Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

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.

I think many would agree that the RAW for social skills don't do the topic justice.

A major con should require some prep, and more than just a high skill level and a lucky die roll.

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.

I can't really say what's right for you. Well I could, but I'd be wrong. :)

If your game relies on a "pretty good amount on role-playing", somebody who is "handicapped because they're not as verbally creative as others" is going to bring your game down to his level.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think many would agree that the RAW for social skills don't do the topic justice.

A major con should require some prep, and more than just a high skill level and a lucky die roll.



I can't really say what's right for you. Well I could, but I'd be wrong. :)

If your game relies on a "pretty good amount on role-playing", somebody who is "handicapped because they're not as verbally creative as others" is going to bring your game down to his level.

It depends - if you force the person to sit there until he or she can think of a good bluff or some flowery diplomatic words to say, then maybe it would bring the game down to their level.

However, if you can get a basic premise from the player, I see no reason why you can't just cut to the dice rolling and have the DM fill in the rest:

DM: (as pretty barmaid) - "You look like an adventurer. The barkeep over there gives a free meal to any adventurer who tells a good tale about their adventures!"
Socially awkward PC: "I umm, get my lute and... and, umm, sing a song about our fight against the goblins. I roll 18 for perform, and with modifiers it is a 33."
DM: (inhales a bit) "OK... Balto the Bard winks playfully at the barmaid, and then deftly pulls out his lute, and then leaps onto the table so the whole room can see him. He then starts on a daring & exciting song about the fight against the goblins - from overcoming their wolf rider sentries, entering the spooky dark caves and fighting off several waves of goblins until finally defeating their shaman and boss. The crowd his held rapt by the his descriptions of the combat, growing nervous as tense situations were described, groaning when Balto took an arrow in his leg and finally cheering when the goblin boss was slain. The pretty barmaid has stars in her eyes as Balto finishes, and the smiling barkeep says, 'Your meal is on the house tonight, and tomorrow, too, if you come back & tell your story again. Best story I've heard in months!' Balto then bows with a flourish to the barkeep and hops back down into his seat."

That bit takes maybe a minute or two in game, but doesn't force the awkward player to come up with all the creative parts. (The key is to try to get this player to give me a bit more over time, so the DM doesn't have to fill in all the blanks all the time. However, it can be a long process.)
 

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?

First of all, I was being told repeatedly that by running it the way I explained, I was pulling some sort of GM fiat. The way I've described it is RAW. There's no rules violations in the way I've described things. So, the people who have advocated consistency in the game rules should, by all rights, be on my side. They should know what to expect by RAW.

Secondly, keep in mind, I don't play in or run a 3.5 game. I don't play in or run a D&D game at all. I'm running my own game at the moment, where the use of the Bluff skill is different in it's use.

Lastly, I would not want to run things the way Janx has described, because it seems like there might be different points when somebody would do something I would think is out of character. That'd kill immersion for me. His description of tricking his friend about the scratch or the bluff from Ocean's Eleven are very reasonable bluffs to probably most people. However, I'm not sure how his style handles things when more out there bluffs are made, and people are manipulated. If it's exactly as described, then it would strain belevability and break immersion for me and my group.

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.

This isn't the problem.

Social conflict isn't as important as physical conflict in my game for one reason: most of the time, it's not your life on the line. Yeah, your goals are on the line, and losing sucks, but if you survive, you can always play damage control.

However, social conflict is more prevalent than physical combat in my game by a substantial amount. The way my group handles it is just fine for my group.

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

In a fantasy setting? I'll disagree with you.

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.

Out of curiosity, how is saying "you've misinterpreted, here's my take on it" supposed to convince me? ;)

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.

I believe the DM decides. But, I was pointing out that it doesn't say. I think the player can have an incredibly good grip on how it will manifest, though.

The first bluff ("the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time [usually 1 round or less]") is obviously used for short term bluffs, in my mind. Getting the shopkeep to look down at his "untied" shoes. Getting someone to glance away briefly because you said there's somebody stealing someone's money pouch. These are obviously short term goals of lying, and fall under the first umbrella to me.

