| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, looking for some honest opinion from other GMs and also players of course.
I'm still relatively new to GMing, so I'm aware that I make mistakes. I just don't think this was one, but I got into a little bit of an argument with a player about this, so I want to see if my perception on this matter is correct.
This was an encounter in the Jade Regent AP #2. It's just a tiny side-encounter and not a huge spoiler, but I'll spoiler the AP text anyway:
Thrimbyrson approaches the PCs. Gorvald’s favorite
hunting hound was recently poisoned, and while he was
drinking to his misery, a hooded stranger advised him
that the PCs were the perpetrators of the crime. Gorvald
demands weregild of 50 gp from the PCs or he will declare
a blood feud. If the PCs pay him weregild or convince him
that they are not the culprits (by changing his attitude from
hostile to friendly with a successful Diplomacy check),
Gorvald goes away mollified. If the PCs refuse to pay, he
immediately rages and attacks (note that he is not so drunk
as to take any penalties in combat). If a battle ensues, the
PCs gain 3 NP. Gorvald has no further information.
So what happened was this:
The NPC comes up to the group and yells at them drunkenly that he finally found them, and they better pay up the weregild for the dog they killed or he'll be forced to declare the blood feud.
I was fully prepared for the face of the party to say "Nope wasn't us", and make the diplomacy check and most likely succeeding easily. Or just pay the 50 gp. I ruled the chance for a fight at this encounter at maybe 5% or so.
Just to make this clear, the PCs were innocent of the crime, and got framed for it.
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.
She rolled good on her Intimidate too.
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.
He actually crit the face with his Battleaxe and nearly send her into a coma with a single hit.
All that happened over 4 months or so ago, so details of the exact happenings are a bit fuzzy but I do remember that much. As I said I was fully prepared for them to just buy him a drink and convince him it was not them, I was really surprised by the way the face reacted, so that stuck with me.
Now this week I had a talk with the player and this situation came up.
He feels I dismissed the Intimidate check too easily. He said from what they saw in that region chest-thumping would be a better result than sweet-talking and the guy should have backed down. Even if he would have come back later, maybe with friends.
I explained my reasons why he didn't, as above.
He then said, I should have let him make a Sense Motive check to figure out that Intimidate wouldn't have the intended result, and that Diplomacy might be the way to go. Mind you, he had never asked for that, if he had, I'd probably would have told him.
I kinda felt if those things would happen passively all the time, it turns the game more into a video game where you get the options that work, never getting a chance to pick a "wrong" one.
I also don't want to tell players when they say they do something "No, you don't, because X", because I kinda hate that. It's their character, if they wanna attack someone, it's not my place to tell them that their character wouldn't. (unless it's obvious the player is drunk and really would not attack the LG king in full view of his bodyguards or something)
So I think here's where the issue is:
While I think Diplomacy and Intimidate are powerful tools, sometimes enemies just have so compelling reasons to fight the PCs that they can't just be convinced or scared into surrendering or walking away.
They might be more scared of the BBEG than the PCs and attack anyway (after all they know the demi-god like sorcerer is known for invoking brutal vengeance for failure). Their family might be threatened. They just don't give a damn if they die or not, for some reason or another (greater hit to their honor from retreating than by losing the fight for example).
Mind you, I don't think that's the case with most enemies, but in some situations yes.
Also often you don't have the time to properly scare them that much. Usually the PCs will enter a room in a dungeon and the guys there will attack them pretty much immediately or the other way around.
He kinda agrees with that last part, Intimidate takes time after all, so does Diplomacy, but not really the first one.
So I guess the points I want to hear opinions on:
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?
As I said be honest, and if you think I should have acted differently, or that you'd be pissed too if that happened to you, then tell me that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a) Did I really disregard his Intimidate unfairly?
The player is forgetting that Intimidate and Diplomacy are discretionary. A PC can disregard the results of a roll, and so can an NPC in extreme circumstances. They are not spells, and whether they work or not is modified by circumstances. You are perfectly entitled to give the character a bonus or penalty based on circumstances, as well.
For example, against intimidate:
+5 DC - he's drunk, plenty of Dutch courage.
+5 DC - he's mad about his dog.
+5 DC - he's now convinced that the party did the deed.
Factor these in and he's not so successful. Of course players can swing this with circumstance modifiers of their own:
-5 DC - you buy him a drink.
-5 DC - you act innocent and don't know what's going on.
Intimidate was just the wrong thing to try, and the player had no way of knowing that unless they took the time and effort to find out.
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?
Not unless they ask for it or it's really, really obvious, or if they are new players. Truth is the character was only interested in giving the NPC the brush-off, they clearly didn't WANT to know what was bothering him. You played it as they played it.
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?
