Skill checks(bluff, intimidate, etc)

[Alterity]

I don't think that Immunity to Mind spells gives immunity to intimidation. Yes it can make sense, but recall that Fear is a Mind spell, intimidation is a "mind manipulation effect", not a spell. Those immune to Fear would also be immune to all fear like abilities, including intimidate. Those immune to mind spells would be immune to Mind spells would be immune to all Mind affecting Spells. The word Spells seems to be the keyword to me. If its not a spell, it doesn't count.

[Randomyze]

I think a roll against bluff in NWN since there is no oppsed roll check would be half the characters level rounded up (or down) plus a wisdom check. That's what I see as fair after reading all this but I do agree this is all ripe for debate.

[Peregrinus]

1d20 + char level + wis modifier + any bonus against fear. It also says that anyone immune to fear cant be intimidated. I wonder, does that mean just fear, or if someone is immune to all mind affecting spells(which would include fear) does that mean they are immune to intimidate as well?

Intimidate is not a "spell", so I don't think it would count.

First off, the most common form of being immune to fear is via being a 3rd level Paladin and having "Aura of Courage." The exact wording from the SRD says: "Beginning at 3rd level, a paladin is immune to fear (magical or otherwise)." (Emphasis mine.) Further, the intimidate skill itself says: "A character immune to fear can’t be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures." The other major way to become immune to fear is via the Lionheart spell, which simply gives immunity to fear effects... which according to the rules Intimidate is. So it doesn't matter that intimidate is not a spell, things immune to fear are immune to being intimidated.

if your average fighter came up and tried to intimidate Phelan, for instance, even if the fighter has max skill ranks, he's just not that scary to a guy who's fought dracoliches, encountered Zumen

I agree that a char's experiences should be considered, however it is not really recorded for the purposes of mechanical manipulation. You could also argue that while engaging those foes you had some degree of forsight and prepared your self mentally/physically for the task at hand. Which would be different to a random encounter with a brute all up in your face, especially while your mage is unbuffed.

I would also point out that it wouldn't be just some random fighter that walks up to you and starts hurling threats, they have spent the points on the skill, denying the roll purely on the basis that you have faced something that you have percieved to be more dangerous (most likely is), doesn't actually make that fighter any less dangerous to you, IE there is still a good chance he could kill you.

I would expect a lvl 1 that fails a roll from a lvl 20 would go running home to mommy, but a battle hardened and cocky mage (you no you all are :p) would have a considerably lesser response, perhaps they go quiet or back down from the arguement. Ignoring the roll would be a bit of a slap in the face for the player.

First off, you're assuming I'm ever unbuffed. ;p That said, one thing I strongly dislike is using skills/spells to force another person's character to do things, Intimidate, like Diplomacy, can be used to force a person to RP in a specific way (the only thing I dislike more than this is DM fiating that a character has to act in a specific way, because then I have no mechanical recourse to oppose them, at least with skills I do), and so has to be handled carefully. I look at Intimidate as "I'm trying to scare you," the roll reflects how well your character pulls off looking scary/intimidating. On my end the Will save is to see how far do I buy into your claim that you're trying to scare me. If I succeed, I believe you're, in effect, bluffing. If I fail, I believe that you genuinely want to harm me, but that doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to acquiesce to your demands, it might just mean I blow you away on the spot, or that I try and talk you down (depending on my mood/how you intimidated me, where we are, who's around, etc.) Worth noting: jumping out at me with a dagger and saying "Your GP or your HP" and rolling intimidate will only result in me blowing you away on general principal, screw the will save. ;p

[Peregrinus]

I think a roll against bluff in NWN since there is no oppsed roll check would be half the characters level rounded up (or down) plus a wisdom check. That's what I see as fair after reading all this but I do agree this is all ripe for debate.

The only problem with this is that it's impossible to check the math on that, as there's no way to input those numbers into the DMFI. A Will save is close to that, but the numbers aren't exactly right, but it's the closest we have. A straight Wisdom check is obviously to low, and favors the person making the bluff check. I still say the Will save is the best way to go since it allows everyone to do it and you don't have to worry about trusting other people's numbers.

[Wired]

In the script that controls the NPC influence system I used Target Hit Dice + WIS Ability Modifier + Will Saving Throw + Modifier, where Modifier is:

bluff (23)
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm

Example Circumstances (guidelines for setting nMod) Sense Motive Modifier
The target wants to believe you. -5
The bluff is believable and doesn’t affect the target much. +0
The bluff is a little hard to believe or puts the target at some risk. +5
The bluff is hard to believe or puts the target at significant risk. +10
The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider. +20

[Mensha Khaine]

First off, you're assuming I'm ever unbuffed. ;p That said, one thing I strongly dislike is using skills/spells to force another person's character to do things, Intimidate, like Diplomacy, can be used to force a person to RP in a specific way

Intimidate - to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear.
Diplomacy - skill in managing negotiations, handling people, etc., so that there is little or no ill will

That's kind of the point of those skill and it happens in real life, through diplomacy countries leaders are convinced to go to war, through intimidation people are robbed at knife/gun point. It can even be more mundane things like a salesman talking you into buying something. Other peoples actions can force us to behave in a manour we normally wouldn't.

