Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[Hussar]

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.

Then... why are you arguing with me? What happened to the whole "call the superiors" bit? I've been saying exactly what you've been saying all the way along. At no point did I say it should be easy - although I do think that the OP was making things a bit too hard, or that success should be automatic.

What I've been saying, and it appears that you agree with me, is that if they succeed, then they get in the door. Not, succeed and the guard calls the next guy up in line so you have to do the next set of checks. Not, succeed and the guard calls the king so that you have to do the next set of checks. Not, succeed but automatically fail because the DM has manipulated the timing of events so that you cannot succeed at all.

If you succeed, then you get in the door. What happens after that is a whole 'nother ballgame.

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.

This seems a bit contradictory. If what I want to do is get into the castle, then shouldn't the right conditions and reasonable bluffs allow me to do that?

See, I think this is where the fundamental disconnect is coming from. I don't look at "bluffing the guard" and "getting in the door" as distinct elements. I'm bluffing the guard to get in the door. If I bluff the guard successfully, then I get in the door. End of story AFAIC.

What you seem to be saying is that I can bluff the guard until I'm blue in the face, but, since there is no check I can make to get in the door, it's completely up to the DM's decision as to whether I get in the door or not. I could quite possibly not bluff the guard at all and the DM could still let me in the door. Or, I could be Sun Tsu reincarnated and not get in the door. Again, my entrance has zero to do with me and everything to do with the DM and whatever story he wants to tell.

Why bother having checks at all if my success is entirely dependent on DM fiat?

 

[JamesonCourage]

This seems a bit contradictory. If what I want to do is get into the castle, then shouldn't the right conditions and reasonable bluffs allow me to do that?

Yes. But it's still not a check to get into the castle. It's a Bluff check. With the right conditions, a Bluff check can get a guard to act in such a way that it gets you into a castle. But, again, there's no such thing as a "get into the castle check" as that's not what any skill allows you to do.

See, I think this is where the fundamental disconnect is coming from. I don't look at "bluffing the guard" and "getting in the door" as distinct elements. I'm bluffing the guard to get in the door. If I bluff the guard successfully, then I get in the door. End of story AFAIC.

Not according to the rules. I can go over this a third time if you'd like.

Listen, it's not wrong to play the game the way you do. Many, many other people prefer your method of using Bluff. And that's really, honestly cool with me. But, it's not how the skill works, by the rules. So when I hear that I'm using GM fiat when someone thinks a Bluff check entitles you to get in, I really have to disagree.

What you seem to be saying is that I can bluff the guard until I'm blue in the face, but, since there is no check I can make to get in the door, it's completely up to the DM's decision as to whether I get in the door or not.

Indeed. Though the rules dictate that the guard believes your bluff.

I could quite possibly not bluff the guard at all and the DM could still let me in the door. Or, I could be Sun Tsu reincarnated and not get in the door. Again, my entrance has zero to do with me and everything to do with the DM and whatever story he wants to tell.

Wrong. If the GM is being a neutral arbiter, and isn't being biased, and is playing the referee, etc., then he'll play the guard like a guard, and have him act on new information. The guard that falls for a Bluff check should act in the same way a guard does when you walk up to him: he takes in new information, processes it, and acts based on the new information.

So, if the GM is playing by the rules, then your Bluff check influences the guard. It does not dictate the outcome of that influence outside of how he perceives your bluff.

Why bother having checks at all if my success is entirely dependent on DM fiat?

Your success on your bluff is dependent on your roll. I've shown this a few times. I can point this out in the SRD again if you'd like.

The GM is the arbiter in the game. He runs things. It's his job to process player actions and announce the outcome, whether that's "your Bluff succeeds, so you get let in, here's what's inside" to "your Bluff succeeds, so the guard believes you, so here's how he reacts" and anything in between. The GM is fulfilling that role either way, but the way I've shown is how the rules operate. It is not GM fiat to play that way anymore than your method -which is, to say, not really at all.

