Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[Krensky]

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?

Because that's how guards act when presented with weird things or stuff above their pay grade.

If the guard believes that the PCs are the real diplomats, then the real diplomats inside must be infiltrators. So he calls his boss to raise the alarm. If he believes the PCs are actual diplomats come to see his boss, then he has call the senschal or whatever.

Just like the real world, above my pay grade should almost always equal: Let my boss deal with it.

Guards, at least those that aren't incompetent, do not just let people in. Even in the Nevada Gaming Commission example. Forged badge and ID, good like of bull, successful Bluff check. Final Result:

"Good day Agent Ocean. Please have a seat while I contact the Casino Manager." Or whoever Ocean says he's there to see.

This isn't negating anything. The PC succeeded, the guard believes their story. Just because the player's expectations were ridiculous does not mean his character failed.

The trick to getting past the guard isn't just to lie to them, it's to have supporting documentation, leverage points, etc and to pick a lie that will actually get you past him, not leave him confused or think there is something hinky. All of the examples being given have one thing in common. They are unusual events. Unusual events make guards cautious and prone to asking for their superior to make the decision.

Turnip delivery, for instance. Preferably using the normal guy's cart and at the normal time and place.

"Who are you? Where's Bob?"
"I'm his cousin. He's sick, some sort of fever. His wife asked me to make his delivery so as not to disappoint his lordship."
"Ok, the kitchen's that way."

 

[JamesonCourage]

I disagree, obviously. I think it does come down to trust.

Do you trust your players? I honestly have no idea. I don't know you or your players. But, your arguments here have stated that you will not allow the player's views to change your ruling. If you find X implausible, the player's views on the matter will not change your position.

To me, that shows a lack of trust in the judgement of your players. So, I'll ask again, how does over ruling the judgement of your players show trust in their judgement?

Very well. Simply, you're wrong. I have never stated, nor do my statements imply, that if I find something implausible, I will not change my mind on it with a sufficiently good argument.

I do get the final say. And I won't change my mind on that, as that part of the agreed upon and preferred social contract for the group. The fact that you dislike the latter does not mean I disregard judgment of my players.

I've stated that I'm fallible as a GM. I did touch on this once before with you. If you're looking to argue, rather than discuss, than this will be my last post on the matter. If you want to discuss merits of different methods, or want to ask me questions in a civil or non-confrontational manner, I'll be happy to continue that discussion. I have absolutely no interest in your assumptions, insults, or judgment against me or my group's play style, however, and I won't participate in an argument over it.

I don't think you play incorrectly, Hussar. The fact that you think your method is objectively better for every group and makes for a "better game" grates on me, as it's judgmental of people's preferences, and obviously wrong when the measuring stick of the game is Fun, as Fun is always subjective.

But, I don't think you or your group should change how you play unless you want to. Because, as always, play what you like

Janx got it right off, but, I cannot xp you for this. Basically my point is the players are trying something that is plausible in their view (since they probably wouldn't try otherwise) and the DM is ruling that no, it isn't plausible based solely on the DM's judgement.

And his knowledge that they don't have. As a GM, I know that the diplomat arrived 20 minutes earlier. Or I know that the other diplomat is late. Or I know that the trip got cancelled, and word hasn't reached the castle yet. Or I know that the trip got cancelled, and word has reached the castle already.

Players make decisions based on views without factoring in all of the knowledge in a setting. The fact that the GM does factor in those things seems basic to me, and the gap we're having in this conversation is still baffling.

If I say something is X, and you say it's Y and I refuse to be swayed by your views, aren't I, in effect, showing that I do not trust your judgement?

No. It means I don't agree with you. I can still trust your judgment. I may think you're wrong on this matter, but it does not mean that, as a whole, I do not trust your judgment.

Maybe it's the trust word that's causing problems here. I dunno. To me, if the DM has decided that X will not work, regardless of the views of the players, that shows a lack of trust in the players.

That is indeed horrible wording, in my honest opinion.

trust (trst)
n.
1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
2. Custody; care.
3. Something committed into the care of another; charge.
4.
a. The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one: violated a public trust.
b. One in which confidence is placed.
5. Reliance on something in the future; hope.

Choose your definition. If you think that because I disagree with a player, that I no longer feel any of the above towards them, then, as I said, we cannot have a civil discussion about this.

Play what you like.

