Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[pemerton]

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?

I think the answer to this is yes.

In the sort of playstyle LostSoul is talking about, I think the big issue is communication - that is, overcoming the information asymmetry that Janx referred to upthread. It's not enough that the GM know what is plausible, but a serious effort has to be made to communicate that to the players.

One way that I *think* LostSoul does this is to very expressly permit metagaming, so that information about the setting and its parameters is steadily built up among the player body out of the ongoing trials and errors of a variety of PCs. I think that at least some classic "Gygaxian" play worked like this - ie the second time you went into the Tomb of Horrors you didn't make the same mistakes as the first time, even though there's no way ingame that your new PC could have that information!

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.

I'm a DM, and I've explained how I think the PCs should respond to, and hence overcome, the GM's "real diplomat" complication!

My personal feeling is not so much that the discussion shows an express anti-player bias, but that it shows a pro-gritty, anti-gonzo bias, which in the end tends to work against the PCs because they have the most to gain from gonzo (being the protagonists!) whereas gritty costs the GM nothing (s/he always has more NPCs, copper pieces and gruel where those other ones came from).

In a gritty game, bribing guards is hard. In a gonzo game, it's all about convincing them the world will come to an end - or at least the king - unless they let the PCs through RIGHT NOW! Personally, I prefer gonzo - it's why I play fantasy RPGs rather than something else. (And for clarity - "gonzo" here doesn't have to mean "wacky" or "light-hearted" - there can be gonzo melodrama and pathos - see LotR, the X-Men, John Boorman's Excalibur, etc.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

My personal feeling is not so much that the discussion shows an express anti-player bias, but that it shows a pro-gritty, anti-gonzo bias

Sorry for the [snip], but my experience point was supposed to be agreeing with this as my personal preference (and some in my group, though not all).

----- 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?

They don't. Why you assume they do is beyond me. Is it because that's all that's been discussed in a topic that stemmed from the original post? Let's look at it:

Sorry but, IMHO, the loyal guard who has strict orders not to let anybody into the castle (under penalty of death) isn't going to suddenly forget his job because a PC rolls a good Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate check and defeats his Will defense or he fails his Will save or whatnot. I mean, if the king finds out, the guard may end up being beheaded and his family also executed. I would think that would put any sort of bluff/intimidate out of reach without magical persuasion.

This entire topic has stemmed from an example of how someone might fail. If you want examples of how things might benefit the players in the game, we can go into that.

Just yesterday, we had another session (with me running the game). The players faced off against a dozen bandits, and though it was difficult, they killed 8, captured 1, and three got away. One of the bandits (Lini) who got away had stolen 100 silver from the players (the equivalent of 100 gold in my game), as well as his primary weapon (a rapier).

After turning in the bandit's equipment and collecting a bounty, they started looking for more work. They decided to look into a slave ring in a neighboring nation. Along the way, they stopped through the players' hometown, and the player who lost the rapier stopped by a moneylender to pay off his debt (which he had taken as a flaw at character creation).

After paying off his debt, the player who had the 100 silver stolen from him asked if the moneylender knew anything about the slave ring, as the player was pretty sure that the NPC was involved in illegal activity. It took 7 gold (70 silver), but he mentioned the name of a human that was hiding underground in the neighboring nation: a man named Lini. He gave his location, and also the location of the slave ring (same city).

So, the players headed to the location, tricked Lini into meeting them (paid a child to bring him a note saying to meet them, signed as "Telet" [another bandit they had encountered from the same group]), and effectively captured him. He gave up the 100 silver, told them where the rapier was (the slavers had taken it from him), and is now basically being strong-armed into working with the party, or they'll turn him over to the government.

Did I need to give his name with the moneylender? Nope, not at all. Why did I? Because the neighboring nation is made up of troglodytes and another lizard race, and the moneylender assumed they wanted a human contact (and Lini had stopped by the town on his way to the neighboring nation). And because the moneylender knew that Lini had ties to the slave ring (as the players also knew).

Did the players question the plausibility of this at all? This was extremely convenient for them, as he was someone they wanted to bring to justice, and a bandit that had stolen from two of them personally. The answer is no, of course the players did not question the plausibility of the situation. It all makes sense to them.

But, they didn't know that asking the moneylender would provide this result to them. They didn't say, "you know, it'd make sense that all of this would work together, maybe he knows where Lini is."

This is basically the complete inverse of "the diplomat arrived 20 minutes ago" that you seem so against. The thing is, the players might be upset about that example (well, my group wouldn't be), because they don't know what's going on, and it's negative.

The players don't know the reason why the moneylender thought to offer Lini (because they're all human, and Lini is a human in troglodyte lands), or how he knew him (criminal background, and have worked together to shake down some people that owe the moneylender payments). Yet my players don't go "wow, this is way too convenient to be plausible." Just like they don't say "this is way too inconvenient to be plausible" with the diplomat arriving early.

They know it goes both ways. Why you specifically think it doesn't -and insist that we're saying that even after we've claimed that's not how it is- is still somewhat baffling to me.

