Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

I think the rules actually support that. IIRC Bluff results don't last that long, but DMs and players forget this really fast.

(Alas, that's no fix to Diplomacy. As far as I can tell, that's permanent, barring mistreatment of the "victim" of Diplomacy.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

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".

This actually comes up in our game Terror Network some times. It is different from d20 and 4E though, so the probabilities aren't the same. In our game, Interrogation is a d10 dice pool (0-3 based on skill, with 0-3 possible modifiers) against the target's resolve score (6-9). This leads to a lot of what you are describing. The problem is, if you have (had) Osama Bin Laden, it is hard to imagine him spilling the beans on much of anything. What we've had to do since is encourage the GM to use his judgment based on the NPC. Some NPCs are simply not going to talk. They may become more amiable, or more open to discussing other things, but if they are true believers in a cause, the GM is within his right to say in advance on the NPC sheet, "this guy doesn't reveal what he knows no matter what"

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Just to avoid hard feelings...

Well one, I don't allow evil PCs, so torture is right out, but for a different campaign, couldn't you have a resolute NPC simply fall unconscious or even die?

PC 1: "Tell us what you know."
NPC: "I'll tell you nothing!"
PC 1: "Increase the current."
NPC: "Blaarrrghhh...."
PC 2: "His heart's stopped. ... He's dead Jim."

(Where are the rules for this? There aren't any!)

In d20 Modern, if a character is dying, they can make a Fort save DC 15 to hang on. Of course, you can always deliberately fail a save. It's probably stretching the rules a little bit to say you can deliberately fail a save while unconscious, but not by that much.)

I don't know how it works for Terror Network; I'm hoping there's some kind of "choose to live" rule. Although you could exercise your GM right to say "he dies under the knife/shock/whatever".

I guess I'm saying, you could have a player revolt if the captive is still alive and not talking. Their plot role is done, so they can give a vague warning, a defiant threat and then die from the unsanctioned medicine.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Just to avoid hard feelings...

Well one, I don't allow evil PCs, so torture is right out, but for a different campaign, couldn't you have a resolute NPC simply fall unconscious or even die?

PC 1: "Tell us what you know."
NPC: "I'll tell you nothing!"
PC 1: "Increase the current."
NPC: "Blaarrrghhh...."
PC 2: "His heart's stopped. ... He's dead Jim."
.

We don't really tell people what they can or can't do with the game (and we certainly don't endorse torture), but we do point out that the laws don't permit torture, so agents going that path would probably lose their clout and even face charges.

But Interrogation skill (in TN), is more about proper Interrogation of a suspect (questioning, bargaining, etc). Anything beyond that would really just be a modifier I suppose. So the way I handle NPCs who simply wouldn't give up information on their organization is they may accidentally give away some minor information on a success or they simply become more friendly and well disposed toward the PCs.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

But Interrogation skill (in TN), is more about proper Interrogation of a suspect (questioning, bargaining, etc). Anything beyond that would really just be a modifier I suppose. So the way I handle NPCs who simply wouldn't give up information on their organization is they may accidentally give away some minor information on a success or they simply become more friendly and well disposed toward the PCs.

Oh, I see. I had a very different mental picture

I can see even OBL letting things slip.

 

[Diamond Cross]

I generally don't use them, because it's been my experience if a person doesn't want to tell you something then barring something extreme, such as shoving them against a wall or water boarding, they pretty much won't change their minds and stay silent.

I do use them in a crunch in some places though, such as when I'm out of ideas on how they should respond.

 

[S'mon]

Just to avoid hard feelings...

Well one, I don't allow evil PCs, so torture is right out, but for a different campaign, couldn't you have a resolute NPC simply fall unconscious or even die?.

Eh, real torturers do horrible things to people that run no risk of the subject's death, and often may not leave any obvious long-term mark either. It's usually more about humiliation and fear of the loss of bodily integrity (eg by removing body parts like fingernails) than infliction of pain per se.

 

[Zhaleskra]

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.

This is why I don't like the PHB telling you the DC to talk someone from being about to kill you to death to being your best friend. Short of magical compulsion: NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.

You may have a honeyed tongue, or a dagger to their throat, but some people are not going to do what you want. No matter what.

 

[Stormonu]

I think part of the disconnect comes in the fact we're used to having to defeat monsters by whacking on them several times to wear away their hit points, whereas the social skills in 3E turned it into a one-roll affair.

4E made an attempt to fix this with the mechanics of Skill Challenges in that it took several successful attempts to swing an individual. It's a good concept, but I don't think the resulting rules that came out were very good (there's been various a tweak, I'm talking as they were done in DMG1).

I think that it should be both a combination of difficulty and a number of rolls for social checks, if you don't want to use a system of "You the PLAYER, not you the character, have to convince the guard to let you past."*

* Personally, I have some issues with this playstyle; it's like asking the players to fight you with boffer swords to win a combat.

 

[NewJeffCT]

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.

Even then, a bard at level 5 with a maxed out CHA and maxed out Bluff (+5 for 20 CHA and 8 ranks), and some skill synergy bonuses is going to be putting a +15 to +17 to each roll of the dice, not counting his allies doing "aid another" and any magical enhancements. +19 to +21 would not be unrealistic, which would cancel out the +20. And, give the bard a few more levels and a few more bonuses...

Plus, I think the max situational bonus to skill checks in 3.5E was +4, with +2 being the norm in most "favorable" circumstances.