Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

This made me think of Burning Wheel. In BW, the safety net is there for social skills! However, the safety net is there the same way that it is for combat. If you are good at tactically manipulating your options in the BW "Duel of Wits", or perhaps good at the poker element of blind scripting of your moves against another person, then you can compensate somewhat for mediocre skills and other resources or relatively poor roleplaying ability.

But note that this also means that you can be the smoothest of smooth talkers with your roleplaying AND have the stats to back up this character, but then turn around and get owned--if you lack those tactical skills and go up against another person that has them. It won't happen every time, but it can definitely happen.

So maybe the irritation of picking between player social skills and character resources is heavily compounded because in so many system those are the only elements that really matter. Maybe introducing additional ways to manipulate the results would make people more comfortable with the results. Yet, when you do so, you also provide new ways for someone to come up short.

In effect, several people have been indirectly referring to a third point of manipulation since the subject was broached: If your knowledge/attentiveness to the game world is sufficient to allow you to marshall in-game elements in your favor, then those can become the critical factors for winning/losing the social challenge--where player social skill and character mechanical social skill are thresholds where you need whatever minimum is required by system and table habits.

 

[S'mon]

Very good post, board wouldn't let me XP it.

I have a list of 5 things to go over your character before you start to mechanically create him. Number 5 is "making sure that the player can play the character" and it's one of the more important rules. It doesn't mean you need to play to the same level as the character. It means that you need to be able to lie if you're lying, to be Lawful if you're a monk, be forgiving if you're playing a forgiving priest.

Very interesting, thanks. I think I wouldn't want to put less-confident players on the spot by asking them "Are you *sure* you can play this PC?" - because 99 times in 100 they can so so fine. But if a player has a proven track record of being highly Chaotic then there may come a time the DM should disallow them from putting down "LG Paladin" on their PC sheet.

I agree with your point that IME extreme social retardation is not nearly as common among players as NewJeffCT makes out. Maybe my experience is unusual, but I don't have any particular reason to think so other than maybe I'm in the UK, most gamers are in the USA, maybe the USA is different. I've certainly met a few players with problems in that regard, but out of many many dozens.

 

[Janx]

and, it seems that when you penalize a person for selecting a class that goes against their out-of-game personality, you're the one that is discriminating against those types of gamers when you say that somebody that is not a sociable person would not excel at playing a social class in your game (and vice versa, somebody not good at tactics wanting to play a tactician would not be able to excel)

I think "discriminating" is a loaded term.

It's not like we're talking about Rosa Parks here. or the kids in the Special Olympics.

We're talking about a game, where players take on roles that represent being able to do things that you may NOT be able to do in real life.

However, the reality is, is somebody sucks at something, they suck at it.

It might not be nice to tease them about it. But it is also a disservice to those who ARE good at it, to sugar coat and water down the rules, just so those who suck can keep up.

D&D isn't golf, where a handicap means you and I can play on the same field together and sort of compete.

Instead, if you suck at one role, you are supposed to go take on a role that you ARE good at.

How do you learn to get good at something? Practice while doing your main job.

Since being social isn't something that you need game skills in, there's plenty the Fighter can be doing to work on being social without trying to use game skills to get an in-game advantage. Talking to NPCs didn't used to take skill checks, and a person who wants to play a social PC should be studying and mimicing what actual social people do.

 

[Nymrohd]

Very good post, board wouldn't let me XP it.



Very interesting, thanks. I think I wouldn't want to put less-confident players on the spot by asking them "Are you *sure* you can play this PC?" - because 99 times in 100 they can so so fine. But if a player has a proven track record of being highly Chaotic then there may come a time the DM should disallow them from putting down "LG Paladin" on their PC sheet.

I agree with your point that IME extreme social retardation is not nearly as common among players as NewJeffCT makes out. Maybe my experience is unusual, but I don't have any particular reason to think so other than maybe I'm in the UK, most gamers are in the USA, maybe the USA is different. I've certainly met a few players with problems in that regard, but out of many many dozens.

Hehe this is so true, I mainly DM but the few times I play I've found that I am completely incapable of playing anything other than NG characters.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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

I went back because S'mon characterized my argument as either the group having bad players stealing power from the DM or a bad DM making crappy calls. I'd argue that if you have good players and a good DM, allowing the players to take actions and then letting the dice determine success or failure, rather than the DM, makes for a better game.

After all, determining if the lie is believable or not is the whole point of rolling the dice in the first place isn't it?

And, as to the argument that the mook goes and gets his superior, I can see that. Fine. So long as it's actually a success. Is the superior bluffable? If not, then there's no difference, the PC's success is negated. Is the superior going to then get his superior if the PC's succeed against him in a never ending chain of ever increasing DC's until the PC's eventually fail? Again, that's negating the PC's success.

