Responding to Intimidation

[Mr. Crowbar]

I'm a newbie DM and so far the group are all having fun, but I've noticed one player who throws Intimidation checks around a lot tends to question how the NPCs react to it.

The NPC was a none too bright nobody who wouldn't give up a locked safe full of money. The Player Intimidated her to make her leave and rolled well. The NPC said something like "okay, geeze! cool your tits!" and left. The Player didn't seem to like that remark because the roll was successful. My justification was that the NPC was still complying with demands, just being petulant about it.

The Player got into an argument with an abbot about a holy relic and its (lack of) protection. The abbot was insistent that the relic was safe and didn't take well to the Player's claim the relic wasn't what he thought. Player did another good Intimidation roll to drive home the point the abbot was wrong and that people are coming and they WILL take the relic and ruin the town. The abbot ran away, and sent the town guard to arrest the player for uttering threats. Player insisted he never threatened the abbot or town, but I think he definitely scared the crap about of the abbot who's like the #1 guy in town and that would reasonably call for police action.

I'm thinking me and the player have different ideas of how Intimidate checks work and I will probably talk with him about it but I'd like some advice first. I've not seen Intimidation used much in other games and the few cases were always to gain information. So I guess like, how should NPCs respond to threats? What's usually expected as an outcome when you, a as player, throw around Intimidation? Should I have done anything differently in the above examples?

[Aett_Thorn]

Persuade =/= Intimidate =/= Deception. They should be handled differently. They might all get you the same result in the end, but how they happen is going to affect the NPCs differently. I think that you handled the first situation just fine. The second one I might not have had the abbot get the guards to arrest the player, but definitely the abbot might have some guards around him for any further dealings with the party.

Using Intimidation on a friendly character likely won't have that character being friendly for too long. Same as if you Charmed them and they knew it. They might be okay with the result, or they might not. But they are going to react logically to having been threatened.

[smcmike]

I think it's pretty common for both sides of the social dynamic to be reluctant to have characters show authentic fear or weakness. This reluctance can really cause problems. PCs always seem to want to mouth off to the Big Bad when they should be quaking in terror, and NPCs do the same thing.

It's hard to say whether your examples are really mistakes or not, but in the future I'd make sure the player roleplays the actual act of intimidation, just so every is on the same page as to what was and was not said. I would also base successes, particularly with high rolls, on the assumption that the NPC is authentically scared, and not just angry.

[Armored Walrus]

... tends to question how the NPCs react to it.

Certainly talk to the player, but your role as DM is to decide exactly the above result. ie. if you were that abbot, being intimidated, how would you react? The more you know about the NPC in question, their personality, their goals, their background, the better you can decide how they react, but the player has no say in the outcome. Go around town intimidating random people for a day and see how varied the reactions you get will be. The PCs can't count on being able to anticipate how someone will react unless they themselves know enough about that NPC to be able to make that prediction.

Another way to look at it, if the player gets to dictate to you how NPCs react, do you then get to dictate to the player how they react if you make an Intimidation roll against them?

[Mr. Crowbar]

It's hard to say whether your examples are really mistakes or not, but in the future I'd make sure the player roleplays the actual act of intimidation, just so every is on the same page as to what was and was not said. I would also base successes, particularly with high rolls, on the assumption that the NPC is authentically scared, and not just angry.

I like what you said about having the Player roleplay the Intimidation, I'll definitely have him do that in the future. So far he's just rolled and said his piece, but I do assume the character is being physically aggressive because he tends to make violence a first resort. Like when told he needs permission from 1 of 2 people to see the holy relic, he wanted to fight the guards instead. :smallsigh:

I'll work on roleplaying fear factor, you're right on that too.

[Koren]

Different kinds of people respond to fear in different ways. The first incident would be a good example of someone who doesn't want to let his fear show, usually to maintain an image. Just because it's not the way your player expected him to react doesn't mean it isn't a proper reaction. Same with the Abbot. He wants to make comments in an intimidating way that can appear threatening? He made his bed. He has to lie in it.

[Pelle]

Make him describe what the character is doing, either the method or let him act out the dialogue. Based on the approach decide on if you need to roll at all, and if so what the DC is and which proficiency applies (Intimidate, Persuasion). For example, the DC for threatening an Abbot with violence might be higher for a small gnome than for a big half orc. Also, threatening to expose his dark secrets that you have discovered might make him comply without needing to roll at all. Players love rolling dice immediately, but try to make him wait a little so you can properly adjudicate the action.

The second example sounded like Persuasion, so he shouldn't be rolling Intimidate, and you shouldn't assume threat of violence.

[tieren]

Be mindful however if you go the "make him act it out" route that it can have an adverse effect on naturally low charisma players with high charisma characters. it should be okay for a player to say "I lack the eloquence my bard does but I want him to give a particularly moving speech to try to sway the king's opinion" without the DM saying "ok, tell us what he said".

You wouldn't make other characters act out their skill checks, like athletics or lock picking, don't penalize the shy player that wants to play a flamboyant character.