[Peregrinus]

You must have missed the part where I went over to my conditions for using Intimidate/Diplomacy. I see them as a supplement to RP, not a replacement for them, and all my opinions on using them are based around that idea. Yes, I am aware they happen in real life, but in real life I don't go up to a person a hold out my hand and demand they give me money, there's a lot of stuff that I must do to cover that. Likewise, when I'm RPing, I expect people to actually go through the trouble of acting out what they're doing to Intimidate me, not simply roll a die and make a demand. Further, in real life, degree of power comes into play and the person doing the intimidating can get into circumstances they might not realize. To use a mugger as an example, they might think that little old lady is an easy mark, so they corner her, pull a knife and threaten her to make her hand over the purse. She, in response, pulls a gun out of the purse and shoots the guy. In pure DnD terms, he succeeded on the Intimidate check (because the old lady genuinely believed he was going to harm her if she did not comply), but the results were not what he wanted because the little old lady was much more powerful than our thug with a knife. Another example is if you cornered Bruce Lee in an alley and threatened him with a knife, sure, you might actually convince him that you genuinely are a threat, but he's not going to treat you like an actual threat because he's Bruce Lee, why should he be threatened by some punk with a knife? Unless he knows who you are and your reputation, it doesn't matter, he's still going to react the same way. Likewise, most people who would likely come up and threaten Phelan (who isn't DM controlled), Phelan knows nothing about, yes, they are threatening him in the here and now, and that's a concern, but when you've faced a Demi-lich, some unknown guy with a sword really doesn't seem that threatening in the grand scheme of things.

Finally, Diplomacy, by the SRD is only usable on NPCs:

You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check...

(Emphasis added.)
So any further discussion of use against players is kinda pointless. If you want to negotiate with me, RP out negotiating with me and be prepared for me to drive a hard bargain. I'm willing to accept Diplomacy checks are part of that RP, but that's my prerogative as, by the rules, Diplomacy can't be used on me normally.

I'm not denying the use of the skills, I'm explaining how I treat them as a supplement and my personal rules for dealing with them. What I am further specifying is simply because you might succeed on the skill check, do not expect me to go along with what you exactly want me to do. Merely because you've succeeded in Intimidating my character does not mean I'll acquiesce to what you want me to do, my response will take into account what your demand is, what it will cost me, and the circumstances of the surroundings. If you come up to me and successfully intimidate me and demand 100 GP, I'll laugh and say "that's all you want?" and toss you the coin. If, on the other hand, you successfully intimidate me and demand to know what the password is to gain audience with the Prince, I'll say "do your worst" and attempt to defeat you because Phelan is one of his knights.

To sum up, I'm fine with you Intimidating me, but don't expect me to respond in a nice fashion just because you're big and scary.

[Mensha Khaine]

yeah I was comming from the point of view that if I was RPing it.

I would point out there is a fine line between bluffing and intimidation, I see it as if you propose a threat but have no ability/intention of following through, then its a bluff. Intimidation on the other hand, is the firm belief that they can and will make good on the threat, and you fear the result, the fear really being key.

I'd be looking for some sort of fear based response, stuttering, compliance, going quiet, maybe even trying to run away. Trying to nuke them after failing the check doesn't feel like the actions of some one gripped by fear, especially if your fearing them killing you. So in your example Bruce and granny passed their check.

I agree there should be a scale, like the one for bluff wired posted, as yes it is highly unlikely that you would reveal that info, having that information out there is the larger concern. I was more concerned in the lack of response, and if it was purely RP, then spending the points would be a waist.

[Peregrinus]

Umm... you are familiar with the idea of the Fight or Flight response, right? To sum it up, when faced with a dangerous situation (in other words, something frightening), a creature will be either prepared to fight or run away depending on the circumstances. It is completely something based on fear, but it can result in two very different end results. What causes something to choose one over the other is completely situational, and humans, of course, generally are not ruled by it, but we clearly still have the response, but we then can manage the response via analysis to end the threat other ways besides either fighting or running. Simply being frightened does not suddenly mean a person cannot choose to fight, but it can mean that are fighting at a disadvantage (the idea of being Shaken with the appropriate penalties is mentioned under the Intimidate skill description in the SRD).

