Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[JamesonCourage]

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.

Disagreements are so often built on a difference in definition, in my experience.

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.

That's probably true. My Bluff skill is probably watered down compared to how you (and many, many others) probably implement it. But, I've tried to use it this way based on my interpretation of the rules.

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.

Well, even if the OR part is the player's choice, it wouldn't work that way, as written, as far as I can tell. I won't rehash it again unless you want to talk about that, though, as your game at your table is the right way for you to play, if that's what you and your group likes. It kind of makes RAW (and RAI) moot.

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.

I agree.

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.

And that's when I say that the style is too narrative for me, personally. But, it's not the wrong way to play, by any means.

I really like this post, though. Thanks for contributing to the conversation, Janx. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

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.

Potatoes, potahtoes.

The point is, they had a plan and their plan had no chance of success because the DM engineered things so that the plan could not succeed, not because of any failing on their end.

Thus, my whole schpiel on "Don't Monkey's Paw" the players. If they succeed, don't turn their success into a failure. If they go into the Dragon's lair, insult, moon and then proceed to kick its ass, don't turn around and change the rules or the in game reality so that they fail.

"Oh, they succeeded, but, in success, they got captured and hung for impersonating a diplomat" is not generally how most groups measure success.

At least IME.

Obviously, for some here, their mileage varies.

 

[Krensky]

Hussar, are you actually reading the replies?

They had a plan for which they did not prepare. The GM engineered NOTHING. The players screwed up. Their failing was not doing proper prep and assuming Bluff works like Dominate.

There is no Monkey's Paw here. Frankly, it doesn't make much sense anyway, since the Monkey's Paw is about the dangers of greed and messing with dark powers.

No one turned their success into a failure. Complications and surprises are not failure. You keep assuming that anything other then "Go right in." is a failure and the GM being a railroading jerk because he doesn't let the players dictate NPC actions.

"Ok, you succeeded in your Bluff check. You walk past the guard, hunt around palace without incident, find the secret documents and leave." is not generally the way groups want to play.

At least IME.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Potatoes, potahtoes.

The point is, they had a plan and their plan had no chance of success because the DM engineered things so that the plan could not succeed, not because of any failing on their end.

Can you explain to me, based on the information I've given you, how their chance had no chance of success, especially considering I said that it could succeed?

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.

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.

Considering I said that they had initially "failed" some investigation checks (by not hitting DCs high enough to get all the relevant information), and that they could still pull things off (though it would be difficult), I have no idea where you're getting this from. It's like you missed part of my post.

Thus, my whole schpiel on "Don't Monkey's Paw" the players. If they succeed, don't turn their success into a failure. If they go into the Dragon's lair, insult, moon and then proceed to kick its ass, don't turn around and change the rules or the in game reality so that they fail.

I don't. I didn't change anything. I think maybe that's what hasn't been adequately communicated to you. I haven't negated any roll, I've followed the rules. I haven't improvised who will be where on the fly, as that was decided before hand (and indeed, the players tried to capitalize on it). This isn't "turning their success into a failure" by any stretch of the imagination.

"Oh, they succeeded, but, in success, they got captured and hung for impersonating a diplomat" is not generally how most groups measure success.

Again, where did you get this part?

At least IME.

Obviously, for some here, their mileage varies.

We're having different mileage in communication. I feel like you aren't factoring in my replies.

Play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Hussar, are you actually reading the replies?

They had a plan for which they did not prepare. The GM engineered NOTHING. The players screwed up. Their failing was not doing proper prep and assuming Bluff works like Dominate.

There is no Monkey's Paw here. Frankly, it doesn't make much sense anyway, since the Monkey's Paw is about the dangers of greed and messing with dark powers.

No one turned their success into a failure. Complications and surprises are not failure. You keep assuming that anything other then "Go right in." is a failure and the GM being a railroading jerk because he doesn't let the players dictate NPC actions.

"Ok, you succeeded in your Bluff check. You walk past the guard, hunt around palace without incident, find the secret documents and leave." is not generally the way groups want to play.

At least IME.

Wait a second though. My only point was that they should get past the guard. The rest of it would obviously require further checks. In fact, if you swim upthread a ways, I talked exactly about this. I'd deal with this whole thing by making it a skill challenge. Failure with the gate guard still lets you enter the castle, but, subsequent checks would be more difficult.

I think that in this case, the players really had no chance of success. They want to get past the gate guard. They come up with a plausible way to do that - bluff the gate guard that they are someone important. It's not an unreasonable plan. They actually SUCCEED at that plan - their checks were high enough. You even admit that. The guard believes them.

But, then the DM twists the results so that instead of actually succeeding in their attempt, they fail. Thus the Monkey's Paw comment. It's like the old school way of dealing with the Wish spell - yeah, sure you can ask for whatever you want, but, regardless of the source of the wish, the DM is going to screw you over any way he can.