But, as always, play what you like

 

[S'mon]

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?

Eh? Of course a good DM does rule in favour of the PCs some of the time. Most of the time, if the players are any good - most of the time the good players & good DM will agree on what is plausible.

If I'm DMing, and the players try to Bluff their way into the castle, and they have a good spiel, reasonable Bluff skill, and reasonable luck, or good luck, reasonable spiel & reasonable Bluff skill, or good Bluff skill, reasonable spiel and reasonable luck, they'll normally succeed. (They probably won't be left unattended in the king's personal chambers, though).

I can't recall a situation where players ever objected to my DMing adjudication on social interaction skills; as a player I can't recall ever objecting to a DM's adjudication either. In all cases decision-making authority remained vested in the DM, and everyone was happy.

As a player, I want the DM to be making the decision on what is plausible. I don't want the DM vesting decision-making authority in me. That would be abnegating his responsibility to run the world and provide a challenging game. If I don't trust the DM I would drop the game and look for a different DM, rather than taking over the decision-making authority from the DM - because the latter would destroy the game-as-game.

Edit: The one time I can recall a plausibility conflict, it was the exact opposite of your assumption. I had a paranoid player who assumed nothing was possible, that the NPCs were all super-competent and personally out to get him. He tended to lock down the game and prevent player action. Often his approach resulted in failure when bold action would likely have succeeded.

 

[GSHamster]

I'm in agreement with Hussar on this. If the PCs make an amazing Diplomacy check, then maybe the guard isn't loyal after all. Maybe he's corrupt and that's why the check succeeds.

To be honest, save in modern countries with a Protestant tradition, corruption is more common than loyalty. Corruption is endemic in history and the third world. The Praetorian Guard even sold the Roman Empire to the highest bidder once.

The DM expecting palace guards to be loyal and above bribery is an example of the DM imposing her own unreasonable expectation on the world, solely to prevent the players from carrying out a specific strategy. The player's point of view, that the guard can be bribed, is more plausible and realistic than the DM's point of view, not less.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm in agreement with Hussar on this. If the PCs make an amazing Diplomacy check, then maybe the guard isn't loyal after all. Maybe he's corrupt and that's why the check succeeds.

This is much too narrative for me to want to play a fantasy setting in it. It's not wrong, at all, but it's not my style, and probably not the preferred play style of other people on these boards (or even in this thread).

I'd prefer a different approach to the game. One that isn't dictated by "what would be cool for the story now?" While those games are fine (and I enjoy them with other genres), it's just not for me in a fantasy setting. It's never felt right. I much prefer a reactive, referee-like style for a GM. I prefer the PCs act within an evolving setting, though, too.

This is a play style issue. Your way isn't wrong. But, it's not leading to a "better game" for everyone, like Hussar thinks his way would provide.

To be honest, save in modern countries with a Protestant tradition, corruption is more common than loyalty. Corruption is endemic in history and the third world. The Praetorian Guard even sold the Roman Empire to the highest bidder once.

Yeah, corruption is present. There's no reason not to expect it. But, I think things change when the ruler can kill a dozen or more men at once or can injure or obliterate a cavalry line with a spell. And has people loyal to him who can do so.

But, I do agree corruption should be present, taken into account, and able to be used by the players if they go about it intelligently.

The DM expecting palace guards to be loyal and above bribery is an example of the DM imposing her own unreasonable expectation on the world, solely to prevent the players from carrying out a specific strategy. The player's point of view, that the guard can be bribed, is more plausible and realistic than the DM's point of view, not less.

For some guards this will be the case. Not for others. Especially not so if there's a particularly powerful and/or brutal ruler.

This is just a play style preference. It's like anything, really. In 3.X, I don't like TBo9S because I'd rather bring magic down than scale melee up. Does that mean I think TBo9S is bad? Not at all. If you like it, use it. But it's not right for me.

The same basically goes with what we're talking about. If your players have a lot of say over the setting, that's awesome. I'm honestly really glad you can enjoy yourselves playing in a way I couldn't, really. I think it shows just how dynamic the hobby is. But, it's not for everyone. Letting other people play with their preferred style, by the terms of their social contract, without Hussar telling them how to play a "better game" (because they aren't playing by his preferences) is probably much more productive.

On a side note, the idea that guards being loyal is unreasonable to you amuses me slightly. Especially since loyal guards in a game are there "solely to prevent the players from carrying out a specific strategy." I have a feeling we play very different games

As always, though, play what you like

 

[S'mon]

I'm in agreement with Hussar on this. If the PCs make an amazing Diplomacy check, then maybe the guard isn't loyal after all. Maybe he's corrupt and that's why the check succeeds.

To be honest, save in modern countries with a Protestant tradition, corruption is more common than loyalty. Corruption is endemic in history and the third world. The Praetorian Guard even sold the Roman Empire to the highest bidder once.

Well, yeah, but - the Roman Emperors employed those proto-Protestant German bodyguards, later the Eastern Roman/Byzantine emperors employed the similar Norse Varangians, precisely to get around this corruptibility problem. The Emperors' German bodyguards reputedly could not be bribed to betray him, no matter what.

