Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[Hussar]

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.

And having a result that you feel is completely implausible doesn't kill immersion for you? The player feels that action X is plausible, thus he attempts the action. The GM shuts down the action, declaring it impossible because the GM feels that it is not plausible.

And this is how you maintain immersion? I would think that this would be far more jarring to the player than simply rolling with what the player believes in good faith (and that's important - if the player is being a weenie, that's a different issue).

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?

But, he's not defining the challenge. He's working within the framework that he's been given. The guard is there. The guard is just some peon with a sword. The player tries to bluff his way past. The GM declares that the action fails, not because the player did something wrong, or failed a roll, but because the GM doesn't think it can succeed.

How is the player defining the challenge in any way?

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.

But, the player will have to determine what's plausible all the time. There's no way around that. The player will always be judging what is possible and realistic in a particular game based on past experience in that game (and possibly other games). If the GM shuts down X because he declares that X is impossible, then the player is forced, every single time after that, to judge, not whether an action is mechanically possible, but whether or not it will pass the GM filter.

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.

Agreed.

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.)

Fair enough. And informing the player of that is obviously needed as well since that will affect how the player will proceed with his actions. But, let's use the raft example. You the DM declare that it will take 20 hours to build the raft. The player disagrees and says so.

If the DM trusts the players, then the DM will probably defer to the players judgement with the knowledge that the players are not trying to be weenies, but are honestly trying to make the game better.

If the DM doesn't trust the players, then the DM will probably stick to his or her ruling.

 

[JamesonCourage]

And having a result that you feel is completely implausible doesn't kill immersion for you? The player feels that action X is plausible, thus he attempts the action. The GM shuts down the action, declaring it impossible because the GM feels that it is not plausible.

And this is how you maintain immersion? I would think that this would be far more jarring to the player than simply rolling with what the player believes in good faith (and that's important - if the player is being a weenie, that's a different issue).

No, to me, it's far more jarring to have a drawn out discussion about it. That kills immersion much more than "I wonder why that didn't work on the guard. There must be something I don't know going on... [investigates in-game]."

The above method is the method I much prefer. It's about GM trust. As friends, I trust my friends to run the game fairly. As friends, they trust me to do the same. If something doesn't work when they think it should, they might initially voice that it would normally work, but if I say "it's not working right now, for whatever reason," then they know that there's a reason that I made that decision, and that it wasn't arbitrarily made to screw them over.

The players trust me, and accept that my rulings will keep a consistent game world. I trust them when they run things (as rare as that is). There's no lack of trust on our part. The idea that trust is an issue is still amusing to me.

But, hey, my group functions differently from yours. If it's not your style, don't play that way. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

No, to me, it's far more jarring to have a drawn out discussion about it. That kills immersion much more than "I wonder why that didn't work on the guard. There must be something I don't know going on... [investigates in-game]."

The above method is the method I much prefer. It's about GM trust. As friends, I trust my friends to run the game fairly. As friends, they trust me to do the same. If something doesn't work when they think it should, they might initially voice that it would normally work, but if I say "it's not working right now, for whatever reason," then they know that there's a reason that I made that decision, and that it wasn't arbitrarily made to screw them over.

The players trust me, and accept that my rulings will keep a consistent game world. I trust them when they run things (as rare as that is). There's no lack of trust on our part. The idea that trust is an issue is still amusing to me.

But, hey, my group functions differently from yours. If it's not your style, don't play that way. As always, play what you like

See, to me, that kills immersion so quickly. I expect that X will work and suddenly X doesn't work and there is no additional information given, my immediate reaction is to suspect the DM railroad because, quite often, that's exactly what's going on.

The player tried to do something that will shortcut the DM's idea, so, the plan just fails. Choo choo.

The players quite reasonably have expectations during the game. The mechanics of the game say that X does Y and you have a rough idea of your chance of success. If the DM starts adding in his "believability filter" then X no longer does Y and you have almost no idea of your chance of success unless you start to game the DM.

Again, like I said, I'd trust the players at the outset. The player tries X with the expectation of having the chance of success since I'm allowing the die roll in the first place. He won't know the exact odds, but, he should have a ballpark idea whether something should be routine or a hail mary.

The player attempts to get past the guard by bluffing. He's telling me that he wants the story to go in a certain way. It's not my job to stop that. It's my job to react in a plausible way and keep the ball rolling. If there is a specific reason why the guard is not bluffable (he's Dominated, for example) there will be in game cues that the player does not have to ask for as to why the bluff didn't work.