If you want me to attempt to show you how Bluff works according to the SRD again, I will. As always, play what you like

 

[Krensky]

Then... why are you arguing with me? What happened to the whole "call the superiors" bit? I've been saying exactly what you've been saying all the way along. At no point did I say it should be easy - although I do think that the OP was making things a bit too hard, or that success should be automatic.

That came up with the earlier example of "I'm a spy for the baron, let me in!". Since this is a weird event, and the baron kills guard who screw up and then kills their families, even if he believes the players he's quite likely to ask someone else to make the decision. The PCs are more then welcome to try to use Impress or Intimidate to change that course of action.

What I've been saying, and it appears that you agree with me, is that if they succeed, then they get in the door. Not, succeed and the guard calls the next guy up in line so you have to do the next set of checks. Not, succeed and the guard calls the king so that you have to do the next set of checks. Not, succeed but automatically fail because the DM has manipulated the timing of events so that you cannot succeed at all.

If you succeed, then you get in the door. What happens after that is a whole 'nother ballgame.

OK. let me try this again.

The players make a Bluff check. They succeed on the check. The guard believes their lie. That is all they have succeeded at. What that means in terms of infiltrating the castle is dependent upon the context. What the lie was, the nature of the guard's bosses, etc.

This seems a bit contradictory. If what I want to do is get into the castle, then shouldn't the right conditions and reasonable bluffs allow me to do that?

See, I think this is where the fundamental disconnect is coming from. I don't look at "bluffing the guard" and "getting in the door" as distinct elements. I'm bluffing the guard to get in the door. If I bluff the guard successfully, then I get in the door. End of story AFAIC.

Bluff is used to lie convincingly. Impress and Intimidate are used to convince someone to do something. Now, this gets slightly blurry as often lying convincingly will result in someone reacting in a predictable manner. "Dude, someone just crashed into your car!" could reasonably be expected to make someone rush to check on their car. Similarly, "We're diplomats here for the summit." can reasonably be expected to cause the guard to have the players escorted to the proper place in the castle.

Why does the GM get to decide this? Because he's the GM. It's his job to decide it. He doesn't get to, as a rule, dictate the actions, feelings or thoughts of the PCs. Similarly, as a rule, the players don't get to dictate any of that for the NPCs or the world at large.

They also don't get to decide what's reasonable because they know less then the GM about what's going on. Perhaps the guard is somewhat important to the scenario so the GM knew ahead of time that he knows the person they're pretending to be. Maybe he's a meat puppet who follos orders exactly regardless of anything else. Whatever. The GM is in possession of all of the facts of the world. He's the source of almost all of them too.

What you seem to be saying is that I can bluff the guard until I'm blue in the face, but, since there is no check I can make to get in the door, it's completely up to the DM's decision as to whether I get in the door or not. I could quite possibly not bluff the guard at all and the DM could still let me in the door. Or, I could be Sun Tsu reincarnated and not get in the door. Again, my entrance has zero to do with me and everything to do with the DM and whatever story he wants to tell.

Why bother having checks at all if my success is entirely dependent on DM fiat?

And now we're back to being evil-bad-wrong abusive GMs. What we've been saying is that a successful Bluff makes the guard believe your lie. The consequences of that belief are dictated by the GM. Why? Because he's the GM.

No one is saying what you claim we are. All we're saying is that Bluff lets you lie convincingly. It does not, directly, let you enter the castle. That can be one of the consequences of succeeding at the check. It might also summon the guard's superior. It might do any of one-hundred and forty-six things that I can't think of without far more information then we need to get into here.

We're not saying the result is dictated by GM whim or fiat. We're saying that your "a successful Bluff lets me in because that was what you wanted to do" is not how we run things, and the rules support our interpretation as strongly as it supports yours. In my specific case it's explicit in the write up for Bluff in my game of choice.

If the players choose the right lie and properly support it the Bluff check will get them into the castle with no entanglements. If they choose the wrong lie, then even if they succeed they might not get what they were looking for.

Let's flip this around a little.