I'm not going to retcon the guard's honesty in order to fit with a high roll. OTOH IMCs a good spiel + very high Bluff* check probably could get you past the honest, fanatically loyal guard. But it wouldn't be by bribing him, it would be by understanding his psychology and exploiting it. In his case, by convincing him that the loyal thing to do was to let the PCs in.

*Bluff would be a lot easier to use successfully than Diplomacy, if the PCs are being honest. Given that the game splits these skills, which arguably is not very realistic, Diplomacy would make the guard like you, but can't be used for direct deception. Ideally the PC would be able to use both skills, the combination of the two would be much more likely to succeed.

 

[S'mon]

Yeah, corruption is present. There's no reason not to expect it. But, I think things change when the ruler can kill a dozen or more men at once or can injure or obliterate a cavalry line with a spell. And has people loyal to him who can do so.

I don't really think the personal killing power of the ruler is relevant; although "ruler is powerful" vs "ruler is weak" may make a difference to the guard's psychology. I can see "ruler/ruler's magist may be reading my mind at any moment!" could make a difference, though.

 

[Janx]

This entire topic has stemmed from an example of how someone might fail. If you want examples of how things might benefit the players in the game, we can go into that.

this is a good point. The example by itself is an incomplete picture.

If this was the ONLY way the party could get in, and the GM decided to block the only dice roll involved (conning the guard), then that is probably crap GMing.

But the reality is, attempting to get in right at lock down, rather than any other time, any other social vector was a lousy strategy.

My point then, the example COULD be bad GMing by negating a valid roll, or it COULD be just bad tactics. If I didn't know the actual outcome, but the possibility that (after 10PM they go on lockdown, nobody in or out), as a player, I think I'd be trying to get in before lockdown. Which makes it the player's fault for failure in that example.

To JC's other quote "This is much too narrative for me to want to play a fantasy setting in it. It's not wrong, at all, but it's not my style, and probably not the preferred play style of other people on these boards (or even in this thread)."

I actually see the opposite. the example had too much narrative, in that the GM knew a lot about what was actually happening (the real diplomat, etc).

Making it hinge on a die roll means as a GM, I don't KNOW what it will be until the roll happens. If it fails, I have to come up with a reason, like "it turns out the real diplomat got here 25 minutes ago." If it succeeds, he didn't, and these are taken to be the real diplomat. If it barely succeeds (or barely fails), I might add a complication, that in 25 minutes, tthe real diplomat will arrive.

I'm just making up an example, but the idea is that the dice trigger the DM to adapt, rather than work from a straight narrative.

It's possible, this concept is what Hussar is talking about (now that we're all hopefully done using the N word, the R word, the T word and any other words with letters in them).

 

[Hussar]

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.

Well, how about everyone telling me that the default ruling is always in the hands of the DM? That the players cannot be neutral advocates? That it's the "DM's game" and the players should not be put in a position where they get to determine what's plausible?

Did I imagine all that?

Cos, if you're saying that sometimes it goes the way of the DM and sometimes it goes the way of the player, then, well, I have no argument anymore. That was always my point - that the DM should not always be the sole determiner of what is plausible.

If it's give and take, then good gaming all the way around. That's what I've been saying from the very beginning.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
I'm not going to retcon the guard's honesty in order to fit with a high roll. OTOH IMCs a good spiel + very high Bluff* check probably could get you past the honest, fanatically loyal guard. But it wouldn't be by bribing him, it would be by understanding his psychology and exploiting it. In his case, by convincing him that the loyal thing to do was to let the PCs in.

*Bluff would be a lot easier to use successfully than Diplomacy, if the PCs are being honest. Given that the game splits these skills, which arguably is not very realistic, Diplomacy would make the guard like you, but can't be used for direct deception. Ideally the PC would be able to use both skills, the combination of the two would be much more likely to succeed.

At what point did you decide that the guard was unbluffable? At what point did you decide that the guard was competent, completely paying attention and lazer beam focused on his job?

This goes with JC's comment:

I'd prefer a different approach to the game. One that isn't dictated by "what would be cool for the story now?" While those games are fine (and I enjoy them with other genres), it's just not for me in a fantasy setting. It's never felt right. I much prefer a reactive, referee-like style for a GM. I prefer the PCs act within an evolving setting, though, too.

Again, when did you decide that the guard was unbluffable? When did you decide that the diplomat was going to arrive 20 minutes before the PC's? Did you have that time fixed beforehand and that's just the timing that occurred in the game?

Because, if it didn't, then you're just as narrative as I am.

Same with S'mon. If the guard being unbluffable is only as a result of the players trying to bluff the guard, rather than an intrinsic characteristic of this guard, then your game is every bit as narrative as mine is. Just from the other side of the coin.

Whether you change the in-game reality to satisfy the DM's views of plausibility or the player's it doesn't really matter - you're still changing the in-game reality to suit someone's tastes.