Because that's how guards act when presented with weird things or stuff above their pay grade. [SNIP]

I totally agree with this post. Maybe it's because I have a different view of your standard NPC from most people, but I think NPCs in my setting are more competent than most settings (based on a few threads I've participated in, I think that's true). My average hit die is around 4, and people are very competent in their field. This might color it differently from most people's "level 1 commoner for 90% of people" that I also don't adhere to in the slightest.

Anyways, I have no idea if you agree with what I said or not, but I completely agree with your post. I couldn't XP you, or I would.

As always, play what you like

 

[Krensky]

I totally agree with this post. Maybe it's because I have a different view of your standard NPC from most people, but I think NPCs in my setting are more competent than most settings (based on a few threads I've participated in, I think that's true). My average hit die is around 4, and people are very competent in their field. This might color it differently from most people's "level 1 commoner for 90% of people" that I also don't adhere to in the slightest.

Anyways, I have no idea if you agree with what I said or not, but I completely agree with your post. I couldn't XP you, or I would.

Well, not exactly. Said guard, without context or anything, would likely be a Standard NPC Man-at-Arms out of the Rouge's Gallery. At 36 XP, at group of them equal to the party's size is a minor threat. He doesn't have much in the way of skills or abilities to resist social skills out of the book. I'd likely modify the NPC to grant that to maintain a challenge if there was a very strong social oriented PC in the party, but that's more a gamist consideration.

NPCs don't have levels per-say, their numbers scale to the level of the party with some modifiers to let the GM make certain adventures and NPCs tougher then normal.

My NPCs though are actual characters who respond to the PCs as though they and the PCs are real people. Infiltrating a secure area is tricky. It takes more then a half-assed plan and glib tongue. Well, sometimes that works, but it's like rushing past a security guard while flashing your wallet and saying you're a policeman. It may get you past the guard while he tries to react, but you have seconds, maybe a minute at best to do anything once you're in.

 

[JamesonCourage]

My NPCs though are actual characters who respond to the PCs as though they and the PCs are real people. Infiltrating a secure area is tricky. It takes more then a half-assed plan and glib tongue. Well, sometimes that works, but it's like rushing past a security guard while flashing your wallet and saying you're a policeman. It may get you past the guard while he tries to react, but you have seconds, maybe a minute at best to do anything once you're in.

This is similar to how I run things, too. I'm sure we have differences, of course, but it's approaching it from sort of the same angle.

 

[pemerton]

If the guard believes that the PCs are the real diplomats, then the real diplomats inside must be infiltrators. So he calls his boss to raise the alarm. If he believes the PCs are actual diplomats come to see his boss, then he has call the senschal or whatever.

Just like the real world, above my pay grade should almost always equal: Let my boss deal with it.

My response to this is still that, in a typical D&D game, the players should be having their PCs persuade the guard that they are the bosses in the salient sense.

(Depending on level and ability, I guess - but for name level/paragon PCs, I would expect this to be pretty easy. Like Gandalf in Edoras and Minas Tirith.)

 

[Krensky]

My response to this is still that, in a typical D&D game, the players should be having their PCs persuade the guard that they are the bosses in the salient sense.

(Depending on level and ability, I guess - but for name level/paragon PCs, I would expect this to be pretty easy. Like Gandalf in Edoras and Minas Tirith.)

First, that's not infiltration.

Second, Gandalf's not a PC. He's an ersatz angel stuck in the party as a plot device and GM mouthpiece.

Third, not all games use artificial tier concepts like name level or paragon or whatever. Not all d20 fantasy games do. Heck, not all versions of D&D do. In my preferred ruleset that NPC guard's bonus to his roll to see through the lie or have his Disposition changed scales with the PC's level. Leveling's more about breadth and depth of power then about greater and greater numerical advantage between them and the NPCs.

Lastly, if the PCs wanted to make the guard do X by being impressive and cool or Intimidating and scary, well, they should have said that rather then coming up with a lie.

Unless of course you meant that they should be trying to convince the guard they're officers, in which case they'll need uniforms and (depending on setting) papers, and without some research and prep, there's a chance the guard knows the officer they're impersonating, or where he really is.

Heck, if it's a really important infiltration of the castle or whatever, I can adapt the Infiltration Dramatic Conflict from an earlier edition of the game.

 

[Hussar]

One last time to Hussar.