The PCs need to infiltrate castle. They're new in the area and overhear talk at the tavern between some guards about how Baron von Evil invited the Merry Prankster to show up for dinner. They immediately latch onto this and show up at the castle and Bluff the guard so he believes the one of them is the Merry Prankster. Now, the problem is that the guards were joking. The Merry Prankster is a wanted criminal with a huge price on his head for doing pranks and Robin Hood like things and that 'an invitation to dinner' was an euphemism. So the guard panics, screams for help and it all goes pear-shaped. Fast. Now they're on the run, captured, or dead.

Now, admittedly, the PCs are very gullible and naive there, and it's a little contrived, but it's a one paragraph hypothetical example. It's also 0300, so cut me some slack.

From what you're saying, I should let them in without any consequences because the players thought it would be reasonable and it fits their definition of success.

I find that completely counter intuitive for any traditional RPG. Maybe so weird Forge games work that way, but I don't play them nor do I wish to play them.

 

[LostSoul]

Hussar, quick question: if the players can decide what the right course of action is, where does the game's challenge come from?

 

[Hussar]

Hussar, quick question: if the players can decide what the right course of action is, where does the game's challenge come from?

Well, just because they have the right course of action doesn't mean that they automatically succeed. They could still fail the check of course. So, the game's challenge is a combination of coming up with a plan that is believable to the people at the table (or at least reasonably plausible - none of us are professional con artists I think, so, let's not set the bar too high) and then playing through that plan.

If the rolls fail (and the rolls and DC's most certainly can and should be modified by the context of the situation) then the plan fails. They don't get in the door.

If the rolls succeed, then, I believe, that they should be given the success they were expecting. Maybe not exactly the way they were expecting it, but, something that's actually a success.

OTOH, "Sorry, yes I believe you are a member of the diplomatic group, but, you still may not enter" is just the DM taking a success and spinning it into a failure. Where's the challenge in that?

Actually, let me turn the question around. Where is the challenge in a situation where you can never succeed? In JamesonCourage's example, he flat out states that the rolls won't let them succeed. At best, they only fail a little bit or a lot. Under no circumstance will they actually be allowed to succeed.

Apparently because there is no "Open the Gate" skill.

And DM's wonder why players slowly stop attempting anything other than killing everything they meet. Why players stop trying new things after playing for a while. Why would players keep trying new things when new things cannot succeed? Kill everything works. It works almost all the time. Spinning success into failure just leads to players stopping trying.

Let me ask this then. Why is the supposedly "neutral arbiter" DM choosing the results that most disadvantage the PC's? How is the decision arrived at that despite the PC's not actually failing in anything they've done, they still fail being a neutral arbiter?

You guys are absolutely right. D&D does entitle the DM to do what you are saying. You certainly could choose the most disadvantageous result every time. Personally, I don't play that way anymore. It's too antagonistic for one. For another it's needlessly frustrating to the players and discourages any creativity in the future.

The PCs need to infiltrate castle. They're new in the area and overhear talk at the tavern between some guards about how Baron von Evil invited the Merry Prankster to show up for dinner. They immediately latch onto this and show up at the castle and Bluff the guard so he believes the one of them is the Merry Prankster. Now, the problem is that the guards were joking. The Merry Prankster is a wanted criminal with a huge price on his head for doing pranks and Robin Hood like things and that 'an invitation to dinner' was an euphemism. So the guard panics, screams for help and it all goes pear-shaped. Fast. Now they're on the run, captured, or dead.

First off, this would be funny.

But, allowing their success to actually count as a success isn't all that difficult.

PC: HI, I'm the Merry Prankster.
Guard: ((After a successful bluff)) Oh, please don't kill me sir! I'm just a poor guard.
PC: What? Huh? No... wait.
Guard: I'll do anything you want, just don't kill me sir!
PC: Yes! Yes! I'll carve you up if you don't open the gate!
Guard: Right away sir. Anything you say sir.

There, now the bluff succeeded, they got into the gate and they know that their disguise is a really, really bad idea. And, you have the added bonus of just what are they going to do with Mr. Guard now, particularly if your group is a good aligned one.

Isn't that a heck of a lot more fun than:

PC: I'm the Merry Prankster.
DM: Don't even bother rolling. He starts screaming his head off for the guards. They start shooting at you from the walls.
PC: Uh, what? What just happened?
DM: You don't know, they're just shooting at you. Roll for initiative.