[Unoriginal]

First, note that there is no Intimidation check, they are Charisma (Intimidate) checks.

The difference is that anyone can make Charisma checks to be intimidating, but someone with the proficiency is particularly good at it.

Now, in the case of the woman with the locked safe, her reacting that way to an attempt to scare her away is perfectly normal.

In the case of the abbot, the use of Charisma (Intimidate) meant the player wanted to be scary and threatening. If they had wanted to make the abbot realize the scary menace was coming, it would have been Charisma (Diplomacy). They essentially tried to bully the mayor into compliance with their desires.

My advice is to talk to your players and explain how Charisma (Intimidate) works.

Note, however, that it is the DM and ONLY the DM who can say the players have to make a particular check with a particular proficiency applying.

So, the question is, what did the players do or say to make you say "well, alright, it's a Charisma roll with proficiency bonus if you have Intimidate" ?

[snickersnax]

There are rules for how charisma checks (including intimidate) work are on p 245 of the DMG. They really tone down how effective influence over NPCs might be by using intimidate, deception or persuasion.

[smcmike]

Different kinds of people respond to fear in different ways. The first incident would be a good example of someone who doesn't want to let his fear show, usually to maintain an image.

This is true, I'm just saying that giving random nobody NPCs the last word in this sort of interaction may erode the player's ability to make his character the tough guy he wants to play, unnecessarily. This is all in the presentation. If the NPC is clearly just trying to save face, say so - this gives the player the "win" that he clearly wants by making the NPC's defiant words seem small and petty.

[Tanarii]

Be mindful however if you go the "make him act it out" route that it can have an adverse effect on naturally low charisma players with high charisma characters. it should be okay for a player to say "I lack the eloquence my bard does but I want him to give a particularly moving speech to try to sway the king's opinion" without the DM saying "ok, tell us what he said".Not it shouldn't. The content of the speech matters. If the player says this, they haven't provided enough details for a DM to adjudicate.

First, the player in this example hasn't accurately provided intent, although I can understand if you're short-handing and assuming both player and DM know what opinion the player wants.

But more importantly, they haven't accurately described approach. What, in particular, is making this speech so moving? What's it about? Is it empty rhetoric praising the king? A call to arms? Patriotism? The responsibilities of nobility towards the commoner? etc etc.

Edit: What's not needed is precise wording of a speech nor delivery. Voice Acting isn't a required part of D&D, and in some cases can be actively harmful. Like when players assume they've communicated what their Intent and Approach just by saying something in a funny accent. Or for that matter, just saying what their character said. That doesn't necessarily communicate what they're trying to do any more than saying something IRL does. :smallwink:


You wouldn't make other characters act out their skill checks, like athletics or lock picking, don't penalize the shy player that wants to play a flamboyant character.Right. But you need to know if they're taking their time or rushing. If they're attempting to just open the lock or if it needs to remain re-lockable afterwards. If they are attempting to do it without touching it, searching it first, etc. Details details details. Without them, you can't adjudicate effectively. And the player and DM will end up with different ideas of exactly what is being attempted here.

[Mr. Crowbar]

First, note that there is no Intimidation check, they are Charisma (Intimidate) checks.
[...]
So, the question is, what did the players do or say to make you say "well, alright, it's a Charisma roll with proficiency bonus if you have Intimidate" ?

We're used to keeping things simple and calling skill checks by the skill name. In every case it's the player who asked to roll for Intimidation, otherwise I probably would have suggested Persuasion like Pelle mentioned.


Be mindful however if you go the "make him act it out" route that it can have an adverse effect on naturally low charisma players with high charisma characters. [...] You wouldn't make other characters act out their skill checks, like athletics or lock picking, don't penalize the shy player that wants to play a flamboyant character.

For sure! I'm socially anxious myself and my first D&D character is a Bard so I understand completely. I won't press him for much or let it affect the DC, just a gesture or something so we're on the same page. He loves coming up with crazy stunts and finishing moves, I'm sure he'll have no problem creatively striking fear into the hearts of NPCs.

edit: also I will mention this to him before the next session, and players often describe their other types of checks anywho. We're all painting a picture together, doesn't matter if someone is using artist quality oils and another has crayola crayons.


There are rules for how charisma checks (including intimidate) work are on p 245 of the DMG. They really tone down how effective influence over NPCs might be by using intimidate, deception or persuasion.

Thank you! I'll be sure to give that a read.

[Koren]

This is true, I'm just saying that giving random nobody NPCs the last word in this sort of interaction may erode the player's ability to make his character the tough guy he wants to play, unnecessarily. This is all in the presentation. If the NPC is clearly just trying to save face, say so - this gives the player the "win" that he clearly wants by making the NPC's defiant words seem small and petty.

That's fair, I didn't consider that.

[Tanarii]

We're used to keeping things simple and calling skill checks by the skill name. In every case it's the player who asked to roll for Intimidation, otherwise I probably would have suggested Persuasion like Pelle mentioned.The downside to this is it encourages forcing everything into a skill check. 5e philosophy is everything is an ability check. And sometimes, you get to add your proficiency bonus to that for specific tasks. Its a different mindset.