Sure, no problem. The mook goes and gets his boss. The boss comes and the PC's bluff him successfully as well. What happens?

 

[Hussar]

Very good post, board wouldn't let me XP it.



Very interesting, thanks. I think I wouldn't want to put less-confident players on the spot by asking them "Are you *sure* you can play this PC?" - because 99 times in 100 they can so so fine. But if a player has a proven track record of being highly Chaotic then there may come a time the DM should disallow them from putting down "LG Paladin" on their PC sheet.

I agree with your point that IME extreme social retardation is not nearly as common among players as NewJeffCT makes out. Maybe my experience is unusual, but I don't have any particular reason to think so other than maybe I'm in the UK, most gamers are in the USA, maybe the USA is different. I've certainly met a few players with problems in that regard, but out of many many dozens.

This I pretty much agree with. Honestly, I think the percentages of bad players and bad DM's are probably pretty close. Somewhere in the 1/4 to 1/3 range, IME. It's just that a bad player is easier to launch out of the game than a bad DM.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I went back because S'mon characterized my argument as either the group having bad players stealing power from the DM or a bad DM making crappy calls. I'd argue that if you have good players and a good DM, allowing the players to take actions and then letting the dice determine success or failure, rather than the DM, makes for a better game.

After all, determining if the lie is believable or not is the whole point of rolling the dice in the first place isn't it?

And, as to the argument that the mook goes and gets his superior, I can see that. Fine. So long as it's actually a success. Is the superior bluffable? If not, then there's no difference, the PC's success is negated. Is the superior going to then get his superior if the PC's succeed against him in a never ending chain of ever increasing DC's until the PC's eventually fail? Again, that's negating the PC's success.

Sure, no problem. The mook goes and gets his boss. The boss comes and the PC's bluff him successfully as well. What happens?

Just because somebody believes you, it doesn't mean that they'll act in the way you want them to. If you get his superior, and his superior thinks he should let you in, he may not, even then. I've convinced my friends of many "unbelievable" things while not playing D&D just for the fun of it. They don't change their lifestyle, world views, or outlooks on it. They might think differently about one thing, sure, but they won't end up missing work because of it, unless they have a very good reason to (the lie is more "believable" than not).

Keep in mind your wording on things, too. When you say the following:

I'd argue that if you have good players and a good DM, allowing the players to take actions and then letting the dice determine success or failure, rather than the DM, makes for a better game.

... it's not "in my group." And, while it may be implied somewhat, the more assumptions made in delicate conversation, the more we wind up with people being offended, or words being put in people's mouths that were never meant that way.

For example, your quote could indicate that you honestly think it'll make a better game for everyone. If that's the case, you're essentially communicating that we're "doing it wrong" when we play, which is a very inflammatory thing to say.

If, however, you meant "better for my group" then it communicates preference. That's much less inflammatory. However, I have to assume that's what you mean, and I think that too many assumptions will lead us along a path of conflict. So that's a pretty dangerous path too, for communication.

I know it gets old typing "YMMV" or "in my group" over and over again. But I think it really does communicate preference much better. And it's by no means just you in this thread, there are people on both sides doing this. Saying "X makes for a better game" or "the GM is right because of X" and not qualifying it in non-inflammatory terms.

I think people have very well expressed why letting the players gain more narrative control after rolling the dice doesn't work for their group. I think people have also expressed well why they prefer it. The same goes for setting decisions being decided by the GM, or being greatly affected by the players.

That's not to say that there's no point in continuing the discussion. I'd just point out that in order for it to be a discussion and not an argument, it'd be better if everyone laid off the "this way / my way is the best" and not qualifying it with "in my group."

Just my opinion. I'm really not invested in any argument here. I'm eager to invest in a discussion. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Honestly JamesonCourage, on this point I do think it makes for a better game, period. Just because I think X is better doesn't mean that I think Y is bad. Y could be good, but, X is still better.

The DM interrupting the game to force his views of what is plausible on the group breaks immersion for the group. Again, IMO, of course. And, that's what the DM is doing here. The DM is taking away the PC's success, not because the PC did something wrong, or failed, but because the DM (and in this case, ONLY the DM) cannot see how the PC could succeed.

To me, this is far more damaging to immersion than simply letting the PC's success stand or, better yet, working with the PC's success. The PC succeeded and the player knows that he did (at least he would normally). Don't take that away. Work with it.

Like I said, is the superior bluffable? Is it actually possible to succeed? I think most people wouldn't have a problem with the superior having a higher DC than the mook, that's perfectly reasonable. But, is it actually possible? Or does the superior NPC now have Rules Immunity?