Although, to be fair, that second one might be fun. I think the first one would be better, but the second one isn't bad.

But, typically, the next time something like this comes around, you can bet dollars to donuts, they scale the wall and don't bother talking to anyone. One Mass Invisibility and Levitate spell later and they enter the castle without any role play at all.

 

[S'mon]

You certainly could choose the most disadvantageous result every time.

No one here has advocated that.

It's like you're arguing with the Evil Phantom DM in your head.

 

[LostSoul]

Well, just because they have the right course of action doesn't mean that they automatically succeed. They could still fail the check of course. So, the game's challenge is a combination of coming up with a plan that is believable to the people at the table (or at least reasonably plausible - none of us are professional con artists I think, so, let's not set the bar too high) and then playing through that plan.

The problem I have with this approach is that the game is now asking me, as a player, to judge the validity of my actions as well as advocate for my character. Those are conflicting goals! If I want my PC to get what I've decided he wants, I am going to feel a pull to judge my actions as valid. If the validity of my actions is of primary or equal concern, I am less concerned with my PC getting what I've decided he wants - and I've left the arena of the challenge-based game.

Not every game of D&D must be challenge-based, of course. I've been trying to point out what I think are flaws in one technique for challenge-based play.

OTOH, "Sorry, yes I believe you are a member of the diplomatic group, but, you still may not enter" is just the DM taking a success and spinning it into a failure. Where's the challenge in that?

The challenge is one of lateral thinking. You came up with a good plan later on in the post:

But, typically, the next time something like this comes around, you can bet dollars to donuts, they scale the wall and don't bother talking to anyone. One Mass Invisibility and Levitate spell later and they enter the castle without any role play at all.

I would still characterize that as role-play, though not character interaction.

Actually, let me turn the question around. Where is the challenge in a situation where you can never succeed?

You just showed that success is still possible! Maybe not through the front gate, but that's fine. In the case I outlined the guard is a trap - talking to him is only going to get you in more danger. Players who are smart will be able to discover this: assuming that they know the diplomat is coming and matches their PC's description, they should be able to ask someone if the diplomat has arrived yet - someone who works in the castle, perhaps a member of the kitchen staff.

With that information they might be able to get into the castle through the front gate. They could pose as agents of the diplomat, with important news that the diplomat must see. "Highly sensitive stuff, we can't bring it into the castle. For the diplomat's eyes only. Those are our orders." When the diplomat comes, assuming he falls for their bluff, the players deal with the unfolding situation.

Let me ask this then. Why is the supposedly "neutral arbiter" DM choosing the results that most disadvantage the PC's? How is the decision arrived at that despite the PC's not actually failing in anything they've done, they still fail being a neutral arbiter?

Assuming their goal is to get into the castle, they haven't yet failed. Anyway. The DM is setting up a situation and letting the players deal with it. He's not trying to stop them, he's just playing the Duke as a paranoid tyrant.

Once he stops doing that, either advocating for the PCs or against them, the DM is no longer a neutral arbiter and the challenge-based game falls apart.

 

[GSHamster]

The problem I have with this approach is that the game is now asking me, as a player, to judge the validity of my actions as well as advocate for my character. Those are conflicting goals! If I want my PC to get what I've decided he wants, I am going to feel a pull to judge my actions as valid. If the validity of my actions is of primary or equal concern, I am less concerned with my PC getting what I've decided he wants - and I've left the arena of the challenge-based game.

The DM judges the validity of the action by setting the DC. If the DM thinks that it will be very difficult to convince the guard using this approach, she should set the DC correspondingly high, give the guard bonuses for extra factors.

Once the DC is set, the dice determine the success or failure of the gambit. A failure is a failure, and a success is a success.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Hussar, man, I really hope you read this one.

Well, just because they have the right course of action doesn't mean that they automatically succeed. They could still fail the check of course. So, the game's challenge is a combination of coming up with a plan that is believable to the people at the table (or at least reasonably plausible - none of us are professional con artists I think, so, let's not set the bar too high) and then playing through that plan.

