AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Unfortunately, a lot of the personality skill rolls require forcing a character to act a certain way. I like to think of an intimidate roll as "just cream". People may ignore the roll, they may ignore the 3-4 entries of text you just threw at them. Forcing them together firmly cements what your character is attempting to do, how they're going about doing it and how much effort they're putting into it. When I roll intimidate on a character, I usually put a lot of effort into describing just how they're acting beforehand. It's quite a bit more fun that way. Same with if I'm rolling perform, I spend time describing what a certain section of music is doing if it's on an instrument, what they're doing if it is a dance, etc.

Never roll bluff. Ever.

Even if bluff were a skill to be used on PC's, it makes no sense to openly roll for it. If I wanted to bluff in a PnP game, even if I was bluffing an NPC, I'd slip a note to the DM saying so.

Better yet, roll bluff even when you're telling the truth, that way if someone tries to metagame they'll sink themselves in a trap.

lol I like that idea =)

so even against DM's at events don't roll a bluff check? just RPly bluff as much as possible? and obviously tell them what your attempting to do OOCly through the DM channel so they know your interacting with an event NPC.

Quote:

Never roll bluff. Ever.

thats one for the wit or wisdom that.

what about persuade if they don't seam willing to let out some plot info? or somesuch.

This is a Dead Horse _\/__\/

This thread is a Dead Horse being beaten to much

I notice a recurring theme of "DICE ROLLS DON'T REPLACE RP" and.. I agree 100%. It just seems like a huge straw man argument to me. I don't think anyone in this thread remotely suggested "I don't have to RP because I invested skill points." So.. any discussion about RP vs Rolling seems silly. Maybe I'm giving people too much credit? I dunno.

At the same time I think a lot of it has to do with that culture of "No one else can have control of my character." This is also very strange to me, coming from a very PnP background.. where you knew you existed more or less only as long as the plot had you do so. And having DMed quite a bit as well, my players all knew full well what terrible, terrible things could befall them at any time.

Still brings a smile to my face.

I'm not saying that someone should be able to roll an Intimidate check and your level 30 warrior should soil his armor. That wouldn't make any sense either way.. but the argument that your adventurer has bested the Balrog with a pocket knife and a pair of pliers and thus should fear no man.. seems fairly weak as well. Remember - you have done it, but so have a great many other people in this world. FR is a setting in which no matter how BA you think you are, there are five guys ahead of you bigger meaner and ready to Pwn.

Equally I'd like to see more..flexibility.. in the player base and their reactions. I think a lot of people knew where they were going with the character and how the character should end before they were rolled up. It seems to strangle the ways in which a character can grow.

If a preacher type tries to give you the Good News about Ilmater and has a 20 persuade or a 120 persuade.. he's invested in that to be part of his character. You don't have to convert, but you can at least let your character be slightly swayed by it.. give him your ear for a bit. Let him consider it. If someone puts forth decent RP and tosses down 100 intimidate (especially if they aren't getting barb rage bonuses out of it down the line) You don't have to pee yourself. You don't have to run.. But as a courtesy, let yourself be a little shaken.. a little disturbed. Let the other guy feel justified for having invested.

Your character can go man-up again later by killing something if it makes him feel better for that wavering moment. But I've always thought that RP wasn't something you did for yourself. It's something you helped create for everyone else.

My two cents.

brooksthegreat wrote:

... But I've always thought that RP wasn't something you did for yourself. It's something you helped create for everyone else.

This, this, this, a thousand times this. Well said.

If people ignore my intimidate roll, the DC 58 fear aura followed by their character's death usually solves the problem.

Galenson wrote:

If people ignore my intimidate roll, the DC 58 fear aura followed by their character's death usually solves the problem.

has terrifying rage been modified on this server to work on equal level characters?

Colapops wrote:

Better yet, roll bluff even when you're telling the truth, that way if someone tries to metagame they'll sink themselves in a trap.

They will never know if you told the truth or not, mahahaa!

Vhalus_VoA wrote:

Galenson wrote:

If people ignore my intimidate roll, the DC 58 fear aura followed by their character's death usually solves the problem.

has terrifying rage been modified on this server to work on equal level characters?

Nuh. Intimidate + 1d10 vs Will.

And personal opinion: Roll without RP is bad.

