The PC just failed to communicate which part of the skill they wanted to use.
This was never an issue of miscommunication. Both the GM & player knew it was an intimidate check and not a demoralize check. The reason the GM chose to make it a demoralize check was...
Adn yes the utter disregard of the man's actual situation was what made me decide to attack instead of the other options.
So yeah, attempting to justify it as the threat was under 59.9 seconds is dumb. It was never the issue. That excuse is something that the rest of you have come up with after the fact.
GM: You find a trapped door, what do you do?
PC: I disable device. Success!
GM: You unlock the door and the trap goes off.
PC: :|
One would have to intentionally misconstrue what the PC was attempting to do with "F*** off or I'll kill you" to apply demoralize instead of an ordinary intimidation check. The GM in this case wasn't misconstruing the intention nor objecting to it's application. GM had no problem with the length of the threat and that wasn't the reasoning behind the ruling. The GM just chose to not have the Barbarian leave because he didn't want the Barbarian to be successfully intimidated. That's what he wrote. It's there. What don't you understand?
DM simply ruled that a "F'off or I'll kill you" as the PC brushed past the NPC was a demoralize not a 1 minute long conversation.No. He wrote exactly why he ruled the way he did. It had to do with how the Barbarian was feeling. Had nothing to do with the one minute rule. That's something that's been invented after the fact by posters here.
The DM applied RAW. The player didn't like it because the player failed to inform the DM that they wanted to use the skill in a manner contrary to how they actually used the skill.
Except, no? The GM wasn't going to allow the Barbarian to be intimidated into leaving regardless of the success. The GM felt the PC shouldn't have done that, despite succeeding, so the Barbarian attacked anyway. The OP was pretty clear.
This was never an issue of miscommunication. Both the GM & player knew it was an intimidate check and not a demoralize check. The reason the GM chose to make it a demoralize check was...
By your first sentence I'm not sure if you realize how the intimidate skill works.
Demoralize IS intimidate.Intimidate has two uses. One is a standard action demoralize. The other is a minute long converstaion to make them friendly for 1d6x10 minutes.
You use Intimidate checks for both uses of the skill. That is the issue.
The PC failed to communicate their desire to use part B instead of part A while acting as though they wanted part A.
They acted part A they got part A. They, in reality, were wanting to use part B. Miscommunication carried the day- not an auto-fail or a DM secretly subverting the will and desire of the player.
To say again.
An attempt to Demoralize IS Using the Intimidate skill check, just like the attempt to make them friendly is through an Intimidate check. Same skill used, two different possible uses.
-S
I'm glad I gave each of the two uses separate names - "Demoralize" vs. "Browbeat," to eliminate the confusion. It's pointlessly vague to have "Intimidate" mean either Intimidate (any function) or Intimidate (change reaction specifically).
Both the GM & player knew it was an intimidate check and not a demoralize check.
A demoralize check is an Intimidate check. That is why it the mechanics for demoralize are explained as part of the Intimidate rules. It is a use of Intimidate. The other option is to use Intimidate to influence attitude. You pick one use of Intimidate when you use the check.
From 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.
Seems like the OP was ruling the Intimidate was a demoralize. Otherwise, the fact the barbarian was shaken would not have entered play. I do not see anything suggesting his line of thinking was, "hey, the barbarian is upset enough that this influence attitude check is instead a demoralize".
This was not a case of "I can't have the barbarian ditch no matter what!", it was a case of, "well, the PC just demoralized the barbarian . . . but I think in character the barbarian would still be angry enough to lash out regardless". Making an NPC shaken does not guarantee that they will flee. It makes it more likely . . . but not a guarantee.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By your first sentence I'm not sure if you realize how the intimidate skill works.
Did you get past the first sentence? Anyway, given the context, were you at all confused by what I meant? Did you believe I specifically meant demoralize each time I wrote intimidate check? If you can't distinguish context we probably ought to agree not to respond to one another ever again.
If out of combat a player says they want to intimidate an NPC are you likely to believe they mean demoralize over an intimidate check to make them friendly for 1d6x10 minutes? The GM had no trouble understanding what was attempted. The GM & player were on the same page. Both understood it was not a demoralize check. The OP explained why he applied that instead and it had nothing to do with miscommunication or length of the threat.