There are some circumstances where the recipient of Intimidate is facing a worse threat behind them than in front of them. There are various ways of doing this - you could simply rule that the skill is ineffective, or you could rule that they have massive modifiers, or you could make it an opposed check by the BBEGs Intimidate even if they are not present.
It's all up to you how you play it. Players should be aware of the strength and weakness of social skill checks.
Weakness - they do not always work just on a die roll. You can't just make a check, and go on. This can be done sometimes, but on others it just will not work. Sometimes, players have to make the effort and role-play, and if they don;t make the effort they should not attempt to reap the rewards.
Strength - they can work very, VERY effectively if you set them up right: get the person alone, butter them up, win them over, and do a lot of prep work. You have to ask for things that are likely to be given, not the impossible.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi Quatar. nice to hear you're GMing.
I'll pitch in with my point of view.
A drunk viking, mentally prepared to declare a blood feud, who is told to "F@+@ off, or I'll kill you", have all the motivation needed to start stomping faces.
If the intimidate check was supposed to change his attitude, it requires a minute of conversation, because you're not just trying to shake the target, you are trying to convince them that being your friend is in their best interest (Mafia style).
So by my reading, you did not do anything wrong.
I could read further into it and comment on more details, but I'll refrain for that, for now.
Hope it helps.
-Nearyn
Ok, looking for some honest opinion from other GMs and also players of course.
I'm still relatively new to GMing, so I'm aware that I make mistakes. I just don't think this was one, but I got into a little bit of an argument with a player about this, so I want to see if my perception on this matter is correct.
This was an encounter in the Jade Regent AP #2. It's just a tiny side-encounter and not a huge spoiler, but I'll spoiler the AP text anyway:
** spoiler omitted **
So what happened was this:
The NPC comes up to the group and yells at them drunkenly that he finally found them, and they better pay up the weregild for the dog they killed or he'll be forced to declare the blood feud.
I was fully prepared for the face of the party to say "Nope wasn't us", and make the diplomacy check and most likely succeeding easily. Or just pay the 50 gp. I ruled the chance for a fight at this encounter at maybe 5% or so.Just to make this clear, the PCs were innocent of the crime, and got framed for it.
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.
She rolled good on her Intimidate too.For me that meant however he was now convinced that they really did it, he's drunk and he feels honor-bound now to...
I do have some advice, from dm to dm (welcome to dming by the way).
Use sense motive a fair bit. Sussing out people, knowing what is going on, what motivates someone, what their emotions are, get your players to use sense motive and hold their hand a bit at first. It is a potentially really strong skill, but not every player or group uses it to its full RP extent. It can actually allow things to make more sense with dm input, it can help the players feel out what is going on. For that half drunk ulfen, a sense motive could have revealed a lot, "they are grieving, angry and unsure if you are the culprit" and the player may not have gone f#&& you! Come and axe my face in, I dare you m8.
As for the Ulfen still attacking after the intimidate, Ulfy should have backed down then, but losing an intimidate doesn't mean they can never attack, not launch a sneak attack from behind while frightened, and if they crit for max damage, winning an intimidate doesn't help you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see your players point but unfortunately for him, I actually see your side as the right way. In my years many players adopt this "I am untouchable" mentality many times forgetting that the campaign has laws and nations that support those laws. Even in an area with the types if a seedier nature have laws or atleast a certain etiquette which must he maintained. If a player wants to act invincible then teaching him that your are not Monte Haul is not a crime in my book.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd murder a man in cold blood if he kicked my pug, and I'm not a viking. Just putting that out there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far, four out of five DMs that expressed an opinion support the OP's stance that Intimidate was a dumb thing to do to a pissed off drunk Viking!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a Golden Rule which I use as GM. This is just my two cents, but here it is:
Yes, I can see where you were coming from. Your point of view was: The Ulfen was drunk, he was angry, the PC was dismissive, the PC effectively admitted to the crime, and while the Intimidate roll was good, fear in this case led to anger, which led to combat.
Your player, on the other hand, thought that: he was trying to be "diplomatic" (at least by Ulfen standards), he was so intimidating that the Ulfen should have been reluctant to attack outright, and that rather than allowing the combat, you should have forced a Sense Motive check to give the player the information needed to understand the problem.
So, here's the question: Forget which version was "right" or "more realistic". Which one would have led to a more fun game? A pointless fight, with the accompanying gain of NP, or, a quick Sense Motive check to make sure the PC (and the player) understand what they're about to get into.
The point of the game isn't to run as perfect a simulation of a fantasy world as possible, or to tell the best narrative possible, or even to have the most exciting fights possible. The whole point of playing is to HAVE FUN. If the player wants to play a "perfect" sweet-talking face, who never has a misstep, never misspeaks, and always fits into every environment, and that is how everyone has fun, then DO THAT.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Intimidate is not a magic 'I do not have to fight' roll. For example, in a game I was running, the PCs had encountered 4 werewolves, each with a dire wolf and 2-3 regular wolf's as scouts for a city that they were approaching (the group had 2 opportunities to ask about what lay north as they passed through cities they knew about and failed to do so).