One guy rolls a skill, the other guy rolls a saving throw. Guess who's going to win every time? That is why we're now introducing: BeAtEase, the Mindblank for social situations! Works against stepmothers, lesbians AND barbarians!

brooksthegreat wrote:

At the same time I think a lot of it has to do with that culture of "No one else can have control of my character."

I have no problem with sharing control of my character with my fellow roleplayers. I won't share that same control with dice, in matters of my character's thoughts, opinions, and decisions. If a character tries to intimidate my character, I will not have my character react any differently if he rolls for intimidate than if he doesn't. That is not to say I will not have my character react - if the image the intimidating character suggests is particularly frightening, I will most likely have my character be frightened.

I realize D&D is a d20 system. I am not very well acquainted with the spirit of D&D, as I've only played it for, perhaps, five years now, but I have always been under the impression that dice were really meant to help determine the results of physical actions - such as climbing, fighting, etc. The success of these things can fairly be said to be based on the skill of the character performing the action, in addition to some small amount of chance. The human mind - rather, the sapient mind - is much more complex. If you wanted to simulate interaction between minds through rolls of the dice, you'd have to introduce a lot more "social" skills than already exist. It is an insult to the mind's complexity to try to apply the d20 system to it at all.

I think "rolling with the punches" would help a lot of peoples RP. Even if you dont think you would enjoy an RP, just go with it, you may surprise yourself.

As I have been trying to be less selfish lately, I try to think of the other peoples RP needs. I may not particularly want to get dragged into a church, tortured and burned alive....but you know, it could be fun, as long as I make it fun, in my own, unique way.

Red wrote:

I may not particularly want to get dragged into a church, tortured and burned alive....but you know, it could be fun, as long as I make it fun, in my own, unique way.

By consuming a packet of explosive powder beforehand.

Yeah, something like that

thats so freaking funny I could cry ^'_^ LOL

I like the fear aura followed by their death, though I'd prefer some sort of restraining tool being i'm not evil. *the following is subdual damage >=)*

I understand many of you are unfamiliar with the ways of D&D, and I'm cool with that.
When we're all sitting around the table and role playing, and by that I mean when we're not in combat because combat is most definitely dice oriented, our dice are rolling all the time. Skill checks, ability checks, you name it, the dice are flying.
I joined this server because it has both D&D and is RP based, unlike almost all of the others out there.
If I didn't want the dice rolls in my RP, I guess I'd be considering LARP, or at least a server that isn't D&D heavy (which this one is).

I'm not a dice freak or anything, lol, I just think the skill points are there for a reason, and if a character is actively trying something, a roll is in order.
I previously suggested making a roll first, and then RP based on the roll.
If you spend the time and RP your heart out and then roll a failing score, it would suck.
Everyone has an off day, you know, the rolls show the randomness of life as well as how good you might be at something.
The chance exists in life that something will go wrong, the 20th Lvl. Bards' voice might crack at the wrong time (oops, rolled a 1), or the 3rd Lv. Bard just nailed that song (hey! rolled a 20). The big Barbarian standing near the Halfling tries to crack his knuckles and intimidate the little guy, he rolls a low score and ends up farting and making the Halfling laugh hysterically.
My DM's make us roll vs. each other all the time.

Whatever, in the end it is the Dungeon Master's call, they are the one that usually calls out for the roll anyway. Maybe I'm just too old school...

Kudark wrote:

I'm not a dice freak or anything, lol, I just think the skill points are there for a reason ... <snip>

They are there for a reason, you're right... and that reason is so that PCs can use them against NPCs in the boxed campaign. The "social" skills are not intended for PvP use, and never were. And never should be.

Sigh.

Quote:

Social skills aren't intended for use against other PCs.

Neither are any skill or feats in DnD. DnD was designed and intended for a group of PCs playing against a DM or, in the case of NWN, a DM or spawns. You can try to take them both though and use them as tools to RP with though, and they both ultimately have the same issues with doing so. Most people are simply more accustomed to the RPG/video-game cliches of spawn-hunting and PVPing.

Quote:

Social skills are imbalanced in Amia because of the mythal system scales them too high.

So re-scale what is considered a "good roll" or change the way the roll works (e.g Intimidate vs. Concentration or Discipline) or both. This is not a difficult problem to solve.

