Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[Hussar]

Let me take a different approach.

PC group includes a monk gets into a fight with a giant. PC monk attacks the giant. The DM rules that the monk cannot hurt the giant since the 180 pound unarmed monk simply cannot generate enough damage to harm the 3 ton giant. Jackie Chan can't kill an elephant with his bare hands after all. It breaks the DM's views of plausibility.

Would you argue with your DM here? Should the players simply accept this ruling and move on?

And, if you would argue with the DM, how is this any different than the unbluffable guard?

See, I look at JamesonCourage's example of the Diplomat Impersonation upthread and think, "Well, the PC succeeded at his bluff, the guard actually believes that the PC is the real diplomat. While he certainly could start the endless chain resulting in a zero chance of the PC's to succeed, it's also perfectly valid that he could decide that this is way above his pay grade and just let the diplomat through."

After all, he's just a gate guard. It's not like he actually knows anything really. He's just a side player. Why negate the player's success?

 

[Hussar]

BTW - JamesonCourage on the issue of trusting your players.

I'm sorry, but, I don't think you actually answered my question.

Imagine there is a disagreement between you and your players as to what is plausible. How is ruling by fiat, simply because you're the DM, what is plausible, showing trust in their judgement of what is plausible?

Player: I think X.
DM: I think Y.
Discussion ensues.
DM: Well, I rule that Y is true.

If you actually trusted their judgement, wouldn't you rule X? If you always rule Y, then how does that show any trust in their judgement?

 

[Elf Witch]

One of the ways I now handle this in my game is I am the one who rolls behind a screen for the players bluff , sense motive, diplomacy, Intimidate and find traps.

I also sometimes roll spot checks. Though they don't it unless they have spotted something. This way the players are not basing their decisions on how well or bad the dice rolled.

My players like it because they say it helps them be more immersed in the game.

My players tend to play smart most of them are Shadowrun players as well and they are to paranoid to do something like bluff the guards to get into the castle without checking things out first.

I think there are different type of play going on here. You have a play style where the players just want to get on with it. The goal is to get into the castle so they just want to go up to the guard roll bluff and get on with the game.

For that type of play it is best to use the RAW rules.

For others they want more than that, they want to investigate and plan and they don't mind being stymied because that just gives them more clues and they get to plan something different.

And sometimes it is a mix.

What I don't understand is how not letting a bluff work is not trusting your players. I trust my players and there have many times they have blown me away with their plans that right on the spot I have changed the game to incorporate their idea.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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

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).

Interesting. My response to the example was that, as soon as it becomes clear to the Party Face that the guard is thinking of escalating the issue to his superior, the Party Face should explain that the first "diplomat" is really a doppelganger assassin, and that the only hope for the king is if the party rush in and save him right away! [EDIT: what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said a few posts up.)

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.

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 particular mechanical iimplementation of social skills in 3E may be weak, although in my view (admittedly as an outsider) this is mostly due to (i) a failure to have a robust way of handling ever-escalating skill bonuses, and (ii) a failure to try and correlate social skills with spells like Charm and Suggestion.

But I agree that there is nothing objectionable about playing a social skill PC. Every game I've GMed over the past 20+ years has had one or more socially-focused PCs in it. At one stage I had a couple of PCs (a RM mystic - something like an illusionist - and a RM moon mage - something like a ranger/illusionist) whose players had to maintain lists of their identities to keep track of what names and faces they were using in the various towns and cities of the gameworld.

And when I prep for play I give some thought to how different NPCs might respond to various sorts of threats or offers or approaches. (Personality descriptions, relationship diagrams, etc).

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.

I think we approach the game differently!

From my point of view, for the players it is always and only their goals that are on the line, whether the goal be "kill the goblin" or "rescue the prisoner" or "bluff the guard so we can meet the king". I want social conflict to be up to the task of handling the emotional stakes for the player. The fact that the PC can't die (and frankly, in the case of the king's guard bluff I don't think that's true - that's probably riskier for the typical 5th level PC than being surrounded by a dozen kobolds) strikes me as at best a secondary consideration.

 

[Janx]

One of the ways I now handle this in my game is I am the one who rolls behind a screen for the players bluff , sense motive, diplomacy, Intimidate and find traps.

I also sometimes roll spot checks. Though they don't it unless they have spotted something. This way the players are not basing their decisions on how well or bad the dice rolled.