"Maybe it's the trust word that's causing problems here. I dunno. To me, if the DM has decided that X will not work, regardless of the views of the players, that shows a lack of trust in the players.2

And if the player decides it should work, regardless of the view of the DM, that shows a lack of trust in the DM?

In reality, player & DM can trust each other just fine, and still disagree. However the player has a vested interest in the question whether the Bluff will work, they are not a neutral arbiter, because a success contributes to their own success at the game. Whereas the DM should have no investment in whether it works or not, and should be able to be a neutral arbiter, which the player can never be.

And this is one reason why you are completely wrong.

But, isn't it funny how "plausible" only resides in the hands of the DM? If both sides trusted each other, shouldn't the results fall to either side, at least some of the time?

If you rule against the players every single time, based solely on your views of what is plausible, how does that show trust in your player's judgement.

And, if the DM is the "neutral" arbiter, how come every single "plausible" result goes against the PC's? Shouldn't a "neutral" arbiter rule for and against the PC's?

Because that's how guards act when presented with weird things or stuff above their pay grade.

No, this is how guards in your view act when presented with weird stuff. Again, if every single ruling goes against the PC's, how is that being neutral or fair?

----- added edit-----

Thinking about this a bit more, isn't it interesting that DM after DM here has stepped up and told how they would take the PC's success and block it. Oh, sure, it's dressed up in all sorts of in-game reasons, but, again, if the DM truly was neutral, how come those reasons only ever flow in one direction?

Heck, if it's a really important infiltration of the castle or whatever, I can adapt the Infiltration Dramatic Conflict from an earlier edition of the game.

Here's a question for you then Krensky. If you do adapt that Conflict and use it, will the PC's be able to enter the castle if they succeed?

Because that, for me, has always been the issue here. The PC's succeeded. They made their rolls and they won. The DM is then manipulating the situation so that even if they do succeed, they still fail - either the diplomat has arrived early and they have no chance of success or they arrive early, in which case the King comes to meet them and they fail. Either way, they fail.

So, Krensky, which is it? If you engage the mechanics and the PC's succeed, do they get to enter the castle?

 

[JamesonCourage]

But, isn't it funny how "plausible" only resides in the hands of the DM? If both sides trusted each other, shouldn't the results fall to either side, at least some of the time?

If you rule against the players every single time, based solely on your views of what is plausible, how does that show trust in your player's judgement.

And, if the DM is the "neutral" arbiter, how come every single "plausible" result goes against the PC's? Shouldn't a "neutral" arbiter rule for and against the PC's?



No, this is how guards in your view act when presented with weird stuff. Again, if every single ruling goes against the PC's, how is that being neutral or fair?

Where are you getting this, out of curiosity? Who in this thread has said that they rule against the players sense of plausibility every time it comes up? That players are never able to do anything they consider plausible?

This is either a huge miscommunication, or you are grossly misconstruing the play styles that have been presented to you, because I do not think that anyone in this thread has implied that they rule against the players sense of plausibility every single time, much less endorsed it as a preferred play style.

 

[Elf Witch]

Where are you getting this, out of curiosity? Who in this thread has said that they rule against the players sense of plausibility every time it comes up? That players are never able to do anything they consider plausible?

This is either a huge miscommunication, or you are grossly misconstruing the play styles that have been presented to you, because I do not think that anyone in this thread has implied that they rule against the players sense of plausibility every single time, much less endorsed it as a preferred play style.

I was wondering this myself. In my game it has come up once and that's is it. Everything else has been purely hypothetical.

 

[LostSoul]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], if you want to check out some recaps of play where this sort of authority distribution occurred, have a look at my http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...-4th-edition-hack-fiction-first-playtest.html thread.

While some situations happened about a year ago I have a decent memory and can talk about them.

The closest our last game got to a social conflict was when the city watch - a guild known as the Silver Hand - approached the PCs after an open conflict in the streets. The PCs got into the fight after thieves attempted to pick-pocket them. The response of the Silver Hand was that the thieves had the legal right to attempt pick-pocketing, as long as they were part of the Thieves Guild, but that the PCs had the legal right to self-defence. They knew magic had been thrown about, and told the PCs that the wizard guilds would hear about that - since only guild wizards can cast spells.

Anyway, the only roll made was a Reaction Roll, which determined that the Silver Hand was "Uncertain, cautious, and wary." (The most common result barring high Cha modifiers.)

I guess that's an instance of what's plausible - in the setting, determined by the DM, but not plausible to the players! - working for the PCs instead of against them.