Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[Hussar]

JamesonCourage - my skin is considerably thicker than that, so, don't worry overmuch about being less than civil. I'm stating MY preferences. I'm stating what I think makes a better game.

I would hope that the multiple times that I repeated IME and whatnot would have made that clear.

The danger in "play what you like" as a mantra is that it invites stagnation. "So long as you guys enjoy what you're doing, keep doing it" is not a means of improving a game. Trying new things, even though some of those things won't work, is the means of improving a game.

I've played the way you are talking about. I've done that on both sides of the screen. I stopped doing it and found that it improved my game. It made things run smoother, it was FAR less headache at the table and it meant that my players get to surprise me constantly because the events of the game will proceed where they direct them, not where I do.

Sure, what breaks immersion varies from group to group. I can buy that. But, I've never seen a group ever who wouldn't have their immersion broken by the DM negating a PC success by fiat. Any time I've done it as a DM, I immediately had an argument on my hands from the players and every time I've seen a DM do it, it caused problems at the table.

True, I'm generalizing from my own experience, but, I'm really not sure how it wouldn't break immersion. The player has a reasonable expectation - he obviously succeeded at an action and the DM denies that success and refuses to explain why, instead expecting the PC to shrug and then start trying to figure out why.

Now, ok, let's run with that for a second. You try to bluff the guard, your roll obviously succeed, and the DM denies the success. Now, how do you figure out that the guard won't let you in because of threats to his family. It's pretty unlikely the guard is going to tell you. Who do you ask? Who can tell you these things?

If it's down to a Local Knowledge roll (or something that the PC's have in their possession), then why wasn't this done before they met the guard? After all, the players have absolutely no context with which to ask the question, so, it's not like they're going to ask the DM "Hey, does the Baron keep the guard's families hostage?"

And, I really, really doubt that "Hey, is there anything special we should know about the gate guards?" would elicit a response from the DM that would tell the PC's that the guards are Rules Immune before they've met the guard.

So, why withhold information from the players? What is gained by not actually being forthcoming? Even if it's simply adjusting the success with something like this:

DM: Your story is very good, but the guard, sweating and looking around guiltily says, "I'm sorry, but, the Baron was very specific. It's me family on the chopping block if I lets you pass sir. I can't."

See, for me, there's two problems. One, the DM is being very intrusive into the game, but, that's a personal preference thing and the second is that the DM is negating the success and then letting the PC's flail around, pixel bitching until they can find out why their attempt failed.

I've never understood the reason for withholding information from the players.

 

[LostSoul]

Now, ok, let's run with that for a second. You try to bluff the guard, your roll obviously succeed, and the DM denies the success.

For what it's worth, in my game there would be no roll. The roll would resolve nothing because there's no conflict to resolve.

 

[Hussar]

For what it's worth, in my game there would be no roll. The roll would resolve nothing because there's no conflict to resolve.

Ahh, now THIS, this is totally fair. Don't roll unless you mean it. 100% agree with this.

/snip


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

Let me ask a question. How? How are you showing that you trust the players?

The player attempts X. You do not feel X is plausible, but the player does. You might very well be right, but the player disagrees. You might also be wrong. Or it might be just a judgement call. Doesn't really matter.

How does over ruling the player and telling him that he's wrong, that X is not plausible, showing that you trust the player's judgement?

 

[JamesonCourage]

JamesonCourage - my skin is considerably thicker than that, so, don't worry overmuch about being less than civil. I'm stating MY preferences. I'm stating what I think makes a better game.

I would hope that the multiple times that I repeated IME and whatnot would have made that clear.

I'm glad that it's not personal, then. That's certainly not my intention, and I won't take your text that way.

The danger in "play what you like" as a mantra is that it invites stagnation. "So long as you guys enjoy what you're doing, keep doing it" is not a means of improving a game. Trying new things, even though some of those things won't work, is the means of improving a game.

Bottom line for me? Having fun. It's not worth it if you're not having fun. If that means trying new things, then try new things. If that means trying new systems, try new systems. If that means playing the same character personality over and over even if the class changes, then by all means do that.

I really don't mind the RPG industry stagnating for any particular person or group. Not if they're having fun. If they're trying to progress, and not having fun, then I'd suggest they start playing what they like.

I've played the way you are talking about. I've done that on both sides of the screen. I stopped doing it and found that it improved my game. It made things run smoother, it was FAR less headache at the table and it meant that my players get to surprise me constantly because the events of the game will proceed where they direct them, not where I do.

That's cool, and I'm glad it works for your group. I do think that making a statement, however, that indicates that everyone would be playing better if they played your way is both unnecessary and incorrect.

