Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[S'mon]

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?

I didn't.

Edit: Are you asking me at what point in a hypothetical scenario I would determine the competency & diligence of a castle guard? Well, if this castle were important to the campaign I'd probably have a brief description of what the typical guards were like to refer to, and a typical stat block, and either this guard would be typical, or I might roll a d6 to see if he was more or less competent, diligent etc than the norm. This would all be before any Bluff rolls are made.

I know for instance that in the City State of the Invincible Overlord the Knights who guard the Cryptic Citadel are high level and fanatically loyal, whereas the Constables who patrol the streets are famously corrupt and incompetent.

 

[S'mon]

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.

The DM is not the enemy of the player. This seems to be the heart of your misapprehension.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I'd almost never create an unbluffable guard, certainly not a mortal guard. That doesn't sound like much fun.

But you need to use a reasonable bluff. As noted way upthread, a 'routine' bluff - "Turnip delivery!" is usually much better than an 'exceptional' bluff - "We're the real ambassadors, those other guys who just arrived are dopplegangers!". Either might succeed given a sufficiently high check, but the former is likely to be more effective in getting you inside with minimal supervision.

 

[Elf Witch]

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:



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.

If this was happening in my game I would know if the guards were unbluffable before it ever came to it. It would be in my notes and write up for the castle.

I still don't get this changing in game reality thing you are talking about. If I am the DM and I make the world and I know that the guards are followers of a certain blood cult and fiercely loyal to the king that is the reality of the world.

Which the players could find out if they investigated. Which should tell them that they need a good plan to get in.

There are other ways to get in then just bluffing the guard that you should be let in because you are expected without proof to back it up. Now if you have disguised yourselves, have forged papers then you have a better chance.

Killing, bribing, or simply finding away to take out the usual turnip deliveryman would probably be better.

Finding the secret entrance in from the sewers might work as well.

The thing is this not every plan a party comes up with works. Now if there is no way in at all and the players need to get in then yeah that is crappy DMing.

 

[Krensky]

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?

You're the only one saying they don't.

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.

Again, you assume I or anyone else in the discussion always rules against the players. Obviously you had a lot of traumatic experiences with bad GMs, but you shouldn't use that to assume all GMs are jerks if they don't let the Players run the game.

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?

Again, no one else is saying the DM should always rule against players. Heck, I typically rule for the players.

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?

No. It's how guards, especially military ones, act in my experience. I've don a lot of work in security facilities. Corporate, government, military, etc. While there is a lot of truth to the old chestnut about a clipboard and confidence, getting through checkpoints or past guards is harder.

Also, frankly, it's how almost everyone acts. When something weird comes up at work that's outside of the norm and you know if you decide wrong you're fired, do you just make a guess, or do you go ask your boss?

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?

What's interesting is that you keep reading that when that's not what we're writing.

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?

Yes.

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.

Yes, they made their Bluff check. The guard believes their story. What happens then depends on the guard, the lie, and the circumstances.

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

Yes, I honstly don't know why you think I'm saying anything else. The problem, which I've repeatedly stated and you keep ignoring is that a Bluff check will likely not be enough for several of the examples.

Making the Bluff check means you have lied convincingly enough for the target to believe you. What happens then depends. What are the guards orders? What kind of day is he having? What exactly was the lie? Are the PCs impersonating someone the guard knows? Whether or not I have answers to these written down before hand depends on the context of the encounter. I may know this because I created the world. I may know it because the module tells me. I may not know it and pick something that's reasonable. I may not know it and make a roll on the Mythic Fate Chart.

To use one of the earlier examples about the spy, if the Talker PC makes his Bluff check, the guard believes that the PC is one of the Baron's spies. Now, this is a bit weird since he's never seen or spoken with one and it's strange for them to try and walk in the gate, so he's going to send a runner to the Baron's spymaster, because he may get in trouble for delaying the report, but he and his family will get killed if he's wrong.

Now, if the PCs want to stop that reaction and browbeat the guard into letting them in quietly because they're running late or the that the guard will get in trouble for making them wait, well, that's an Intimidate (Coerce) or a Impress (Persuade) check depending on what the do and say.

I've been completely consistent on this the whole time.

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

That's basically the point. Nobody in this thread (I think) is a proponent of "there's ONLY one way in, and I as a GM will stop it by fiat if I want to."

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.

That's basically my point of view, I think.

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.

Well, not to me at all. If you're deciding what past events happened based on a die roll in the present, it's too narrative for me in a fantasy game. Again, it's not wrong to play that way, but it's not something I enjoy doing. If any roll in the game session really dictates something like "well, it turns out that this guard was the perfect person to bluff, based on the roll!" then it's too narrative for me, personally.