Yes, you are right, your gate guard reaction is reasonable. I totally get that. But, so is letting the PC's past. Both responses are believable. So, why is the DM picking the result that screws the PC's? The PC's succeeded. If they had failed, then fair enough, that's no problem. They tried, they didn't succeed, the gate guard calls the boss and hijinks ensue.

But, and I cannot stress this enough, they didn't fail. They succeeded. IMO, you should never take away a success from the players. If they succeeded, roll with it. See where it takes you. Don't take their success and then manipulate the results so that it's a failure.

I read in a module once, and I cannot for the life of me remember which one, that had advice that has stuck with me. The advice ran something like this: If the PC's come up with a plan that is at least halfway workable, roll with it. It is not your job to nitpick their plans. Let them be in the driver's seat.

Ok, I'm paraphrasing, but, that was the gist. And it's something I've incorporated into my GMing style ever since.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Wait a second though. My only point was that they should get past the guard. The rest of it would obviously require further checks. In fact, if you swim upthread a ways, I talked exactly about this. I'd deal with this whole thing by making it a skill challenge. Failure with the gate guard still lets you enter the castle, but, subsequent checks would be more difficult.

I know you didn't direct this at me, but I'd like to deal with this, unless you think I'm beating a dead horse. I just haven't had a response to my input, so I'll take what I can get.

There is no check in 3.5 to do what you're advocating, which is what I commented on four pages ago. There is no check to "get into the castle" or anything similar.

But, since I'm mainly acquainted with 3.5 (out of D&D), let's look at the d20SRD:

A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell.

This means that the guard will let you in (if it takes 1 round or less), or he'll believe you. It doesn't say the player chooses, nor does it specify if the GM does.

Now, let's look at the modifiers to Sense Motive:

The target wants to believe you. -5
The bluff is believable and doesn’t affect the target much. +0
The bluff is a little hard to believe or puts the target at some risk. +5
The bluff is hard to believe or puts the target at significant risk. +10
The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider. +20

By RAW, there's no rule for "too incredible to consider." Such as the statement, "you can't think." If someone said "you can't think" to an NPC, and the GM then went on to consider this "too incredible to consider," then the GM would give the appropriate bonus / penalty / adjust the DC appropriately. Since, by RAW, that isn't covered.


From the 3.5 Player's Handbook:

A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell. For example, you could use a bluff to put a shopkeeper off guard by saying that his shoes are untied. At best, such a bluff would make the shopkeeper glance down at his shoes. It would not cause him to ignore you and fiddle with his shoes.

This seems to indicate that the shopkeeper is not going to do something out of character. He'll take your information, weigh it, and make his judgment. Just because you want him to ignore you ("A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time [usually 1 round or less]") it doesn't mean he will ("or believes something that you want it to believe").

The guard will believe you're telling the truth. The guard will then make a judgment based on that new information. Unless he has some other reason to trust you (such as knowing you), then he can act on that in many different ways. Just because he believes you when you lie it doesn't mean that he thinks you're correct if that goes against his judgment.

That isn't supported by RAW in 3.5. It just isn't.

But, as always, play what you like

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.

This seems straightforward to me. I'm interested on your interpretation of how a Bluff check, by 3.5 rules, would indicate that the guard lets the PCs into the castle. Maybe if we start there, then we can sort this out quickly.

As always, play what you like

 

[Krensky]

Wait a second though. My only point was that they should get past the guard. The rest of it would obviously require further checks. In fact, if you swim upthread a ways, I talked exactly about this. I'd deal with this whole thing by making it a skill challenge. Failure with the gate guard still lets you enter the castle, but, subsequent checks would be more difficult.

It was an exaggeration, but no more then your position that the guard not letting them in on a single Bluff check. Like I said, they succeeded at the Bluff check. The guard believes them. What happens then depends on the circumstances and the lie. Failure means that plan is blown and it's time for a new one or to improvise. Your 'well they failed, so they get in but their other checks will be harder' is way more railroady then anything I've been advocating.

I think that in this case, the players really had no chance of success. They want to get past the gate guard. They come up with a plausible way to do that - bluff the gate guard that they are someone important. It's not an unreasonable plan. They actually SUCCEED at that plan - their checks were high enough. You even admit that. The guard believes them.

Yes, that's what their success indicates. The guard believed them. What happens then depends on way too many things to go into. Just because the guard believes them does not necessarily mean he lets them in or that he doesn't pass the buck, or summon the Senschal to escort them to the King or whatever. What happens then is up to me as GM.

But, then the DM twists the results so that instead of actually succeeding in their attempt, they fail. Thus the Monkey's Paw comment. It's like the old school way of dealing with the Wish spell - yeah, sure you can ask for whatever you want, but, regardless of the source of the wish, the DM is going to screw you over any way he can.