Sure, what breaks immersion varies from group to group. I can buy that. But, I've never seen a group ever who wouldn't have their immersion broken by the DM negating a PC success by fiat. Any time I've done it as a DM, I immediately had an argument on my hands from the players and every time I've seen a DM do it, it caused problems at the table.

Our mileage has differed. How so? My players might (and often don't) question me, pointing out rule X just in case I forgot. If I indicate that I'm aware of that, they'll explore it in game. It builds immersion.

It may not ever work for any group you've ever seen or will ever see. It works for my group, and I assume other groups. Your style would not let us have more fun, because we'd have to withdraw from our characters to wrap our heads around how such a lie worked.

Telling someone "you can't think" and having them believe it may be possible by D&D RAW, but it's so incredibly absurd that it will not work with my group, no matter who is GMing. To have that statement work would be so preposterous that it would likely stop game while we figured out how someone could believe that. This would greatly detract from our immersion.

How you can say that your method is universally better for a game for all groups when I've indicated that it wouldn't be for mine is a little baffling to me.

True, I'm generalizing from my own experience, but, I'm really not sure how it wouldn't break immersion. The player has a reasonable expectation - he obviously succeeded at an action and the DM denies that success and refuses to explain why, instead expecting the PC to shrug and then start trying to figure out why.

That's how my group would likely handle things, yes.

Now, ok, let's run with that for a second. You try to bluff the guard, your roll obviously succeed, and the DM denies the success. Now, how do you figure out that the guard won't let you in because of threats to his family. It's pretty unlikely the guard is going to tell you. Who do you ask? Who can tell you these things?

That's where investigation comes in. Is there a town nearby? Can you get the guard to talk, or spill some information? Can you talk to his superior? Do any of the players know anything with any appropriate skills, like Knowledge?

The investigation portion involves actively looking into things. If he says "no" and you don't know why he would, our group would assume there's a reason for it. If it's revealed why at some point in-game (through active investigation or not), the players (not PCs) will usually let out a collective nod, as something was just clarified. This adds to our game, not detracts from it.

If it's down to a Local Knowledge roll (or something that the PC's have in their possession), then why wasn't this done before they met the guard? After all, the players have absolutely no context with which to ask the question, so, it's not like they're going to ask the DM "Hey, does the Baron keep the guard's families hostage?"

My players would ask for knowledge about the situation before trying to get through the door. They'd effectively do their homework. They'd ask if they know of any good way to get in. That might be automatic from experience (if you've been living in the castle for years, you might know of a secret door), or might be from a skill (like Knowledge). Then, they'd start throwing out ideas, and form a plan. They expect me to punch holes in their plan based on in-game information that their characters would know that they don't (which, again, can be in the form of automatic information from experience, or from a skill check). Once the plan was hammered out, then they'd attempt the bluff.

So, not so much a problem for us. If they're trying to do it on the fly, and they say a specific lie (no chance for preparation), and their character might / would know something that would make them not say that lie, I'll either have them roll the appropriate skill check (or maybe Wis check), or I'll just tell them (if their character would know already from experience).

It's straightforward enough for us. Your method would strain our believability and break immersion. Our groups our different. But that's okay, because, play what you like

And, I really, really doubt that "Hey, is there anything special we should know about the gate guards?" would elicit a response from the DM that would tell the PC's that the guards are Rules Immune before they've met the guard.

You don't even know my rules. There's a specific "+∞" to Sense Motive when the target will never believe the lie. By RAW, the guard can just say "no" and it's completely within the rules.

Even when I was playing 3.X, my players knew that some lies will never, ever work. "You can't think" is not a lie that will ever work on a human with an average Intelligence. They'd object if it did work.

You, again, seem to be trying to paint my method in a negative light with the "Rules Immune" statement that you keep using. It's misleading and incorrect. I'd appreciate it if you used something more appropriate in its place.

So, why withhold information from the players? What is gained by not actually being forthcoming? Even if it's simply adjusting the success with something like this:

Because the players may not know why something happens. This is a very basic type of play style that many, many people embrace. We can fork a new thread if you want to talk about this game theory.

DM: Your story is very good, but the guard, sweating and looking around guiltily says, "I'm sorry, but, the Baron was very specific. It's me family on the chopping block if I lets you pass sir. I can't."

Some guards will say this, in an attempt to get pity (since they believe you). Others won't, as they're too afraid to voice it (for fear of looking incompetent, and having their family punished). It really depends on the NPC. The players get no special plot treatment in my game, so you can see why I wouldn't use this exclusively.