To say again.
An attempt to Demoralize IS Using the Intimidate skill check, just like the attempt to make them friendly is through an Intimidate check. Same skill used, two different possible uses.
GM: You unlock the door and the trap goes off.
PC: :|
It's pointlessly vague to have "Intimidate" mean either Intimidate (any function) or Intimidate (change reaction specifically).I must be magic. I recognize the distinction without having to be explicitly told which is which when a check is called just given the context. I am currently playing a wizard though, so maybe that's why.
Seems like the OP was ruling the Intimidate was a demoralize.
I see that. The reason it was converted to demoralize had nothing to do with the length of the threat or misconstruing the player's intention. That's the point.
Making an NPC shaken does not guarantee that they will flee. It makes it more likely . . . but not a guarantee.
Which is why the player didn't say "I demoralize him." Nobody would. Common sense. The GM understood what was intended and chose demoralize not because of the length of the threat or because he thought that was what the player wanted. GM said exactly why the NPC attacked instead of leaving.
Adn yes the utter disregard of the man's actual situation was what made me decide to attack instead of the other options.
^ There. That's why.
I must be magic. I recognize the distinction without having to be explicitly told which is which when a check is called just given the context.
Given that half of this thread consists of people claiming that, but each claiming a different use was "obvious" given the context -- maybe so.
I think the issue boils down simply to this:
The GM probably knew which version of intimidate the player wanted, and thats all well in good. But the player role played the version that demoralizes. He declared his actions, not the GM. The players actions did not amount to an intimidate to make the enemy fiendly. It was an intimidate to demoralize. The party face successfully demoralize the drunk angry barbarian, but the barbarian (being drunk and angry) decided he still wanted to plant his axe in the face despite being shaken (nothing in the shaken condition precludes this mechanically).
So, the side that thinks the GM is wrong believes so because (essentially) its wrong or cheating not to give the player the benefit of the doubt. I mean, come on you knew what the player wanted right?
Sure, but that's not what the player did. Nothing in the players actions meshes with the description of the intimidation to change attitude. Players should role play their character, and when a player does something stupid and commits their character to certain actions there should be consequences.
Now, obviosuly it's clear what side I'm on. I don't think either side will ever agree with the other or see it in any other light. Can we all just make a gentelman's agreement to shut up about it and only worry about it when it comes up in our games?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM let the player try to intimidate the barbar to stand down.
The GM said the roll was a success, but decided that broke his narrative so he decided to change the player's roll into a demoralize check.
This is not what the player was trying to do. When rules minutia says that a players action is X and not the Y they were trying to do, the GM should inform them of such minutia before playing off the action.
SO here's what happened.
Player tried to intimidate the Barbar to "F&~~ off", not to demoralize. The GM said his player succeeded, but ignored the roll and proceeded to attack the player anyways.
If the GM decided that a circumstance bonus prevented the player from succeeding, that would have been fin. That's not what happened though. The GM said the player succeeded and ignored the roll/changed the action that the player was trying to do.
If would be like if I cast a save or die on a narrative important character. That character fails the save, but instead of killing him the GM turns my spell into fireball.
Either fudge the check or let the player win, don't change the players actions after the fact just because you didn't like the result.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I just can't seem to wrap my head around, and this has nothing to do with the OP, is the number of posters who would reward a player who says "Yeah, I intimidate the guy for a minute to make him friendly," with a wave of their hand, not bothering to even look up for the comic they're reading, with allowing their character to do the thing they clearly wanted to do; but punish the player who got involved with the game and tried to actually roleplay because, wait for it... They Role-Played Wrong.
I just can't get into the headspace of a player who finds the game more enjoyable if the GM punishes them for having a different idea of what 'Intimidate' means.
I find it completely and utterly unfathomable that a player would have fun being told "No, you're doing it wrong. Now you lose your action. Too bad, so sad."
But, different strokes... I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The PC in question however failed to do so because he used the wrong method. (demoralize vs make friendly).It isn't the "wrong" method, just one not provided for explicitly in the adventure.
Telling a drunk, angry Viking to "*** off" is ALWAYS the wrong method unless you want to start a fight. End of.