So, again, it comes down to having a die roll determine past events based on current future plans to succeed. If the players can roll at something, and have the dice determine that they were successful because of X retcon, then it bugs me when I know about it. The nice thing is, as a player, it'd be hard for me to spot. I just cannot GM that way and make an engaging game at the same time for my group, and I strongly dislike that 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?

How did you make the jump from these statements to the following statements:

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... how come every single "plausible" result goes against the PC's?... if every single ruling goes against the PC's...

How did you get from "the GM has the final call on plausibility in our games" to "and he always rules against the players?" That leap is where I'm confused.

Did I imagine all that?

Not the statements you've relayed, no.

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.

Then we're all good

People in this thread have actively stated that they don't always rule against the player.

That was always my point - that the DM should not always be the sole determiner of what is plausible.

Well, I think we're going to disagree again, but let's find out.

The GM and the players both have every right to determine what is plausible. I think we're okay so far.

(In my group) The GM gets to say what's plausible in the case of a dispute. I doubt you're okay with that.

However, it does not mean that the player's always lose. They can present their case, and the GM will make the judgment based on his views and theirs.

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

It is give and take, to me. But it's just not as "Hussar's preferred method" as Hussar's table is.

At any rate, play what you like

This goes with JC's comment:

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?

I already talked about all of this:

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).

All of this information is stuff that is set in the setting before the players interact with it.

And, for the record, I've never, ever stated the guard is unbluffable. I've stated he is bluffable. I've just stated that bluffing him may not let you in.

So, really, I've answered these before. I hope this clears it up for you.

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

Looks like that's not the case

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.

And it looks like it's not the case.

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.

If you're saying that me making the world is inherently narrative in style unless it fits nobody's tastes, then fine, I'm narrative in style.

As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Let's try this one last time.

In the Diplomat Impersonation example, why did the PC's fail?

Did they fail because they rolled poorly? - no.
Did they fail because their idea was completely implausible? - no.
Did they fail because they role played poorly? - no.

They failed because the DM predefined the scenario to the point where they had zero chance of success. If they arrived early, the king would be called and they would be caught. If they arrived late, the guard would automatically recognize the deception and they would be caught.

In other words, the PC's failed because they had no chance of success

***Warning Warning Warning - Pure Opinion Ahead - Do Not Take As Anything Other Than One Person's Opinion***

In my mind, this becomes illusion of choice. No matter what the PC's do, the end result is the same. It's all very easy to airmchair quarterback and say, "well, you should have done this" but, in the middle of the game, ideas usually take on a life of their own. The players chose this line of approach because they believed it would work.

But, they were wrong. Not because of anything they did, but because the DM had engineered the situation so that they could not succeed.

I really dislike this approach to DMing. Obviously. I find it intrusive and very heavy handed. It limits the number of results that can come from the scenario. By making the situation impossible, there are any number of results that cannot occur - there is no chance of the "sneaking through the castle" scenario or "how long can we keep this bluff up" scenario. Both of which are exciting and interesting. No, the only result is "Well, our plan failed, let's react to whatever the DM throws at us next."

Again, IMO, the only truly neutral arbiter here is the dice. The dice said the PC's succeeded. Manipulating the results so that success actually means failure is very poor DMing. If they succeeded, LET THEM SUCCEED. Don't Monkey's Paw their successes. It leads to frustration at the table, loss of immersion and frequently railroading or, at the very least, something that's a very close cousin of railroading - illusion of choice.

I hope that makes my position clear.

***End Opinion - Actual facts may be forthcoming later ***

 

[Krensky]

Let's try this one last time.

I doubt it will matter since you appear to keep ignoring people's replies, but sure.

In the Diplomat Impersonation example, why did the PC's fail?

THEY DIDN'T FAIL!

The guard believed them. The guard reacted based on that. That he didn't react the way the PCs wanted is the nature of the game.

Did they fail because they rolled poorly? - no.
Did they fail because their idea was completely implausible? - no.
Did they fail because they role played poorly? - no.

Did they fail at all? - no.
Did something unexpected happen? - yes.
Did the PCs potentially screw up by not preparing properly and choosing the wrong lie or tactic? - yes.
Will the players have fun dancing and trying to fix the situation? - They do at my table. Then again, they actually want a GM. Under your argument, the GM is superflous because the players get to define what a success or failure is.

They failed because the DM predefined the scenario to the point where they had zero chance of success. If they arrived early, the king would be called and they would be caught. If they arrived late, the guard would automatically recognize the deception and they would be caught.