Also, if you use the variant rule for alternate ability checks / skill proficiencies, it's rather important to know if you're doing a Strength (Athletics) check vs a Constitution (Athletics) check. ;)

Don't think I don't slip up and do this myself, both on the forums an during games (as a DM). I just try to keep in mind there's good reasons to think of them as ability checks, not skill checks. :smallwink:

[Unoriginal]

A successful intimidation attempt doesn't mean the person is left shaking in their boots and is unable to be defiant toward the PCs.

It just means they are scared enough by the PC to comply (to a certain extent or completely, depending on the case). For exemple, a mob boss can call off their goons if intimidated into not attacking, but they could still go "I'll let you go -for now. But if next time this affair is not dealt with..."

[Tanarii]

It just means they are scared enough by the PC to comply (to a certain extent or completely, depending on the case). For exemple, a mob boss can call off their goons if intimidated into not attacking, but they could still go "I'll let you go -for now. But if next time this affair is not dealt with..."This makes me think of the Johnny Marcone and Dresden relationship. Dresden regularly uses a combination of Persuasion and Intimidation. Marcone never shakes in his boots, and in fact probably reacts to the attempted intimidation due to rationalized reasons more often than direct fear reasons. But he still backs down.

The 5e Intimidation description is pretty clearly written with this kind of thing in mind:
Intimidation. When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the GM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision.

[tieren]

Not it shouldn't. The content of the speech matters. If the player says this, they haven't provided enough details for a DM to adjudicate.

First, the player in this example hasn't accurately provided intent, although I can understand if you're short-handing and assuming both player and DM know what opinion the player wants.

But more importantly, they haven't accurately described approach. What, in particular, is making this speech so moving? What's it about? Is it empty rhetoric praising the king? A call to arms? Patriotism? The responsibilities of nobility towards the commoner? etc etc.

Edit: What's not needed is precise wording of a speech nor delivery. Voice Acting isn't a required part of D&D, and in some cases can be actively harmful. Like when players assume they've communicated what their Intent and Approach just by saying something in a funny accent. Or for that matter, just saying what their character said. That doesn't necessarily communicate what they're trying to do any more than saying something IRL does. :smallwink:

Right. But you need to know if they're taking their time or rushing. If they're attempting to just open the lock or if it needs to remain re-lockable afterwards. If they are attempting to do it without touching it, searching it first, etc. Details details details. Without them, you can't adjudicate effectively. And the player and DM will end up with different ideas of exactly what is being attempted here.

I completely agree with everything you are saying, I was just shorthanding for the sake of making a point.

My point being the player should describe what his character is trying to do as clearly as he can to the DM/table without having to literally do it himself.

[Demonslayer666]

Intimidation is not mind control. There are varying degrees of being intimidated. You can still be scared and not fully comply with their wishes.

You have to weigh the NPC's position of power against the PC's. What do they have to lose, how protected are they, if the PC's carried out their threat, is it against the law?

You also have to weigh in motivation. In the case of a safe full of money, was the case their family savings, would they die without it? Or were they simply hired to protect it? This will help determine if they even can be intimidated.

In the second case, Intimidation involves a threat of punishment if they don't comply. If he didn't threaten him, he should not have rolled Intimidation, that's Persuasion.

Don't let the player railroad you into an intimidation check. You call for the check if the situation demands it. Have them describe what they are doing, and what they are saying before they reach for the dice. Not everyone can be intimidated.

@ everyone saying you have to call it Charisma(Intimidation), no, you don't. Previous editions differentiated between skill checks and ability checks, 5e doesn't, everything is an ability check. You just have to keep in mind that things like fatigue affect skill checks. If you are using the variant rule, the player should state which ability they are using if it differs from the default.

[Tanarii]

@ everyone saying you have to call it Charisma(Intimidation), no, you don't. Previous editions differentiated between skill checks and ability checks, 5e doesn't, everything is an ability check. You just have to keep in mind that things like fatigue affect skill checks. If you are using the variant rule, the player should state which ability they are using if it differs from the default.as a DM, you don't have to, as people will know what you mean. IMO it's just best practice to get in the correct mindset that not everything must get a proficiency bonus, and call for ability checks with no proficiency when appropriate.

Also, I find it interesting you think the player should state the ability score they're using. IMO, and IMX in actual gameplay, including AL/public games, that's generally the DMs job. Players don't decide if a check is necessary, nor what the check is, nor if a proficiency bonus applies. They just say what they're trying to accomplish. The DM decides what's needed for resolution, including what kind of check (straight, opposed, group, passive, automatic failure/success), and which check (including variants and if any proficiency applies).

Edit: obviously YMMV etc etc. not saying it has to be done that way.

[Kish]

Ever since Intimidate was added back in 3.0, there have been players who have wanted it to function as a slightly differently-flavored Diplomacy.