Okay. If you're switching your argument from "it was an invalid roll, and that should have been clear to the player" to "it was a validly rolled Demoralize, and that should have been clear to the player" then we can talk that instead.We're back to whether:
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....is anything but an invitation to a fight combined with a Demoralize attempt. I don't think the DM was wrong in assuming that it was, the meaning is pretty clear.
A lot of what we are discussing is conjecture and semantics. But either way, telling a drunk, angry Viking to "*** off" is only going to start a fight.
I get where you are coming from, but if the Demoralize succeeded and had an effect, it was emphatically NOT a "quiet autofail" as you desperately wish to believe.Call it what you want. "Oh, the threat you made didn't fail, it just succeeded at getting the Barbarian to do the exact opposite of what you were threatening him to do!"
...yeah.
Yeah. Because telling a drunk, angry Viking to "*** off" is the wrong thing to say unless you want to start a fight.
But the semantics are, ultimately, irrelevant.
I agree. Telling a drunk, angry Viking to "*** off" is only going to start a fight. The rest is indeed irrelevant. The DM was generous in giving the Demoralize, I probably wouldn't have.
Then again, I also would have phrased it something like this:
"The minute you draw yourself up and tell him where to go, his eye twitches, and you realise you just said something really, really dumb. The realisation comes just as the Ulfen warrior snarls his battle-cry and sweeps his axe at you..."
It's those "magic words" that your players don't know you're looking for, because you never told them you were.
No, it's because telling a drunk, angry Viking to "*** off" is only going to start a fight. It's not about saying the right words, it's about not saying the really, really obviously wrong ones.
It's not the player's responsibility to ask why their threats aren't working, because they can't see behind the screen. They have no reason to even suspect (unless they're lucky enough to get a super-egregious case like the player's later 20) that they're not just not hitting the DCs of the target, and that's why it isn't doing what they wanted it to.
The DM--not the players--is the one holding the cards in this situation. Pretending it's the players fault because "oh noes, the DM can't possibly be expected to deduce that, if the players make a threat, they're probably--shock of shocks!--attempting to coerce the target into acting in accordance with the threat they explicitly made" is such a staggeringly low opinion of DM comprehension that it quite frankly boggles me.
It boggles my mind that anyone would think that telling a drunk, angry Viking to "*** off" is the way to handle any kind of situation you don't want to end in combat. Yet apparently there are people that stupid - but the real world does not comply with stupidity, and neither should the game.
It's not "pretending it's the player's fault" - it IS the player's own fault for opening with "*** off" to a proud warrior, in front of other warrior's, in a warrior culture where pride and reputation are everything. That was an invitation to an axe to the face, and it's what the player got and deservedly so. It doesn't matter how believable you made the threat - you insulted a man to whom honour is more important than life. In his mind it is better to die fighting you than leave that insult as a stain upon his honour. Axes at right now, first man to Valhalla gets the drinks in.
Um, of course it'd start a fight if I did that.
No, ANYONE would. Why? Because it doesn't matter how menacing you are, he is in front of his gang with his reputation on the line, and that literally means more to him than his life. If he backs down, he loses respect from his gang, and that can mean THEY kill him for being weak. So he doesn't back down, no matter how menacing you sound. Unless you say it with a machine gun pointed at him, he won't back down (and even then that only lasts as long as the gun is there).
Maybe if you calmly pointed out to him how dangerous you were in a low, menacing undertone, and what would happen not just to him, but to his family, friends, and anyone he knew, you might - just - get him to back off long enough to get out of the bar and run like hell or call in back up. But a simple "**** off" will end with his fist in your face whether you are a wimp or man-mountain.
Because I'm just a introverted computer geek with few social skills to speak of, not a superhuman adventurer with max ranks in Intimidate who can project blood-curdling menace in his gaze and voice.
Neither was the PC "a superhuman adventurer". She might have sounded real menacing when she said "**** off" but that is all she said, and she got one-shotted by one critical hit. That's not superhuman. It's not even close. Telling a drunk, angry Viking to "*** off" is ALWAYS the wrong method unless you want to start a fight, or you really ARE superhuman.
I'll grant you, the player may have thought: "I'm so bad-a$$, this is a lowly NPC, I don't need to take time here or anything, I'll be so intimidating he won't DARE attack me!" Which is pretty much what you think as well. You are both wrong. The character wasn't so bad-a$$ that they could get away with a quick "**** off" and walk away. It was the player's bad judgement call, and they paid for it.