The leader of the group made an intimidate check and scored a 30, telling the werewolves he was going to 'hunt you down and kill you, your family, and your offspring if you ever attack me again'.
It worked wonderfully, the werewolves retreated as fast as possible, scared out of their minds. They also started blowing horns as hard as they could while they retreated.
The city scrambled a reaction force, consisting of two rune giant lycanthropes (one werebat, one werewolf), each with a round half-dozen followers of the same type (werewolves and werebats), along with some cavalier wererats riding direbats. The group ended up getting captured, and the leader had to pay a danegeld for threatening the city or they were going to chop him into pieces and serve him at the barbeque.
------------
They then travel to an eastern continent, somewhat similar to Tien from the Jade Regent. There, one of the PCs bumps into someone and knocks them down (a put up job, someone wanted to see how good the PCs were), and that person starts insulting him (they don't speak the language) and finally spits between his feet. The Leader tells him to ignore the guy and back down. They then find out they've ruined their reputation in town by doing so, as nobody feels they have any honor.
Player was not upset, he thought it was hilarious that he picked the wrong choice each time.
Seems like you adjudicated it in a completely reasonable manner.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point of the game isn't to run as perfect a simulation of a fantasy world as possible, or to tell the best narrative possible, or even to have the most exciting fights possible. The whole point of playing is to HAVE FUN. If the player wants to play a "perfect" sweet-talking face, who never has a misstep, never misspeaks, and always fits into every environment, and that is how everyone has fun, then DO THAT.
In that case I want to play an unstoppable brilliant swordsman who never loses a fight.
What? I have to roll dice to prove this? That's not FUN if I fail, is it? The DM should ensure that I always succeed.
You see the problem here is that the if the player wants this perfect character, he has to put some effort into achieving it. And that means more than maxing out skill ranks and rolling the occasional d20, it means ensuring that he does actually have the right choice.
When the PC told the Ulfen to "$%&@ off" they weren't sweet talking, they weren't engaged socially, they were giving the brush-off to what they considered to be an inconsequential NPC. That was the player's mistake, and by extension the PCs.
If you make mistakes, there are consequences. If there's no chance of losing, and no consequences, there's no FUN in success. This extends to decisions as well as d20 rolls - in fact, decisions should be MORE important to this process than d20 rolls.
I think both sides have valid points. From the players point of view he was following what he believes is the culture of the Ulfen. Different cultures may behave in ways that other find strange and bizarre. The Mud People of the seeker of truth series show greet people by slapping them. The harder the slap the more you respect the person. The GM's interpretation of the culture may not match that of the players. In all honesty most people would agree with the GM's interpretation rather than the players.
In some cases it there may be more than one skill that can be used in the same situation. And many skills can be used for different affects. Consider the following situation. The player needs to get past a guard. The player has already successfully disguised himself as a officer of the same organization. He walks up and attempts to pass by the guard. When the guard tries to stop him the player responds "If you don't want KP duty for a month you will get the hell out of my way". What is the appropriate skill to use. Is it bluff, or is it Intimidate, or is it diplomacy?
The original poster does not mention who called for the intimidate roll. When it comes to social skills I usually allow the player to chose what skill he uses. Obviously in some cases this will be overruled. The original poster does not say who called for the intimidate roll so that makes it harder to judge. If it was the player I would say that the GM interpretation of the situation was correct. If it was the GM that called for the intimidate then the player may have a legit complaint.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think both sides have valid points. From the players point of view he was following what he believes is the culture of the Ulfen.
Getting hit in the face with an axe as a consequence is consistent with this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Intimidating to change an opponent's attitude requires a conversation. "F*$§ off or I kill you" is trying to demoralize. The barbarian would have only been put off for a few seconds at most, then probably would have done exactly what you did. Your player doesn't know the rules as well as he could.
If your player would have taken the time to intimidate the barbarian and succeeded, he would have changed the barbarian's attitude to friendly for a time. During that time, it would have been better to not attack. I would have had the barbarian back down, but still shout at the PCs that he's owed his due and then come back later with some friends to (and maybe some additional liquid courage).
I would suggest you read and re-read the rules about Diplomacy and Intimidate and then have a conversation with your players about how these skills can be used. As others have commented, while these skills are helpful, it does not mean that a skilled character is able to control the actions of every person they meet. Regardless of how good a character is, there will be some situations where diplomacy and intimidate will not have much affect.