Succeeding at their Bluff check means the guard believes their lie. Depending on the lie and the circumstances, he may let them in, he may call his boss, he may call for someone to escort them to the meeting room, he may call for a security lock-down because he thinks the people that showed up earlier are spies or assassins. It depends on what's going on at the time.

Ideally, the players did some prep work. They have forged (or maybe the real ones) documents saying who they are. They've dressed the part, perhaps even are wearing disguises. They've ensured the people they're replacing are delayed or indisposed. When they get sent to the meeting, someone, likely posing as a servant, or maybe the "diplomat's" boss's idiot nephew has to go use the jakes and slips away to steal the documents while the con artist/courtier/whatever keeps the Powers That Be busy.

Yes, you are right, your gate guard reaction is reasonable. I totally get that. But, so is letting the PC's past. Both responses are believable. So, why is the DM picking the result that screws the PC's? The PC's succeeded. If they had failed, then fair enough, that's no problem. They tried, they didn't succeed, the gate guard calls the boss and hijinks ensue.

They succeeded, the guard believes them. Him letting them pass may or not be reasonable.

But, and I cannot stress this enough, they didn't fail. They succeeded. IMO, you should never take away a success from the players. If they succeeded, roll with it. See where it takes you. Don't take their success and then manipulate the results so that it's a failure.

That never happened though. They succeeded and the guard believes them. What happens after that has nothing to do with them. It depends upon the situation, the guard, etc. This is why, to me, your position is like what I said about boiling the whole thing to one Bluff check. In the case of the spy and the guard calling his boss it's time for them to convince him otherwise using Intimidate or Impress (read Diplomacy for D&D/PF). For the Diplomats, barring something like their plan not accounting for the real diplomats or whatever, he lets them in and calls for someone to escort them to the Senschal or whatever.

I read in a module once, and I cannot for the life of me remember which one, that had advice that has stuck with me. The advice ran something like this: If the PC's come up with a plan that is at least halfway workable, roll with it. It is not your job to nitpick their plans. Let them be in the driver's seat.

Ok, I'm paraphrasing, but, that was the gist. And it's something I've incorporated into my GMing style ever since.

First, a single Bluff check is not a plan. It's a step in a plan.

Second, the most important GM advice ever:

"The players aren’t your enemies. They’re your entertainment."

If you want to run this sort of thing, you want to emulate a caper movie, or better yet, more specifically Leverage (which feels like a RPG in the first place). Complications and their plans going awry are entertaining. Their tap dancing and improvising is entertaining.

 

[Hussar]

This seems straightforward to me. I'm interested on your interpretation of how a Bluff check, by 3.5 rules, would indicate that the guard lets the PCs into the castle. Maybe if we start there, then we can sort this out quickly.

As always, play what you like

Player: I try to bluff the guard that I am a member of the Diplomat's entourage and I was unavoidably detained. *Rolls*
DM: You succeed. The guard believes you.

Now, how do we go from "The guard believes that you are a member of the diplomat's entourage" to "Well, he believes you, but, he calls his superiors and refuses to let you in, despite the fact that he believes your story."?

I'd also point out that the example has changed quite a lot throughout this thread. It started out simply as "The guard, because his family is threatened, will never allow anyone entrance to the castle" to "Long winded example where there are fifteen different things going on, all colluding to result in the worst possible outcome for the PC's".

Anyway, I've pretty clearly shown, at least to any reasonable degree that there are any number of bluffs that would allow the PC's to enter the castle past the guard. I'm sure that I'll be told, no, these are all unreasonable interpretations and we should continue to cock block our PC's at every turn. Because, as Krensky says, "Their tap dancing and improvising is entertaining."

No thanks. Been there, done that. Having every plan frustrated, every attempt fail, just so the DM can make me "earn" my successes is something I've long grown out of. As JC says, play what you like, but, for my money, I do not like this.

 

[Krensky]

Player: I try to bluff the guard that I am a member of the Diplomat's entourage and I was unavoidably detained. *Rolls*
DM: You succeed. The guard believes you.

Now, how do we go from "The guard believes that you are a member of the diplomat's entourage" to "Well, he believes you, but, he calls his superiors and refuses to let you in, despite the fact that he believes your story."?

Beats me, you're the one saying that. I'd have the guard call someone to escort you to the meeting room or whatever.

I'd also point out that the example has changed quite a lot throughout this thread. It started out simply as "The guard, because his family is threatened, will never allow anyone entrance to the castle" to "Long winded example where there are fifteen different things going on, all colluding to result in the worst possible outcome for the PC's".