Why have the players roll the dice if you're already determined the outcome? If the NPC is Rules Immune, why did you have the players roll to see if they could succeed? At least in combat, if the PC cannot hurt the bad guy, because of some immunity for example, that single failure is not the end of things. But, D&D's skill system is very binary. Either you succeed or you don't. If you have an automatic failure, the player is now stuck in a hole without any means of getting out of that hole.

After all, if the NPC is Rules Immune to bluff, what else is he Rules Immune to?

I think this approach of the DM determining plausiblity makes for bad games for two reasons: (and mind you, these are just my beliefs)

1. It makes the DM too visible. It's not that I failed, but rather I failed because the DM said so. Every decision point I make from that point forward has to be viewed through the lens of what will my DM think is plausible in addition to any other criteria. The DM becomes too intrusive here. I believe a lighter touch makes for a better game.

2. It shows too much distrust for the players. The player is honestly attempting to try something in the game. The player is not being a jerk, not trying to abuse the system, not trying to gain an unfair advantage, but actually trying to engage the game in a manner that isn't just killing everything in sight. That should be rewarded, not shut down. I believe that if you trust that your players will bring a good game to the table, then they will. I do not believe that the DM has to be Nanny and make sure that the players are "playing the game right". If the player thinks X is reasonable, and no one else at the table is objecting, let it slide even if you might not think it's all that reasonable. Success is much, much more fun than having a success blocked.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think that in most games, if the can-only-miss-on-a-2 fighter says "I stab the mook with my sword", the DM will most likely point out every possible scenario where that d20 roll may be vetoed, and will probably allow the player to correct it, and in general a DM who wouldn't allow an inept player to correct those things might be viewed as unfair. Furthermore the failure of a single attack isn't likely to immediately end the party's course of action.

ie:
"I stab the goblin with my sword."
"Sorry, you don't have a sword marked on your sheet and you didn't say that you moved next to the goblin. Your attack fails and the goblin beats you all unconscious."

is not how most of us envision a reasonable game being played. Most DMs would either allow the character to have a sword (within reason) or choose a different weapon (again within reason). Most would suggest that the player should use his move to get adjacent to the goblin, and it's a rare DM indeed that would immediately declare that a failed attack resulted in the defeat of the PCs.

And yet that's pretty much how skills work, and doubly so with a DM who isn't willing to advise his players when they misstep.

I think the solution is to treat skill use somewhat more like combat. Everyone should have a baseline that allows for the possibility of success. Adeptness in the field should help. Failures should not doom the party, simply mean a lack of progress. The success of the opposition should be what slowly brings the party closer to defeat. There should be some resource expenditure.

Just to be clear, I don't advocate a game of "I hit him with my diplomacy, 1d4+8 contriteness damage!", just that some of the things which make combat a complete and enjoyable system be brought over to the use of skills.

Even if there's not a system in place to do this, I think it behooves a DM to write up skill encounters with these points in mind.

In the stubborn guard scenario, I think the encounter would actually be all the way from the guarded door to the objective: otherwise it's the equivalent of a fight against a single mook.

You need some number of successes to win (ie - get to the throne room) and the guards need some number of successes to make you lose (ie - throw you in the dungeon). Each party member could be taken out of the action by some number of guard successes (arrested, ignored, told to go fetch someone etc) and rehabilitated by some party member's action ("No, he's not a spy, he's just an idiot!"). You can probably leave the encounter in some way before it's conclusion (escape or start a combat).

To broaden the number of skills that can come into play, I would probably allow some rolls to backdate actions (ie - "forgery: I already made a pass" "streetwise: I already know this guard has a kid called larry").

I think the key is not just having a single roll resolve the action one way or another. The more satifying method is to treat it as if it's as important as combat.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I hope you take everything I say as civilly as possible. I know tone is hard to get across in text.

Honestly JamesonCourage, on this point I do think it makes for a better game, period. Just because I think X is better doesn't mean that I think Y is bad. Y could be good, but, X is still better.

Well, if that's your statement, then it's understandable while so many people are so defensive. Saying "you could be having more fun than you are" is nice and all, but saying "you're not playing the game as well as you can" is pretty close to that statement. That's understandably inflammatory, and I'd personally recommend against it, as it contributes very little to a discussion, and greatly to an argument. Just my views.

The DM interrupting the game to force his views of what is plausible on the group breaks immersion for the group. Again, IMO, of course. And, that's what the DM is doing here. The DM is taking away the PC's success, not because the PC did something wrong, or failed, but because the DM (and in this case, ONLY the DM) cannot see how the PC could succeed.