I ran a PFS game recently where a player with a good diplomacy had a mission to get some documents from the office of a local merchant. So he walk's up to the the merchant and says "There is some information in your files about my family that I need", throws the dice for a diplomacy result of 25, and assumes he's getting what he wants. The merchant reacted by saying "Well, you do something for me and maybe we will talk about it." The player was annoyed because he assumed his awesome roll was way more than he needed and that the merchant should just give in to his well-spoken demands. Ignoring the fact that the player hardly role-played the situation...in my mind, I ruled that there was no way that the merchant would open up his files for a complete stranger regardless of how well he presented himself, but since the player did roll well, it did create an opening for the future.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the guy would have backed down at the moment, but would have been convinced the PCs were guilty and come back with friends to collect the blood debt.
So, you're both sort of right?
|
|
In that case I want to play an unstoppable brilliant swordsman who never loses a fight.
What? I have to roll dice to prove this? That's not FUN if I fail, is it? The DM should ensure that I always succeed.
You see the problem here is that the if the player wants this perfect character, he has to put some effort into achieving it.
Why? What's wrong with playing an "unstoppable brilliant swordsman who never loses a fight" if everyone is having fun with it? Sure, if one guys wants to hog the spotlight that's a problem, but if all the players are cool with being badass James Bonds's who can out fight, out talk and out wit everyone and not mess up their tuxedos why doing it, what's the harm?
If, after a while of this, they decide it isn't challenging enough, then ramp up the "consequences" and make life harder for them. But there aren't any "realism" police who are going to bust into your game for making life easier on your players.
|
foreigners making an honest mistake in a land they've never been to. What's the problem?
Also, I don't feel like a GM should prompt rolls unless the player is new. The pc should pay some attention and ask lots of questions. If they had more caution perhaps they would have hired an Npc translator/city guide.
I played JR through, we kicked this guys butt after trying to not start a fight.
I wouldn't necessarily say 'unfair', per se. I would say that you did undersell the Intimidate check; I would probably have had him slink off, then come back with friends.
If the players want to use a skill they need to tell you they want to use a skill.
Unless the players are very new to the game then they should be in control of what they do.
This player chose intimidate, not sense motive or diplomacy.
If they wanted to sense motive then they should have said "I'd like to roll sense motive".
If I was new I'd not mind being nudged about it "you may want to roll sense motive here" but if I was told everytime I did something that the DM had a better idea of what I should do, eventually I'd just slide him my character sheet and go take a nap- I'll just read the novel later.
IMO: You did the right thing.
The PC said what he wanted to do. He did it. The NPC acted in a rational fashion given his reasons and state of mind. The PC wasn't cheated out of anything or out of any opportunity to do something.
You did fine, IMO.
If the PC wanted to sense motive or diplo, then he should have stated so.
-S
|
|
It may have been that the party face was perfectly capable of applying her knowledge, skill and experience to the situation, and come to a conclusion that would have prompted her to act in such a way that she could have dealt with the situation with much greater success.
But having the ability to do this doesn't help you if you just can't be bothered to use these skills!
In this case, the face just didn't choose to use her (no doubt) formidable skill-set. 'Piss off or I'll kill you', from a girl, to a drunk Viking, said in an intimidating manner but without taking the time to actually intimidate, is going to successfully modify the Viking's behaviour; it'll make him axe her in the face!
Having the ability to do something won't help if you can't be bothered to use that ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general, you were correct. BUT he should not have had to ask to make a Sense Motive check, you should have said "Make a Sense motive check" and then (if made) explained.
Why? What's wrong with playing an "unstoppable brilliant swordsman who never loses a fight" if everyone is having fun with it? Sure, if one guys wants to hog the spotlight that's a problem, but if all the players are cool with being badass James Bonds's who can out fight, out talk and out wit everyone and not mess up their tuxedos why doing it, what's the harm?In that case I want to play an unstoppable brilliant swordsman who never loses a fight.
What? I have to roll dice to prove this? That's not FUN if I fail, is it? The DM should ensure that I always succeed.
You see the problem here is that the if the player wants this perfect character, he has to put some effort into achieving it.
None at all, if that's the game everyone wants to play (DM included), but it's not Pathfinder by the default settings and no-one expects it to be. The idea of challenges is that they challenge you, and to do that there has to be the possibility that the player characters will lose. That's why they are called "challenges".
If, after a while of this, they decide it isn't challenging enough, then ramp up the "consequences" and make life harder for them. But there aren't any "realism" police who are going to bust into your game for making life easier on your players.
Of course they won't - but the game will just get really boring really fast. So why not do what most people do and cut to the consequences way of playing from the outset to save time?