Then again, ever since Intimidate was added back in 3.0, it's been pretty much strictly inferior to Diplomacy and WotC hasn't seemed aware of this.

[Unoriginal]

Ever since Intimidate was added back in 3.0, there have been players who have wanted it to function as a slightly differently-flavored Diplomacy.

Then again, ever since Intimidate was added back in 3.0, it's been pretty much strictly inferior to Diplomacy and WotC hasn't seemed aware of this.

The difference is that, in context, you can intimidate your enemies/unfriendly people into complying to your demands, while diplomatic results are easier to get with neutral-to-friendly persons.

Telling the corrupt guard who rackets people at the city's entrance to **** off or else is way more likely to work than to try to convince them to let you in for free.

[Mr. Crowbar]

Ever since Intimidate was added back in 3.0, there have been players who have wanted it to function as a slightly differently-flavored Diplomacy.

Turns out this was the case. The player didn't think the threats mattered unless he intended to back it up (which he didn't in the case of the abbot). We've talked it over and we're on the same page now, and he's agreed to elaborate on his Intimidation checks so we all get a better picture of what's going down. I also told him he can't expect NPCs to quiver in fear every time, but I will be more considerate in playing their reactions.

[lunaticfringe]

I blame 3.X. You can't auto win an encounter in 5e by having a high skill modifier (Ding-Dong Diplomacy is Dead!). Unless you are playing with critical success rules but that's a horse of a different color and actually doesn't require a positive modifier at all.

I would explain that Social Skills fluid. Rolling well on Persuasion isn't going to convince a king to name you his successor and give up the crown. Some NPCs aren't going to be intimidated/persuaded or react how you would expect.

I think a Powerful Individual being cornered by an aggressive person fleeing and utilizing their pull to stick it to them is Believable.

[Zorku]

Turns out this was the case. The player didn't think the threats mattered unless he intended to back it up (which he didn't in the case of the abbot). We've talked it over and we're on the same page now, and he's agreed to elaborate on his Intimidation checks so we all get a better picture of what's going down. I also told him he can't expect NPCs to quiver in fear every time, but I will be more considerate in playing their reactions.

Asking what they expected to happen is generally the first thing you should do when players get upset about a result. You can take a second to think that over and tell them if some people will react like that based on personality or if the way they're trying to go about this is basically never going to have that payoff... or maybe you actually like the idea and you can tell them to push a little harder to get that result.

I'm starting to get the impression that the "I roll intimidate! 18, I let some prestidigitation fire billow off of my eyes and say (some gritty voiced warning of destruction)!" is a pathfinder player behavior. I kind of have to stop and think through appropriate panic behaviors for a couple of seconds when new players throw that kind at me out of the blue. They almost certainly want fear, but I can't ever tell what they think they're going to get once the mayor is afraid of them.

[JackPhoenix]

Players don't get to decide when to roll Intimidate (or any other ability check, for that matter). They describe what their characters are doing, and the DM decides if it warrants a roll, and what kind of roll.

From the OP, Incident One seems fine. Incident Two is the problematic one. Did the player just rolled Intimidate without you, the DM, calling for it? If so, it's perfectly fine to say "What are you doing? I haven't told you to roll anything." If you've accepted the check, and presumably set the DC so "another good Intimidation roll" passed, then it's *not* fine to ignore the player's intent (whatever it was, it's unclear what was the player even trying to accomplish by the check). Sure, the abbot may call the guards later, but he should comply with the character's demand *right now*.

That doesn't mean Intimidate (or any other social skill) works as a mind control, though. Again, it's perfectly fine to declare the demand is unreasonable (or the character can't be influenced for whatever reason), like with the example of trying to Persuade the king to make you his heir and say it doesn't work without rolling at all. Rolling dice is only for when the result of an action is in question.

[BurgerBeast]

First of all I think you handled both situations reasonably, and you wouldn't get any complaints out of me as a player at your table.

I strongly recommend Angry GM's ideas on this subject. I think the relevant article is either "5 Rules for Dating my Teenage Skill System" or "Social InterACTION" or something like that...

One thing you can do is be extremely transparent by thinking out loud. Ask the player to declare his action and his intention. For example, "I'm going to lean in and flex my massive muscles, getting my face really close to his, and say that if he doesn't open this safe I'll snap his neck like a twig (Action). I want him to open the safe (Intention)."

Then you, the DM, decide if this task is even possible. (Some characters simply will not open the safe under any circumstances. Other characters refuse to be intimidated, to the point that they'd rather take a beating than give in. Most characters can be intimidated but the DCs may vary.)

Once the player has done his part, be totally transparent. Tell the player what the possible outcomes are (you can filter this through the character's eyes if you want, but I don't).

Example: "You get the sense that this guy will not be intimidated under any circumstances, and that even trying it will only make him angry. Charisma (Intimidate) checks against this guy, under these circumstances, always fail." (say the bolded part)

Example: "This guy seems like he might be intimidated, but he will not take it kindly. You'll need to roll a DC 15 check for him to open the safe. If you fail he will refuse to open the safe. Whether you succeed or fail, he will very angry with you. Do you want to try it?"