Who said they would be caught? They made their Bluff check. The guard believes their lie. They do not get to dictate how the guard reacts. I don't tell them what their characters do, they don't get to tell me what my NPCs do. Heck, they don't even get full control over their NPCs.

In other words, the PC's failed because they had no chance of success

Again, they didn't fail. The guard believed them. That the guard did not react the way they wanted to his belief is not a failure.

***Warning Warning Warning - Pure Opinion Ahead - Do Not Take As Anything Other Than One Person's Opinion***

In my mind, this becomes illusion of choice. No matter what the PC's do, the end result is the same. It's all very easy to airmchair quarterback and say, "well, you should have done this" but, in the middle of the game, ideas usually take on a life of their own. The players chose this line of approach because they believed it would work.

Then that's their failing. If they believe that, at first level, they can walk into an ancient dragon's lair, call him names, moon him, and then kick his ass, is it the GMs fault when they're slaughtered?

But, they were wrong. Not because of anything they did, but because the DM had engineered the situation so that they could not succeed.

Again, they didn't fail. They made their Bluff check. The guard believed their story.

I really dislike this approach to DMing. Obviously. I find it intrusive and very heavy handed. It limits the number of results that can come from the scenario. By making the situation impossible, there are any number of results that cannot occur - there is no chance of the "sneaking through the castle" scenario or "how long can we keep this bluff up" scenario. Both of which are exciting and interesting. No, the only result is "Well, our plan failed, let's react to whatever the DM throws at us next."

All of those things can and do happen. Honestly, are you actually reading our replies? They succeeded at their Bluff. The guard believes them. What happens then is not under their control.

Again, IMO, the only truly neutral arbiter here is the dice. The dice said the PC's succeeded. Manipulating the results so that success actually means failure is very poor DMing. If they succeeded, LET THEM SUCCEED. Don't Monkey's Paw their successes. It leads to frustration at the table, loss of immersion and frequently railroading or, at the very least, something that's a very close cousin of railroading - illusion of choice.

You're the only one describing it as a failure. They succeeded. There's no Monkey's Paw. There's manipulating the results. There's no railroading. They tried to lie to the guard. They succeeded. There is no evil bad wrong GM here. The players are not in control of the world. NPCs not reacting how the players want is not a railroad.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Let's try this one last time.

I'm willing to discuss this at length, if you'd like. I just don't want to argue.

In the Diplomat Impersonation example, why did the PC's fail?

Let's take a look at it.

Did they fail because they rolled poorly? - no.

Well, they did make skill checks:

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 rolled high enough on their Gather Information to know that a diplomat is coming, and who he is. They didn't roll high enough to know about the personal tie to the king. They are disguised as the diplomat, though, so it's possible that the disguise will hold up on a successful check (though the king get's a bonus to see through it, as usual).

If they rolled higher, then they'd know about the personal connection. As we can see, they rolled high on the Bluff, but not high enough on their investigation checks (Gather Information, Knowledges, talking to sages, etc.).

So, no, they didn't roll high enough here.

Did they fail because their idea was completely implausible? - no.

From their perspective, no. Completely implausible from my perspective? No, but hard to pull off. If they had rolled better on the investigation checks, they would agree, and change their initial plans accordingly.

I know game knowledge that they don't, and I implement that knowledge into how plausible something is, which is why I'm a proponent of the GM being the final arbiter for my group. I'm not telling you which way is better, and especially not which way makes for an objectively "better game".

Did they fail because they role played poorly? - no.

I agree.

They failed because the DM predefined the scenario to the point where they had zero chance of success.

Unfortunately, that's false, as I've indicated throughout the thread, and thoroughly above.

If they arrived early, the king would be called and they would be caught.

Had their Disguise check failed, yes (which it likely would have when the chancellor saw them, but he wasn't at the gates, as I mentioned earlier). But it's possible for them to play it off with a good roll, and a bad roll from the king.

Additionally, had they known of the connection, they would have changed their plans. Just because they are acting on partial information doesn't mean that an action just as plausible as an action with complete information. Gather Information, by description, gives better information based on a scaling DC, much like Knowledge checks.

Check
An evening’s time, a few gold pieces for buying drinks and making friends, and a DC 10 Gather Information check get you a general idea of a city’s major news items, assuming there are no obvious reasons why the information would be withheld. The higher your check result, the better the information.

If you want to find out about a specific rumor, or a specific item, or obtain a map, or do something else along those lines, the DC for the check is 15 to 25, or even higher.

Check
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).

