Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[Hussar]

Well, rolling this back to the original point about are they too easy, something to remember is that 4e (at least) has the idea of skill challenges. If a hard check is going to fail 60% of the time, then a hard skill challenge is effectively impossible. 12 checks at 40% chance of success before 3 fails is not very bloody likely.

And, really, that would solve a lot of our gate guard issue. What is the goal here? Not just getting past the guard, that's incidental, but, why exactly is the party trying to gain access to the castle?

Let's say they want to gain access to the princess that is locked in the tower. Trite, but it works for this example.

Hard challenge, 12/3. Make it a narrative challenge as well - each part of the challenge can possibly affect the next part. They meet the guard at the door. Succeed and they gain entrance. Fail and they still gain entrance but all subsequent checks are made at -2 because the guards are a bit more active.

Next, a patrol comes near the party. The party has to avoid the patrol (or possibly talk their way past). If they try to avoid, 5 checks (1 for each PC) to avoid, no aiding possible because of time constraints. If they try to talk, have a couple of checks for talking their way past.

Chuck in a few traps, maybe a second patrol, possibly a guard dog or something, maybe a wandering servant or two and you've got your twelve checks. They fail, the alarm goes off and they have to get out of the castle (or not - perhaps slaughtering everyone is an option, or whatever, they might even be able to hide until the alarm dies down).

In any case, now a 20% chance of failure makes sense. That makes the hard skill challenge a dicey thing, although not impossible. Any higher than 20% and you might as well not even bother - the odds are too long. Even cutting it down to 10% still means a significant chance of failure.

Thinking bigger and beyond just this specific instant makes the skill numbers work a lot better.

 

[S'mon]

But that's my point. "Make sense to the setting" according to who? The DM? Why? Why is he/she the sole arbiter of what "makes sense"?

Because it's his/her game, and he/she determines the genre. Of course the DM should communicate the genre to the players. Within a broad system like any edition of D&D it can be played in a wide variety of fantasy genres, and what is appropriate and possible will vary accordingly. Tolkienesque, Fairy-Tale, Swashbuckler, Conan 'grim & barbaric' S&S, Fafhrd/Mouser 'blackly humourous' S&S, Elric 'high fantasy apocalyptic' S&S, and various genres of low fantasy are some of the possibilities.

The players don't get to determine the genre. But the DM should make sure they understand which genre is being played.

 

[LostSoul]

But that's my point. "Make sense to the setting" according to who? The DM? Why? Why is he/she the sole arbiter of what "makes sense"?

The pitfalls of narrative technique in rpg play Game Design is about Structure

The problem we have here, specifically, is that when you apply narration sharing to backstory authority, you require the player to both establish and resolve a conflict, which runs counter to the Czege principle. You also require the player to take on additional responsibilities in addition to his tasks in character advocacy; this is a crucial change to the nature of the game, as it shapes a core activity into a completely new form. Now, instead of only having to worry about expressing his character and making decisions for him, the player is thrust into a position of authorship: he has to make decisions that are not predicated on the best interests of his character, but on the best interests of the story itself.​

 

[Elf Witch]

Because it's his/her game, and he/she determines the genre. Of course the DM should communicate the genre to the players. Within a broad system like any edition of D&D it can be played in a wide variety of fantasy genres, and what is appropriate and possible will vary accordingly. Tolkienesque, Fairy-Tale, Swashbuckler, Conan 'grim & barbaric' S&S, Fafhrd/Mouser 'blackly humourous' S&S, Elric 'high fantasy apocalyptic' S&S, and various genres of low fantasy are some of the possibilities.

The players don't get to determine the genre. But the DM should make sure they understand which genre is being played.

You summed up nicely what I was going to post to this.

I would also add that as DM I know things that players may not. For example back to the incident in my game. I knew that the majority of spellscales had joined with Tiamat and I also knew that the clerics of St Cuthbert had discovered this.

The players had not discovered this yet.

Based on the knowledge of what was happening I had the NPC act in a way that was partly a clue and in a way that made sense to the game world.

This is where trust in your DM comes in. Trust that there is a reason and not that he is just screwing with you. And if you can't trust him why are you playing with him?