What I just can't seem to wrap my head around, and this has nothing to do with the OP, is the number of posters who would reward a player who says "Yeah, I intimidate the guy for a minute to make him friendly," with a wave of their hand, not bothering to even look up for the comic they're reading, with allowing their character to do the thing they clearly wanted to do; but punish the player who got involved with the game and tried to actually roleplay because, wait for it... They Role-Played Wrong.
I just can't get into the headspace of a player who finds the game more enjoyable if the GM punishes them for having a different idea of what 'Intimidate' means.
I find it completely and utterly unfathomable that a player would have fun being told "No, you're doing it wrong. Now you lose your action. Too bad, so sad."
But, different strokes... I guess.
Part of my issue with it is that I don't think diplomacy, bluff, or intimidate should be skills at all, but rather role-play exclusively. Bluff should be feint, and intimidate should just be demoralize. I don't like the degree to which the skills marginalize what should primarily be role playing encounters.
I also don't look at it as punishing the player for poor role-playing. Telling an NPC to frack off as you brush past him is role-playing in the same way that I hit it with my axe is. You describe your action, the GM moves the world around you in an action reaction sequence.
There are two things that could have occurred that would have admittedly diffused this whole thing.
A) The player could have done a better job with his description of his actions. Instead of "Frack off!" he gives a speech to scare the NPC into being friendly towards the group, which should have its own repercussion anyways,
B) The GM could have asked for clarification on the action.
To me, B is nice, but not obligatory. A is obligatory. If you're not sure about describing your actions in game terms you can always describe your intent to the GM, who should then help you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM probably knew which version of intimidate the player wanted, and thats all well in good. But the player role played the version that demoralizes.
That wasn't what made it demoralize. The GM wrote why he went the other way with it. It was because he didn't like how the PC handled the situation and wasn't going to allow the Barbarian to be frightened off. The GM's issue wasn't in how it was roleplayed, though he clearly didn't like it, just an issue that it was attempted and succeeded.
I don't think either side will ever agree with the other or see it in any other light. Can we all just make a gentelman's agreement to shut up about it and only worry about it when it comes up in our games?
At this point I'm not even arguing that what the GM did was wrong. I don't even think that.
I'm just disappointed with the numerous posts in this thread that state the GM's decision was fair because of what he could have done.
If anyone wants a TL;DR recap of this thread, here it is.
*Could* have ruled the threat wasn't a full 60 seconds.
Which could be entire threads on:
-Tracking time out of combat.
-How much IRL RP for 60 seconds of in game time.
-GM/Player responsibility in communicating/understanding check criteria.
-The fairness of not disclosing a major ruling like that when it happens.
*Could* have ruled the threat wasn't threatening enough.
which was something this GM did on a separate occasion for a diplomacy check with an amazing roll because he didn't find the argument persuasive.
That could be whole threads on:
-The fairness of penalizing players for not being as persuasive/cunning/intimidating as their character.
-Whether/how intimidate ought to be modified by other factors.
-The criteria for what is/isn't intimidating.
-The realism of a terrifying gnome bard with a lute and a meek dwarven fighter with a great axe.
*Could* have ruled the NPC attacked within the 60 seconds
Which could be a thread on:
-If it's fair to have NPCs essentially choose whether or not they want to be persuaded/tricked/intimidated by allowing them to ignore the PC within 60 seconds.
*Could* have disallowed the roll altogether.
Which could be their own threads on:
-If it's fair for the GM to lock PCs into limited interaction cut scenes (you can't get ye flask).
-Encouraging/discouraging creative solutions.
-Clarifying the roll before it's allowed.
-Whether it's better to just have the GM make all the rolls.
*Could* have misunderstood the player's intent.
Which didn't happen. I don't often speak in absolutes but, until otherwise presented with substantiating evidence, I'm inclined to believe nobody ever ever ever confused the default "Intimidate check" (that is what it is, plain, unmistakable, and explicitly termed) with the very specifically different, obviously intended for in combat, never preferable to the default check in an out of combat scenario, "Demoralize". Even if there were ever verifiable instances where shaken for six seconds was desired in place of 1d6x10 minutes friendly w/ limited assistance, I'd still be inclined to describe their existence as being absurdly statistically insignificant in comparison to the typical use of intimidate skill out of combat.