The second use of bluff ("believes something that you want it to believe") is obviously used for long term bluffs, in my mind. Getting the guard to believe you're the diplomat that is due to show up, or getting the shopkeep to think you're actually the crown prince. These are obviously long term goals of lying, and fall under the second umbrella to me.

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

And in the absence of such a chart, and DM ruling is entirely appropriate. If he decides that you cannot make a bluff that is "too incredible to consider" because it's not covered by RAW, then he's playing by the rules.

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.

To some people in the thread, letting the dice fall decides why this works. I don't agree. RAW doesn't agree. To me, common sense doesn't agree. Adopting the practice of -in this case- sticking to RAW, and saying "if the type of bluff isn't on the chart, then you have no chance of successfully making it" is fine by me, and it stops actual bluffs like the example above.

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.

Yep. They could be tricked. So, where it comes in is the Risk vs. Reward of the proposed scenario with the guard. He could let you in. If you're allowed in, then no problems. If you're not, then he loses his family.

So, here comes the myriad of options for him weigh. Do you have your papers? Was he expecting people to enter? Does he have specific orders to allow nobody in? Any of these could stop him from letting you in, as while he believes you, he doesn't want his family killed. This is generally the point of putting his family on the line.

If there's nothing on the line for the guard, maybe just his job, then he'd probably be much more willing to do it, but that has not been the running example thus far. Additionally, if he has orders specifically not to let anyone in, then he may not, even if he believes you. There's a good chance he'd get his superior (who you'd have to convince to let you in based on another Bluff and his Risk vs. Reward factors).

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.

Yeah, the bloodshed things doesn't bug me. I mean, it's fictional bloodshed. Also, there's a really good chance (almost impossible to escape) that trying to kill your way into a castle in my game will end in your death. Unless, that is, you're using the Tactics and Leadership skill to gather an army and having them assault it.

But, considering the mechanics of the game, you aren't going to take the castle by yourselves. They're going to volley crossbow bolts at you, and you're going to die. Like I said, I tend to avoid High Fantasy games, and my mechanics support Low Fantasy by default (with optional rules for running it High Fantasy style).

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).

I hope I've explained adequately why I don't feel I'm misinterpreting the rule, even if you don't agree with it.

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.

He might act that way, but if his family's lives are on the line, or he has specific orders not to let you in on pain of X, then he might believe you, but not act on it. Or he might. It really just depends on the guard, his Risk vs. Reward, and his personality.

It's really not violating RAW, and it's really not overly complex. It's not hurting the players when it's out preferred gaming style, as your style would break immersion for us.

Like I've been saying, these are basic play style differences. On that note, play what you like :)

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.

I agree. Sorry if this has been too much of a tangent.

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.

I see no reason not to help players if they're lacking, but as I said, our sessions are not about escapism, so your style isn't right for my group. And as I've repeatedly said, I'm advocating what works for my group, and why Hussar's "better game" is in fact wrong in that regard.

If we're trying to play a deeply immersed game that is both enjoyable and allows us to see a new point of view when playing a character (which is only achievable when you're deeply immersed for us), then the proposed player who can't effectively play a charismatic PC shouldn't play one in our group. It would end up breaking immersion for everyone, especially that player, considering our style.

In groups at large? I think that if someone is slightly socially handicapped when playing a charismatic PC, they can deal with it. Just like if someone plays a class and can't quite wrap their head around the mechanics, or for people who just can't get skirmish tactics down.

If they're new, you help out (in either area, social or combat), and as they learn more and more, you help less and less. Then, you let them handle things on their own, and you let them try to immerse, and help keep us immersed. This is how things are at my table, and it works for us.

The fact that my table doesn't adhere to Hussar's "better game" is not a bad thing for it.

It depends - if you force the person to sit there until he or she can think of a good bluff or some flowery diplomatic words to say, then maybe it would bring the game down to their level.

