's so potent that it provides a +5 bonus to your DC against all social skills (and apparently can even negate them at will) but at the same time doesn't impose any penalty to attack rolls. If it works like that for this guy, why isn't the rest of humanity hopped to the gills on this stuff, too?
To those who would determine the outcome of a Diplomacy/Intimidate check based on how a Player RP'd:
What would you say if the Player in question never said anything in character?
~ snipped ~
What would be your response?
"That's cool, if you want to RP it I'll give you a bonus or penalty based on what you say and what I know of the NPC, and obviously there are some situations where no amount of talking, or saying completely the wrong thing, will do the trick. But if you want to just make a check because your character has social skills you don't, I'm good with that."
Oh he did that - he just didn't tell the player/PC why the action they attempted failed. And actually, is there a reason the character would know?Because if we're really saying that it is a fundamental law of the universe in Golarion that nobody can ever be Intimidated into acting friendly unless a full minute is spent talking, that such an enduring constant of reality is something anyone with anything that could even remotely be called "skill" in Intimidation ought to know? And realize when this goal is not met?
You're missing the point that once the words "**** off" are out of his mouth, the attempt is over. It's like the guy forgetting that Climb takes time, and then complaining that the trap he triggered on the wall stopped him climbing to the top of it. It's tangential to the fact that the attempt has already failed before it started by triggering that trap.
That's like a player who's used to playing with shortbows trying out a crossbow with a different character and forgetting that its a separate action to load them. A good DM would explain when the player tried to shoot, "hey, there's no arrow in the bow, you sure you want to do that"? A bad DM will just keep saying "you do pull the trigger, but you don't hit anything", over and over again, while snickering under his breath at his rules-ignorant fool of a player.
No, it's nothing like that. It's more like saying:
Player: "I shoot on round one," <roll roll>. "OK, round two, I run to this point and shoot from there," <roll roll>.
DM: "On the way there, you get an AoO from this foe you run right past."
The fact that the player forgot he needed to reload is also tangential - what he REALLY forgot was that NPCs can make AoO's. At this point, he shouldn't need it explaining, it's self-evident. If it isn't, I'd expect the player to ask about it there and then.
That the player forgot that Intimidate takes a minute is tangential to the fact that telling an irate, drunken Viking to "*** off" is an invitation to an axe to the face. I don't think this needs explaining either, but if the played asked I would.
It's a judgement call on what information the DM tells the player, and maybe this was wrong, but that's a separate issue to actual judgement on the intimidate attempt itself, and you are confusing the two.It's not a separate issue from the question of whether the player was treated fairly.
Obviously, I think it is.
I don't know what you think I'm "confusing" as far as that goes, but I'll reiterate what I've said before. It is--is!--entirely fine for the DM to interrupt an Intimidate attempt with an attack, and it is also fine for a DM to tell a player that they need to talk for longer to deserve a roll.
We are in agreement, and this is the judgement itself. The DM has decided one of these (probably the former).
But to quietly auto-fail a player's attempt to threaten an NPC into doing something, without ever explaining on that or any subsequent attempt that it never even had a chance to work because the player didn't talk for long enough... that is, IMHO, a jerk move, and would merit an answer of "yes" to the question of "did I treat my player unfairly here?"...
You see, this is where you are making assumptions and getting confused. You say "quietly auto-fail" as if the DM is snickering behind his screen that the player doesn't know the rules, and there is no intimation of this in the original post. In fact an attack has taken place, just as you describe in the first paragraph above. There's no quiet auto-fail about it. What hasn't happened is that the DM has failed to spell out clearly to the player that telling a drunk Viking to "*** off" was the wrong thing to say whether as an attempt to demoralize or as a lead-in to an intimidate. Now personally in his shoes I'd have thought this was a no-brainer, and if the player didn't get it he should ask (and he didn't, not at the time), but then I have to admit anyone who thinks that telling a drunk Viking to "*** off" is a good idea in the first place may not have the best grasp of social reality in the first place and might need it explaining to them.
The judgement (that the attempt has triggered an attack and the dice-roll can be ignored) is separate from communicating why it has failed to the player (who, we now realise, didn't get it and didn't ask at the time).
I agree, it's a dick move if the DM does not explain the rules, that IS part of his job. But it's also the player's job to ask if he doesn't understand why something did or didn't work and the DM hasn't explained it adequately to him. We're all different, and clearly some people need things spelling out more clearly than others.