Quote:

People will simply ignore RP and abuse rolls if social skills are encouraged.

Perhaps, but no different from ignoring RP and letting the engine decide how a fight works ought or the overwhelmingly commonplace acceptance of almost entirley ignoring RP when it comes to the MMORPG conventions of party-finding, monster-grinding, character building, and loot-selling. People accept the MMORPG conventions however because those activities satiate their need for power whereas social rolls often require a temporary relinquishment of power. People never wanting to relinquish any power however is often said to be a big problem here, yet whenever social skills come up this hypocrisy rears its head. Again, however, this is not actually a difficult problem. You can have rules for PvP you can have rules for social rolls and report (or just ignore) abusive people.

Quote:

You can't quantify something like persuasiveness or how intimidating someone is.

You can* approximate* most anything by assigning it a number within a system, if you followed this argument to its end a lot of science, math, and philosophy would collapse on itself. Philosophical issues aside, what is important, for the game anyway, is not how well it maps onto "reality" but how it works within the system its contained within. Quantification of the Strength or Dexterity stats are ultimately just as arbitrary in DnD as Intelligence or a Diplomacy roll anyway, as the factors considered in the former cover a multitude of muscular, neurological, and learned skills which do not really correlate with one another. You can try to argue you are your character's mind and not your body (which is not as easy as many would think) however most of the reasons people respond to something like Intimidation are primarily bodily and not mental. They sweat, get a nervous stomach, feel their muscles tense, etc.

Quote:

I don't like someone having control over my character.

Maybe you don't, but you're certainly being inconsistent. It is no more or less control over your character that I first roll and Intimidate check to make you back down than if I pull a blade and kill you outright. Both are attempts at conflict resolution which involve force. You're merely hampering the possibilities to resolve things by removing the social element against other players and pushing everything to end in largely the same way and homogenizing the types of characters that get made, since everyone will focus on taking on combat based skills or feats.

Quote:

Social skills might not be good for PCs on Amia but you might get a DM event!

This a large problem with the server in my opinion in general. Good "RP behavior", so to speak is not so much rewarded but given some sort of mantle of moral goodness around it with accompanying vague assurances of some kind of higher or deeper satisfaction if you do the the right RP thing. In short, it has a very religious type quality to it, and instead of trying to create policies which push for more RP which is integrated into the server itself people insist nothing needs to change, that you can't get people to do what you want with social engineering (which the entire 20th century proves one wrong on IMO), and that if you're a good RPer the DMs on high just might take note of you and drop you a shiny token.

Quote:

I demand high quality RP if someone rolls a social roll.

Well, get over yourself. No one considers it improper that a weak person is allowed to play a strong character in the game. The entire point of much RP is to try to be someone you are not. Perhaps I am not so smart in real life, but I am allowed to play a wizard and *his* intelligence is represented in his Intelligence attribute and spells learned. Perhaps I would also like to play a persuasive character although I lack dialectical skills myself. Why do you demand I have them and refuse to acknowledge that a roll is the same type of stand-in as a wizard's spells or fighter's feats for someone who wants to be convincing in-character?

Instead of ripping apart other people's posts, complete with snark and bitter attitudes, it's suggested that a point be made in its simplicity and left be instead of arguing back and forth.

Rules wise, nothing is being added or changed in this regard. It is the Player's option how they react to any Social roll or the like. Don't like it - don't use it.

Quote:

Instead of ripping apart other people's posts, complete with snark and bitter attitudes, it's suggested that a point be made in its simplicity and left be instead of arguing back and forth.

Instead of making point-by-point critiques of other people's posts, complete with detailed counter-argumentation and neutral tone, it's being tacitly implied here that the those who decide things can flatly state what their opinion is and it is left be by others instead of them following along with the pretense of having a discussion board whose purpose is to debate issues.

Look, you can read "snark" and "ripping apart" into whatever you want, however it is highly irritating to take the time to type up a detailed response to something only to have it casually dismissed, especially by the staff, who seems to think the most important thing on a forum is making sure all the children in the playpen have smiling faces and are holding hands all the time.

If you want points "be left be in their simplicity without arguing back and forth" then stop dancing around that kind of authoritarianism and just simply don't have an open forum and I won't be able to go to the trouble of typing out response any more.

