Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[Krensky]

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.

This seems rather cruel. Maybe it's because I've played with and GMed for a handful of people with almost crippling social anxiety, and another who was by nature very quiet and shy. It just seems like you'd be rubbing their noses in their problems. Why should they be forced to, essentially, play themselves in a bit of escapism?

One of the core experiences, for me and those I play with, of any RPG is the chance to step outside who and what you are to play at what you want to or could be. By forcing them to only ever be as good at in game social interactions as they are in real life ones I'd be negating that. I'd also be potentially hurting some of my friends by making them confront their anxieties in a way and at a time they do not wish to. That's a job for their therapists, mine's to give them a chance to have fun playing swashbuckling rogues, connected fixers, charming courtiers, seductive femme fatales, or whatever other sort of character they want to play.

On the flip side, in the same group I have a guy who's a very successful commissioned sales person. Six figures successful when he wants to be. I've literally seen him sell a $30 extended warranty on a $15 tape walkman without lying or pressuring the customer who walked away happy with the deal. He's convinced me to drive him 90 miles at two in the morning to pick up his car. He tends to play characters of the Cronk SMASH! variety. He likes to break things in game.

Would he, in your game, be able to charm and sweet talk his way past anything even though, on his sheet, Cronk has a CHA of 6 and no ranks in any social skill?

 

[Krensky]

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 player is saying that because the guard believes the lie, that the guard will automatically do what the player wants instead of the guard doing what the guard would do when one of the baron's actual spies shows up. In most cases, if it's a mook guard and this is something outside the norm that would be to call for his boss so that the boss gets to make the decision and get shot by the mastermind if it's wrong.

Succeeding at a skill check does not, in most RPGs, give you complete agency over the world. It just means your character did something successfully. In the case of Bluff, in this context, that means they lied convincingly. What happens then is not determined by what the Player wants, but rather by how the person who believes the lie would react.

If a guard's under strict orders to not let anyone in without the proper pass on pain of death for him and his loved ones. If you don't have that pass (real or forged) or you haven't properly cultivated him as an asset, you're not getting in. Sure he believes your story, but that just means he'll pass the buck to someone higher up the ranks. That's far more plausible then:

"I have an important meassage for the baron, let me pass!"
Rolls.
"Very well sir, go right in. I'll just nip down to the torture chamber for my execution. Bob, could you send for my family? Thanks."

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

That seems way biased by your experiences with bad GMs. I see nothing about the PC failing. Just that the PCs success doesn't let them dictate what happens in the world in D&D like RPG.

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

You're the only one who's saying that. Succeeding at a skill check means your character did something successfully. It does not mean you gain agency to control the entire game world. At least it doesn't in most RPGs.

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?

Because he's the GM. His table, his rules. If the players don't like it, they can talk to the GM about it or leave for a different table.

 

[S'mon]

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?

Wow, you're brilliant at not reading what I wrote. I never said "crappy player". It's just not there.

Edit: Last time I'll say this. In your example, you have a DM making a crappy call, so better to let players decide. I'm saying most DMs don't make crappy calls, not often, and better to let DMs decide.

 

[S'mon]

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?

They're in the exact same situation as the player who wants his PC to be a combat god, invests the resources, but is incompetent at tactics & the game's combat system. They don't get the full benefit of their +20 Diplomacy, just as the combat-incompetent player doesn't get the full benefit of his +20 attack bonus. He's still better off than the guy with +0; the +20 is still a resource he can draw on, but it doesn't make him invincible; his weakness in applying it effectively gets in the way.

 

[NewJeffCT]

They're in the exact same situation as the player who wants his PC to be a combat god, invests the resources, but is incompetent at tactics & the game's combat system. They don't get the full benefit of their +20 Diplomacy, just as the combat-incompetent player doesn't get the full benefit of his +20 attack bonus. He's still better off than the guy with +0; the +20 is still a resource he can draw on, but it doesn't make him invincible; his weakness in applying it effectively gets in the way.

So, if I was the quiet reserved type, I would never be able to play a loquacious bard to his or her best effect at your table because I can't act it out at the table and think of what to say when I want to bluff the guard or charm the noble's daughter? So, therefore, I should stick to playing a class that allows me to play myself in game?

Similarly, if I was not good at tactics, but wanted to play a mighty fighter or warlord who will eventually lead armies, I would be less effective than I wanted to be because I am not as good as Hannibal or Julius Caesar when it comes to military tactics & strategy?

And, vice versa, Sam the Sweet Talking Salesman will sometimes be extremely effective in social situations in game even though he is playing (as stated above) CRONK the head-bashing barbarian with a 6 Charisma just because he is good in social situations IRL?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

They're in the exact same situation as the player who wants his PC to be a combat god, invests the resources, but is incompetent at tactics & the game's combat system.

Except they aren't at all, really.

For lack of a better phrase, the combat side of the game has a much better "safety net" than the social side (probably because we're still playing an up-jumped wargame at heart).

Accordingly, while the +20 BAB pile-o-hit-points played by the combat naif may not be as effective as the same character played by the resident Sun Tzu, that character's minimum baseline of effectiveness will be much, much higher. The very structure of the rules will limit his ineptitude. I mean, a blaster wizard is the weaker option in 3.XE, proving much less effective over the long term than a battlefield controller, but the blaster wizard will almost always still contribute very meaningfully to the adventure's resolution.

Contrast this with LostSoul's (very common, IME) position:

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.

Because the safety net isn't there on the social side, the player who invests a lot of character resources into the social side of things is not guaranteed the same return on that investment as the combat god.

Whether or not he plays wonderfully, the combat guy will still get to cleave every time it comes up. The social guy? Well, with the "DM Plausibility Rule" in play, there's no guarantee he'll convince anyone of anything.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I actually think the point about tactics in combat was a good one.