This is what makes it seem like you should be saying "in my group" to me. The statement of "breaks immersion for the group" is going to vary wildly from group to group. I dislike minis, as they break immersion for me. Lanefan likes them (I think), as they assist him in feeling immersed.

That you're extending your personal experience to accompany what makes a better game for others is problematic to civil discussion in my mind. You can have a discussion, yes, but it will cause more problems than the statement contributes.

To me, this is far more damaging to immersion than simply letting the PC's success stand or, better yet, working with the PC's success. The PC succeeded and the player knows that he did (at least he would normally). Don't take that away. Work with it.

If that's your preference, that's cool. Play what you like

Like I said, is the superior bluffable? Is it actually possible to succeed? I think most people wouldn't have a problem with the superior having a higher DC than the mook, that's perfectly reasonable. But, is it actually possible? Or does the superior NPC now have Rules Immunity?

It seems like you're looking to argue this, still, not discuss it. I could be wrong, but that's how this is coming across. This has been answered in my post. The superior might believe you, but it doesn't mean he'll act on it. I've convinced people to believe things that are outlandish, but they still will not ditch work to deal with it. The Risk vs. Reward prevents them from doing so. They might believe me, but the relatively little payoff compared to the risk involved is not worth it.

Again, people seem to house rule this. This seems apparent from this very thread. That there's a house rule to deal with a specific group's play style should in no way be surprising, nor controversial.

Why have the players roll the dice if you're already determined the outcome? If the NPC is Rules Immune, why did you have the players roll to see if they could succeed? At least in combat, if the PC cannot hurt the bad guy, because of some immunity for example, that single failure is not the end of things. But, D&D's skill system is very binary. Either you succeed or you don't. If you have an automatic failure, the player is now stuck in a hole without any means of getting out of that hole.

This isn't a railroad. You portraying it as such does not make it so. You repeatedly attempting to paint the side who you think could be playing a "better game" in a poor light is not constructive. If you have a specific problem, I have no problem going more in-depth on it. If you want to argue, I'll have to withdraw, and continue to discuss this with those who wish to do so.

After all, if the NPC is Rules Immune to bluff, what else is he Rules Immune to?

I'm going to take this as a "the game world is losing consistency" rather than in any offensive manner. As I wrote upthread, my reaction when playing is "that's odd. Things don't normally work that way... [investigates in-game]"

This method is completely valid. The investigation might reveal why something didn't work. "Oh, he didn't believe me because the actual diplomats (who we were claiming to be) had already arrived, about twenty minutes before we arrived, who the king greeted (and knows) personally." The roll was still allowed because the players don't know what's up. It has basically zero chance of success, because the guards saw the king's interactions. The player thinks "Not only is my bluff believable, as they're expecting diplomats that fit our descriptions, but I rolled a 34, you'd think that'd be good enough!" Investigation in-game reveals why this didn't work out.

Nobody on the other side of your argument has said it's arbitrarily being stopped to foil the players. They're saying certain things cannot be made to sound true. No matter how good you are at lying, you cannot convince me that I cannot think. Just the fact that I can process your statement makes it wrong.

Certain things fail because of pure absurdity. Certain things fail because of in-game issues that players are unaware of. The fact that you and your group and probably many others prefer your play style does not mean that others are playing a worse game by not adopting it. Such a statement is obviously insulting.

I think this approach of the DM determining plausiblity makes for bad games for two reasons: (and mind you, these are just my beliefs)

Awesome, I'd love to hear these. This statement looks much more like a discussion than an argument.

1. It makes the DM too visible. It's not that I failed, but rather I failed because the DM said so. Every decision point I make from that point forward has to be viewed through the lens of what will my DM think is plausible in addition to any other criteria. The DM becomes too intrusive here. I believe a lighter touch makes for a better game.

That makes sense. I think my solution also fixes that (in-game investigation), but if this is what you prefer, then play what you like

2. It shows too much distrust for the players. The player is honestly attempting to try something in the game. The player is not being a jerk, not trying to abuse the system, not trying to gain an unfair advantage, but actually trying to engage the game in a manner that isn't just killing everything in sight. That should be rewarded, not shut down. I believe that if you trust that your players will bring a good game to the table, then they will. I do not believe that the DM has to be Nanny and make sure that the players are "playing the game right". If the player thinks X is reasonable, and no one else at the table is objecting, let it slide even if you might not think it's all that reasonable. Success is much, much more fun than having a success blocked.

See, I don't distrust my players. It seems like you think I do, since I don't play the style you prefer. If that's the basis for your second point, you can see how I'd disagree with it.

I hope you take everything I say as civilly as possible. I know tone is hard to get across in text. As always, play what you like