Advice on a Feint Situation

[Greenfield]

For me, a "good pitch" for a bluff or diplomacy check gives a situation bonus. A "bad pitch" gives a penalty. Not even trying gives a bigger penalty.

Someone who isn't personally articulate can still make a "good pitch" if they can lay out what spin they're trying to put on the situation.

Being human I'm probably going to be more swayed by the more persuasive delivery, but I do try to adjust for player eloquence v player cleverness.

But because there can be that master orator at the table, playing a socially inept character, a situational modifier is all I ever give. The success is never automatic.

Automatic success would never be given for a detailed description of a blade flourish, after all. If we reward player knowledge with automatic success, and still allow character knowledge as well, then we've unbalanced the system.

I've personally had Red Cross life saving training, and used to counsel/teach Boy Scout First Aid Merit Badge. And, sadly, I've had some practical experience around gaping wounds.

Does that mean that I don't ever have to invest in Healing, as a skill, for any of my characters? If my real world skill completely supplants the character sheet on that, then I can devote those skill points to something that I'm not really skilled in.

That's not fair to the other players who are less well trained than I am. Same for being an articulate speaker: If I can gain success on social skills because of a glib tongue or a clever line of banter then Charisma will always be my dump stat and I'll never put more than one point in any social skill. After all, I can replace the character's poor stats and skills with the player's RL ones, so that gives me more stat and skill points to put in other places.

Water Bob and I have gone three rounds or so on this in the past, so I don't expect to persuade him.

Doesn't keep me from trying though.

 

[N'raac]

For me, a "good pitch" for a bluff or diplomacy check gives a situation bonus. A "bad pitch" gives a penalty. Not even trying gives a bigger penalty.

Someone who isn't personally articulate can still make a "good pitch" if they can lay out what spin they're trying to put on the situation.

I always find these terms tough to apply. For example, if "not even trying" for a good pitch for Bluff or Diplomacy gives a big penalty, would the same penalty to hit apply to not even trying to describe your character's attack? More effort is already required for Bluff or Diplomacy (I have to know what I am trying to Bluff or persuade him to do, rather than just swinging until the opponent falls down).

A bonus for "good strategy", like bringing an appropriate gift based on knowledge of the person I wish to persuade with Diplomacy, or integrating Orcs into a Bluff against a fellow I know is worried an Orc attack is imminent, on the other hand, is like using the environment - flanking, using cover or occupying higher ground.

Automatic success would never be given for a detailed description of a blade flourish, after all. If we reward player knowledge with automatic success, and still allow character knowledge as well, then we've unbalanced the system.

But do we reward that description with a bonus, and penalize "I swing - does 17 hit?" with a penalty?

 

[Greenfield]

I always find these terms tough to apply. For example, if "not even trying" for a good pitch for Bluff or Diplomacy gives a big penalty, would the same penalty to hit apply to not even trying to describe your character's attack? More effort is already required for Bluff or Diplomacy (I have to know what I am trying to Bluff or persuade him to do, rather than just swinging until the opponent falls down).

A bonus for "good strategy", like bringing an appropriate gift based on knowledge of the person I wish to persuade with Diplomacy, or integrating Orcs into a Bluff against a fellow I know is worried an Orc attack is imminent, on the other hand, is like using the environment - flanking, using cover or occupying higher ground.

But do we reward that description with a bonus, and penalize "I swing - does 17 hit?" with a penalty?

Bluff and Diplomacy are verbal, social interaction skills. A verbal description is good. Actually role playing the scene is wonderful. Right tool for the right job

Combat situations are not verbal. Verbal descriptions are colorful and appreciated, and explaining the goal of a combat maneuver may be helpful in influencing the tactical situation, but ultimately it's not a situation that verbal eloquence can aid. Wrong tool for the job.

Want to get a combat bonus through verbal skill? Play a Bard and use Inspire Courage. Want to role play it? Sing "March of Cambreth", "Scots wha' ha'" or "Rising pf the Moon". Not a singer? No problem. History, and particularly movies are full our inspiring soliloquies and rousing speeches. The poem Cyrano de Bergerac used in his famous duel scene, "And as I end the refrain, thrust home", was a marvelous example.

I'd give Exp bonuses for things like that. But the game mechanic already gives combat bonuses for Bards who do that.

 

[Water Bob]

With interpersonal skills like Bluff and Diplomacy, what I do is roll a check behind the screen so the player can't see the outcome. Then, I roleplay with the player normally, but I keep the result of the check in the back of my mind and let it influence my roleplay.

Let's say that a PC is trying to convince a merchant that a sword that is being sold came from the High House of Madurcha, an elven noble House known for its extreme quality longswords.