However, if you can get a basic premise from the player, I see no reason why you can't just cut to the dice rolling and have the DM fill in the rest:

DM: (as pretty barmaid) - "You look like an adventurer. The barkeep over there gives a free meal to any adventurer who tells a good tale about their adventures!"
Socially awkward PC: "I umm, get my lute and... and, umm, sing a song about our fight against the goblins. I roll 18 for perform, and with modifiers it is a 33."
DM: (inhales a bit) "OK... Balto the Bard winks playfully at the barmaid, and then deftly pulls out his lute, and then leaps onto the table so the whole room can see him. He then starts on a daring & exciting song about the fight against the goblins - from overcoming their wolf rider sentries, entering the spooky dark caves and fighting off several waves of goblins until finally defeating their shaman and boss. The crowd his held rapt by the his descriptions of the combat, growing nervous as tense situations were described, groaning when Balto took an arrow in his leg and finally cheering when the goblin boss was slain. The pretty barmaid has stars in her eyes as Balto finishes, and the smiling barkeep says, 'Your meal is on the house tonight, and tomorrow, too, if you come back & tell your story again. Best story I've heard in months!' Balto then bows with a flourish to the barkeep and hops back down into his seat."

That bit takes maybe a minute or two in game, but doesn't force the awkward player to come up with all the creative parts. (The key is to try to get this player to give me a bit more over time, so the DM doesn't have to fill in all the blanks all the time. However, it can be a long process.)

This is fine with me when someone is starting. But, I've already advocated help for new players or players new to a system in this thread. Once they get used to things, though, it's on them. And they won't start off as good as you were when you were filling in for them.

I'd prefer to help them along, "what are you relating? Did you want to mention the goblin boss specifically? Did you want to leave out the part where you slipped in his blood and fell so you still look cool, or include it for laughs?"

This way, he is hands on saying what he wants. Once he's used to that, he'll do it more and more without me. He'll develop a sort of Perform skill drill that he'll use for a while, going down a checklist and relating what he's talking about. I might ask for a description, eventually, and let him start adjusting to that. Then, eventually, it's all on him.

Just my preferred method, though. As always, play what you like :)
 
Last edited:


I know it's off-topic, but I was wondering if you could go into that a little more.

Well, let's take a situation.

A guard is guarding a gate for a king, who has ordered him not to let anyone in for the rest of the night, as his long friend (a diplomat) has arrived. The guard witnessed the diplomat arrive, witnessed the king greet him warmly and personally, and knows what the diplomat looks like. Additionally, the king has a standing threat to have the guard's family punished (maybe even killed) if the guard messes up enough.

The players are planning on bluffing their way into this castle. They do some homework, make some discreet Gather Information checks, roll some Knowledge rolls, consult some sages, etc. They find out that a diplomat is on his way to see the king at the moment. They do not know that the king knows the diplomat personally. With this information, they make their way to the gate, with the Party Face disguised as the diplomat, and the other party members disguised as an escort from the appropriate nation. They forge papers showing they are indeed who they claim to be.

They show up at the castle walls twenty minutes after the guard let the last diplomat in. The Party Face claims to be the diplomat, and produces papers showing it. Now, I rule that the guard is not going to let him in based on the real diplomat already arriving and the king's orders to let nobody else in, though he probably would have 25 minutes ago. The players don't know this.

I have the Party Face roll a Bluff check. He cannot convince the guard to let him inside, but he doesn't know it. If he fails the Bluff check, then the guard will actively think that the party member is lying, and react accordingly.

If, however, the Party Face blows the Sense Motive check out of the water, then the guard will think the Party Face is telling the truth, as he knows it. He still won't let the diplomat in, but he might think there is some sort of mix up, and that the nation sent two diplomats instead of one. The guard will probably go get his superior to deal with this (who might get the chancellor, who would likely inform the king of what is happening, who would then talk things over with the diplomat he knows personally, who would confirm that no such mix up should have occurred). The king, chancellor, and diplomat might head to the gates (with a large contingent of guards) to see if the party are impostors or if they are legitimate (based on the judgment of the diplomat, and the king).

In having the player roll the Bluff check, knowing that he would not succeed in his goal, I've determined the degree to which he has failed. If he rolls low, the gate guard knows he's lying. If he rolls high, then the gate guard believes him, and passes responsibility up.

Did that help?
 

Well, let's take a situation.

..snipped example of party impersonating diplomat who arrived already
Did that help?

Its obvious from the example, that the party really doesn't have a chance of succeeding. The party was late, and chose the wrong person to impersonate (by not knowing enough about him to avoid the identity collision).