BloodNAshes wrote:

Perhaps I am not so smart in real life, but I am allowed to play a wizard and *his* intelligence is represented in his Intelligence attribute and spells learned. Perhaps I would also like to play a persuasive character although I lack dialectical skills myself. Why do you demand I have them and refuse to acknowledge that a roll is the same type of stand-in as a wizard's spells or fighter's feats for someone who wants to be convincing in-character?

This is another point I think should be emphasized, though not necessarily in this wording. It's easy enough to assume the game mechanics can model physical attributes and effects - after all, its the only method of interacting with the virtual "physical" world in the game.. But it seems imbalanced to say that we will accept whatever mechanical whatsit is imposed by the strength score, but we will not accept any possible effect of having an Intelligence or Charisma of 20-30 unless you yourself can roleplay it.

This has the net result of saying that the player has to have a charisma of 30 to convincingly play it. I don't require people I'm playing with to intimately know the ins and outs of medieval weapons, armor and combat techniques to play their fighting types. Nor do I require monks and clerics to actually act enlightened (as 30+WIS certainly would imply it.) Why would I require a person to be actually very persuasive before I'd consider their persuade roll?

If they put in a bit of effort, I'd go for it.. especially when they make the choice to put points into it instead of something with more combat utility. Otherwise, I'm indirectly telling people to build their characters for fighting and that mental stats and social abilities are up to the players, not the characters mechanical abilities. There's a double-standard inherent in frowning on a 6 CHA character being charming, while saying that a character's 40CHA shouldn't influence my character in any way.

Bobo_Underhill wrote:

That's one response. Some people could get pissed at an intimidate attempt. Some could not react at all, and I don't expect people who face down dragons, the legions of the Abyss, etc. to necessarily be frightened of a greying-haired, crippled halfling. I tend to use it mostly as a sign that PvP is forthcoming if conditions don't change.

Oh Lyle and his super intimidate rolls...

XD yes exactly thats who rolled 72 after saying something rather angry and sounding like daggers would soon become involved XD the combo of the two is not always bad against PC's, however if you want to completely ignore a roll, or not make rolls yourself thats fine aswell, as long as RP wise regardless of the roll your still IC.

I'm not saying you have to roll, not at all most people don't. thus far I've only rolled constitution for drinking effects but I haven't exactly got a difficulty class roll list for the beers, improv!

*ie. if you just rolled a 3 you ain't standing no more*

BloodNAshes makes great points and does show one of the hypocrisies of the server culture, but the problem is that these things can't be properly fixed with the NWN engine being what it is (designed to simulate combat more than simulate RP... persuasive characters have no mechanical tools), and Amia being what it is (a huge server with many different players of different RP levels).

You just can't change the culture of such a huge, amorphous, virtual society... but maybe this will affect a few players in some small way... i doubt it though.

Bluff is useful for misleading actions and distraction. Its also useful in DM events, course you don't need to fluff it up.

What I'd like to see is Buff used as some kind of modifier for a custom feat or something for assassin.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Bluff is useful for misleading actions and distraction. Its also useful in DM events, course you don't need to fluff it up.

What I'd like to see is Buff used as some kind of modifier for a custom feat or something for assassin.

You know, that might help as well. I'm not as familiar with the server as some, but adding a number of places in which NPCs could respond to those skills? Maybe a few merchant types that will let you in on their "back room stuff" if you have a base score of X in persuade - that would keep people from mythal-abusing it. Similarly, bluff could have some kind of use on NPC guards, or some kind of rogue or assassin feat? Figure out something for intimidate as well.

I wouldn't be as bothered by the players-ignoring-skill-rolls deal if I wasn't basically choosing whether to forgo the skill in favor of something that offers mechanical benefit vs. "hope it comes in handy with a dm one day." Give players a reason to take those skills, and they may just.

weirdly saying that, I found one on B yesterday =) I agree there should be more

Here's the giant shortcoming in regards to the "Well you use dice for combat; therefore they're legit in social" argument.