In general, you were correct. BUT he should not have had to ask to make a Sense Motive check, you should have said "Make a Sense motive check" and then (if made) explained.Umm, no. A DM should not hand-hold the players and give them a list of the best options at every turn. As Selgard said;If I was new I'd not mind being nudged about it "you may want to roll sense motive here" but if I was told everytime I did something that the DM had a better idea of what I should do, eventually I'd just slide him my character sheet and go take a nap- I'll just read the novel later.What is the point of a game if you can't make mistakes, or they are trivialized? The player made a mistake, and hopefully will learn from it.
err? I agree completely.
If i was new (and thus didn't know all the rules and how the skills worked) i wouldn't mind being reminded about it- but as an experienced player if the DM was telling me what to do everytime i'd get tired of it.For example
Me: With an intimidate check of *rolls and does math* 32, "I tell the drunk *** to *** off or I'll kill him."
DM: "Are you sure you wouldn't rather use a sense motive? Maybe diplomacy?"
Me: Positive.
Now that doesn't bother me- unless its happening all the time.
If the PC wants to use a skill then thats what they do, unless the rules clearly don't allow for it. ("I roll diplomacy to avoid his sword?" DM: wha?".
What you do should definately have consequences. Intimidate isn't the answer to all issues. (as it wasn't the answer in the OP). They intimidated and it backfired on them.
The player made a mistake and hopefully they learn from it. There is a time and place for all things but every time and every place isn't appropriate for every thing.
You Can intimidate the King. That doesn't mean its a good idea to do so. :)
-S
I would say I see where both you and the player are coming from and understand why it shook out the way it did. Seems to me the out of game talk kind of handled it and perhaps you can (in the future) tell the character what you are reading into the situation as a GM before he goes for such things. I know as a player I like to have a feel for how the GM will rule something so that I can fit my character's actions into the game while still getting the results I want (provided I succeed on whatever checks are needed).
|
|
It is always a tough call. I think you did what you thought the NPC would do in that situation, which is your job.
As a GM you always have more knowledge than the players. The players need to trust you, and you need to earn their trust.
As a GM, you are always interested in making the game as interesting as possible, and you are always rooting for the players.
And sometimes your players cuss out vikings and...interesting things happen.
.
Yeah I would say the most important take away -- the one that makes me happy to read on here -- is the fact that you and your player are both comfortable enough with each other and have enough trust in each other to talk this out, and then even afterward you as a GM try and see what you can do to handle it so that a player doesn't feel bad about things in the future if something like this happens.
To me that's the warm and fuzzy of this story.
Intimidate should've been an option, but the player did it in a poor way. I would not turn my back to someone who's ready to declare blood feud.
I should also note I find that outcome hilarious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I probably give a lot more weight to the actual content of the conversation than a lot of DMs. To me, the distinguishing part of this interaction is not "which skill check are you using" but "what did you say to the guy".
For example, if the face had said "You got the wrong people. Now, f@$k off or I'll kill you" and then rolled the intimidate check, I probably would have had the guy back off and go away. On the flip side, if the face said, "Yeah, we killed your dog, but we'll buy you a drink to apologize" and then rolled diplomacy, the guy still might have attacked based on the roll.
To me, the problem in the situation wasn't that the players chose the wrong skill but that they didn't acknowledge the guy's issue. In this particular situation, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the accuser(regardless of cultural background) to take a blind brush off as an admission of guilt.
In fact, I can imagine a wide range of responses that would diffuse the situation or at least postpone the confrontation even if the players were guilty, but an unadorned brush off is not one of them. So I would have done the exact same thing. If the players asked about it later, I would have explained what the reasoning was, just like you did.
As far as the sense motive goes, I don't know that it would have helped much: drunk Viking comes up, accuses you of killing his dog, and threatens a blood feud on you. What exactly is sense motive going to tell you that is missing from that description?
I tend to encourage my new players to tell me what they are trying to accomplish and then I'll suggest the best way to achieve it. So if they said, "I want him to back down and go away--I'll roll intimidate and tell him to f&*k off."
"OK, you think that will probably make him angrier: if you tell him he's wrong about the dog, too, that would work better."
That's my 2 silver pieces, anyway.
Thanks for all your answers, I do feel a little more comfortable about this now.
As to why it came up 4 months late was not because the player wanted a different outcome, that would just be silly. It came up because he felt like his social skills were becoming marginalized and had little influence on things.
The trigger for that was me actually messing something up, which I agree I handled very badly. He had rolled a nat 20 on the diplomacy check and with a +20 modifier got a 40, and I more or less ignored that, because in my head the way the character argumented would in fact have reinforced the NPCs belief that he was doing the right thing. He was pretty pissed about that afterwards, and I totally understand that.
I promised to be better in the future.
However in the course of that discussion this incident came up again.
I may have to talk with him again and make sure that he knows how Intimidate and Diplomacy work, that they're not magic words and you can jsut snip your fingers and walk away, but actually need time to work.
