Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[Hussar]

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?

Umm, no?

Player: I want to get past the guard. I'll bluff him by pretending to be a spy sent out by Baron Von Badass and just now returning with important information for the Baron.

DM: No, you fail. The Baron has left strict orders to not let anyone pass, so, you have no chance of success. Since the Baron will punish the guard's family, I cannot see how you could possibly succeed here.

Yeah, the player has totally failed his imagination.

 

[Guest 85555]

Umm, no?

Player: I want to get past the guard. I'll bluff him by pretending to be a spy sent out by Baron Von Badass and just now returning with important information for the Baron.

DM: No, you fail. The Baron has left strict orders to not let anyone pass, so, you have no chance of success. Since the Baron will punish the guard's family, I cannot see how you could possibly succeed here.

Yeah, the player has totally failed his imagination.

See this situation is one where i think the roll is fine ( though the gm should assign a modifier to account for the whole family killing thing). In your example the player also details the actions and words behind the roll. Where i think these rolls can be an issue(and i dont fault the game as i created the same problem in my own game) is when very specific things are in play that would pretty much make such a roll impossible or at least require more preparatipn on tge part of the pc( fake papers, dishuise etc).

My bigger issue with these rolls lately is it can be too easy to gloss over the rp and dialogue ( which is one of my favorite parts of the game). I use social mechanics so dont get me wrong. I understand why they can be useful, but they can also turn interactions into abstractions.

Because our games revolve around fbi and cia investigations i have been thinking about this a bit. My solution is if the players say they do or ask the specific things in an interaction i have specific results keyed to that (essentially a critical success) and they don't have to roll- ie i look inside the desk drawer, or i threaten to arrest his son if doesn't talk. But i still have the rolls.

 

[LostSoul]

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?

Two things.

One: In a challenge-based game, the player is the one who is supposed to face the challenge and, based on their abilities, overcome it. If the player can determine the level of challenge - that is, if they can determine what a reasonable bluff is or not - they have a conflict of interest in their goals for play: they have to decide if they are going to overcome the challenge or maintain the consistency of the game world.

The DM doesn't have any such conflict. Thus, the DM is the one who should make those decisions.

Two: If you feel that the DM is making poor decisions, you have to talk to the DM and let him know what you think he's doing wrong. I've been through this before. DMs aren't infallible, and sometimes we make poor decisions. When a player challenges my ruling, I will explain it; I make a lot of rulings, and rarely have to do this.

I played a game last night where, in a specific "diplomatic" scene (in the nature of Deadwood), everything made sense to me based on my understanding of human nature. After the scene was over, I went over with the DM what I thought was going on, just to make sure we were on the same page. Turns out we were, so I don't have to worry about strange NPC actions in the future - if they do make such actions, I can react appropriately (charmed, perhaps?).

 

[Hussar]

Two things.

One: In a challenge-based game, the player is the one who is supposed to face the challenge and, based on their abilities, overcome it. If the player can determine the level of challenge - that is, if they can determine what a reasonable bluff is or not - they have a conflict of interest in their goals for play: they have to decide if they are going to overcome the challenge or maintain the consistency of the game world.

The DM doesn't have any such conflict. Thus, the DM is the one who should make those decisions.

I disagree. I don't think that the player(s) determining what is plausible in the game in any way detracts from the DM's authority. Sure, things are going to be filtered through the DM, but, by the same token, it can get taken too far where the DM's sense of what is plausible or not is based purely on his or her own gut reaction and completely ignores what the players themselves might consider to be plausible.

Note, I'm not saying that the player should be dictating DC's here. That's too much. But, by the same token, the DM should not be dictating plausiblity either. If the player is taking an action that he honestly believes is plausible, and there are no overriding concerns, such as charms or possession or the like, then why start monkeying with the rules? Who is being served here?

Two: If you feel that the DM is making poor decisions, you have to talk to the DM and let him know what you think he's doing wrong. I've been through this before. DMs aren't infallible, and sometimes we make poor decisions. When a player challenges my ruling, I will explain it; I make a lot of rulings, and rarely have to do this.

I played a game last night where, in a specific "diplomatic" scene (in the nature of Deadwood), everything made sense to me based on my understanding of human nature. After the scene was over, I went over with the DM what I thought was going on, just to make sure we were on the same page. Turns out we were, so I don't have to worry about strange NPC actions in the future - if they do make such actions, I can react appropriately (charmed, perhaps?).