Attack;

The attack takes the following factors into account;
The Chance Variable (1d20)
The user's strength, finesse, accuracy or insight (Strength, Dexterity, or Wisdom for Zen Archery)
The user's skill in weapons (Base Attack Bonus)
The user's specialized skill in weapons (Feat-Affected Attack Bonus)
The user's weapon enhancements (Attack Bonus / Enchantment Bonus)
The presence of additional combatants aiding (Flanking Bonus)
The Chance Variable of hitting critical locations (Critical Hit)
The user's weapon's natural (in)ability to cause critical hits (Threat Range)
The defender's size (Size AC)
The defender's natural agility (Dexterity)
The defender's supernatural defenses against being hit and/or wounded (Armor Skin & Class Features)
The defender's body's resilience to attacks (Natural AC)
The defender's awareness & forewarning of the attack (Flatfoot AC)
The defender's evasive abilities (Dodge AC)
The defender's shield, if applicable (Base Shield Bonus)
The defender's shield's enhancements (Shield AC Bonus)
The defender's armor (Base Armor Bonus)
The defender's armor's enhancements (Armor AC Bonus)
The defender's magical ability to deflect attacks (Deflection AC Bonus)

In this regard, there is no remaining variable to really be counted upon wherein the Outcome changes. Ultimately, these mechanics give a 100% solid reading that cannot be disputed, leaving only one of two options.
You get hit.
You don't get hit.

You will also notice that each of these factors are specific to being attacked, and thus are not situational. Your Armor Class and Attack Bonus only come into play when interacting with eachother. Your Armor Class will not operate in a Saving Throw situation, nor will your Attack Bonus operate when throwing an area spell. These mechanics are not only encompassing, but specific, to Attacking and being Attacked.

This proceeds onto damage, as you can imagine, determining if the hit causes damage to the opponent (Which, again, is a fully defined mechanic providing no 'Gray Areas'), and how major this is.

Compare this, to, an Intimidate Roll.

Only the following factors are taken into account, mechanically.

The user's ability to be intimidating (Ranks)
The user's natural ability to be intimidating (Charisma)
The user's enhanced ability to be intimidating (Item Bonus)
The user's specialized ability to be intimidating (Feat Bonus)

Note that there is no 'defender' considerations made. A Will Save is the most common suggestion, however you will find that a Will Save is a demonstration of mental willpower and stamina. While thematically appropriate, it's both non-specific to the situation, and non-balanced. Here's some mechanics for you.

Skill Maximum;
50 Items + 33 Ranks + 15 Charisma + 3 Skill Focus + 10 Epic Skill Focus
= 111

Saving Throw Maximum;
12 Full Will Save Pre-Epic + 5 Epic Saves + 15 Will Save + 1 Luck of Heroes + 2 Iron Will + 4 Epic Will + 20 Items
= 59

Intimidate Roll: 1d20 (1) + 111 = 112
Will Save vs Intimidate: 1d20 (20) + 59 = 79

As you can see in the above, Skills vs Saves is a broken mechanic, and thus why Will as a supposed counter is inappropriate. On a Natural 1, the maximum of a skill automatically defeats a Natural 20 on a Save.

Moving onto the Intimidate Roll itself, however. The primary complaint is not defining how intimidating your character is - this is soley up to the player of the Intimidating Character. The primary complaint is how people react to this. The roll itself, as shown above, only takes the attacker's (The Intimidator's) specifications into mind.

This, as a result, does not give the Attack's simple definition in outcome that is decided. With the Attack, the mechanics will give a solid "Hit" or "Miss" answer. There are many outcomes which cannot be determined mathematically in these circumstances, and this is a factor directly addressed every time it comes up, as well as in the Dungeon Master's Guide, as to why these skills were made as Vs NPC.

Some of the multitude of outcomes to a Very Intimidating Character, are;
The character Runs
The character remains Indifferent
The character Attacks

These are not classified because they do not take such factors into account including whether the individual has fought the intimidator before, if the intimidator can be seen as more powerful compared to other adversaries it has faced, if the defender has external knowledge of the opponent's capabilities, the defender's natural response to fear (Fight, Flight or Freeze), the stimuli being provided in the intimidation (a DwD will not be afraid of a dagger, for instance), the mass factor of allies and-or enemies in the general vicinity, the presence of local protections, and so forth.

As such, the result of an intimidate roll beyond "The Intimidator is being Intimidating", cannot be defined - resulting in a mechanical Intimidate Roll in its current incarnation being nothing more than a measuring stick in regards to just how intimidating an individual is. Until an appropriate, all-encompassing associate roll can be made, this is all Intimidate is, and is thusly - and by Rule - leaving the character's response to this soley in the player's hand.