You're the one calling "and then..." screwing over the players. In the first, there's likely no reason to consider the guard's reactions, because the Impress or Intimidate check will be incrediby damn hard. If they make the check with a sufficient margin, then he'll let them in. There may be some hemming and hawing and perhaps some more checks if they don't generate enough of a success to shift the guard's Disposition enough. Which is fair because they beat the guard's resistance check, but he still likes or fears them less then he fears the baron. It's also how my rules say those skill checks work.

Anyway, I've pretty clearly shown, at least to any reasonable degree that there are any number of bluffs that would allow the PC's to enter the castle past the guard. I'm sure that I'll be told, no, these are all unreasonable interpretations and we should continue to cock block our PC's at every turn. Because, as Krensky says, "Their tap dancing and improvising is entertaining."

Trust me, it is. They never tell stories about the easy victories the next month. It's when it all goes in the crapper and they get out by the skin of their teeth with fast, effective, entertaining improvisation that they talk about it years later.

Like I said, look at Leverage or The Sting or any caper movie.

Nothing goes to plan and the team has to improvise. If it went perfectly, the story would be boring. While games are different and have different narrative needs and structures then film, television, or literature a lot of the techniques and principles are usable. Hamlet's Hitpoints explained that nicely.

It's like John Wick's Die Hard effect. The players want to be beaten, battered, bruised, and bloody at the end. They also want to win. Part of my job as a GM is to push them as hard and far as I can with plot twists, conflicts, reveals, etc while still positioning them for a triumphant victory.

No thanks. Been there, done that. Having every plan frustrated, every attempt fail, just so the DM can make me "earn" my successes is something I've long grown out of. As JC says, play what you like, but, for my money, I do not like this.

Are you sure you're not just seeing those bad experiences in anyone who doesn't just let the PCs succeed at everything they want and to dictate the world to the GM? You're the only one saying all plans fail, all attempts fail so we can go on a power trip. Bad plans fail because they're bad plans or improperly prepared plans. Nothing more or less. I can understand you being leery of anything that implies the GM actually has power at the table if you've been constantly screwed over by bad ones, but nothing anyone's said here is bad GMing, despite your claims.

Frankly, it's insulting how you keep implying that me, JC, etc are somehow jerks and horrible, evil abusive GMs just because we don't agree with you on how far player agency extends after making a successful skill check.

Now, some GMs are jerks, but in my case, and I'm willing to bet the other GMs responding to you aren't either based on what they've said. If I was the jerk, abusive GM you seem to think I am, I wouldn't have full tables.

By all means though, if you like never having your plans go wrong, the GM rewarding any idea rather then good ones, and the players controlling the NPCs and world instead of the GM, no one's forcing you to play at my or anyone else's table.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Player: I try to bluff the guard that I am a member of the Diplomat's entourage and I was unavoidably detained. *Rolls*
DM: You succeed. The guard believes you.

Awesome.

Now, how do we go from "The guard believes that you are a member of the diplomat's entourage" to "Well, he believes you, but, he calls his superiors and refuses to let you in, despite the fact that he believes your story."?

When Lost Soul asked me for clarification on degrees of success. I'll show you:

I embrace a play style where you roll, even if it doesn't mean anything. Here's another play style difference for us. You roll to show the degree of success.

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?

This is how we ended up from "the guard believes you" to "if you want to see degrees of success, here's an example of it."

Hope that clears that bit up for you.

I'd also point out that the example has changed quite a lot throughout this thread. It started out simply as "The guard, because his family is threatened, will never allow anyone entrance to the castle" to "Long winded example where there are fifteen different things going on, all colluding to result in the worst possible outcome for the PC's".

To answer Lost Soul's inquiry, a new, in-depth example was necessary. He seemed thankful (he XP'd me). The fact that you aren't pleased doesn't bug me, but as that has been the example we've been using, I'll continue to use it unless you want to change the base.

Anyway, I've pretty clearly shown, at least to any reasonable degree that there are any number of bluffs that would allow the PC's to enter the castle past the guard. I'm sure that I'll be told, no, these are all unreasonable interpretations and we should continue to cock block our PC's at every turn. Because, as Krensky says, "Their tap dancing and improvising is entertaining."

You can make reasonable Bluffs, and in the right conditions you can accomplish what you seek out to do. What you don't do by the rules, ever, is make any check that says whether or not you get into the castle.

No thanks. Been there, done that. Having every plan frustrated, every attempt fail, just so the DM can make me "earn" my successes is something I've long grown out of. As JC says, play what you like, but, for my money, I do not like this.

I still hold to "play what you like." I've said repeatedly, I'm not advocating you changing your ways. And I think I've been clear on what I object to in your statements (attributing play styles to me that I don't adhere to, misrepresenting my play style, claiming that your preferred method makes for an objectively "better game" for everyone, etc.).

As always, though, play what you like