I don't it has anything to do with the NPC being in "can't think" mode. The game world says the lie you are trying to perpetrate has been directly contradicted in front of this NPC less than 20 minutes ago.

as such, you are correct that the party isn't going to achieve their Bluff goal of "let me in".

Out of curiousity, what determined the nature of the Diplomat? What determined that he was a close friend of the king? What determined his arrival time relative to the PCs? Did the players have a chance of learning any of this and altering their plan?

Why does it matter? Because a thwarting DM would make up just such and NPC so as to block the PCs plan.

That doesn't mean other styles of GMing wouldn't use the same trick (I might, just as a matter of complicating the players plan). There may be some DM's who would roll for the real Diplomat's arrival time, and for his relationship to the king, just to take himself out of the equation.

If the PCs had gotten their first (maybe they dickered around too long, so you decided they act late), would you have allowed them their skill checks to get into the castle?

Bear in mind, in all this, I'm not really a fan of the social skills. I rather prefer the players roleplay it out. However, when it hits a "is this going to work" moment, rolling the dice takes the decision out of my hands, which makes me feel more comfortable that I'm not railroading them to a foregone conclusion.

And that's my core question to Jameson. Can my higher level social PC run a con that is well planned and prepared for to get past a guard? Something that a real person can do in real life? Obviously, it won't work on all guard situations, as any GM can set up an impenetrable gate keeper.

I suspect we all agree that the social skill rules are weaksauce and easy to abuse. However, I maintain that if you fix them, I should be able to play a social skills PC, who has a fair chance at getting past the guard. Barring some genre reason where such a PC doesn't fit in.

So, as JC says, Play As You Like. Well, I'd like to play Daniel Ocean, high level Rogue with max ranks in social skills. And we are going to research the stuffing out of that castle and sneak my team in so we can rob his vault.

We are going to investigate all possible candidates for kinds of people allowed access to the castle, and the hours of gate operation, and any social vulnerabilities the staff may have (people with gambling debts are security holes). Additionally, any regular deliveries or pick-ups are also vectors of entry. Furthermore, the act of talking to a guard may be used as a distraction, even if that access attempt fails, the "standard delivery guy" behind me will probably be waved through as the guard and I go over my paper work.

If I do ALL that research and succeed at my gather information checks for it, and get my Disguises in order, and am not stupid enough to attempt entry when the castle is on lockdown unless I'm posing as the SWAT team that the king is expecting, then why should I not have a fair chance of succeeding.

Versus the boring way of nuking the castle from orbit, killing everyone, teleporting it in, gassing the place, lighting it on fire, etc that the PCs are capable of doing in most D&D games.
 

Its obvious from the example, that the party really doesn't have a chance of succeeding. The party was late, and chose the wrong person to impersonate (by not knowing enough about him to avoid the identity collision).

I don't it has anything to do with the NPC being in "can't think" mode. The game world says the lie you are trying to perpetrate has been directly contradicted in front of this NPC less than 20 minutes ago.

as such, you are correct that the party isn't going to achieve their Bluff goal of "let me in".

I agree. They can convince the guards that they are diplomats, but they cannot convince him to let them in, really. Too much contradiction weighed against specific orders to him and the risk of his family's well being.

Out of curiousity, what determined the nature of the Diplomat? What determined that he was a close friend of the king? What determined his arrival time relative to the PCs? Did the players have a chance of learning any of this and altering their plan?

All of these things can be determined easily by one thing: recurring NPCs in a evolving setting. This diplomat and this king may not be making their first appearance. If Therall the paladin is a diplomat for the nation of Destrae, and he's known Blake the king of Rolis for 50 years, back from before either of them were in their current positions, then it makes sense for him to show up. This exact event has happened in my game, where Blake was a past PC and Therall was an NPC.

Additionally, all of the PCs could learn about it, based on sufficiently high skill checks (or maybe asking someone who knows without any rolls, though they'd be harder to find).

Why does it matter? Because a thwarting DM would make up just such and NPC so as to block the PCs plan.

Possibly. A thwarting DM would also use the PHB, MM, and DMG, but I'm not going to dismiss those because of it.