This, again, is inverse to attacks wherein the systems are encompassing to the point wherein, upon mechanics taking place, the result is clear. An Intimidate does nothing, whereas an Attack will determine a hit/miss and resulting effects. This is why the argument of ignoring someone's attack because they ignore your intimidate is not only faulted; but will also get you in strife from the DM Team for ignoring Roleplay.

This all applies, by simply changing the factors, to Bluff, Persuade, and so forth.

There's your longwinded answer that has been said every time this thread comes up.

now there you have a point, I remember one of the books, I forget which, it was probably one of those turn the page to find out ones but they are all based on dnd...

you had to either scare the orcs or fight them, or find another way if it was a dnd scenario...you could also persuade and try to get them to let you past, of course they realise soon after they are guarding a treasure trove XD and come after you.

you do have a very good point there, I shall remember that one.

Defenders vs. Intimidate get: (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target's Wisdom bonus [if any] + target's modifiers vs. fear)
It takes one minute of interaction to try and change another's behavior.

There is no Will save.

+4 Intimidate for every size larger than target, -4 for every size smaller.
A character immune to fear (such as 3rd lvl Pally) can't be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures.

This is all from the PHB, no opinions.

Yes, and that's vs an NPC and always up to the DMfor what happens.

Anyway, I think people should be allowed to make an appropriate skill check to support whatever RP they're doing and people should let that skill roll affect their response somehow. Not dictate their response, just affect it.

Maybe a better use of the skill is to deal with it in a more "Pull me" rather than "Push you" basis. If someone is acting in an intimidating manner towards you, ask them to roll a skill check. Then, if they haven't bothered to put the points into representing their character, and roll a (-1 + 2 = 0), you can quite legitimately emote something like:

*laughs until tears roll from her eyes* I'm sorry, I mean, I know you have a red hot poker in your hand, but the look on your face when you said that just cracked me up!

I wonder if this would encourage more people to put points into rp skills.

Didi wrote:

Maybe a better use of the skill is to deal with it in a more "Pull me" rather than "Push you" basis. If someone is acting in an intimidating manner towards you, ask them to roll a skill check. Then, if they haven't bothered to put the points into representing their character, and roll a (-1 + 2 = 0), you can quite legitimately emote something like:

*laughs until tears roll from her eyes* I'm sorry, I mean, I know you have a red hot poker in your hand, but the look on your face when you said that just cracked me up!

I wonder if this would encourage more people to put points into rp skills.

Or you could choose not to muddy the waters with a contentious nonbounding OOC skill check for a skill that was made to use against NPCs and instead keep it 100% IC.

In the PnP D&D, everyone not in your party is a NPC, why is that any different here, only because there are players behind the characters?
They are still not in your party.
Everyone you meet out on the street in real life is a NPC because you have no control over them. But the three other friends of mine walking with me are 'in my party'.
Sometimes my friends do things to piss each other off and it comes to blows, then they are 'hostile' but they're not trying to kill each other.
(too many D&D sessions broke up because of that) In D&D we still roll against each other in the party too.

D&D is about a group of adventurers, whether they know each other or not, that go out and adventure together.
Everyone else is a NPC.

Here, on the server, most times the party is off doing whatever and they gather together once in a while to go adventure, they are still a party even when not all assembled in one place.
Even if you don't have a regular group to adventure with, everyone not you (or your party when you're in one) is a NPC.

Absolutely not true. A PC is a character played by a player.

PC = player character. NPC = non-player character.

HellScourge wrote:

Red wrote:

I think its terrible RP to ignore a high intimidate roll...

it depends on the RP for me honestly.

A 'rawr' *rolls 128 intimidate*

Does nothing to me.. seriously.

A *Slowly he unsheathes his red glowing sword which surface seems to be of molten metal with terrorized and agonized faces screaming silently while tearing to the surface, just to vanish again* "You wanted something?" *rolls 30+ intimidate*
Or *Reaching behins his back he clasped open the straps that held his axe in its sheathe and with one strong pull he held it before him, before resting the handle on the ground, leaving several cracks as the massive shaft hits the earth with a tremorlike notion* *rolls 30+ intimidate*

Does a lot more because I can imagine what I'd be terrified of.