We agree here.

If the rolls fail (and the rolls and DC's most certainly can and should be modified by the context of the situation) then the plan fails. They don't get in the door.

And in my version, all it takes are rolls and plausibility.

If the rolls succeed, then, I believe, that they should be given the success they were expecting. Maybe not exactly the way they were expecting it, but, something that's actually a success.

And this is where I said I have multiple problems: it doesn't follow RAW, so the players lose a certain amount of ability to rely on the rules, and it's much too narrative for my style.

It's not wrong to play that way, but the fact that you think I railroad, use GM fiat, and consistently try to screw my friends over is baffling.

OTOH, "Sorry, yes I believe you are a member of the diplomatic group, but, you still may not enter" is just the DM taking a success and spinning it into a failure. Where's the challenge in that?

No, it's not. They only get to roll on one thing: whether or not the lie is believed. If the Bluff check succeeds, then they've succeeds, and I'll play it that way. But, that's the only thing they get to roll on. As they never, ever get to make a check to "get into the castle" or the like, I cannot, by the rules, take that success away by making their Bluff check fail. There may be a time, in fact, where failing your Bluff check is more advantageous than succeeding one is. I'll touch on this later in the post.

Actually, let me turn the question around. Where is the challenge in a situation where you can never succeed?

There's not much of one. But, then again, nobody is advocating this.

In JamesonCourage's example, he flat out states that the rolls won't let them succeed.

Incorrect. Again. I state that they will not just be let in on the first Bluff check. I state that they can indeed succeed. I'll get the quotes for you:

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Hussar, these are all from the last page. I did not have to go digging for these. I've said repeatedly you can succeed in your goal, not just the Bluff check. I've made clear that success is a possibility. Where you keep getting statements like "In JamesonCourage's example, he flat out states that the rolls won't let them succeed" I really have no idea. It just doesn't add up to me.

At best, they only fail a little bit or a lot. Under no circumstance will they actually be allowed to succeed.

If you want, I can link more quotes where I said how they can succeed, but even in the above quotes I talk a little about them being able to succeed better on their investigation checks, as well as them still being able to pull something off with a successful Disguise check to impersonate the diplomat. Really, man.

Apparently because there is no "Open the Gate" skill.

There isn't. In 3.5, there is no skill challenge rule, where successes indicate that something happens, and then you narrate how it happened. That's a fine rule. I spent about a day looking into how I could apply something similar in my game (with no real success), because I really like how it could speed up play, and it reminded me of the extended rolls from WoD.

However, in 3.5, if you follow RAW, or even RAI, in my opinion, then there's just no way to reconcile your interpretation of the rules. "Success as according to Hussar" is much more arbitrary to me than "success in what the skill says you'll succeed in" and that's why I don't prefer it.

However, you are not alone in how you like to play things, and you are not wrong to play that way. Nor is anyone else, really, as long as they're having fun with it. But it's not right for me, it's not right for my group, it's not as fun for us, it's not as immersive for us, it does not make for an objectively "better game" for every group, and it's not RAW (or even RAI as far as I'm concerned). I don't feel bad about playing the way I do, and neither do my players.

Play what you like, though

And DM's wonder why players slowly stop attempting anything other than killing everything they meet. Why players stop trying new things after playing for a while. Why would players keep trying new things when new things cannot succeed? Kill everything works. It works almost all the time. Spinning success into failure just leads to players stopping trying.

I'm sure you've heard me mention it before, but in case you don't recall (as you have no real reason to), but my players might get into one combat encounter every 10 hours of real time. The rest of the time, it's "other solutions" and the like.

My players know that their success or their failure is based on how they roll, and how plausible their actions were. They know exactly how we play. We like exactly how we play. We are not a worse group for it. I am not using GM fiat, I am not railroading, I am not consistently ruling against my players, I am not setting them up for an encounter for which they have no chance of success.

Let me ask this then. Why is the supposedly "neutral arbiter" DM choosing the results that most disadvantage the PC's? How is the decision arrived at that despite the PC's not actually failing in anything they've done, they still fail being a neutral arbiter?