Now, imagine for a second that you take an action which, based on everything you currently know, should be perfectly plausible (not a guaranteed success of course, but, still possible) and the DM simply says, "nope, sorry, I don't think that works, you can't do it." Is that serving the game and the group? Or is it simply serving the DM?

I've seen far, far too many times the DM uses his or her "reality filter" to screw over players in situations where the DM is flat out wrong. Granted, it's not always, but often enough that I'm much, much more willing to give the players the benefit of the doubt and trust that my players want to have a good game and don't need me to play school teacher and lay down the law on what is plausible or not.

I find trusting the players to be far, far more rewarding than any amount of trying to satisfy my own personal verisimilitude.

 

[NewJeffCT]

My bigger issue with these rolls lately is it can be too easy to gloss over the rp and dialogue ( which is one of my favorite parts of the game). I use social mechanics so dont get me wrong. I understand why they can be useful, but they can also turn interactions into abstractions.

Well, as I stated above, my problem is that in 3E/3.5E, there is no save against the social skills and the max adjustments for difficult situations are +2 and +4. So, it doesn't matter if the man guarding the gate is Willy the 1st level warrior or Beowulf himself, you beat the DC and he's in your pocket.

And, while 4E does a good job with scaling the DC with the level of the guardsmen, the DCs seem to be ridiculously achievable for anybody that has a positive bonus in Charisma and is trained in that social skill, unless you're talking about a 1st level PC trying to get in past the royal guard, whose level starts at 11.

My penchant as a DM is to not penalize a player who is not always that talkative out of game if he or she wanted to play a charismatic bard or similar. So, sometimes you have to rely on the rolls because the level 2 gamer with a low CHA is not nearly as loquacious as his dashing bard with a 20 Charisma.

 

[Krensky]

Umm, no?

Player: I want to get past the guard. I'll bluff him by pretending to be a spy sent out by Baron Von Badass and just now returning with important information for the Baron.

DM: No, you fail. The Baron has left strict orders to not let anyone pass, so, you have no chance of success. Since the Baron will punish the guard's family, I cannot see how you could possibly succeed here.

Yeah, the player has totally failed his imagination.

No one's failed their imagination.

GM: The guard believes you're a spy with important info for the baron. He's still not letting you past, something about orders from the baron. He does call for a runner, probably to tell someone you're here though.

 

[Gentlegamer]

2 coppers on the overall topic:

I don't object to 'influence/social' skills in principle, but in practice, they tend to turn into 'saving throw vs. social interaction' or essentially a 'charm' type of effect on a successful check against NPCs. Also, as a referee, I prefer to reward creative player attempts at persuasion/coersion/etc. so that failed skill attempts tend to but a damper on the free-flowing 'rp' at the table; I prefer to favor players' creativity at 'persuasion' even if that means rewarding player ability over character ability, given the situation.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I disagree. I don't think that the player(s) determining what is plausible in the game in any way detracts from the DM's authority. Sure, things are going to be filtered through the DM, but, by the same token, it can get taken too far where the DM's sense of what is plausible or not is based purely on his or her own gut reaction and completely ignores what the players themselves might consider to be plausible.

Note, I'm not saying that the player should be dictating DC's here. That's too much. But, by the same token, the DM should not be dictating plausiblity either. If the player is taking an action that he honestly believes is plausible, and there are no overriding concerns, such as charms or possession or the like, then why start monkeying with the rules? Who is being served here?



Now, imagine for a second that you take an action which, based on everything you currently know, should be perfectly plausible (not a guaranteed success of course, but, still possible) and the DM simply says, "nope, sorry, I don't think that works, you can't do it." Is that serving the game and the group? Or is it simply serving the DM?

I've seen far, far too many times the DM uses his or her "reality filter" to screw over players in situations where the DM is flat out wrong. Granted, it's not always, but often enough that I'm much, much more willing to give the players the benefit of the doubt and trust that my players want to have a good game and don't need me to play school teacher and lay down the law on what is plausible or not.

I find trusting the players to be far, far more rewarding than any amount of trying to satisfy my own personal verisimilitude.