Again, this is a very basic play style that is commonly used.

See, for me, there's two problems. One, the DM is being very intrusive into the game, but, that's a personal preference thing and the second is that the DM is negating the success and then letting the PC's flail around, pixel bitching until they can find out why their attempt failed.

It's not pixel bitching. Investigative actions have long been supported in D&D (which I'm not playing, either). Investigation is, again, a commonly supported play style. If you don't prefer it, fine, but others are correct to use it if that's fun for them.

I'm really not sure why you seem so opposed to a different type of play than your own, especially when it's not being pushed on you, personally. I mean, I can understand wanting to voice your own preference when people say "I'd advise this" and you disagree, but to make a statement that your method is universally superior to common play style is just incorrect. There's just no way around that in my mind when the measuring stick used to determine which style is better is Fun and that Fun is incredibly subjective.

I've never understood the reason for withholding information from the players.

Never understood, or never agreed with? I have a good friend (fellow gamer and roommate) who says "never understood" or "don't understand" when he means "don't agree" on occasion, and it has lead to some basic misunderstandings in our discussions.

If you don't understand, I can explain further why I prefer it (and my group does). If you don't agree, I accept that, but I have no urge to argue over it.

As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

Ahh, now THIS, this is totally fair. Don't roll unless you mean it. 100% agree with this.

I embrace a play style where you roll, even if it doesn't mean anything. Here's another play style difference for us. You roll to show the degree of success.

Let me ask a question. How? How are you showing that you trust the players?

The player attempts X. You do not feel X is plausible, but the player does. You might very well be right, but the player disagrees. You might also be wrong. Or it might be just a judgement call. Doesn't really matter.

How does over ruling the player and telling him that he's wrong, that X is not plausible, showing that you trust the player's judgement?

I find the assertion that if I disagree with a player shows distrust to be quite amusing. I can trust somebody without thinking they're right. Trust does not suspend judgment, it augments it.

The guard at the gate can be bluffed successfully. He can believe what the PC tells him. It doesn't mean he'll act differently.

I can trust that a man on the street is telling me the truth when he claims he used to be a millionaire. I can believe his statement and think he's incorrect. You're changing this from trust to judgment.

My players have lapses in judgment. I have lapses in judgment. We'll chip in when we see either occur. In the end, when someone needs to make a call in-game, it's within our social contract that the GM decides, as a referee would. For the exact reasons I've gone through multiple times now.

Let me ask you this, though: do you think I don't trust my players? If that's the case, then our conversation cannot be resolved, because disregarding my statement on that shows so much dismissal that I can't see resolving this civilly. That is akin to questioning my friendship to these players. Nobody on these boards besides myself can make that judgment, and I'd ask you to refrain from making any judgment as well.

 

[Janx]

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).

I disagree here. When somebody is using Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy, they are NOT just trying to convince somebody of an unbelievable thing. They are trying to MANIPULATE the person into taking a desired course of action.

There's a HUGE difference. I have convinced my friend MULTIPLE times that there was a scratch on his new Mustang. My desired intent was to make him race out and check on it. Because that is what someone who is convinced that his NEW car has been scratched does. That is manipulation, and it is the point of bluffing somebody.

Therefore, when I am Daniel Ocean and I approach the guard saying I represent the Nevada Gaming Commission, I make whatever skill checks the rules say I need to, and if I succeed, he lets me in.

The guard has not ceased to think. The guard has taken in the information presented before him, that a person with proper papers and appropriate attire and is saying the expected things of somebody who belongs there, needs to be let in.

If I succeed at the proper skill checks and the guard "believes" I am who I say I am, but he "thinks" of a reason NOT to let me in, then the GM has thwarted my legal use of the skill. Active thwarting of player intent is the slippery slope to railroading.

I can certainly agree that there are variations on that bluff the guard attempt that should fail. A low level PC attempting too unbelievable a con for instance (which the DCs should make inevitably impossible).

Nor would I be impressed by a non-role player saying, "I walk up to the guard and make a bluff check to convince him to let me in." That basically means the player did no thinking, and is going to expect me to come up with the entire plausible reason for the guard to let him in IF he suceeds. That's crap.

However, if I have a high level social skill PC, and I know a bit about the area (a casino in Nevada) and I come up with the idea to pose as some agency official that oversees gambling, then I am on the right track, and once the DC is set and I make my roll, I expect to be able to get in as far as an NGC rep could expect to get in (which Ocean's 11 shows is reasonably far).

