Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 1890916" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>"bamboozled"? perhaos this is part of the difference of opinion we have.i do not see successful DIPLOMACY checks as bamboozling people. bamboozling people is IMO the effect of successful BLUFF checks.One is a negotiation, the other is a scam.So, its seems like BECAUSE the PCs used their very good diplomacy and charm to move these front gnomes from enemies to allies, that they sowed the seeds for their own downfall because SINCE THEY DID SUCH A GOOD JOB at convining the front gnomes the front gnomes were incapable of letting on that they were really not able to deliver? if the PCs had been less convincing, if the gnomes were not so totally convinced that the PCs were right and that this would convince everyone, then the gnomes could have had suspicions that the other back gnomes would be so swayed and could have warned the PCs or let slip or otherwise tipped them off.Wow! another twist on the "use the PCs talents against them" theory... Can you imagine a GM explaining this... GM: "they were so overwhelmed by your smooth talking and friendship that they couldn't tip you off to the potential betrayal."PLAYER: "So, next time we should be less convincing and they might not set us up?"GM: "Yup! you got it!"Already said but... its not particularly hard or clever to "fool" someone when you control all the input.So, that whole "player skill" vs "character skill" distinction isn't really an issue for you?you keep seeming to want to argue with yourself. Where did i say or suggest "sole basis" at all? Answer: i didn't. You did. Frankly, i think we have precious little info to draw conclusions about those 35 other sessions and the diplomacy on. We know that one group the PCs worked with geased them, a geas still in effect with its innate threat of death hanging. So, honestly, i do not have much to go on to say "yes, but their previous 35 sessions indicates they can trust NPCs and this one is an abberation." Maybe you do.But i can definitely say that going from this one, I think they have a lesson to learn in regards to this GM and his games. or perhaps he does. I don't think i ever got an answer to the question to him about whether he saw any of this coming, had any clue there were problems, etc.and, don't forget the one above... don't do too well with diplomacy because that might cause your contacts to be so overwhelmed they might fail to be able to give you clues or info you need.and as such, in future engagements, they should REMEMBER this incident and not trust the results unless they can also cover all the ways the skill checks can be misleading. heck, its really not a case of mistrusting the NPCs, as it wasn't the NPCs cunningly placing ignorant front gnomes, right? it was that the front gnomes were so overwhelmed by the PCs diplomacy skill at bamboozling that the front gnomes were effectively rendered ignorant by the PCs of the risk of being overruled.So, really, the lesson they should take awa is "we are so good, we might cost ourselves the victory", right?this event enters into the realm of "past experience" and should NOT be forgotten in future events.and see, agreement reached.[/QUOTE]

Verification