Expecting the players to suddenly start asking questions without any cues other than "Well, X didn't work" is far, far to frustrating for the table IMO.

 

[JamesonCourage]

See, to me, that kills immersion so quickly. I expect that X will work and suddenly X doesn't work and there is no additional information given, my immediate reaction is to suspect the DM railroad because, quite often, that's exactly what's going on.

The player tried to do something that will shortcut the DM's idea, so, the plan just fails. Choo choo.

The players quite reasonably have expectations during the game. The mechanics of the game say that X does Y and you have a rough idea of your chance of success. If the DM starts adding in his "believability filter" then X no longer does Y and you have almost no idea of your chance of success unless you start to game the DM.

Again, like I said, I'd trust the players at the outset. The player tries X with the expectation of having the chance of success since I'm allowing the die roll in the first place. He won't know the exact odds, but, he should have a ballpark idea whether something should be routine or a hail mary.

The player attempts to get past the guard by bluffing. He's telling me that he wants the story to go in a certain way. It's not my job to stop that. It's my job to react in a plausible way and keep the ball rolling. If there is a specific reason why the guard is not bluffable (he's Dominated, for example) there will be in game cues that the player does not have to ask for as to why the bluff didn't work.

Expecting the players to suddenly start asking questions without any cues other than "Well, X didn't work" is far, far to frustrating for the table IMO.

Since we're (my group) not really afraid of railroads in games, I guess we're not constantly on the lookout to defend ourselves against them. There's nothing but trust with my group, really.

This is obviously a play style difference. This seems to happen quite often during these disagreements. I think acknowledging that some people play differently would greatly help both sides. Saying "I don't think things should be done things should be done that way" is quite a bit more inflammatory than "I prefer it when things aren't done that way." (Not accusing you, Hussar, this is aimed at both sides).

So, Hussar, when you pose the question in the thread:

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"?

... then I'll give you an answer as to why that is, when I play:

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.

Now, sometimes people don't say "in my group" and that's fine. I think it's implied, as most people in this thread probably wouldn't say "no, you should change the style you enjoy to something I feel is better." However, even with the implication of "in my group" with most statements on both sides, I think both sides have a tendency to get more worked up when they don't see it. It might feel like someone is trying to invalidate your view, rather than give a new perspective.

Anyways, we've had a similar discussion before (narrative / simulation discussion), and I quite enjoyed it. I do, however, think that the tone of that discussion seemed much less defensive. I liked it quite a bit.

Just throwing out some observations. Take or leave what you will. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, fair enough JC. I can buy that.

I think where the real problem emerges is when the players and the DM aren't on the same page. If everyone's on the same page (whichever page that happens to be) then everything's groovy. But, if the players are expecting X and the DM chooses Y, then I think conflict is generally inevitable.

Which is why I dislike the advice of "just trust your DM" ((I typoed that as "just tryst your DM which is a TOTALLY different thing )). That might be groovy in some games, but, as a general rule, I'm not convinced that it's helpful.

Sometimes trusting that your players know how to keep the game going works just as well. I don't think "just trust your DM" should be the default approach and advice for all players.

After all, DM's are fallible. It just might be that the player's idea really is better than mine.

Then again, in our group, it sounds like we go a lot like the way LostSoul does it. When the DM isn't sure, he's (or she's) got no problem opening it up to the table. But, if the DM does appear to know what he's doing, then he gets the benefit of the doubt. Most of the time.

 

[S'mon]

And having a result that you feel is completely implausible doesn't kill immersion for you? The player feels that action X is plausible, thus he attempts the action. The GM shuts down the action, declaring it impossible because the GM feels that it is not plausible.

Whether the DM is making crappy judgement calls Which you seem to think is inevitable), or the players are seizing the reins and making those calls for the DM (which you advocate for), the players have already lost. The game sucks.

For the game not to suck, the DM has to be able to make non-crappy judgement calls. IME 99% of the time, this is exactly what happens. DMs who can't make non-crappy judgement calls soon don't have any players.

I'm sorry you apparently live in a world of crap DMs. Most of us don't.

 

[LostSoul]

But, he's not defining the challenge. He's working within the framework that he's been given. The guard is there. The guard is just some peon with a sword. The player tries to bluff his way past. The GM declares that the action fails, not because the player did something wrong, or failed a roll, but because the GM doesn't think it can succeed.

How is the player defining the challenge in any way?