To the question if it was the start of a conversation to change attitude? I didn't have the impression, as mentioned after she said "F*§$ off", she tried to walk away.
Adn yes the utter disregard of the man's actual situation was what made me decide to attack instead of the other options. To me that didn't seem like chest-thumping it seemed like saying "Why do you think I give a sh*t about your stupid dog?"
However I do see the players point too. As I said, I kinda screwed up a Diplomacy check really badly lately, and that was after an entire AP book of fighting primarily undead and stuff like that, where her social skills also didn't matter.
So once we got back to civilization the player was happy to finally be able to use those skills again, and then that.
Of course then they enter the dungeon where they got told by the Good spirit guarding it that "spider people had entered before, to kill the Oni". And what do they do? Murder everything that looks remotely like a spider, and don't even try to negotiate or even find out if they can talk.
The rp opportunity to act deaf, dumb, stupid, too inept to kill his favourite dog, and unable to understand viking (Ulfen) or common was missed.
Ke?
Helpless assassin is a fun character to play. Wouldn't hurt a fly.
Thanks for all your answers, I do feel a little more comfortable about this now.
As to why it came up 4 months late was not because the player wanted a different outcome, that would just be silly. It came up because he felt like his social skills were becoming marginalized and had little influence on things.
The trigger for that was me actually messing something up, which I agree I handled very badly. He had rolled a nat 20 on the diplomacy check and with a +20 modifier got a 40, and I more or less ignored that, because in my head the way the character argumented would in fact have reinforced the NPCs belief that he was doing the right thing. He was pretty pissed about that afterwards, and I totally understand that.
I promised to be better in the future.However in the course of that discussion this incident came up again.
I may have to talk with him again and make sure that he knows how Intimidate and Diplomacy work, that they're not magic words and you can jsut snip your fingers and walk away, but actually need time to work.
To the question if it was the start of a conversation to change attitude? I didn't have the impression, as mentioned after she said "F*§$ off", she tried to walk away.
Adn yes the utter disregard of the man's actual situation was what made me decide to attack instead of the other options. To me that didn't seem like chest-thumping it seemed like saying "Why do you think I give a sh*t about your stupid dog?"However I do see the players point too. As I said, I kinda screwed up a Diplomacy check really badly lately, and that was after an entire AP book of fighting primarily undead and stuff like that, where her social skills also didn't matter.
So once we got back to civilization the player was happy to finally be able to use those skills again, and then that.Of course then they enter the dungeon where they got told by the Good spirit guarding it that "spider people had entered before, to kill the Oni". And what do they do? Murder everything that looks remotely...
Wait.
He told someone to f*ck themselves, and then got a natural 20 on diplomacy?Does that mean they agree, and go do it?
I probably give a lot more weight to the actual content of the conversation than a lot of DMs. To me, the distinguishing part of this interaction is not "which skill check are you using" but "what did you say to the guy".
For example, if the face had said "You got the wrong people. Now, f@$k off or I'll kill you" and then rolled the intimidate check, I probably would have had the guy back off and go away. On the flip side, if the face said, "Yeah, we killed your dog, but we'll buy you a drink to apologize" and then rolled diplomacy, the guy still might have attacked based on the roll.
To me, the problem in the situation wasn't that the players chose the wrong skill but that they didn't acknowledge the guy's issue. In this particular situation, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the accuser(regardless of cultural background) to take a blind brush off as an admission of guilt.
In fact, I can imagine a wide range of responses that would diffuse the situation or at least postpone the confrontation even if the players were guilty, but an unadorned brush off is not one of them. So I would have done the exact same thing. If the players asked about it later, I would have explained what the reasoning was, just like you did.
As far as the sense motive goes, I don't know that it would have helped much: drunk Viking comes up, accuses you of killing his dog, and threatens a blood feud on you. What exactly is sense motive going to tell you that is missing from that description?
I tend to encourage my new players to tell me what they are trying to accomplish and then I'll suggest the best way to achieve it. So if they said, "I want him to back down and go away--I'll roll intimidate and tell him to f&*k off."
"OK, you think that will probably make him angrier: if you tell him he's wrong about the dog, too, that would work better."That's my 2 silver pieces, anyway.
Sense motive could reveal any facet of the vikings emotional state, and the extent to which he believes you killed his dog.
Wait.
He told someone to f*ck themselves, and then got a natural 20 on diplomacy?
Does that mean they agree, and go do it?
No the nat 20 was on something else. The F*§" you was an Intimidate roll and at a much lower level.
I believe Sense Motive is something the DM should roll every time a character asks to do any diplomatic/bluffing/intimidating interaction.