I'll let the player roleplay his heart out. I'll play the NPC merchant, of course.

But, I'll roll the PC's Bluff vs. NPC's Appraise. And, if the PC wins, I'll roleplay the NPC merchant more gullible (because the sword is not of the High House of Madurcha) and be a little more willing to believe in what the player says in his roleplay.

I don't let the dice decide the outcome. That happens purely through the roleplaying. But, I can be a hardass Merchant, or I can be a gullible Merchant, and there's all that space between. The dice roll guides my roleplaying of the NPC.

This way, in my game, skills are important, and roleplaying doesn't take a back seat to dice rolling.

It's possible for the PC to win his Bluff check but for the player not to roleplay convincingly enough, or say the right things, for the Merchant to believe him. The check helps the player with his roleplay but doesn't decide the situation 100%.

I think of the check behind the screen as more of a modifier to my NPC roleplaying than resulting in an absolute result. If the PC wins the Bluff check, then it will be easier for the PC to pull one over on the Merchant--but the player still has to roleplay and do the work of making his argument convincing.

OTOH, if the Merchant's Appraise check wins, then the Merchant may know to look for a small mark that every sword from the House of Madurcha has stamped on it, and with it missing, he knows this sword isn't one from the House. But, for the fight price, the Merchant may still be able to sell the sword as one from the House, so he's interested in buying the sword and basically pulling the same scam with a customer later. It all depends on price.

That's how I use interpersonal checks.

 

[N'raac]

Bluff and Diplomacy are verbal, social interaction skills. A verbal description is good. Actually role playing the scene is wonderful. Right tool for the right job

Combat situations are not verbal. Verbal descriptions are colorful and appreciated, and explaining the goal of a combat maneuver may be helpful in influencing the tactical situation, but ultimately it's not a situation that verbal eloquence can aid. Wrong tool for the job.

By that logic, we get back to Tubby the Couch Potato being required to role play his Kirk Shoulder Roll. I don't even want to think of the consequences of players role playing their combat maneuvers in physical fashion!

Tubby invested in DEX and Acrobatics/Tumbling skill ranks, so his character is good at acrobatics, even though Tubby can barely get off the couch best two out of three. Wallflower invested in CHA and social interaction skills. Wallflower's lack of persuasiveness should not mean her character's skills are any less successful than Tubby's. Both have chosen to run characters whose skills and abilities differ from their own personal skills and abilities. Why should Tubby be allowed to play an agile acrobat but Wallflower not be permitted to play a fast-talking con artist? Why should the very eloquent Tubby get bonuses to his 8 CHA, no social skills character for his own persuasiveness (he's a skilled litigator), but Wallflower can't offset his character's 8 DEX and lack of physical skills with his skills(he's an Olympic gymnast)?

Want to get a combat bonus through verbal skill? Play a Bard and use Inspire Courage. Want to role play it? Sing "March of Cambreth", "Scots wha' ha'" or "Rising pf the Moon". Not a singer? No problem. History, and particularly movies are full our inspiring soliloquies and rousing speeches. The poem Cyrano de Bergerac used in his famous duel scene, "And as I end the refrain, thrust home", was a marvelous example.

No, I want to get the skills my character invested in. It would be great if the Bard role played all that (or maybe not - can his player carry a tune?), but we don't require it. We know his character has the ability, so it happens in-game. So why does the 22 CHA character with max ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy not get to use his character's skills and abilities.

I'd give Exp bonuses for things like that. But the game mechanic already gives combat bonuses for Bards who do that.

The Bluff and Diplomacy skills are also game mechanics. Again, why do some game mechanics only work if the player's personal skills support them, but others work regardless of the player's ability to demonstrate them, or even describe them dramatically?

With interpersonal skills like Bluff and Diplomacy, what I do is roll a check behind the screen so the player can't see the outcome. Then, I roleplay with the player normally, but I keep the result of the check in the back of my mind and let it influence my roleplay.

Let's say that a PC is trying to convince a merchant that a sword that is being sold came from the High House of Madurcha, an elven noble House known for its extreme quality longswords.

I'll let the player roleplay his heart out. I'll play the NPC merchant, of course.

So a well spoken player should simply invest all his character resources in combat abilities since he can role play his way through a bad skill check anyway. And the wallflower may as well invest all his character resources in combat abilities, since he won't be permitted to benefit from good interaction skill checks due to his lack of similar personal skills. I think if a player builds a character who is focused on interaction skills, those skills should be every bit as important and decisive as the combat skills of the guy who dumps CHA to maximize his melee skills.