The point is the GM *could* have on all those, but didn't. So reading opinions based on what the GM actually did would make me happy.
What did happen, and is the point of this thread, was:
Player tried to intimidate the Barbar to "F&%& off", not to demoralize. The GM said his player succeeded, but ignored the roll and proceeded to attack the player anyways.
^That.
For the record, I don't think what the GM did constitutes a war crime, it doesn't right? (someone check the latest errata real quick) The worse one could assume is that he punished the player for a cocky move, which is no unforgivable sin.
I think he could have been more flexible with the adventure material. I don't think the player is unjustified in feeling the ruling was unfair.
The GM is entitled to do anything per the rules, including break & bend the rules. That's why I write that it's only kinda unfair. What makes it kinda unfair is that the GM changed the rules on the player without telling the player. Ordinarily a default intimidate check works one way, in this case it didn't and that's inconsistent. GM felt the NPC wouldn't leave, so pulled a fast one to keep him around. There's no rule that states an NPC can ignore a successful intimidate check if they are angry enough, that was ruled on the fly. Had the player known in advance that's how this GM would play intimidate then he probably wouldn't have found it unfair when it happened. Like the GM notes, his players got the hint and just stopped using the social skills.
Part of my issue with it is that I don't think diplomacy, bluff, or intimidate should be skills at all, but rather role-play exclusively.
That's one way to handle it.
I think the articles at the Alexandrian on the subject of Diplomacy sum it up.
Even with the fixes in pathfinder to the main issues with 3.5's social skills, these parts as written are a bit broken. It probably has to do with how fundamentally different they are from the rest of the game. They're more qualitative (hostile, indifferent, helpful, The lie is unlikely, The lie is far-fetched) where as the rest of the game is pretty solidly quantitative (5 HP, 2d6 Greatsword, DC X + 1/2Y + 10). Application of these rules differ greatly depending on your GM. Eh. We all try to make do. What this GM did wasn't wrong, but it could have probably been done in a way as to not leave the player feeling cheated while still maintaining the plot/realism/tone/ect.
I just can't get into the headspace of a player who finds the game more enjoyable if the GM punishes them for having a different idea of what 'Intimidate' means.
I think it's just that posters are coming into this discussion with a lot of preconceptions and baggage they're projecting on this. That's why I think it's gone on so long with the tangent rule talk while ignoring why the GM said he ruled the way he did. There's always that obnoxious player you used to game with who'd drag a game down or abuse the rules. Think that's what's being projected here.
Telling a drunk, angry Viking to "*** off" is ALWAYS the wrong method unless you want to start a fight. End of.
Which is why the PC didn't just tell a drunk & angry viking to "*** off". The PC intimidated the drunk & angry Viking and won the roll. This viking wasn't a special viking. Wasn't a superhuman viking without fear or an appreciation for the threat of death and/or personal injury. Drunk & angry vikings, at least according to the RAW, don't ain't not never scared.
It boggles my mind that anyone would think that telling a drunk, angry Viking to "*** off" is the way to handle any kind of situation you don't want to end in combat.
I don't know. Think that statement asserts the PC isn't afraid of the NPC and the latter part, "or I'll kill you", asserts the NPC ought to be afraid of the PC. If you're inclined to believe the NPC can't be frightened then I don't get why you'd be comfortable with the idea that he could be reasoned with. Afterall, the viking isn't *that* drunk or *that* angry. He just wanted gold and was even willing to hear the PCs explain that they didn't do it. This was no uber-badass by any stretch of the imagination. Homeboy's intimidation DC was exceeded.
It boggles my mind that anyone would think that telling a drunk, angry Viking to "*** off" is the way to handle any kind of situation you don't want to end in combat. Yet apparently there are people that stupid - but the real world does not comply with stupidity, and neither should the game.
I think you're putting your own thoughts in the Viking's head. When I imagine the same scenario, it always ends with the Viking about to attack, doing a double-take, and then breaking into a huge grin and clapping the PC on the back. "Thor's beard, but no guilty man would talk to me that way!" By refusing to kowtow, maybe the PC earns his respect, whereas trying to placate him would lead to a drunken attack.