That doesn't mean other styles of GMing wouldn't use the same trick (I might, just as a matter of complicating the players plan). There may be some DM's who would roll for the real Diplomat's arrival time, and for his relationship to the king, just to take himself out of the equation.

I can see that. I probably wouldn't do it, but I can definitely see it.

If the PCs had gotten their first (maybe they dickered around too long, so you decided they act late), would you have allowed them their skill checks to get into the castle?

As a point of semantics, they never, ever made a skill check to get into the castle. All they made was a skill check to convince the guard of something. The guard, based on how the PCs roll, will react reasonably and in-character, based on this new information.

In this example, if their bluff had succeeded before Therall arrived (the diplomat), then they would have been let in. However, in my example, Blake (the king) would have been there to greet them, and been surprised that it wasn't Therall. If they were quick on their feet, they could bluff him into thinking that they were replacements (Blake had about +3 to Sense Motive). Siris, the chancellor, had quite a bit more, but didn't greet Therall at the gate, so he wouldn't be there for that, and even if some of the guards thought the players were lying (they beat Blake's Sense Motive but not some of the guards), they probably wouldn't say anything, as they wouldn't want to question the king.

Bear in mind, in all this, I'm not really a fan of the social skills. I rather prefer the players roleplay it out. However, when it hits a "is this going to work" moment, rolling the dice takes the decision out of my hands, which makes me feel more comfortable that I'm not railroading them to a foregone conclusion.

I really, really don't appreciate this being called a railroad, as it's not. Please refrain from using such a strong term in a civil discussion.

And that's my core question to Jameson. Can my higher level social PC run a con that is well planned and prepared for to get past a guard? Something that a real person can do in real life? Obviously, it won't work on all guard situations, as any GM can set up an impenetrable gate keeper.

Short answer: yes.

However, it really depends. You can never, ever make a "get into the castle" check. You can make a Bluff check that effectively amounts to the same thing in the right circumstances. But, to me, Bluff is not a narrative skill (at least, no more than Jump is).

You can convince the guard at the gate you're diplomats, even after he saw the diplomat walk through 20 minutes ago. That doesn't mean he'll let you in.

Can you con people? Yeah, when the conditions are right. No problem.

I suspect we all agree that the social skill rules are weaksauce and easy to abuse. However, I maintain that if you fix them, I should be able to play a social skills PC, who has a fair chance at getting past the guard. Barring some genre reason where such a PC doesn't fit in.

Nope, don't agree. The fact that it's your concept gives you no more right to bypass guards then playing a Fighter gives you a right to kill the goblins when there's 30 of them and you're level 1. Yeah, it helps you deal with them, but it doesn't automatically let you bypass them.

I also changed the rules on Bluff, Intimidate, and Diplomacy, so I agree that they had problems. But, even by D&D 3.5 RAW, there's no such thing as a "bluff my way past the guards" check.

So, as JC says, Play As You Like. Well, I'd like to play Daniel Ocean, high level Rogue with max ranks in social skills. And we are going to research the stuffing out of that castle and sneak my team in so we can rob his vault.

Awesome, good luck with that :)

We are going to investigate all possible candidates for kinds of people allowed access to the castle, and the hours of gate operation, and any social vulnerabilities the staff may have (people with gambling debts are security holes). Additionally, any regular deliveries or pick-ups are also vectors of entry. Furthermore, the act of talking to a guard may be used as a distraction, even if that access attempt fails, the "standard delivery guy" behind me will probably be waved through as the guard and I go over my paper work.

Sounds like a well thought out and executed plan so far. It has a chance of success, unlike many other, ill thought out plans.

If I do ALL that research and succeed at my gather information checks for it, and get my Disguises in order, and am not stupid enough to attempt entry when the castle is on lockdown unless I'm posing as the SWAT team that the king is expecting, then why should I not have a fair chance of succeeding.

You do. I never said you didn't. It is exactly the word you used, too: fair. It's probably just a different definition.

Versus the boring way of nuking the castle from orbit, killing everyone, teleporting it in, gassing the place, lighting it on fire, etc that the PCs are capable of doing in most D&D games.

In some D&D games, yeah, they can do that. Not in mine. So, no problems there.