Me too. I believe the GM should hide all rolls for which failure may not be inherently obvious to the player. Finding traps, appraising for example are all things that you may think you got right, but didn't.

What I don't understand is how not letting a bluff work is not trusting your players. I trust my players and there have many times they have blown me away with their plans that right on the spot I have changed the game to incorporate their idea.

Just guessing at Hussar's reasoning, but I think it's really a conflict between what players want to try to do, and the GM's assumption of what's plausible and how that impacts his decision.

If people can get past the Secret Service (who are highly motivated individuals interested in stopping that kind of nonsense) and into a White House dinner, I have faith that a good Bluff check can get you past a guard who's family was threatened. It's all in the approach and timing.

For one thing, I might not come in as a Diplomat. How about the caterer?

PC: hey, uh, where do you want these cakes?
Guard: What?
PC: yeah, these cakes. The frosting's gonna melt if you make us wait around out here. The queen's gonna be pissed if her desert is ruined for the banguet.
Guard: Queen? Oh here, let me give you a hand with that. Just go in that way, and turn left...

Best times to enter a facility, is when it is busy and people are distracted. And there are more strangers about setting up and bringing in stuff.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], yeah if I saw the guard was going to just escalate me to his boss, I'd change tack as well. But at some point, if the feels like the GM is just going to shut down every avenue, you gotta smell it coming.

Which is actually an important thing in planning any of these places. Do NOT make them impregnable and perfectly defended. That kind of defeats the purpose. It is far easier for you to put some holes in, than it is to relay information to the players so they can allegedly detect holes in your perfect palace. The information gap is so stupendously wide, your might as well put some chinks in the armor, so the players can actually find them.

 

[JamesonCourage]

BTW - JamesonCourage on the issue of trusting your players.

I'm sorry, but, I don't think you actually answered my question.

Imagine there is a disagreement between you and your players as to what is plausible. How is ruling by fiat, simply because you're the DM, what is plausible, showing trust in their judgement of what is plausible?

Player: I think X.
DM: I think Y.
Discussion ensues.
DM: Well, I rule that Y is true.

If you actually trusted their judgement, wouldn't you rule X? If you always rule Y, then how does that show any trust in their judgement?

This, again, is judgment, not trust. I answered this.

You didn't answer me. Do you think I don't trust my players? Because the answer determines whether or not we can have a civil discussion.

Interesting. My response to the example was that, as soon as it becomes clear to the Party Face that the guard is thinking of escalating the issue to his superior, the Party Face should explain that the first "diplomat" is really a doppelganger assassin, and that the only hope for the king is if the party rush in and save him right away! [EDIT: what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said a few posts up.)

They could try the bluff. As there aren't dopplegangers in my game, it probably wouldn't work. I mean, magic can mask your appearance, so it's still a plausible bluff. But with his family on the line, he'd probably yell for another guard to get a warning to the general / chancellor / king / king's family. He wouldn't let a diplomat in to deal with it without some reason to.

I think we approach the game differently!

I know we do. We've been over this before. Your way of handling things is great. I wouldn't suggest otherwise for you. As we've discussed this exact topic before (I even worded this originally when I posted it because I knew that "goals" were more important to permerton than they were to me), I don't see any reason to bog this thread down with rehashing it again.

If someone else wants to engage you, I can vouch that it was quite illuminating.

As always, play what you like

The fact that the PC can't die (and frankly, in the case of the king's guard bluff I don't think that's true - that's probably riskier for the typical 5th level PC than being surrounded by a dozen kobolds)

Yeah, I tend to agree with you here, but as I said, combat determines life and death more often than social interactions. That holds true.

However, experience in my game is rewarded on two fronts: danger, and story. If we just look at danger, you get more experience the more danger you were in. It does not specify combat (and the examples sometimes do not mention combat). So, I agree with you about social danger.

As always, again, play what you like

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], yeah if I saw the guard was going to just escalate me to his boss, I'd change tack as well. But at some point, if the feels like the GM is just going to shut down every avenue, you gotta smell it coming.

Which is actually an important thing in planning any of these places. Do NOT make them impregnable and perfectly defended. That kind of defeats the purpose. It is far easier for you to put some holes in, than it is to relay information to the players so they can allegedly detect holes in your perfect palace. The information gap is so stupendously wide, your might as well put some chinks in the armor, so the players can actually find them.

I really don't see this getting issue getting resolved between us. If, after this discussion, you still see it as effectively railroading* (I bolded the text to highlight the area this seems implied), then I think we have to agree to disagree and move on.