If, as a GM, you say that such a scenario can't be allowed to suceed, I'd be concerned about your judgement. Fiction advises and inspired RPG action. If I can't run a PC inspired by such movies, barring a genre misjudgement on my part (wrong PC for the campaign), I should have a fair chance of succeeding at such a con.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I disagree here. When somebody is using Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy, they are NOT just trying to convince somebody of an unbelievable thing. They are trying to MANIPULATE the person into taking a desired course of action.

There's a HUGE difference. I have convinced my friend MULTIPLE times that there was a scratch on his new Mustang. My desired intent was to make him race out and check on it. Because that is what someone who is convinced that his NEW car has been scratched does. That is manipulation, and it is the point of bluffing somebody.

Therefore, when I am Daniel Ocean and I approach the guard saying I represent the Nevada Gaming Commission, I make whatever skill checks the rules say I need to, and if I succeed, he lets me in.

The guard has not ceased to think. The guard has taken in the information presented before him, that a person with proper papers and appropriate attire and is saying the expected things of somebody who belongs there, needs to be let in.

If I succeed at the proper skill checks and the guard "believes" I am who I say I am, but he "thinks" of a reason NOT to let me in, then the GM has thwarted my legal use of the skill. Active thwarting of player intent is the slippery slope to railroading.

I can certainly agree that there are variations on that bluff the guard attempt that should fail. A low level PC attempting too unbelievable a con for instance (which the DCs should make inevitably impossible).

Nor would I be impressed by a non-role player saying, "I walk up to the guard and make a bluff check to convince him to let me in." That basically means the player did no thinking, and is going to expect me to come up with the entire plausible reason for the guard to let him in IF he suceeds. That's crap.

However, if I have a high level social skill PC, and I know a bit about the area (a casino in Nevada) and I come up with the idea to pose as some agency official that oversees gambling, then I am on the right track, and once the DC is set and I make my roll, I expect to be able to get in as far as an NGC rep could expect to get in (which Ocean's 11 shows is reasonably far).

If, as a GM, you say that such a scenario can't be allowed to suceed, I'd be concerned about your judgement. Fiction advises and inspired RPG action. If I can't run a PC inspired by such movies, barring a genre misjudgement on my part (wrong PC for the campaign), I should have a fair chance of succeeding at such a con.

First off, let me say that I won't be judging the Bluff skill based on movies. I tend to shy away from High Fantasy style games. I won't let you do something because you saw something in Ocean's Eleven. That's really not good enough for me.

Secondly, my Bluff skill is different from D&D's. But, since I'm mainly acquainted with 3.5 (out of D&D), let's look at the d20SRD:

A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell.

This means that the guard will let you in (if it takes 1 round or less), or he'll believe you. It doesn't say the player chooses, nor does it specify if the GM does.

Now, let's look at the modifiers to Sense Motive:

The target wants to believe you. -5
The bluff is believable and doesn’t affect the target much. +0
The bluff is a little hard to believe or puts the target at some risk. +5
The bluff is hard to believe or puts the target at significant risk. +10
The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider. +20

By RAW, there's no rule for "too incredible to consider." Such as the statement, "you can't think." If someone said "you can't think" to an NPC, and the GM then went on to consider this "too incredible to consider," then the GM would give the appropriate bonus / penalty / adjust the DC appropriately. Since, by RAW, that isn't covered.


From the 3.5 Player's Handbook:

A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell. For example, you could use a bluff to put a shopkeeper off guard by saying that his shoes are untied. At best, such a bluff would make the shopkeeper glance down at his shoes. It would not cause him to ignore you and fiddle with his shoes.

This seems to indicate that the shopkeeper is not going to do something out of character. He'll take your information, weigh it, and make his judgment. Just because you want him to ignore you ("A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time [usually 1 round or less]") it doesn't mean he will ("or believes something that you want it to believe").

The guard will believe you're telling the truth. The guard will then make a judgment based on that new information. Unless he has some other reason to trust you (such as knowing you), then he can act on that in many different ways. Just because he believes you when you lie it doesn't mean that he thinks you're correct if that goes against his judgment.

That isn't supported by RAW in 3.5. It just isn't.

But, as always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

To broaden the number of skills that can come into play, I would probably allow some rolls to backdate actions

Is this deliberately intended as a defence of a skill-challenge style mechanic?

When somebody is using Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy, they are NOT just trying to convince somebody of an unbelievable thing. They are trying to MANIPULATE the person into taking a desired course of action.

<snip>

If I succeed at the proper skill checks and the guard "believes" I am who I say I am, but he "thinks" of a reason NOT to let me in, then the GM has thwarted my legal use of the skill. Active thwarting of player intent is the slippery slope to railroading.