As I've said before, at the end of the day, skill checks should not force another player to have to act in a certain way. Checks should help give a direction to how RP should go, give indications of how a person is acting while speaking to another, etc. The minute you try to use a skill check to force me to act in specific ways, though, is where I take umbrage with their use. Control of a character's actions should always be in their player's hands, never in the hands of another player, and never in the hands of a DM. My RP can be affected by other players, and it is my responsibility to react properly to the situations I am presented, but I have no responsibility to act in a way you tell me I should act simply because of a skill check or DM fiat.

[LordAers]

This has been an interesting discussion. While I do not think everyone will ever agree on how they should be handled(I think intimidate is the one that a player would most encounter) I think that anyone who reads this will be able to better handle these skill checks.

[Gold]

Yesterday I witnessed a character being mentally dismantled via social skill checks. If this was agreed to in advance by the player of the character who was affected, I have no qualms about this. If not, I do not approve. Social skills are intended to be used with NPC interactions not as "combat" skills. Each player character in Dasaria is the "star" of their own story. Imposing one's will on another person's experience through skill based roleplay bludgeoning is not elegant at best and potentially demoralizing or worse.

Fortunately there is a better way. Players can negotiate plot lines with each other. For example, my character "Drake Deadwood" is associated with the nasty Dread Malice although he is generally not known for this. I have 10 levels of play invested in Drake but he is expendable for the fun and entertainment of others. In fact one of my other characters is searching to find Drake and convince him to redeem himself (not going to happen but it makes for fun roleplay). Using social skills as a mechanism for facilitating an in game player plot line is certainly a good use for them. The players of the key characters, at a minimum, should agree privately to the plot line prior to the rolls commencing. Hopefully this is the way things were handled for the "disturbing scene" one of my characters witnessed yesterday.

Players should also keep in mind that others on the server may not understand a "social combat" session should they encounter one. I have been around Dasaria long enough to trust the judgement of many of my fellow players. People new to Dasaria and/or roleplay will not have this understanding. To the credit of the players involved in the "disturbing scene", they did play things out in a remote location and I have no doubt that any casual observers would have been shooed away.

[bluenaga]

Yes, I'm sure if my character saw ya snooping about she would have chased you out with her big mace From what I witnessed there was a lot of discussion about rolls previous and during that scene. It also played out with pre-arranged possibilities and the character in question was not technically bludgeoned or forced into any non-agreed circumstances by the superior conversation capabilities of some characters.
Don't worry. We're evil characters, not evil players.

[Kamen]

When I roll a social skill check it is often for my own reference to so how well my own character pulled something off. I don't enforce how the other player/character should react if at all. There are varying DC modifies that should be applied to many social skill checks so a failure to beat the roll in my opinion doesn't necessitate a particular reaction. I hope in this circumstance nobody walked away from the experience with anything short of a good time. And there were several scenarios in this situation that were negotiated so I don't think anyone's experiences were ruined. I have always tried my best to facilitate other players character storylines.

[Gold]

BlueNaga & Kamen:
Thank you for confirming what I expected to be the case. There are many players in Dasaria I trust are doing the "right" things, you are among them. As a third party observer it is impossible to know what happens via tells unless someone clues you in after the fact. Thank you.

[Alterity]

We made it clear at the beginning that all convo rolls would be will DC, if the questioned had tried to use similar tactics, he likely would have beaten our Will rolls as well

As the others said though, we made the roll and he responded. It was up to him how he responded though. Many of the rolls could have been deemed impossible. Just in in PnP the difficulty isn't just sense motive, but an added difficulty. If we lied about something (Bluff check vs Will check) and he knew without a doubt it was false, we would need a very good bluff to actually convince him we are telling the truth. However, we didn't enforce that, the skill rolls were merely guidelines.

Although we didn't necessarily negotiate plot lines fully, we did to an extent. I informed the questioned of what could happen depending on various scenarios, and left the door unlocked so if he wanted, he could flee (Which much to my chagrin you used to get inside ). I did warn him that one possibility was trail and execution, but that is understandable and he understood. But I made sure to inform him that that was one possibility of many, and it doesn't have to happen if he doesn't want it to. In the end, he did tell me he enjoyed himself so it all must've gone well .

To your last point Gold, I agree many may not understand the skill rolls. However they are an RP tool, and if you think that the other player will understand then it does make sense to use them. But their reaction isn't going to always be what you want. It can also be more fair to use such rolls for RPed pickpocketing, or hideing or moving silently, or listening in on a whispered conversation (Many people say the conversation in local, letting people know it is whispered and allow people to use a listen check to eavesdrop), while other rolls could be spotting a facial movement out of the corner of your eye. In the end it is up to the people rping, if all parties feel confortable with skill rolls, then by all means use them, they can help guide the rp.