Because if the PC asks every time, it gets annoying. And if the player rolls that dice, he'll know his rolled result and I don't trust everybody to be fair and not metagame (hey, I don't even trust myself about it... subconsciousness is tricky).
Sense motive is something you can roll and prepare in advance... because whether you roll his reaction to diplomacy or intimidation doesn't matter... you, the DM, know whether the player figured out how the NPC thinks about this situation.
It's like planning a pursuit through a street and not telling your PC's about side-streets or easy-to-climb buildings or entrances one can hide in:
A DM could describe one street as rich but plain houses with smooth walls to thwart thieves, well-fitted doors square streets-layout.
Or a DM could describe another street as poor with houses piled like some weird tetris experiment, corners and angles everywhere, street layout being more maze then streets.
A player should have to ask:
- what do walls look like?
- any entrances to hide in?
- any chance to loose pursuers in side-streets?
... and this every time this situation comes up.
Just because you describe does not mean your players will take it as a big hint to go that way, especially if you give them multiple possible ways.
Also such descriptions make the world come alive in the players eyes... describe the world they are in, describe the emotions on the faces of people they talk to: immersion. :-)
Also you should allow your NPCs the same sense motive checks, to see whether the face-PC is just a heartless brute who doesn't give a damn about other people's sufferings or a psycho who kills other people's pets for fun. Both results will yield different results in how these NPCs will act towards your PC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, I'm glad it sounds like you and your players can discuss these things in a civil manner.
a) Did I really disregard his Intimidate unfairly?
I don't think so. Honor is a strong thing, and sometimes a person will do something they wouldn't normally do even if they are afraid (shaken). How many soldiers have rushed into danger knowing they may die? Even march into guaranteed death for the sake of honor?
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 also tend to not give passive sense motive checks. Of course, my players are aware that I expect them to keep up w/ everything that is going on w/ their characters (and they are good at not meta-gaming). So my players know to request such checks in cases like this. I would suggest making sure your players are aware of your feelings regarding this. In my experience players don't mind most things as long as it's consistent. Part of the learning experience is to discover how people don't always make the same assumptions and, as GM, make sure everyone is on the same page w/ basic things like this.
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 would agree. As mentioned in A, sometimes circumstances dictate precedence over common sense. If an otherwise good NPC knows his children will die if he doesn't kill the PC's the diplomacy check might end w/ him telling them the situation but telling them he has no choice. I would hope the PCs would use non-lethal damage and then go to rescue his children and end the situation.
I find giving too much power to diplomacy/intimidate can undermine free will, which is silly. Can you use diplomacy to convince someone to give you a discount on magic items? Maybe. Can you use diplomacy to convince someone to put themselves out of business so you can get some items ridiculously cheaply? No.
In short, communication is key for good GMing. At times it's ok to "replay" a situation for new players, etc, but by book 2 I would think they would know what to expect from your game. If they did not, it is a learning experience for you that you should try to communicate what to expect in a better way. :)
I hope all that is useful.
|
I don't think you were unfair, but you might be able to handle these situations better in the future.
It sucks as a player when, due to some misunderstanding, you make a bad decision that your character would not have made. How a player RPs a social roll should have an effect in addition to the actual result of the roll, and given that the PC just brushed off the dwarf, "He's shaken, but attacks to protect his honour and avenge his dog" was a reasonable response. There are lots of ways to chest-thump without antagonizing the situation (heck, "We owe you no weregild, so #%* off or we kill you" would have been better). On the other hand, the player clearly didn't anticipate this response and maybe his character should have known better (did he have a decent Sense Motive or Knowledge Local)? So it's also reasonable for him to feel a little upset.
Since it seems like in both this case and the Nat 20 Diplomacy, you had a problem with the player not fitting the RP part well to the situation, I would definitely look for a way to give them more hints about what arguments will be effective - especially if he's invested in Sense Motive as well as Knowledge (Local). And while you could just tell him "look, remember to make Sense Motive rolls before you open your mouth" I think that constantly stopping in social encounters for such a roll impedes the flow of things. Allowing a passive Sense Motive (10+Modifier) and informing your player of any particularly obvious motivations or warning them before they make a counterproductive argument isn't hand-holding, it's just making sure that a character gets the benefit of their skills without bogging down play too much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The trigger for that was me actually messing something up, which I agree I handled very badly. He had rolled a nat 20 on the diplomacy check and with a +20 modifier got a 40, and I more or less ignored that, because in my head the way the character argumented would in fact have reinforced the NPCs belief that he was doing the right thing.
Under these circumstances I would say that the player picked up on the subliminal feel of the NPC and switched tack at the last moment. I would have described it: "As you start to outline your argument, you catch the tick in the eye of the other guy and realise that this is just what he expected. Instead you suggest X and Y, and he is startled and surprised, and thrown off his train of thought. Reluctantly he agrees you have a point."