This. I hate it when people randomly just spam Intimidate without emoting anything. The Intimidate skill is exactly that, a skill. You can't just say "Oh, but he looks scary".

had an interesting one earlyer, I rolled a spot check on a dice game to see if he was robbing me or using weighted dice, eventually I won so I guess not =) no counter roll was made because he wasn't lying, which is awesome. if he was lying a bluff with a higher score than my spot would have done the trick, and through tells it took all of 5 seconds to explain that. its not so hard.

eventually the only way I figured it wasn't a trick was by winning so perserverance pays off =) and it could have been interesting if it was a bluff and it failed. (but I don't think you can get 100% win gambling job thing. weighted dice option =) with some chance of being caught. that would be sweet. )

Bah, it's not how I meant it. *ponders a moment*
I guess I mean considered a NPC from your own perspective, because of the mechanics of the video game limitations...I don't know...
Never mind...ignore me...
*removes his name from the podium and takes a seat in the audience*

Quote:

This. I hate it when people randomly just spam Intimidate without emoting anything. The Intimidate skill is exactly that, a skill. You can't just say "Oh, but he looks scary".

Again, to me, that's almost the same as attacking someone without RP, so I don't see it as an argument against social skill use itself.

Although, I do think "oh but he looks scary" is perfectly acceptable. People try to wriggle out of accepting being Intimidated or Persuaded by other PCs with sophmoric arguments about how tough their character is and how much stuff they've faced in the world, but none of that "toughness" stops most feats, weapons, or spells from working on them.

In other words, just as the plane for combat is scaled up much higher for epic level characters someone who rolls an Intimidate of 50+ should really be considered in the same plane as an epic wizard casting dominate on a balor. Normally, it doesn't work, and normally a balor doesn't listen to anyone, but we accept it in that case because of the wizard's power and skills are just another aspect of expressing a character's power, including social ones.

The exaggerated incredulity towards social skill use is highly ironic, when people insist on saying "no way my character would be scared of another PC", given the casual acceptance of not just reality altering magic like time stop, but "non-supernatural" (game-wise) abilities that let you run near as a fast as a bullet train, hide in plain sight, or rip a car apart with your bare hands.

When you've dev critted hundreds of balor warriors, the wizard dominating just one is less of a feat.

Anyways, this topic is dead, for the fiftieth time. Next post needs to explain why it should be kept open.

That is my whole point. People monster grind constantly so taking out a balor isn't seen as something unique anymore, even though within the confines of the setting it normally would be. The only reason social skill use seems different is precisely because it's irrationally shunned and so you don't often see people intimidating or persuading or bluffing other people, just like you normally wouldn't expect your average wizard to have slain dozens up dozens of balors. That doesn't mean persuading someone is somehow intrinsically more of a feat than taking out epic monsters.

Within the confines of our setting it's entirely normal.

Throw your black boxes of 54's at me all you want but if you're not going to bother to RP, don't be surprised if I don't really react all that much. Effort breeds success.

BloodNAshes wrote:

with sophmoric arguments about how tough their character is and how much stuff they've faced in the world, but none of that "toughness" stops most feats, weapons, or spells from working on them.

My problem with that one usually winds up in the idea that - intimidation is never about how tough you are, so much as how much of a threat the other guy is. Unless your character's personality is as such that they'd rather die than back down (which.. isn't saying much, with res scrolls and things floating around) they should still be wary. After all, you may have done XYZ, but this guy may well have as well..and unless the character happens to be supremely confident of their skills, even if they are level 30 and powerbuilt there are dozens of others who have been level 30, powerbuilt, and been at it even longer than you.

You may be a dual-weilding dev-critting scimitar weaponmaster (i.e. a blender) but no matter how beefy you may think you are, IC and OOC, there's the very very real chance that the other guy can kill you on the first hit. People don't take that into account..or they don't seem to be bothered by it much.

Intimidation isn't really about toughness anyway. It's psychological.

TormakSaber wrote:

Throw your black boxes of 54's at me all you want but if you're not going to bother to RP, don't be surprised if I don't really react all that much. Effort breeds success.

Yawn.

Intimidate

Who is online