I game to run someone with abilities different from my own. If Tubby wants to play a powerful warrior or agile rogue, he gets to do so. And if Wallflower wants a suave James Bond character, that's what he should get too.

 

[Greenfield]

Wallflower wants to persuade the guards that these aren't the Druids he's looking for. Great.

Wallflower tells the DM, "I flash the fancy signet ring I bought, so he'll think I'm somebody important, and tell him that I'd heard something about trouble at the south gate."

Great. Without being articulate or theatrical, they've just give me, the DM, an idea of the approach they're using in your Bluff check. They've given me something to work with, story wise. If they took the time to get that fancy signet ring, and have the presence of mind to come up with a good distraction for the guards, why shouldn't they get something for it? The player can struggle with the language, stutter and mumble, they can still earn that bonus.

Regarding Bardic performance: You left off the tail end of what I wrote.

I'd give Exp bonuses for things like that. But the game mechanic already gives combat bonuses for Bards who do that.

The mechanical effects of Bardic Music are well documented, hard wired. No dice roll to apply a circumstance modifier to. The combat bonus is already there. I mentioned an Exp bonus for that. Don't you award RP bonuses once in a while?

 

[N'raac]

Wallflower wants to persuade the guards that these aren't the Druids he's looking for. Great.

Wallflower tells the DM, "I flash the fancy signet ring I bought, so he'll think I'm somebody important, and tell him that I'd heard something about trouble at the south gate."

Seems like using that fancy signet ring is beyond the basics required for Bluff. Why is this a de minimis requirement, rather than a bonus for cleverness (akin to attacking from higher ground)? Bluff includes modifiers for the believability of the lie, of course. But why "trouble at the south gate" rather than "trouble somewhere else in the city", with the character making up an appropriate location to which the guards may be lured? Here again, if there is some in-game reason that the guards would be more likely to believe an issue would arise at the south gate rather than, say, at the docks, then a bonus for using that in-game fact seems appropriate.

I'm thinking of, perhaps, a +1 bonus for the signet ring (perfect tools, like masterwork thieves' tools, give a +2, so the best tool for the job should cap out there). If there is a good reason the guard would be more likely to believe an issue would arise at the south gate, maybe that moves the Bluff from "A little hard to believe/some risk" ["deserting my own post is a serious offence"] to "believable and doesn’t affect the target much" ["We've heard rumours of orcs amassing to the south - this could be it"]

Neither relies on the interpersonal skills of the player, which is where I see issues. I would also note there would be nothing wrong with another player noting the rumours of the orcs make the south gate a good choice, or lending the character his own signet ring to better appear to be someone important, before they are in earshot of the guards.

Just as easily, a bluff with no location (but a good roll) could mean the guards' own concern about the south gate might be how the GM narrates that success - it could be the guard captain who interprets the "disturbance elsewhere" as "my Gods, lad, is it the South Gate?" "Why yes, indeed it was to the south..." No bonus to the player here, just narration of his success incorporating GM knowledge (which the players may not have known, or may just have forgotten).

Regarding Bardic performance: You left off the tail end of what I wrote.

The mechanical effects of Bardic Music are well documented, hard wired. No dice roll to apply a circumstance modifier to. The combat bonus is already there. I mentioned an Exp bonus for that. Don't you award RP bonuses once in a while?

Mainly because it was not germane to my comments. The mechanics also tell us what happens with a successful bluff check, although since it is not as simple as "hit or miss", more interpretation is required. RP bonuses again have that issue of "I like his RP, and I don't like the other guy's" so there is subjectivity. I recall one game where the longer-time players noted that "RP bonus" equates to "does something to screw the party". xp bonuses have largely become a non-issue in our games, where we have moved to "advancement at the speed of plot". This was not practical prior to 3e, but with all characters requiring the same xp to advance, dealing with wealth by level, etc., keeping xp equal has become more practical. Spells and crafting that costs xp makes this tougher (Pathfinder got rid of xp costs for crafting).

I'm also conscious of the math issue raised a while back. Let's assume we have a party of L7 characters, with equal xp. One of them does something unusual, so he gets an xp bonus - let's say 100xp times his level, so 600. He's really happy I recognized his great RP, and even more so when he levels up, and the other three need another 400 xp to reach 8th level. Wow, he really got a bonus, didn't he?

The players go on another adventure, and the next time we award xp, they have had three CR6 encounters, 6 CR7's and a tough CR9 to close out the adventure. We run the xp through http://www.incorporeal.org/rpg/tools/d20/. The three L7's get 5,250 xp each, and the L8 gets 4,200. Suddenly, his short term gain is long term pain. This was another issue with xp costs for spells and magic - keep just below the rest of the team, and the next xp award pushes you above them.