It did succeed. but the player didn't like that the DM used the short version "the F'off or I'll kill you" version" rather than the minute long version despite the fact that the player described a very quick action and a very short dialogue and didn't specify that he wanted to use the longer version.Only there wasn't any confusion over what was rolled. The GM chose to grant shaken rather than what the intimidated check would have done because it fit how he wanted to play the NPC. This is from the OP.
Go re-read the Intimidate skill.
The DM didn't pull the shaken condition out of his posterior aperature. Its right there in the skill.There is a shaken (quick) version and a "make them friendly" 1 minute version.
Action: Using Intimidate to change an opponent's attitude requires 1 minute of conversation. Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action.
By the actions of the PC they chose the demoralize action and that is what the DM went with.
If something has a 6 second version (standard action) and a 1 minute version, and the actions you describe take 6 seconds (or less) but you want to actually do the 1 minute version then the PLAYER needs to inform the DM of this specifically.
Otherwise, Rp'ing out a 6 second dialogue/action will be a 6 second dialogue/action.
If something can be done X or Y and you describe X but want it to be Y then you have to tell the DM this. It isn't on the DM to sit and ask you after you've told him what you are doing "is that what you are doing?". If you do X and want Y, you need to tell him. Simple as that.
-S
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.
Very legitimate.
Another thread where half the people say that the DM's job is to run the game according to the rules as fairly as possible, and the other half say that, yeah, that's maybe true to a small extent, but really the DM's primary job is to always make sure those horrible, conniving, entitled players are put in their places.
If a player insists on having their PC walk off a cliff, I don't care how high their Climb skill is. If the player is under the misapprehension that the Intimidation skill is cause fear or frightful presence, I think it's the GM's purview to correct them, but not the GM's responsibility primarily to know this.
If you RP through an encounter, you are explicitly granting the GM to call it like they see it. In this case, the player precisely enacted the speech and actions they wished, and the GM adjudged them an invalid or ineffective use of intimidate, and had the NPC respond naturalistically.
So, at your table, if one prefers the GM to follow some semblance of the rules for skill checks, rather than "calling it like they see it", the solution is to never roleplay at all?
That sounds really... bad.
To those who would determine the outcome of a Diplomacy/Intimidate check based on how a Player RP'd:
What would you say if the Player in question never said anything in character?
~ snipped ~
What would be your response?
"That's cool, if you want to RP it I'll give you a bonus or penalty based on what you say and what I know of the NPC, and obviously there are some situations where no amount of talking, or saying completely the wrong thing, will do the trick. But if you want to just make a check because your character has social skills you don't, I'm good with that."
OK, I can respect that, sorta.
Personally, I love giving out bonuses and rewards of all different sorts for good RPing; I feel it encourages good RPing. I would never, ever, however, give out penalties for bad RPing. In my experience it doesn't encourage bad RPers to get better; it just encourages them to stop RPing.
But that's just me; YMMV
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ruling aside, I want some of this magic alcohol for all my PCs. It's so potent that it provides a +5 bonus to your DC against all social skills (and apparently can even negate them at will) but at the same time doesn't impose any penalty to attack rolls.
^ This.
To those still on about the time rule of the intimidate check vs. demoralize or the content and credibility of the threating remark, I ask to re-read the OP.
There isn't an issue here about time, confusing demoralize with the minute long intimidation check, or with the statement not being intimidating enough to justify the check. It isn't about a player jumping the gun and rolling too quickly. It isn't about a GM not explaining the rules. There's no miscommunication here.
The Barbarian was successfully intimidated and GM converted the check to the shaken condition because he didn't feel the Barbarian should be intimidated. Is that fair? One can go off on a rule lawyer tangent trying to justify it by calling the roll or the RP into question, but none of that is pertinent to whether what the GM did was fair.
You're missing the point that once the words "**** off" are out of his mouth, the attempt is over.
OK, one last parry.
The player may have said "**** off", but the character didn't. The character said something good (as evident by a high Intimidate) that essentially meant "**** off", but much more intimidating.
Or, if the character did actually say "**** off", he said it in such an intimidating way as to make the NPC take pause (as evident by a high intimidate check.)
If you want to rule that the NPC would simply attack before the check was finished, that's fine, but it should be a blanket ruling regardless what the player said.