Although a nat 20 on a skill check does not guarantee success as it does in an attack roll, it should be added.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm coming at this from the viewpoint of a player whose PC has been in a somewhat similar situation.
So, whoever bets on the fight is accused of cheating no matter how they bet, and you either pay or get beat up? That encounter certainly seems to ignore skill checks and treat the PC unfairly.
a) Did I really disregard his Intimidate unfairly?
No, IMHO you played it out very reasonably.
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?
Well, you should probably never phrase something like that as "your character thinks...", though "your character is aware that..." would be okay. Passive checks for Sense Motive and Perception, maybe even Knowledge:Local are perfectly legitimate for providing the player with information you think his character would likely have in the situation, but just give him the information without suggesting how the character should respond to it.
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 it's reasonable to increase the DC of Diplomacy/Intimidate checks vs. people who are drunk or highly emotional, but the system already does that with the various levels of attitude: indifferent, hostile, helpful, friendly...if you feel the chart doesn't go far enough, you can always extend it another level from Hostile to "I KEEL YOU!" with an appopriate bump to the DC.
If someone says to me "If you want to talk to me, watch your words or i kill you" in an intimidating manner, i can be compelled to act friendly to make my reasons heard.
If someone says to me "F*$§ off or I kill you" in an intimidating manner i would be compelled to flee (and come back with reinforcement) or attack on the spot.
If it was a way to force someone to act friendly, it could have been phrased a lot better... I would probably have run it the same way.
Well, you should probably never phrase something like that as "your character thinks...", though "your character is aware that..." would be okay. Passive checks for Sense Motive and Perception, maybe even Knowledge:Local are perfectly legitimate for providing the player with information you think his character would likely have in the situation, but just give him the information without suggesting how the character should respond to it.
Personally, I prefer 'Your are getting the feeling that... blah' or 'You're feeling like... blah'. To me, sense motive has always been more of a 'feeling' type skill, rather than a 'know' type skill.
Personally, I prefer 'Your are getting the feeling that... blah' or 'You're feeling like... blah'. To me, sense motive has always been more of a 'feeling' type skill, rather than a 'know' type skill.
Agreed for Sense Motive and possibly Perception. For any Knowledge rolls (I did mention Know:Local before), feelings don't apply.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He feels I dismissed the Intimidate check too easily. He said from what they saw in that region chest-thumping would be a better result than sweet-talking and the guy should have backed down. Even if he would have come back later, maybe with friends.
I have a problem with a player dictating to a DM what an NPC "should have done" when it comes to motivation. Mechanics are one thing (as in "that bad guy should have dropped his weapon when stunned") but motivation and personality are an entirely different thing. The whole point of a DM is to know the unknowable. The mind, the background, the motivation, the mind-set of the NPC exists solely within the DM.
Now, I'm not talking about something where a DM is totally on crack. I'm talking about a situation - like this one - where the NPC's reaction isn't clearly nonsensical.
Given the scenario you've described, your player shouldn't be second-guessing you.
He then said, I should have let him make a Sense Motive check to figure out that Intimidate wouldn't have the intended result, and that Diplomacy might be the way to go. Mind you, he had never asked for that, if he had, I'd probably would have told him.
Again I have an issue with back-seat DMing. You don't need a Sense Motive to know that drawing a sword and attack an NPC is likely to result in a fight. 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. To now incorrectly tell you how you should've asked him to make an extra roll to recognize he'd made a mistake? Not cool.
As a (friendly) DM, I would've probably asked the player "are you serious?" Then I would've rolled with it and did what you did. If he asked my why I was questioning his choice, I'd probably take a minute to reiterate how the rules for Intimidate work. Both the character and the player should know that. Shrug.
Personally, I prefer 'Your are getting the feeling that... blah' or 'You're feeling like... blah'. To me, sense motive has always been more of a 'feeling' type skill, rather than a 'know' type skill.
I agree with this, even as a player, this is how I prefer a DM to handle Sense Motive. I feel that it provides a direction for roleplaying but doesn't provide the answer. Now, if a player rolls a 20 or something, even though crits don't necessarily apply to skill checks, or a player simply rolls something astronomical, then I think it's the DMs discretion to provide something more concrete.
For the record, as a DM, i think the OP handled it just fine. Sometimes, people take the wrong course of action. I don't use Intimidate or Diplomacy as magic buttons either. Tell me what you're saying. Make it sound good and I'll even give you positive modifiers. Fortunately, my group doesn't just say "roll diplomacy and make him my friend" kind of stuff
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Marty McFly still hit Biff after being intimidated.
He was drunk, someone killed his dog, and someone told him the group did it. All pluses. A hand gesture and the group's face man telling him to step off isn't enough to stop him. I say you made the right call.