I find the RP bonuses are often more social than mechanical - the recognition of peers, rather than an in-game bonus.

In any case, the clever use of the signet ring and well role played Bluff of a disturbance at the South Gate could receive a similar RP bonus, couldn't it? Now, the player making an eloquent speech for this 8 CHA with no social skills? If anything, he deserves an RP penalty for playing the social outcast like an eloquent orator, not a bonus for a great speech.

 

[Greenfield]

Seems like using that fancy signet ring is beyond the basics required for Bluff. Why is this a de minimis requirement, rather than a bonus for cleverness (akin to attacking from higher ground)?

Who said it was de minimis? If the player either took the time to buy that ring for such purposes, or was quick enough on his/her feet to come up with it, why would that not be a bonus?

Bluff includes modifiers for the believability of the lie, of course. But why "trouble at the south gate" rather than "trouble somewhere else in the city", with the character making up an appropriate location to which the guards may be lured? Here again, if there is some in-game reason that the guards would be more likely to believe an issue would arise at the south gate rather than, say, at the docks, then a bonus for using that in-game fact seems appropriate.

Is "Trouble at the south gate", not an example of exactly what you're talking about? That is, "making up an appropriate location to which the guards might be lured"?

I'm thinking of, perhaps, a +1 bonus for the signet ring (perfect tools, like masterwork thieves' tools, give a +2, so the best tool for the job should cap out there). If there is a good reason the guard would be more likely to believe an issue would arise at the south gate, maybe that moves the Bluff from "A little hard to believe/some risk" ["deserting my own post is a serious offence"] to "believable and doesn’t affect the target much" ["We've heard rumours of orcs amassing to the south - this could be it"]

I think we're on the same page here.

Neither relies on the interpersonal skills of the player, which is where I see issues.

I agree.

Mainly because it was not germane to my comments.

It made clear that I was *NOT* awarding a circumstance modifier. That's pretty germane. You intentionally took my words out of context, just so you could have something to argue with.

If you were editing my words just so they would be germane to your point, I have a request: In the future, don't sign my name to your works of fiction.

The mechanics also tell us what happens with a successful bluff check, although since it is not as simple as "hit or miss", more interpretation is required.

The mechanics tell us that they somehow believe your character. But what we're talking about is how to determine whether the Bluff check succeeded. Circumstance modifiers are, as you noted, subjective. They're also optional.

On keeping xp equal: How do you handle things when a player has to miss a session? Just asking...

I'm also conscious of the math issue raised a while back. Let's assume we have a party of L7 characters, with equal xp. One of them does something unusual, so he gets an xp bonus - let's say 100xp times his level, so 600. He's really happy I recognized his great RP, and even more so when he levels up, and the other three need another 400 xp to reach 8th level. Wow, he really got a bonus, didn't he?

And that's an issue, if your table has players who are competing with each other.

I hand out XP bonuses of 50 or a 100 points, period, but the point you make is the same either way.

We award xp proportional to level. Using your example, the 7th level characters will get a bigger xp total for a given encounter than the 8th level one. Why? Two reasons. First, because the encounter is more challenging for them. Second, because the book says so.

So what happens? When the Exp difference results in a level split, the people who were behind get more Exp, and the gap closes. Depending on the size of the encounter, they may even pass the 8th level's Exp. And if this results in a level split when going from 8th to 9th, then he'll get the bigger share. End result, it's a minor issue for one game session, and is eventually self correcting.

In any case, the clever use of the signet ring and well role played Bluff of a disturbance at the South Gate could receive a similar RP bonus, couldn't it? Now, the player making an eloquent speech for this 8 CHA with no social skills? If anything, he deserves an RP penalty for playing the social outcast like an eloquent orator, not a bonus for a great speech.

That could also be played for comic effect, of course. Mr. Stumble Tongue tries to recite, "Friends, Roman, Countrymen, give me your ears..." and fails miserably. The classic line "Greatly did he strive, and thus greatly did he fail" seems written for that scene.

But let's play it out. The player's RP might give him a +1, maybe a +2 if he had a really good spin in there. Since his character starts with a -1 on the roll, and by RAW it takes a minimum result of 20 to do anything, all a +1 does is make it possible (barely) for him to succeed. He needs a natural 20.

Hardly a game breaker.

WaterBob said he'd roll the dice, and use the result to modify the result of the speech. I think you and I run in the opposite direction: We use the speech to modify the dice roll.

Ultimately, I like having some role playing at my table, so I reward it. Your table is undoubtedly run based on what you want to encourage. Fortunately the world is big enough for allow for more than one way to play.

 

[N'raac]

I agree we are largely on the same page.