The challenge in the Bluff instance is in two parts. One: Character build choices, allocating resources to one area of character development over others. Two: Coming up with a plausible bluff.

It's the second challenge that evaporates when the player can determine what's plausible and what's not. For me personally, that's the far more interesting challenge.

But, the player will have to determine what's plausible all the time. There's no way around that. The player will always be judging what is possible and realistic in a particular game based on past experience in that game (and possibly other games). If the GM shuts down X because he declares that X is impossible, then the player is forced, every single time after that, to judge, not whether an action is mechanically possible, but whether or not it will pass the GM filter.

Yeah, that's the second challenge that the player has to deal with - figuring out what's plausible and what's not. It's an interesting challenge because it relies on the player interacting with the game world. You can read "game world" as "the GM filter"; that's an accurate description of what's happening at the table between players. The thing is, it's the DM's job to make sure that his filter is what keeps the game world consistent and plausible in order to provide that second challenge to the players.

The DM, being human, is never going to be perfect. I think it's easy to be good, though. One of the problems DMs face is that there's a lot of advice that can spoil the filter:

"If it's good for your story"
"If you're not prepped for it"
"If it's cool"
etc.

Good DM advice can make it far easier to get a good "GM filter" going.

I'm only talking about "challenge-based play" in the typical D&D style. Other games are going to work differently.

 

[NewJeffCT]

The challenge in the Bluff instance is in two parts. One: Character build choices, allocating resources to one area of character development over others. Two: Coming up with a plausible bluff.

It's the second challenge that evaporates when the player can determine what's plausible and what's not. For me personally, that's the far more interesting challenge.

So, what happens when you have a player that is not good at putting his ideas into words, but wants to be a charismatic PC? Do you tell him "no" you're not allowed to play somebody that excels in social situations?

PCX: We rush to the castle since we know the attack will occur at sundown, we must get there as soon as we can..."
DM: "After some hurried walking through the city, you approach the side gate of the castle and since it is late afternoon, there is only one guard there."
Charismatic PC played by quiet, non-charismatic player: "I try something crafty to bluff my way past the guard..."
DM: "Like what?"
Charismatic PC played by quiet, non-charismatic player "Umm, maybe I, umm, not sure. What do you think?"
DM: "Do you pull out some forged documents? Do you tell them you're an undercover spy with urgent news for the king? Do you slip on a disguise? Something else?"
Charismatic PC played by quiet, non-charismatic player: "Umm, yeah, something like that..."

 

[LostSoul]

So, what happens when you have a player that is not good at putting his ideas into words, but wants to be a charismatic PC? Do you tell him "no" you're not allowed to play somebody that excels in social situations?

I challenge the player to play the type of character he wants. If the PC excels in social situations or not depends on how the character is played and the choices that the player makes. There are no guarantees in my game that your PC will turn out how you want him to.

 

[Hussar]

Whether the DM is making crappy judgement calls Which you seem to think is inevitable), or the players are seizing the reins and making those calls for the DM (which you advocate for), the players have already lost. The game sucks.

For the game not to suck, the DM has to be able to make non-crappy judgement calls. IME 99% of the time, this is exactly what happens. DMs who can't make non-crappy judgement calls soon don't have any players.

I'm sorry you apparently live in a world of crap DMs. Most of us don't.

See, this is what gets me. The player attempting an action that he believes is plausible is somehow "seizing the reins" and stealing the DM's power.

What call is the player making for the DM here? The PC approaches the guard and attempts to bluff. Makes an honest attempt at it - puts in the proper touches, creates a plausible lie, and the rolls his check and gets an obvious success.

The DM then rules that the PC fails because the DM has decided that his NPC is immune to the rules. See, S'mon, it's not a case of the inevitability of the DM making crappy calls, it's the example that's on the table. The player attempts to do something in good faith and has his attempt shut down, not because he's being a jerk, not because the idea is so far fetched that everyone else at the table is pelting the player with dice, no. The player is attempting something that is well within the realm of possibility, but, the DM has decreed that it Shalt Not Be Done

And somehow, that's a crappy player? A crappy player who's trying to steal the power from the DM?

And you wonder why I advocate so strongly in favour of trusting that the players actually might know what they're doing and can move the game along quite interestingly all without having the Nanny DM standing over their shoulder tsk tsking whenever they want to do something the DM doesn't approve of.

Again, it all rolls back to the basic question - why is the DM the only one who gets to determine what is realistic in the game?