I think that the idea that I don't trust my players is pretty amusing to me, personally. I've been personally close friends with them for over 12 years (yes, all 5 players), and been playing with them for 8 or more years (depending on the player). I trust them very much.

It's not a matter of my "authority" being detracted from. It's a matter of consistency. All of the players are not of like mind on what makes sense. Occasionally a player (or more than one) will voice that something doesn't make sense (in a matter-of-fact way). I'll disagree. I'll usually have 2 players regularly see things from my point of view, and one kind of sits on the fence.

So, from my personal (anecdotal) experience, in games where I do very much trust the players, it has boiled down to a matter of consistency. If I let every player get their input in on plausibility, we'd be playing different games.

And, of course, all of this leads back to immersion for me. Immersion is huge. If players are constantly getting their out-of-game input in on things happening in-game, then it will kill immersion. As we don't like playing narrative fantasy games, this is really unappealing to us.

But, this is all from my personal experience, so it's not a comment saying how things are in general. However, I can state that while I can be brought closer to understanding your view (which has happened civilly in the past), I will not embrace it, as it goes against the outlines I've laid out above. Close-minded? Maybe. But, in matters of leisure, I tend to stick with great adhesiveness to activities that I enjoy (as does my group).

As always, though, play what you like

 

[Elf Witch]

I have noticed that some people just don't trust DMs. I think that is one of the issues here.

Take the bluff issue with the Baron. If the DM feels that it is going to take some really clever maneuverings to get past the guards and set up the challenge that way. Then yes I can fully accept that an ordinary bluff "I am the spy and he is expecting me" won't just work. Or not work the way you expect like the guard going and getting a superior.

If I had a situation set up like that I would give plenty of clues for the players to find on ways to improve the bluff or find another way in. But just rolling the dice and saying something may not work.

Now a clever bluff backed up with say forged documents or a disguise that makes you look like someone the guards has seen coming and going or someone of impotence importance is going to have a much better chance of working.

I don't set up every encounter to be that hard it is situational.

Sure you can intimate the coward who is only working for the cult because he likes the rewards into giving up the location of the sacrifice to enable the big bad to enter the world.

But a true believer who really believes that his god will punish him for all eternity if he gives up the information is not going to do so no matter what you do to him.

As a DM I always reward my players imagination if they come up with something really creative then I will let it happen and if it is something social I won't even ask for a roll.

 

[LostSoul]

I disagree. I don't think that the player(s) determining what is plausible in the game in any way detracts from the DM's authority.

I wasn't trying to say that it detracts from the DM's authority. I was trying to say that, when a player who is trying to overcome challenges also has the ability to define those challenges, you screw over the player. The two things don't work together. Does the player stay true to his goals for playing the game (that is, overcoming challenges) or does he stick up for plausibility in the campaign?

Players should be freed from the responsibility of determining what's plausible and what's not so they can fully engage the game. The DM isn't trying to overcome challenges and is thus in the perfect place to make judgement calls on what's plausible in the campaign world and what's not.

Now, imagine for a second that you take an action which, based on everything you currently know, should be perfectly plausible (not a guaranteed success of course, but, still possible) and the DM simply says, "nope, sorry, I don't think that works, you can't do it." Is that serving the game and the group? Or is it simply serving the DM?

It's not a zero-sum game. Exercising judgement serves everyone. If the DM is constantly making poor judgement calls, it's probably time for a talk. Poor judgement calls happen, we're human and we can't get away from them, but it's not that hard to DM well.

I've seen far, far too many times the DM uses his or her "reality filter" to screw over players in situations where the DM is flat out wrong. Granted, it's not always, but often enough that I'm much, much more willing to give the players the benefit of the doubt and trust that my players want to have a good game and don't need me to play school teacher and lay down the law on what is plausible or not.

I find trusting the players to be far, far more rewarding than any amount of trying to satisfy my own personal verisimilitude.

Right. I often ask players about the plausibility of something, or they speak up and challenge a judgement call. What you don't want to do is lean on their judgement so much that the players can't engage the game. You don't want to give them DM responsibilities that will take away from why they are playing the game in the first place.

(Quick example - the PCs were making a raft and I'm no boy scout. One of the guys in my group does a lot of camping, so I told him: "I have no idea how long it would take. What do you think?" I can't do that all the time, though; "Do you think the guard is having a good day or is he in a surly mood?" It's my responsibility to answer that question.)