I'm not at all saying that you shouldn't continue the discussion with anyone else in the thread. You have every right to play how you want to, and express your views as long as they don't violate the TOS. I just don't think we'll come to an understanding in this matter. Thanks for the discussion, though. I thought it was fun.

* (I do know you used the qualifier "feels" in there, and I did take it into account, but the implication seems to be too much for me to handle in a continued discussion)

Play what you like

 

[pemerton]

Which is actually an important thing in planning any of these places. Do NOT make them impregnable and perfectly defended. That kind of defeats the purpose. It is far easier for you to put some holes in, than it is to relay information to the players so they can allegedly detect holes in your perfect palace. The information gap is so stupendously wide, your might as well put some chinks in the armor, so the players can actually find them.

I agree about the width of the information gap.

I think there are (at least) two ways to approach this sort of situation as a GM. One is to design the situation (castle, king, guards, diplomat etc) in detail but, as you say, to build in some holes. I would call this approach one that focuses on exploration as a priority. It rewards players who engage with the nitty-gritty descriptive detail of the gameworld. It also works best when players and GM are on the same page as to what is feasible, and what not, when it comes to running a bluff.

The other way is suggested to me by this quote from Paul Czege:

I know what I find interesting. I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

With this approach, the GM has only a general idea of the situation, and is ready for the players to try hijinks that the GM has not foreseen, and is prepared to roll with those hijinks based on a combination of (i) using mechanical means to determine whether or not PC actions succeed or fail in their goal, (ii) using the players' descriptions of what their PCs are doing to determine the actual consequences of successes and failures, and (iii) using understandings of genre/table verisimilitude tolerance that are shared between the players and the GM to work out what sorts of hijinks are entitled to a roll, and what sorts of hijinks are excluded on absurdity grounds.

This second approach obviously won't work very well if there isn't that shared sense of genre/tolerance at the table. And it is focused less on exploration of a pre-established gameworld and more on shared participation in generating a story about hijinks.

The second approach is the way I personally prefer to GM my game. (Actual play report of a session using this sort of approach for a social encounter, and a search of a library, here.)

 

[pemerton]

experience in my game is rewarded on two fronts: danger, and story.

Interesting. Core Rolemaster has an XP system that comes close to awarding XP based on danger faced (in the past, I've described it as "XP for hard field training!").

I agree that that sort of experience system seems to fit with a general distiction being drawn between the stakes of physical and social conflict.

 

[Janx]

I agree about the width of the information gap.

I think there are (at least) two ways to approach this sort of situation as a GM. One is to design the situation (castle, king, guards, diplomat etc) in detail but, as you say, to build in some holes. I would call this approach one that focuses on exploration as a priority. It rewards players who engage with the nitty-gritty descriptive detail of the gameworld. It also works best when players and GM are on the same page as to what is feasible, and what not, when it comes to running a bluff.

With this approach, I don't think the guard would have been identified as a vulnerable access point. It would have been more likely to be posing as a caterer during the day, when tons of people were hauling in stuff for the banquet through the gate and only geting cursory checks.

With this approach, the GM has only a general idea of the situation, and is ready for the players to try hijinks that the GM has not foreseen, and is prepared to roll with those hijinks based on a combination of (i) using mechanical means to determine whether or not PC actions succeed or fail in their goal, (ii) using the players' descriptions of what their PCs are doing to determine the actual consequences of successes and failures, and (iii) using understandings of genre/table verisimilitude tolerance that are shared between the players and the GM to work out what sorts of hijinks are entitled to a roll, and what sorts of hijinks are excluded on absurdity grounds.

This second approach obviously won't work very well if there isn't that shared

In this approach, still using jameson's example setup, would the guard let the PC in or escalate? Is making the real Diplomat get there before them part of the hijinks (as a complication to what the PCs were trying to do)? Or would that have been left out?

 

[Saeviomagy]

My players tend to play smart most of them are Shadowrun players as well and they are to paranoid to do something like bluff the guards to get into the castle without checking things out first.

Yeah, shadowrun has that effect on people. Probably because all the adventures are structured so that they suggest a legwork phase to the DM, so he asks the players "what legwork do you do?".

That said, I often found that shadowrun legwork and planning would tend to drag way out beyond what was necessary. It's hard to hit that nice medium between shadowrun and traditional D&D "kick in the door and see what the monster lotto gives us".