I mean, yeah, the guy with Cleave will still cleave every time it comes up. However, it doesn't mean his player positions the character next to two enemies. He may never cleave, simply because the player is bad at tactics. Nor does it stop the blaster wizard from preparing all fire spells before making a trip into the Abyss.

The guy with +10 on Bluff may never pick a good lie, but it sure helps offset that bonus to Sense Motive that the guard gets for listening to a bad lie. The character is still definitely better at lying than someone without the +10.

I do, however, think both sides in this thread are polarizing. Or, I think one side is playing with house rules without mentioning it. For example, I played with the house rule "if there is no way that they'll believe the lie, period, under any circumstances, than you can't Bluff them" for years. You're not going to convince most people that they can't think. It will simply fail, regardless of roll, for nearly everyone in my game (although, since I wrote the book for my game in a very literal sense, it's actually in the rules).

So I think there are people who play by those rules, which while they aren't RAW, seems like a common enough practice (as evidenced by the thread, in my opinion). Then there are others who go the route of "you can lie, yeah, but it doesn't give the character control over anyone. You might have convinced the guard that you should be let in, but it doesn't mean he'll do it." I think that's where Risk vs. Reward comes into play (and one of the reasons I liked the Diplomacy skill from GitP when I saw it... in fact, I made one use of Bluff help your Diplomacy skill mechanically).

At any rate, I'm not sure why Hussar reverted back to the "GM vs. the group" argument after it's an admitted play style thing (and a mischaracterizing argument, in my mind). Arguing over it isn't going to get it resolved, and this whole conversation seems much too defensive to think that one side is trying to actually learn another point of view.

Anyways, just my views. As always, play what you like

 

[NewJeffCT]

I actually think the point about tactics in combat was a good one.

I mean, yeah, the guy with Cleave will still cleave every time it comes up. However, it doesn't mean his player positions the character next to two enemies. He may never cleave, simply because the player is bad at tactics. Nor does it stop the blaster wizard from preparing all fire spells before making a trip into the Abyss.

The guy with +10 on Bluff may never pick a good lie, but it sure helps offset that bonus to Sense Motive that the guard gets for listening to a bad lie. The character is still definitely better at lying than someone without the +10.

It is a lot easier for many people to move their miniature adjacent to 2 or 3 enemies and cleave... or, pick out fire or cold or acid spells that are appropriate for the environment... than it is to come up with a convincing lie/bluff at the table at a moment's notice.

And, if I was DMing somebody that picked out all fire spells before a known trip to the Abyss, I would give them an INT and/or WIS roll to make sure they knew what that a heck of a lot of bad guys in the Abyss have fire resistance or immunity.

Having been a gamer for 30+ years, I don't think I've ever seen somebody that bad with basic tactics or spell selection. Sure, I've seen people pick out a spell or two that might not be appropriate, but not their whole arsenal. And, maybe if a fighter doesn't put himself in a situation where he or she can Cleave, they can still be an effective combatant in a one-on-one situation.

However, I've seen a lot of gamers that are socially inept and couldn't lie/bluff/intimidate or be diplomatic if their lives depended on it.

 

[S'mon]

So, if I was the quiet reserved type, I would never be able to play a loquacious bard to his or her best effect at your table because I can't act it out at the table and think of what to say when I want to bluff the guard or charm the noble's daughter? So, therefore, I should stick to playing a class that allows me to play myself in game?

Similarly, if I was not good at tactics, but wanted to play a mighty fighter or warlord who will eventually lead armies, I would be less effective than I wanted to be because I am not as good as Hannibal or Julius Caesar when it comes to military tactics & strategy?

And, vice versa, Sam the Sweet Talking Salesman will sometimes be extremely effective in social situations in game even though he is playing (as stated above) CRONK the head-bashing barbarian with a 6 Charisma just because he is good in social situations IRL?

Yes to all, BUT Sam would be a lot MORE effective at social situations if he had a PC with high interaction skills too. Likewise in your first example, you'll still have the high Bluff skill as a resource even if you use it inefffectually. In your second example, if the game has a Military Tactics skill, you'll still have that as a resource even if you can't use it effectively. In all cases the character attributes are a resource for the player to draw on, they don't fully define what the character is capable of, or there'd be no point playing the game.

 

[S'mon]

Whether or not he plays wonderfully, the combat guy will still get to cleave every time it comes up. The social guy? Well, with the "DM Plausibility Rule" in play, there's no guarantee he'll convince anyone of anything.

Completely untrue. The combat-incompetent player will forget to position for 'cleave'. He'll forget he has Cleave. In a 3e game he'll attack the high-hp foe so the Cleave doesn't come up. He'll forget he has Cleave on his character sheet. He'll forget what it does. If he's not doing those things then he's not combat-incompetent!

If you really think "the combat guy will still get to cleave every time it comes up" I suspect you have not actually seen a combat-incompetent player in action.

Likewise with a high-Diplomacy character. Eg as DM I set up situations for the dashing-swordsman PC to use his PC-skills to shine, to wow everyone with his dashingness as he disarms the mooks/rescues the maiden/swings from the chandelier. The table waits for the dashing swordsman to do his thing. The player kinda curls up into a fetal ball of un-dashingness. I have seen this.

I certainly don't require the dashing swordsman player to be Zorro, the military genius player to be Patton, the Bard to be Orpheus. I expect an average-ish level of ability to step-on-up and role assumption. But I've seen some truly appalling, abysmal play; in those cases the player is not fully excused from their poor play because it's putatively not something their character will do. The world will interpret their character's actions kindly, but can't ignore them.