In D&D, you'd lose that fight with me, too, though, unless it's well thought out and executed. Social power translates to physical and magical power much of the time. I mean, the crown prince may be low level right now, but he has the money to buy the most powerful people in the land to defend him from everyone who'd think of doing what you've named.

At any rate, the assertion of "let me make Bluff checks to get in, or I'll be forced to kill everything" is pretty amusing still. I'm not really worried about it.

As always, play what you like :)
 
Last edited:

In having the player roll the Bluff check, knowing that he would not succeed in his goal, I've determined the degree to which he has failed. If he rolls low, the gate guard knows he's lying. If he rolls high, then the gate guard believes him, and passes responsibility up.

Did that help?

Yes, thanks!

I originally thought it would be about metagaming but there's more to it than that. It's interesting how you use the mechanics of the Bluff check vs. Sense Motive to generate the guard's response, even though the bluff itself is not going to work. That's something I didn't think about.

In my game, which is my own hack, I'd base the guard's reaction on a Reaction Roll, not a skill check. From that I'd get a range of possible reactions to the bluff. I wonder if your way would be better for my purposes, though. It's something to think about.

Thanks again, that was illuminating.
 

I agree. They can convince the guards that they are diplomats, but they cannot convince him to let them in, really. Too much contradiction weighed against specific orders to him and the risk of his family's well being.
The threat to the guard has little to do with it in my mind. The party chose to impersonate that which has recently been contradicted. A con works when you appear to be exactly what the NPC expects. Sans threat, the guard was going to be confused because he was not expecting another diplomat, and thus is likely to summon his boss. This is what happens at any guardpost when something unexpected happens.

If I can't get into the castle, then the bluf failed. it was the point of forging the papers, buying the expensive suit, and practicing my lines. Geting routed to the supervisor is increasing my risk as further scrutiny increases my chances of geting caught.


In this example, if their bluff had succeeded before Therall arrived (the diplomat), then they would have been let in. However, in my example, Blake (the king) would have been there to greet them, and been surprised that it wasn't Therall. If they were quick on their feet, they could bluff him into thinking that they were replacements (Blake had about +3 to Sense Motive). Siris, the chancellor, had quite a bit more, but didn't greet Therall at the gate, so he wouldn't be there for that, and even if some of the guards thought the players were lying (they beat Blake's Sense Motive but not some of the guards), they probably wouldn't say anything, as they wouldn't want to question the king.

Did the party have a chance to get their before the real Diplomat did? Obviously, there's enough backstory that the party probably could have done the research to find out the relationship about this diplomat.

I really, really don't appreciate this being called a railroad, as it's not. Please refrain from using such a strong term in a civil discussion.

In the text you quoted, I was clearly talking about how I prefer to roll to prevent myself from railroading the outcome.

Since I wasn't there, nor was I privvy to your notes, I can't call it railroading. But I am asking clarifying questions as to how you ran it to determine if the players had a chance to do it right or if the coincidence of a scared guard who follows his orders and the prior arrival of the real diplomat was a fair setup.

Nor do I think that I would wire up the encounter any better. I very well may adapt to the players' spontaneous idea of "hey, let's impersonate a diplomat to get into the castle!" the same way (actually, I doubt mine would be as well thought out on back story).

That's actually quite a challenge with social skills. They tend to be used on the spur of the moment. Sure, combat skills get whipped out on random NPCs all the time, but it's pretty obvious how to resolve them (determine some stats, roll init, and start fighting). When players decided to do a social skill, odds are good it was not an anticipated action by the GM.


The reason I'm curious, is because JC seemed against the very idea of being able to get past a guard with a bluff. His example was one that clearly blocks a bluff from working. What I wanted was verification that a bluff CAN be used in his game to get past the guard, or was his intent to block all bluffs.

I'm satisfied that his example was intended as "here's how a bluff can be impossible" rather than "here's why bluffs will never work in my game".
 

Yes, thanks!

I originally thought it would be about metagaming but there's more to it than that. It's interesting how you use the mechanics of the Bluff check vs. Sense Motive to generate the guard's response, even though the bluff itself is not going to work. That's something I didn't think about.