These checks provided them with their information prior to making their plan. They knew the risk of trusting such information before rolling the check, as they know how the skills work.

If they arrived late, the guard would automatically recognize the deception and they would be caught.

No, as I've pointed out, they can convince the guard they are a diplomat:

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 Bluff check is not a "get into the castle" check by the rules, as I've pointed out pages ago. It's simply a check to convince someone whether or not you're telling the truth. They can succeed at that, and convince the guard, but now that he's seen two diplomats, and has orders from the king already, he's going to pass the buck up.

In other words, the PC's failed because they had no chance of success

I hope I've made clear to you why this isn't the case. I'm really not being inconsistent on this, nor am I breaking the rules.

***Warning Warning Warning - Pure Opinion Ahead - Do Not Take As Anything Other Than One Person's Opinion***

Got it

In my mind, this becomes illusion of choice. No matter what the PC's do, the end result is the same.

I'm not telling you not to think that. I am trying to convince you not to, as I think you're misunderstanding the reality of the checks involved.

It's all very easy to airmchair quarterback and say, "well, you should have done this" but, in the middle of the game, ideas usually take on a life of their own. The players chose this line of approach because they believed it would work.

This part is usually true, in my mind.

But, they were wrong. Not because of anything they did, but because the DM had engineered the situation so that they could not succeed.

Again, I'll disagree, for the reasons outlined above.

I really dislike this approach to DMing.

That's why I don't use it

Obviously. I find it intrusive and very heavy handed.

Me too!

It limits the number of results that can come from the scenario. By making the situation impossible, there are any number of results that cannot occur - there is no chance of the "sneaking through the castle" scenario or "how long can we keep this bluff up" scenario. Both of which are exciting and interesting. No, the only result is "Well, our plan failed, let's react to whatever the DM throws at us next."

That is a bummer when someone GMs that way.

Again, IMO, the only truly neutral arbiter here is the dice. The dice said the PC's succeeded.

By the rules, he succeeded in the lie. The guard believes him. Not in any sort of narrative control, though. There is no "get into the castle" check in the rules.

Manipulating the results so that success actually means failure is very poor DMing.

Well, that's not really civil, so let's not go into that.

If they succeeded, LET THEM SUCCEED.

I described a situation in which they did succeed. The lie they told was believed by the guard. If they succeed on the Disguise check, the king will believe them, too. If they had succeeded on the investigation checks, they would know about the personal connection between the diplomat and the king, too. And when the diplomat had arrived. The dice determine the degree of success, and I use that by the rules of the game.

Don't Monkey's Paw their successes. It leads to frustration at the table, loss of immersion and frequently railroading or, at the very least, something that's a very close cousin of railroading - illusion of choice.

If that's your reaction, and your players' reactions, then by all means, run things how you like. That's what I've been advocating all along. I've just been saying that your method is by no means objectively better.

I hope that makes my position clear.

***End Opinion - Actual facts may be forthcoming later ***

It does. And I'm really, really cool with it. I just don't like that there seems to be such misinterpretation of people who play with my method, and that people in this thread have characterized myself or others as railroading, or attributed actions to us that we have never stated we use:

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... how come every single "plausible" result goes against the PC's?... if every single ruling goes against the PC's...

... or that there's a better way for me to play:

I'd argue that if you have good players and a good DM, allowing the players to take actions and then letting the dice determine success or failure, rather than the DM, makes for a better game.

Honestly JamesonCourage, on this point I do think it makes for a better game, period. Just because I think X is better doesn't mean that I think Y is bad. Y could be good, but, X is still better.

These are things I dislike seeing in the thread, for the reasons I've gone into at length. I hope I've made my position clearer, as well.

As always, though, play what you like

 

[Janx]

It might be that the word narrative doesnt' mean the same thing to us. Half of what JC says he does sou ds narrative to me, rather than gamist.

I also think different implementation of the social skills causes some of this disagreement.

I think JC's bluff is watered down. Not his fault. But because of it, how it gets used affects his view point.

I think the OR in the bluff rule is the player's choice. And that success forces the DM to allow them in, and failure means i explain what caused it to fail. I suspect hussar is in this camp.

If i wanted a more dedicated guard, he'd have some sort of bonus to his sense motive. Thus a really skilled PC could get the effect.

What complicates the matter further, is in practical terms, good guards call their supervisor. So success or not, there's a logical complication to the request that might not have been obvious to player or dm.

What counters that, is since the dm controls the nature and severity of all reactions,the dm does have influence on plausibility in ways that avariety of responses are viable. Just like inreal life, some people get away with murder. The dm does NOT have to throw the book at the PC.