This kind of transparency is often overlooked, but it can be a very useful way to play.

[Mr. Crowbar]

One thing you can do is be extremely transparent by thinking out loud. Ask the player to declare his action and his intention. For example, "I'm going to lean in and flex my massive muscles, getting my face really close to his, and say that if he doesn't open this safe I'll snap his neck like a twig (Action). I want him to open the safe (Intention)."

Then you, the DM, decide if this task is even possible. (Some characters simply will not open the safe under any circumstances. Other characters refuse to be intimidated, to the point that they'd rather take a beating than give in. Most characters can be intimidated but the DCs may vary.)

Once the player has done his part, be totally transparent. Tell the player what the possible outcomes are (you can filter this through the character's eyes if you want, but I don't).

This is a really nicely laid out plan, I like it! I've been hesitant to set out impossibilities for the players but forewarning at least would make save them the trouble of a futile endeavour. I'll try using this next time I DM, thank you!

[DarkKnightJin]

Players don't get to decide when to roll Intimidate (or any other ability check, for that matter). They describe what their characters are doing, and the DM decides if it warrants a roll, and what kind of roll.

Just earlier today, I tried some diplomacy against someone that was being held in a grapple. Trying to convince them to quiet down and surrender before we would be forced to slay them.
Like a good player, I asked the DM if it would be Persuasion or Intimidate, and voiced what my character was saying / trying to achieve.

Mechanically, it made no difference as my Persuasion and Intimidate modifiers were the same.

In the end, we had to put them down anyway, but at least my Paladin -tried- to talk it out before resorting to violence.

And everybody understood that not every NPC is going to comply to your requests/demands. That's just how life is. In and out of the game.

[Kane0]

Another way to look at it, using old greek rhetoric classifications:

Persuasion corresponds to manipulating logos (reasoning) to convince someone
Deception corresponds to manipulating ethos (credibility) to convince someone
Intimidation corresponds to manipulating pathos (emotion) to convince someone

If you can ascertain which method is being used to leverage the conversation in the PCs favor you can determine which sort of Charisma check is most appropriate.

Edit: Ugh, that sounded so snobby.

[BurgerBeast]

Another way to look at it, using old greek rhetoric classifications:

Persuasion corresponds to manipulating logos (reasoning) to convince someone
Deception corresponds to manipulating ethos (credibility) to convince someone
Intimidation corresponds to manipulating ethos (emotion) to convince someone

If you can ascertain which method is being used to leverage the conversation in the PCs favor you can determine which sort of Charisma check is most appropriate.

Edit: Ugh, that sounded so snobby.

I disagree with this. I differentiate dialectic (to which logos belongs) from rhetoric (to which ethos and pathos belong). I think that this distinction is made by Socrates in Plato's dialogues (The Gorgias, in particular, I think).

I would say that Persuasion encompasses both forms of rhetoric, in this view, and that dialectic is not covered by any of the skills.

Obviously this is a matter of opinion.

[90sMusic]

This is why I very rarely employ intimidation as a skill.

If you fail to persuade someone to do something, they just won't do it, usually no big whoop. But if you intimidate someone, whether you are successful or not, they could have a bad reaction and it may mean consequences for you later. Because why WOULDNT a random npc go fetch the town guards when someone was implying they were going to hurt them? Why wouldn't some NPCs just become so frightened that they try to run away or yell for help instead of doing what you wanted?

Trying to control people by fear doesn't always work and that is exactly what intimidation is.

[Xetheral]

This is why I very rarely employ intimidation as a skill.

If you fail to persuade someone to do something, they just won't do it, usually no big whoop. But if you intimidate someone, whether you are successful or not, they could have a bad reaction and it may mean consequences for you later. Because why WOULDNT a random npc go fetch the town guards when someone was implying they were going to hurt them? Why wouldn't some NPCs just become so frightened that they try to run away or yell for help instead of doing what you wanted?

Trying to control people by fear doesn't always work and that is exactly what intimidation is.

On the other hand, when it works, Intimidation can produce far more dramatic effects than Persuasion. For characters who would employ such tactics, that reward can sometimes be worth the greater risk.

[Kane0]

On the other hand, when it works, Intimidation can produce far more dramatic effects than Persuasion. For characters who would employ such tactics, that reward can sometimes be worth the greater risk.

Spoken like a true RenShep.

[90sMusic]

Spoken like a true RenShep.

That comment actually gave me insight into why so many people like the intimidation skill and love to use it instead of the others. In a game like mass effect, nothing you do really matters. You can go full renegade all the way, but you'll still complete the story start to finish without changing where you go and in what order and so on. Some named characters may die along the way, but ultimately the overall story doesn't change at all.

I guess that is how a lot of people see and play D&D, where it's all on rails and doesn't change anything or matter. My games are very responsive to player actions and choices. If someone went around acting like renegade shep, they'd end up branded a criminal and be arrested on sight by any officials that recognized them, probably have a bounty on their head and have to deal with bounty hunters all the time, and so on. It wouldn't be pretty. It may be worth acting tough to some stranger to some people, but many would disagree. Consequences are good.