<snip>

if I have a high level social skill PC, and I know a bit about the area (a casino in Nevada) and I come up with the idea to pose as some agency official that oversees gambling, then I am on the right track, and once the DC is set and I make my roll, I expect to be able to get in as far as an NGC rep could expect to get in (which Ocean's 11 shows is reasonably far).

<snip>

If I can't run a PC inspired by such movies, barring a genre misjudgement on my part (wrong PC for the campaign), I should have a fair chance of succeeding at such a con.

I couldn't XP this post, but agree with it.

let's look at the d20SRD:

This means that the guard will let you in (if it takes 1 round or less), or he'll believe you. It doesn't say the player chooses, nor does it specify if the GM does.

<snip>

The guard will believe you're telling the truth. The guard will then make a judgment based on that new information. Unless he has some other reason to trust you (such as knowing you), then he can act on that in many different ways. Just because he believes you when you lie it doesn't mean that he thinks you're correct if that goes against his judgment.)

I want to ask - what is the reason, from the point of view of smooth gameplay, for not running social skills in the way Janx describes?

If the answer is that this would make it too easy or anti-climactic for the players to achieve their goals for their PCs, then the solution is, in my view, something along the lines of Saeviomagy's suggestion - make social conflict just as important a part of the game as physical conflict.

 

[Janx]

First off, let me say that I won't be judging the Bluff skill based on movies. I tend to shy away from High Fantasy style games. I won't let you do something because you saw something in Ocean's Eleven. That's really not good enough for me.

well, the actual ability of humans to trick other humans is far more plausible than anything else in any RPG.

Secondly, my Bluff skill is different from D&D's. But, since I'm mainly acquainted with 3.5 (out of D&D), let's look at the d20SRD:


This means that the guard will let you in (if it takes 1 round or less), or he'll believe you. It doesn't say the player chooses, nor does it specify if the GM does.

I think you misinterpret that rule. the "act or believe" is the player's option because as I explained what a real bluff is, it is a manipulation. If your interpretation leads you to believe there's ambiguity on whether the DM decides if the NPC takes an action or INSTEAD just believes the PC but takes no action, then the wording of the ruling has done your players a disservice.

Now, let's look at the modifiers to Sense Motive:


By RAW, there's no rule for "too incredible to consider." Such as the statement, "you can't think." If someone said "you can't think" to an NPC, and the GM then went on to consider this "too incredible to consider," then the GM would give the appropriate bonus / penalty / adjust the DC appropriately. Since, by RAW, that isn't covered.

the chart stops at +20. You're looking for the extended chart...

the "you can't think" scenario is a tough bind. I do agree that a player may try to lie about something that is just so stupidly unbelievable that it should never work.

However, we're talking about tricking a guard into letting us in. I suspect it should take more than just a bluff. Presumably a Disguise to look like somebody who belongs there. If the guards aren't robots, they are incredibly fallible, despite having directives to LET nobody in.

Here's the thing, if you run a game where I can not bluff a guard to let me in, I will have to kill him. Because killing him is the surest way to get past him. Bluffing him would have been more fun, and a lot less bloodshed.

The guard will believe you're telling the truth. The guard will then make a judgment based on that new information. Unless he has some other reason to trust you (such as knowing you), then he can act on that in many different ways. Just because he believes you when you lie it doesn't mean that he thinks you're correct if that goes against his judgment.

That isn't supported by RAW in 3.5. It just isn't.

But, as always, play what you like

If you run it that way, you've violated the point of the Bluff skill (which as I've explained where I think u mistinterpreted that rule).

Belief is the tool to get the reaction for the desired manipulation. If he only believes I'm telling the truth that I represent the NGC but doesn't ACT like I am an NGC agent, then the skill has no use and a style of play has been nerfed.

That just seems wrong.

 

[NewJeffCT]

ok, my original point was that in 3.5E there was no "save" or defense against being manipulated via Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy. And, the roll vs. will defense or whatever in 4E seems very low as well. Using a social skill to accomplish that task is an easier hill to climb than Charming or Dominating them, or attacking and killing them. I thought the bar should be set higher when trying to Bluff/Intimidate/Diplomacize somebody to get information or have them do something for you when something bad could happen to them otherwise.

The problem after that is do you penalize a player who is playing a PC whose class depends on Charisma & social skills, but is not the most sociable of persons? Do you tell them "no" you can't play that sort of class? Do you penalize them for not coming up with a creative way to role-play their bluff or intimidate somebody? My answer to both questions is "no", but others seem to strongly disagree. My games tend to rely a pretty good amount on role-playing, and I would hate for somebody to feel handicapped because they're not as verbally creative as others.