Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[NewJeffCT]

I've been playing D&D for over 30 years now, and have played first 3.5E and now 4E for almost four years now.

One thing I've found is that "social" skills are Bluff, Intimidate & Diplomacy are usually too easy in game. A good Bluff check, and the formerly loyal guard with strict orders is letting the PCs into the castle... a good Intimidate check and the fanatical follower of the Evil Tyrant God is spilling the beans on his group's secret hideout.

I really think these things should be much more difficult.

Sorry but, IMHO, the loyal guard who has strict orders not to let anybody into the castle (under penalty of death) isn't going to suddenly forget his job because a PC rolls a good Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate check and defeats his Will defense or he fails his Will save or whatnot. I mean, if the king finds out, the guard may end up being beheaded and his family also executed. I would think that would put any sort of bluff/intimidate out of reach without magical persuasion.

Similarly, the fanatical follower of Evil God of Tyranny isn't going to give up the location of his secret hideout because a PC says "Boo" to him and rolls a 19 Intimidate check, modified up by X ranks in Intimidate and more through Aid Another. I would think the intimidation of betraying your god and spending an eternity being tortured for that betrayal is worth more than some PC talking to you sternly.

Using magical charm or domination spells is another story. I'm talking about just using the "social" skills.

How do people handle this situations?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I've been playing D&D for over 30 years now, and have played first 3.5E and now 4E for almost four years now.

One thing I've found is that "social" skills are Bluff, Intimidate & Diplomacy are usually too easy in game. A good Bluff check, and the formerly loyal guard with strict orders is letting the PCs into the castle... a good Intimidate check and the fanatical follower of the Evil Tyrant God is spilling the beans on his group's secret hideout.

I really think these things should be much more difficult.

Sorry but, IMHO, the loyal guard who has strict orders not to let anybody into the castle (under penalty of death) isn't going to suddenly forget his job because a PC rolls a good Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate check and defeats his Will defense or he fails his Will save or whatnot. I mean, if the king finds out, the guard may end up being beheaded and his family also executed. I would think that would put any sort of bluff/intimidate out of reach without magical persuasion.

Similarly, the fanatical follower of Evil God of Tyranny isn't going to give up the location of his secret hideout because a PC says "Boo" to him and rolls a 19 Intimidate check, modified up by X ranks in Intimidate and more through Aid Another. I would think the intimidation of betraying your god and spending an eternity being tortured for that betrayal is worth more than some PC talking to you sternly.

Using magical charm or domination spells is another story. I'm talking about just using the "social" skills.

How do people handle this situations?

I think they need more limitations built in so you don't get silly outcomes.

 

[Crothian]

I think it's the DM's job to make the NPCs react in a realistic way so one doesn't get silly outcomes.

 

[Morrus]

Does that not depend on the DC of the check? Or, indeed, the skills of the target? An easy DC is going to be easy; a difficult DC is going to be hard.

Your guard has a +20 situational intimidate bonus from his scary king, for example.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I agree with Crothian, and I'll also add that most systems take this into consideration by allowing the DM to up the DC. In the bluff example you mention, in 3.5 the guard would get at least a +10 bonus to Sense Motive, maybe a +20. If the PCs still bluff the guard even with that crazy bonus, the deserve the victory.

 

[RedTonic]

At least for 3.x, the Rules Compendium has good information on the social skills and guidelines on how a successful (or unsuccessful) check shapes an NPC's reaction towards the PC, and what that reaction should (roughly) entail. There's really no reason for loyal NPC guard to allow hostile PCs into his liege's castle based on a social skill check.

 

[Noumenon]

Yes, this is hard for me. Does anyone actually use the "move your attitude up two steps" rules? Social skill checks tend to be pass/fail, yes/no affairs. What does it mean for the Intimidate to succeed, if not that the guard lets the PCs go by? "The guard still says no, but now in a scared voice?"

Skill challenges should work better, as an easy intimidate leads to a medium stealth and maybe more diplomacy later on.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I've been playing D&D for over 30 years now, and have played first 3.5E and now 4E for almost four years now.

One thing I've found is that "social" skills are Bluff, Intimidate & Diplomacy are usually too easy in game. A good Bluff check, and the formerly loyal guard with strict orders is letting the PCs into the castle...

The bluff, IMO, should make sense given his orders. If the guard is told not to let someone through, they shouldn't, unless the PCs come up with the "right" bluff (eg I'm the king's assistant spymaster and need to deliver an urgent message right away, or didn't the king tell you the Fellowship of Ee would visit today?). Even if the guard fails, they should demand the PCs drop their weapons.

(And I think in the above scenario, you have to fool a bunch of guards. No guard is willing to do something dodgy with witnesses, and even a private meeting with the PCs is suspicious.)

I think the real problem is trying to write a set of rules for social skills that are too simplistic. If they're complicated, it becomes a new subsystem like combat, which means time has to be spent learning them, and it's going to be less structured than combat, too. If you just follow the simplistic rules as written, then rolling high means the guard falls under mind control, and that's just silly.

a good Intimidate check and the fanatical follower of the Evil Tyrant God is spilling the beans on his group's secret hideout.

If you've got him at your mercy, sure. Even arrested al-Qaeda members sometimes spill, and I'm not talking torture here. But not if you just spook him. I think 4e has a specific Interrogation skill challenge, but I don't recall any rules about "having the NPC at your mercy".

For Diplomacy (possibly the worst offender in 3.x), Rich Burlew, writer of OOTS, came up with a great system that's level-based, but more importantly (from a flavor perspective) also has good modifiers for "making a deal". In that system, Diplomacy isn't "make friends", it's "make a deal". Which means even if you deal with the guard to sneak into the king's chambers once, you're going to have to make it worth his while the next time.

 

[AeroDm]

Something that I've been thinking about lately is the idea that changing an attitude is problematically vague. Social skills are often resolved into "change beliefs" but all that is needed to propel the game forward is "change behavior." If a good Bluff convinces the guard to let you into the castle by changing his belief, the guard then goes back about his day manning his post. But if it just changes his behavior, then the PCs continue onto the next challenge but the guard still feels uneasy about what just happened. He let them pass for fear of what would happen if he interfered, but now he is double checking with his superiors and reinforcements are on their way. It is a small difference in interpretation but it gives more room for degrees of success to be introduced to social skills.

 

[S'mon]

I always just set whatever DC I think is reasonable after listening to the player's spiel, then they roll vs the DC - if I'm using a static DC like the target's Will defense then I tell the player "roll at +5" or whatever, depending on how scary/persuasive they were etc. So this problem never arises for me.

Edit: I don't recall having had any problems with this approach, but in the extreme case of a socially retarded player who builds a diplomacy-centric PC I suppose might have to get them to rebuild their character. Has never happened IRL though. And really that's much like a player who makes an 'optimised' combat PC but is utterly hopeless at combat tactics so they still lose.