[Unoriginal]

Another way to look at it, using old greek rhetoric classifications:

Persuasion corresponds to manipulating logos (reasoning) to convince someone
Deception corresponds to manipulating ethos (credibility) to convince someone
Intimidation corresponds to manipulating pathos (emotion) to convince someone

If you can ascertain which method is being used to leverage the conversation in the PCs favor you can determine which sort of Charisma check is most appropriate.

Edit: Ugh, that sounded so snobby.

Yeah, no. Logos, pathos and ethos are either Persuasion or Deception depending on if you are sincere in what you say and if you are trying to manipulate someone into believing what you say is the literal truth.

Ex: If you try to convince someone what an hypothetical grieving father would feel if the murderer of his child went free, it's Persuasion. If you are trying to make people believe that *you* are a grieving father who would be devastated if the murderer went free, when it's just a scam, then it's Deception.

Intimidation would be at best be used to silence an opponent's speech (ex: "stop this foolish argument, you are insulting the audience!") or if you are trying to make someone fear the consequences for opposing your arguments (ex: "but if you lie and are found guilty, you will be thrown off the highest tower of the city, along with your allies").


This is why I very rarely employ intimidation as a skill.

If you fail to persuade someone to do something, they just won't do it, usually no big whoop. But if you intimidate someone, whether you are successful or not, they could have a bad reaction and it may mean consequences for you later. Because why WOULDNT a random npc go fetch the town guards when someone was implying they were going to hurt them? Why wouldn't some NPCs just become so frightened that they try to run away or yell for help instead of doing what you wanted?

Trying to control people by fear doesn't always work and that is exactly what intimidation is.


That comment actually gave me insight into why so many people like the intimidation skill and love to use it instead of the others. In a game like mass effect, nothing you do really matters. You can go full renegade all the way, but you'll still complete the story start to finish without changing where you go and in what order and so on. Some named characters may die along the way, but ultimately the overall story doesn't change at all.

I guess that is how a lot of people see and play D&D, where it's all on rails and doesn't change anything or matter. My games are very responsive to player actions and choices. If someone went around acting like renegade shep, they'd end up branded a criminal and be arrested on sight by any officials that recognized them, probably have a bounty on their head and have to deal with bounty hunters all the time, and so on. It wouldn't be pretty. It may be worth acting tough to some stranger to some people, but many would disagree. Consequences are good.


Intimidation doesn't need to be so drastic, and not everyone reacts to it to that extent.

You could use Cha (Intimidate) to get into a criminal bar, and people would just think "man, let's not mess up with that one". You could Cha (Intimidate) to make someone comply to a demand by reminding them of your authority (ex: an envoy of the king saying "I am here to make sure the king's decrees are applied. Do you really wish to stand in the way?"). You could even use Cha (Intimidate) to make people stop the reprehensible action they were doing, reminding them why it's not a good idea to **** with people (ex: the angry mob suddenly realizing they have Better Things To Do once the fighter has knocked out their leader with one punch).

On the other hand, you are right that Cha (Intimidate) would have negative consequences in many cases. If you bully the Guildmaster into doing what you want, you can expect the Guild to not be your friend in the future, unless you have done significant efforts to smooth things over afterward or have proved to the Guildmaster that you needed them to comply in order to help them (ex: there is a monster in the Guild's museum, but the Guildmaster laughed at you when you told them so you had to do a bit of arm-twisting to show them the Mummy Lord who would have killed dozens of guests if the Guild had proceeded as planned). If you are threatening to the law enforcers, they will likely try to fine or arrest you. If you make a criminal soil himself, but not enough to make him put you in the "don't mess with ever" category, he will likely try to hinder you or work against you anytime he can.

[Lysiander]

I'm a newbie DM and so far the group are all having fun, but I've noticed one player who throws Intimidation checks around a lot tends to question how the NPCs react to it.

The NPC was a none too bright nobody who wouldn't give up a locked safe full of money. The Player Intimidated her to make her leave and rolled well. The NPC said something like "okay, geeze! cool your tits!" and left. The Player didn't seem to like that remark because the roll was successful. My justification was that the NPC was still complying with demands, just being petulant about it.

The Player got into an argument with an abbot about a holy relic and its (lack of) protection. The abbot was insistent that the relic was safe and didn't take well to the Player's claim the relic wasn't what he thought. Player did another good Intimidation roll to drive home the point the abbot was wrong and that people are coming and they WILL take the relic and ruin the town. The abbot ran away, and sent the town guard to arrest the player for uttering threats. Player insisted he never threatened the abbot or town, but I think he definitely scared the crap about of the abbot who's like the #1 guy in town and that would reasonably call for police action.