First of all, I don't arbitrarily choose results that are most disadvantageous to the PCs. Where you get the idea that I do, I have no idea. I could make this situation much, much worse. Selowrap, the illusionist with which they have a beef with, could frame them moments before they arrive. Or, the chancellor was at the wall as well to greet them (and he has a much higher Sense Motive). Or, the diplomat arrived 5 minutes after the party, and now the castle is on high alert, with them stuck inside, rather than on the outside. I could go on and on, and I'm just using plausible outcomes, now. I could start using things like "the king has a fever, and in his delusions, he has ordered all soldiers to shoot down anyone who approaches the castle."

Secondly, they could have done much better on their investigation checks. I've touched on this a few times. I can link even more quotes, if you'd like.

You guys are absolutely right. D&D does entitle the DM to do what you are saying. You certainly could choose the most disadvantageous result every time. Personally, I don't play that way anymore. It's too antagonistic for one. For another it's needlessly frustrating to the players and discourages any creativity in the future.

Not only am I not playing as you're describing, but my players are incredibly inventive, and do not seek to use combat first as an option unless their story really calls for it.

First off, this would be funny.

But, allowing their success to actually count as a success isn't all that difficult.

PC: HI, I'm the Merry Prankster.
Guard: ((After a successful bluff)) Oh, please don't kill me sir! I'm just a poor guard.
PC: What? Huh? No... wait.
Guard: I'll do anything you want, just don't kill me sir!
PC: Yes! Yes! I'll carve you up if you don't open the gate!
Guard: Right away sir. Anything you say sir.

There, now the bluff succeeded, they got into the gate and they know that their disguise is a really, really bad idea. And, you have the added bonus of just what are they going to do with Mr. Guard now, particularly if your group is a good aligned one.

There's nothing really wrong with this method, but the guard's reactions hinge on a few factors. How afraid of the king he is, how afraid of the Merry Prankster he is, if his family is on the line, how loyal he is, etc. All of these should factor into his reasoning for any action. If that means that he ends up letting the PCs in, I see no problem with it. But, I think it should be determined by the GM, not by the dice, when playing with my group. The dice dictate whether or not the guard believes you; the GM, who can factor for things the dice can't, decides how he acts. The rules agree with me.

Isn't that a heck of a lot more fun than:

Super subjective.

PC: I'm the Merry Prankster.
DM: Don't even bother rolling. He starts screaming his head off for the guards. They start shooting at you from the walls.
PC: Uh, what? What just happened?
DM: You don't know, they're just shooting at you. Roll for initiative.

I'd still make them roll. The rules show that you need to roll here (making a Bluff check).

Although, to be fair, that second one might be fun. I think the first one would be better, but the second one isn't bad.

And man is that subjective.

But, typically, the next time something like this comes around, you can bet dollars to donuts, they scale the wall and don't bother talking to anyone. One Mass Invisibility and Levitate spell later and they enter the castle without any role play at all.

This is an example of where failing a Bluff check would be advantageous for the party.

PC: I'm the Merry Prankster [fails Bluff check].
Guard: Funny guy. Either tell me your business, or get out of here.

Much better than success on the roll might get you. And, it follows RAW, so the players know what to expect. And, it's less narrative, so it fits our style more.

Secondly, not all groups respond with "more killin'." Mine sure don't. Extrapolating your varied and in-depth experiences to every group and making a statement of what makes for an objectively "better game" doesn't sit well with me when you're using Fun as the measuring stick.

I really don't understand how we're not seeing eye to eye on this. Please read all of the quotes I linked. Maybe that will clear things up.

At any rate, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

The DM judges the validity of the action by setting the DC. If the DM thinks that it will be very difficult to convince the guard using this approach, she should set the DC correspondingly high, give the guard bonuses for extra factors.

Once the DC is set, the dice determine the success or failure of the gambit. A failure is a failure, and a success is a success.

Take a look at this quote and tell me what you think, if you would. I'm curious what your interpretation is.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/5610655-post236.html