In my game, which is my own hack, I'd base the guard's reaction on a Reaction Roll, not a skill check. From that I'd get a range of possible reactions to the bluff. I wonder if your way would be better for my purposes, though. It's something to think about.

Thanks again, that was illuminating.

Well, you're welcome, I guess :)

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, really, other than that this works for my group, isn't a railroad, and isn't arbitrary. If it even makes you modify something else, like you Reaction Roll, and you don't use the Bluff check, than it's inspiration I didn't intend, but am happy to contribute :)

Thank you for approaching this discussion with such civility. I do appreciate it. Play what you like :)

The threat to the guard has little to do with it in my mind. The party chose to impersonate that which has recently been contradicted. A con works when you appear to be exactly what the NPC expects. Sans threat, the guard was going to be confused because he was not expecting another diplomat, and thus is likely to summon his boss. This is what happens at any guardpost when something unexpected happens.

If I can't get into the castle, then the bluf failed. it was the point of forging the papers, buying the expensive suit, and practicing my lines. Geting routed to the supervisor is increasing my risk as further scrutiny increases my chances of geting caught.

That's true, though the Bluff check, the mechanic, doesn't necessarily fail. All the check indicates is whether or not the guard thinks you're telling the truth, as you know it. But, yes, your goal has failed.

Did the party have a chance to get their before the real Diplomat did? Obviously, there's enough backstory that the party probably could have done the research to find out the relationship about this diplomat.

If they had done things quicker, they could have beaten him there. When I decide that the diplomat leaves on the morning of the 4th, and he'll arrive on the evening of the 12th, that means they'll have to arrive before the evening of the 12th. Arriving in the evening of the 12th means there's a chance they'll beat him by a small margin, or fall behind by a small margin. The specifics of when the diplomat arrives exactly on the evening of the 12th don't come into play what until it needs to (such as when the party cuts it close). Then, I go with the time I envisioned in the evening (or perhaps consult the map again).

In the text you quoted, I was clearly talking about how I prefer to roll to prevent myself from railroading the outcome.

Since I wasn't there, nor was I privvy to your notes, I can't call it railroading. But I am asking clarifying questions as to how you ran it to determine if the players had a chance to do it right or if the coincidence of a scared guard who follows his orders and the prior arrival of the real diplomat was a fair setup.

I'm sorry, then, and I apologize. If that was the intent, then I shouldn't have reacted so defensively.

Nor do I think that I would wire up the encounter any better. I very well may adapt to the players' spontaneous idea of "hey, let's impersonate a diplomat to get into the castle!" the same way (actually, I doubt mine would be as well thought out on back story).

That's actually quite a challenge with social skills. They tend to be used on the spur of the moment. Sure, combat skills get whipped out on random NPCs all the time, but it's pretty obvious how to resolve them (determine some stats, roll init, and start fighting). When players decided to do a social skill, odds are good it was not an anticipated action by the GM.

That's usually true. I find my players winging it about 70% of the time. Though they have long discussions and planning sessions, something they enjoy (so, fun for them). They called it "Committee D&D" back when we used to play 3.5. The newest player to the group (old friend still) disliked it a lot when he showed up, but after seeing that rash actions rarely work out great kind of slipped into it subconsciously, and enjoys it still.

I really don't think it's necessary, or that every group should do it, but my players like it, and when I'm playing, I like it. So, hey, it works for us :)

The reason I'm curious, is because JC seemed against the very idea of being able to get past a guard with a bluff. His example was one that clearly blocks a bluff from working. What I wanted was verification that a bluff CAN be used in his game to get past the guard, or was his intent to block all bluffs.

Different JC? Or me? Because I started to expand upon examples already used, and everyone else seems to have bailed on this conversation :)

But, if this clarifies anything, the Blake character was a past PC. He was in a party with other PCs, obviously. One of the other characters was a con man from the get go. Pretty quick on his feet, too. Very effective. More of a silver-tongued salesman than Ocean's Eleven style con man, and he refused to break his word, if given (which he was extremely against giving). Boy would he bend his word, though.

I'm satisfied that his example was intended as "here's how a bluff can be impossible" rather than "here's why bluffs will never work in my game".

Well, considering I never said the latter, I'm glad you see it that way :)

As always, play what you like :)
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top