I'm thinking me and the player have different ideas of how Intimidate checks work and I will probably talk with him about it but I'd like some advice first. I've not seen Intimidation used much in other games and the few cases were always to gain information. So I guess like, how should NPCs respond to threats? What's usually expected as an outcome when you, a as player, throw around Intimidation? Should I have done anything differently in the above examples?

Small informative tangent: I like to think of social skills as follows:

Persuasion: A offers B something that B wants.
Intimidation: A offers B something that B does not want.
Deception: A offers B something that B wants but either the offer or the want are untrue.

The want structure is key in both determining the kind of check as well as the outcome. Remember, you're the DM. You chose what check the player rolls. At my table, player's "earn" checks through RP.

With that in mind, your incidents would have played out slightly different at my table:
#1 Intimidate check with the NPC simply running away, probably straight to whoever hired him.
#2 Would have been a persuade check because the player tried to convince the NPC that there is a threat to the relic, but the preservation of the relic was a goal that the NPC wanted. The "threat" came from a third party and the player tried to convince the NPC of its validity. (This assumes there was a third party. If there wasn't, It'd have been deception.)
The priest would likely have hired guards and/or suggested the players help "defend" the relic, but he wouldn't have felt threatened by them nor sought their arrest.

For everything except major NPCs, I usually conclude successful social interaction with one of the following social clues:

Persuasion/Deception: NPC offers a handshake, contract signing, money changing hands etc.
Intimidation: NPCs tremble, shake or cower in some way. I save the "saving face" comments for major NPCs.

To me, it reads like your player wants to play the cool tough guy and has the stats to back it up. If that is the case, let him. Adventurers are tough and imposing people, even if their player's lack the ability to back that up. For the average person and even trained guards, they are a very credible threat. Everything except major NPCs should fold like a paper towel with a successful intimidation check.

Both deception and intimidation have an inherent downside: They make enemies rather than friends. This is what your focus should be on. Unless the player is going to derail your story with a successful intimidation check, let the NPC tremble and the player have his way. Quipping back is tempting, but it makes for a better game if the NPCs resist that urge and instead look for ways to get even later. I've had many interesting story arcs grow from small incidents like the one you describe.

From the top of my head: "Barry didn't know much, but he knew scary when he saw it. So he chose to run but now Boss Butch was none to happy. That had been his gold in that safe. Luckily, Butch was smarter than Barry, so instead of an outright confrontation, he had Minx follow them. A day later, Butch knew what Inn they stayed in. He'd heart tell that those adventurer types always had some gold tucked away somewhere and stuff like spellbooks were worth a lot to the right buyer. So he ordered Minx and their gang to pay them a visit at night."

Just like that, you have either an encounter or a plot hook for a side quest to retrieve the stolen goods. That is loads more fun than saying "calm your tits" in my book. :)

[smcmike]

That comment actually gave me insight into why so many people like the intimidation skill and love to use it instead of the others. In a game like mass effect, nothing you do really matters. You can go full renegade all the way, but you'll still complete the story start to finish without changing where you go and in what order and so on. Some named characters may die along the way, but ultimately the overall story doesn't change at all.

I guess that is how a lot of people see and play D&D, where it's all on rails and doesn't change anything or matter. My games are very responsive to player actions and choices. If someone went around acting like renegade shep, they'd end up branded a criminal and be arrested on sight by any officials that recognized them, probably have a bounty on their head and have to deal with bounty hunters all the time, and so on. It wouldn't be pretty. It may be worth acting tough to some stranger to some people, but many would disagree. Consequences are good.

Are they, though?

I don't mean that your game world shouldn't be responsive to the player's actions. I mean that it sounds like you have might have designed your game world with a different sort of rails.

The type of rails you are refering to are like a roller coaster. No matter how much you wave your hands about, the ride is basically the same. That's a problem.

A second set of rails can exist, though, when any player action that deviates from what you think is acceptable results in catastrophic consequences. This is less like a roller coaster than a foot path in the center of a 6-lane highway.

You might say "but it's stupid to go around engaging in risky behavior like threatening people, of course they should expect negative consequences." The thing is, though, that almost everything that PCs do in the regular course of adventuring is stupid, and can be expected to lead to negative consequences.

[Zorku]

Intimidation doesn't need to be so drastic, and not everyone reacts to it to that extent.Sure, it doesn't need to be, but I can scarcely think of a time when a player wanted to intimidate someone by means other than "If you don't do this I'm going to hurt you." It works so, SO much better if the player has any kind of government sanctioned position where people know that they're allowed to be some kind of abusive towards you, and you know that the only repercussions they're likely to face happen if you don't give them what they want... but without these weird threat intimidation checks how can a DM even tell that they should give a player that kind of authority (even if only in some narrow geographic region)?

It's not supposed to be this way. It's a charisma check, and the book bothered to explain that if you're doing it in this weird way where it's backed up by physical violence then you can use STR instead of CHA, yet the shared vocabulary we have only seems to understand intimidate in terms of coercion via threat of violence & yelling at someone until they wet themselves and run away.

Even if a DM bothers to work out some more nuance in that, it would require a weird amount of homework to actually relay most of that to the players at the table.