It made clear that I was *NOT* awarding a circumstance modifier. That's pretty germane. You intentionally took my words out of context, just so you could have something to argue with.

If you were editing my words just so they would be germane to your point, I have a request: In the future, don't sign my name to your works of fiction.

That was not my intent, so I apologize for any perceived slight. My comments were more directed at Bluff also having defined game effects, but Bluff does have room for tactical bonuses, as a skill rather than as a bonus in its own right.

On keeping xp equal: How do you handle things when a player has to miss a session? Just asking...

Typically, the character is still around (as there is rarely a convenient opportunity for the character to drop out, and when there is, a convenient opportunity for him to drop back in isn't guaranteed). Our group is presently small enough that someone being unavailable often means we postpone the next game anyway, but we'd typically just carry on - full xp for the missing player's character. It's not like players are deliberately missing sessions, and if they need an xp reason to attend, they likely are not long for the game anyway.

Not dissimilar, I think, from your group's removal of the current GM's character, who still gets full xp and loot for the period the character was absent.

And that's an issue, if your table has players who are competing with each other.

To me, "reward" connotes some perception of "winning" by obtaining the rewards, so that suggests some form of competition. I find it an issue more from the perspective of keeping the characters comparable in power, and thus relevance to the game.

We award xp proportional to level. Using your example, the 7th level characters will get a bigger xp total for a given encounter than the 8th level one. Why? Two reasons. First, because the encounter is more challenging for them. Second, because the book says so.

So what happens? When the Exp difference results in a level split, the people who were behind get more Exp, and the gap closes. Depending on the size of the encounter, they may even pass the 8th level's Exp. And if this results in a level split when going from 8th to 9th, then he'll get the bigger share. End result, it's a minor issue for one game session, and is eventually self correcting.

Sure. However, it seems like the intent of a bonus is to reward superior play. If the result is falling behind, that reward does not actually materialize. Similarly, it seems like charging XP for certain spells or magic items is intended to prevent their overuse, due to a perceived balance issue. If the result is that the character gains xp faster than his teammates due to the xp cost, then it's not serving its mechanical purpose.

That could also be played for comic effect, of course. Mr. Stumble Tongue tries to recite, "Friends, Roman, Countrymen, give me your ears..." and fails miserably. The classic line "Greatly did he strive, and thus greatly did he fail" seems written for that scene.

The scene could be played for comic relief. My point was twofold. First, if an RP reward is suitable for the Bardic Recitation, it seems suitable for the well role played Bluff as well. Of course, the Bluff is also more conducive to an in-game bonus to the roll as Bardic Recitation has no success/failure to be adjudicated. The bigger point, to me, is that an eloquent speech from the social outcast is not good role playing, and should not be rewarded. I think we're on the same page there - Social Outcast rolls with his own skills, and gets no special reward for player eloquence.

He could get a bonus for in-game tactics such as the signet ring or knowing the "orcs to the south" rumours, but it's the same bonus the Face could get, so better to suggest it to the other character if the goal is for the group to succeed.

Ultimately, I like having some role playing at my table, so I reward it. Your table is undoubtedly run based on what you want to encourage. Fortunately the world is big enough for allow for more than one way to play.

I think there is both what we want to encourage and what we need to encourage. Our table has plenty of good role playing, for which the reward is largely intrinsic, outside peer recognition. Ultimately, the reward must translate into "more fun", whatever it is, or it's not a reward at all. I don't find a need to encourage a fun game with in-game benefits, but I don't see any great harm in it either. Ultimately, the only question is whether the group is having fun.

Ultimately, I don't think xp bonuses are going to bring a min/maxing munchkin around to better role playing. It will largely reward what the RP players were already doing anyway, and I suspect the peer recognition is more a positive reinforcement than an xp bonus is. Peer recognition likely also comes from the players, but they don't get to hand out xp bonuses (well, in some games, they do as some games do have "players' choice" xp bonuses).

 

[Water Bob]

So a well spoken player should simply invest all his character resources in combat abilities since he can role play his way through a bad skill check anyway. And the wallflower may as well invest all his character resources in combat abilities, since he won't be permitted to benefit from good interaction skill checks due to his lack of similar personal skills.

No, not really, though I can see how you would think that.

As GM, I have to give allowances to those players that can't act. I tend to listen to the intent of their roleplay, or the player just flat out doesn't roleplay but tells me in third person, "I bring to the merchant's attention that he doesn't have anything like this sword in his stock, that I can see."

I'll take that, with the roll, and roleplay back to him. Or, I'll go third person, too, and say, "He eyes you for a moment and says, fine, let's make the deal."

It works pretty well.