 

[JamesonCourage]

But that's my point. "Make sense to the setting" according to who? The DM? Why? Why is he/she the sole arbiter of what "makes sense"?

Hey again

I think we've had this type of discussion recently. It was a little illuminating for me. I'm glad that we had such a civil discussion.

At any rate, I think the GM should be in charge of these things in my group because the more the players start to dictate things, the less immersed they are. That doesn't make the game necessarily less enjoyable. I run a pretty narrative Mutants and Masterminds one-shot every couple of months. But, in terms of long term play, my group greatly prefers to be immersed, rather than helping craft a story.

Now, they love story. As I've said on other discussions, I've seen 24 hours or more of actual real play time (not game time ) pass by without any fights in D&D 3.X. From my observations on this board, this seems to be quite different than most people's experiences. Also, I'd like to point out that "more combat" than my group has does not equal "less story" than my group has. Since I don't use random encounters, pretty much every combat encounter is story-related. I understand very well that combat can propel story forward, so please don't take my initial comment in this paragraph to indicate that isn't the case.

At any rate, it comes down to play style preferences. Why should the GM be in charge of consistency? So that the players aren't pulled out of character. That is, that's why it works that way for my group.

As always, though, play what you like

 

[Janx]

If the above mentioned level one diplomacy master with a potential for +27 could certainly be extremely convincing or persuasive, but if a guard at a gate is afraid that if he disobeys orders his family will be strung up from the battlements after he is executed, I doubt even the most convincing (yet otherwise unknown) character could convince him to leave his post.

Transversely, if a host of 5 extremely well-known and extremely powerful characters, renowned for their tendency to behead obstinate guards, arrives at the gate, that guard would more than likely weigh his options.

Except that guards let people IN all the freaking time. And in corrupt organizations, guards still make mistakes, and worse, do it on purpose.

Carry a clipboard, and wear an orange vest and a hat, and you'd be surprised the places you can get into or get away with being in without question.

Why would a guard let you in? Because you looked like you belonged. Or because you paid him, and he THOUGHT he could get away with it.

The majority of the small company accounting fraud happened because the accountant was the only one watching the books, and he thought he could get away with it. Places with better accounting oversight, that didn't happen.

Why do you assume that Saddam Hussein's guards are the worlds perfect soldiers who only follow orders, just because he'll kill their family if he finds out they screwed him. The facts on the ground are quite different.

 

[NewJeffCT]

The majority of the small company accounting fraud happened because the accountant was the only one watching the books, and he thought he could get away with it. Places with better accounting oversight, that didn't happen.

Enron & Arthur Anderson might beg to differ on the size of the company coming into play.

Same with Lehman Brothers and E&Y

AIG and PWC

Nortel and D&T

Those accounting firms were supposed to be the best of the best.

 

[Janx]

Enron & Arthur Anderson might beg to differ on the size of the company coming into play.

Same with Lehman Brothers and E&Y

AIG and PWC

Nortel and D&T

Those accounting firms were supposed to be the best of the best.

As I heard it, for the small companies, places with 1 accountant and no oversight = high risk of embezzlement. Places with 2 accountants = lower risk of that. Because they think they MIGHT get caught.

The scenario really is, in a place where you think NOBODY would notice, you are more likely to abuse the situation.

 

[Hussar]

S'mon and co.

Obviously I disagree here. And, no, it's not handing authorship to the player to say that if the only person determining what is believable at the table is the DM is not the only way to play.

Just because the DM doesn't buy that X can happen, why does it automatically mean that X fails? See, I don't see it as "my" campaign. I play with 4 or 5 other players. It's "our" campaign. If the players try X and I honestly believe that they believe it's plausible, unless I have some specific knowledge as to why it isn't (which, I will almost always share with the players) then whatever X is, should work.

Why should the players be hostage to my failure of imagination?

 

[S'mon]

Why should the players be hostage to my failure of imagination?

If the players can't explain why something should work, then it's their imagination that has failed, not the DM's.

If a player wants to try something IMC, and gives a plausible in-genre explanation why it could succeed, then I will give it a chance to succeed. The player has successfully used their imagination.

If the player just says "I roll an X check" with no explanation, they have failed to exercise any imagination & they deserve to fail.

Or do you think only the DM has to exercise imagination?