[Xetheral]

If someone went around acting like renegade shep, they'd end up branded a criminal and be arrested on sight by any officials that recognized them, probably have a bounty on their head and have to deal with bounty hunters all the time, and so on. It wouldn't be pretty. It may be worth acting tough to some stranger to some people, but many would disagree. Consequences are good.

In which case, the game takes on a whole new element: how well do the characters navigate all these additional obstacles? Can they parlay their services as adventurers in return for official sanction or pardon? Can they corrupt the system so that it works for them? Can they make powerful allies in the criminal underworld who will help shield them from legal retribution? Or maybe they're just really good at using disguises and psudonyms, so law enforcement ends up chasing ghosts. Characters amoral enough to regularly use intimidation to get what they want also have a wide variety of tricks up their sleeve they can use to try to deal with the consequences. Of course, they still might fail to navigate their self-inflicted minefield, but the attempt just becomes part of the game.

An additional consideration is the society the characters are moving in. A society with (to use 3.5 terms) a chaotic evil power center, for example, is likely to require regular use of Intimidation to accomplish anything. Even in a society with a lawful good power center, if the government is weak and law enforcement limited, Intimidation may be needed on a regular basis to get opportunistic criminals and bullies to back down without having to resort to violence. Finally, not every society is stable enough to spend law enforcement resources on threats and intimidation, so even if the players are the "agressors" there may be no consequences to speak of.

[Tanarii]

Sure, it doesn't need to be, but I can scarcely think of a time when a player wanted to intimidate someone by means other than "If you don't do this I'm going to hurt you."One of the problems with lack of in-game consequences for things combined with heroic fantasy power levels is players tend to power-trip. :smallamused:

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/095/821/097.jpg


Even if a DM bothers to work out some more nuance in that, it would require a weird amount of homework to actually relay most of that to the players at the table.Golden rule of Player / DM communication: Remember you can't read each other's minds. Be blunt and direct. Fancy descriptions and flowery speeches are nice and all, but they tend to obfuscate getting a complete picture.

That includes player's trying to do or say something, DMs having NPCs do or say something, and DMs describing a 'scene'.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Golden rule of Player / DM communication: Remember you can't read each other's minds. Be blunt and direct. Fancy descriptions and flowery speeches are nice and all, but they tend to obfuscate getting a complete picture.

That includes player's trying to do or say something, DMs having NPCs do or say something, and DMs describing a 'scene'.

Agreed. I've found that if I prioritize being clear (even if that means asking for confirmation after clarifying conditions) over the kinds of descriptions found in novels (for example) everyone has more fun and fewer misinterpretations happen. Even if that involves the dreaded "meta-gaming" boogy-man.

[Zorku]

One of the problems with lack of in-game consequences for things combined with heroic fantasy power levels is players tend to power-trip. :smallamused:
And that makes good sense when they have fireballs and the like, but , at least in my experience, this is kind of a "from level 1 on" behavior.


Golden rule of Player / DM communication: Remember you can't read each other's minds. Fair enough. I felt like I didn't need to reiterate the "say what you're trying to accomplish in addition to acting it out," or perhaps that I'd be overdoing it if I brought that up again.

[greenstone]

First, players aren't allowed to ask to make intimidation checks.

1. Players tell the GM what they characters is trying to achieve (the goal) and how they are achieving it (the method).

2. The GM decides whether the goal is impossible (automatically fails), certain (automatically succeeds), or uncertain.

2a. If it is uncertain then the GM decides what ability check (and maybe skill) applies, and asks for the check. Someone (usually the player) rolls some dice.

3. The GM and the players narrate the results.

Different methods for the same goal will have different rolls and different consequences. For example, opening a door could be done by picking the lock, casting a spell, or smashing the door. All achieve the goal ("open the door") but all require different skill rolls and have different consequences.

In the first example:

The player says, "I want to make the guard leave the room. I threaten her by looming over her and showing her my sword." The GM asks for a STR\Intimidation check. If it succeeds, the GM says, "The guard leaves the room.". The GM makes a note that this guard is now resentful of the PCs.

The player says, "I want to make the guard leave the room. I try to convince her I'm her friend and nothing bad will happen." The GM asks for a CHA\Persuasion check. If it succeeds, the GM says, "The guard leaves the room." The GM makes a note that this guard thinks the PCs are her friends (which may cause problems later on when the guard discovers the theft).

The player says, "I want to make the guard leave the room. I try to convince her I'm a senior officer." The GM asks for a CHA\Deception check. If it succeeds, the GM says, "The guard leaves the room." The GM makes a note that this guard thinks the PCs are officers (which might come up if they encounter her later).

And so on…

In the second example:

The player says "I'm trying to convince the Abbot that the relic is unsuccessful, I'm doing it by telling him if he doesn't give it to us then I'll beat him up." The GM says, "The Abbot is supremely confident in the power of his god, so he doesn't give it to you."

If the player says, "But don't I get a roll?" then the GM answers, "No, because there is no chance of success."