Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[LostSoul]

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.

Yeah, that's one way to do it! Using this method and the example of the "paranoid duke" I posted, the Bluff checks might have really high DCs. If the players are the ones who assign the DCs - because they are determining the validity of the approach - you can get issues with challenge-based play.

 

[Hussar]

No one here has advocated that.

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

And yet, every interpretation here has the PC's failing to enter, despite succeeding on their skill checks.

JamesonCourage, that wall of text is beyond my time right now, but, I'll get back to it. On the quick skim through, I think that where the problem lies is that you have broken down "get into the gate" into multiple parts, each of which must be overcome before you gain entrance.

I have no problem with that. So long as, if they overcome those parts, and those parts are actually possible to overcome, they get through the gate. Turning the "Get into the Gate" bit into a de facto skill challenge (even if you don't bother with the rigid 4e structure) is perfectly fine.

My problem is, as you've presented it, no matter what the PC's do, they fail. Successfully bluff the guard and the king is called = fail. Fail to bluff the guard = do not enter = fail.

 

[Krensky]

And yet, every interpretation here has the PC's failing to enter, despite succeeding on their skill checks.

Hussar, seriously?

Are you willfully ignoring what we've written in favor of what you want us to have said?

You almost have to be, because we're not saying that. Everytime you bring it up, we keep telling you that that isn't what we're saying.

Once again:

The PCs made their Bluff check.
The guard believes them.
They succeeded in the check, regardless of what happens then.
Why? Because they rolled to tell a lie. That''s all the check covers. It doesn't mean they get to exert some metagame narrative control over the game. I just means they told a lie successfully.

Read that again. We'll wait.

Now, making the guard believe them does not give them any control or agency over the guard's actions or the world. If they want to directly influence the NPC's actions and convince him to do something specifically, there are skills for that. Bluff is not one of them. It's like saying I'm going to roll a Crafting to jump over a ditch.

Some lies might get them in. Some lies might get them attacked. Some lies might simply complicate things. Determining what the guard (an NPC) does with the information is not up to the players or their view on what is reasonable.

Oh, your counter example? Boring. My players would laugh at me. I can draw months of gaming out of the guard calling for reinforcements and the PCs running and hiding. The PC in question's face appears on wanted posters. The real Merry Prankster shows up, maybe he's amused, maybe he's angry, maybe he just wants to thank the PC for his stupidity and taking the heat off him.

Tons of additional threads and beats.

Yours would result in the guard being knocked out, tied up and the players forgetting about it before the session was over.

I set up my games and scenarios so the PCs have to screw up by the numbers and then make things even worse for them to 'fail'. Why? Because I want them to succeed. I don't necessarily want them to know it while in the thick of it though. I want them convinced I'm out to kill their characters and use their sheets as fire-starters. I revel in joking about my (non-existent) viking hat, laughing like a bad pulp villain, and randomly rolling dice behind my wall of fear and ignorance. It's an act. Hell, my players know me well enough to know it's an act. When they're thinking about it, that is.

You know what though? My players still win. Their characters are bruised. They're battered. They've sacrificed and bled and fought their utmost. They almost died repeatedly. They pulled through in the end, saved the damsel (or boytoy or whatever), spiked the villain's head down the temple steps, and have piles of silver and valuables to spend on ale and whores (or rare books, or whatever).

That is what makes a memorable, exciting campaign.

At least for me and my players.

 

[JamesonCourage]

And yet, every interpretation here has the PC's failing to enter, despite succeeding on their skill checks.

JamesonCourage, that wall of text is beyond my time right now, but, I'll get back to it. On the quick skim through, I think that where the problem lies is that you have broken down "get into the gate" into multiple parts, each of which must be overcome before you gain entrance.

I have no problem with that. So long as, if they overcome those parts, and those parts are actually possible to overcome, they get through the gate. Turning the "Get into the Gate" bit into a de facto skill challenge (even if you don't bother with the rigid 4e structure) is perfectly fine.

My problem is, as you've presented it, no matter what the PC's do, they fail. Successfully bluff the guard and the king is called = fail. Fail to bluff the guard = do not enter = fail.

Hussar, when you do get more time, go and read my quotes from last page, where I specifically say multiple times that they can succeed, and then tell me what you think.

 

[Hussar]

So, what's the point of bluffing then?

If all a bluff does is make someone believe something, but, has zero influence over what they actually do about that belief, then what's the point? Great! I succeeded in my bluff. He believes me. Now, I can actually make the next roll that might actually matter. Oh, wait... that roll didn't matter either since diplomacy doesn't actually make anyone do anything, it only influences reaction... I guess I'll do Intimidate. But, that doesn't make any sense in the context of the game. Well, at least it gets the results that I want. Granted it undoes all the groundwork I previously did with diplomacy and bluff, but, hey, it's the only way I get to actually drive the campaign and not be led around by the nose by the DM.

If your players prefer your way, then, hey, more power to you. To me, and to most of the players I've played with, when they succeed, they actually want to succeed. They don't want the DM turning their successes into failures so that they can "earn" their successes.

Do you do the same thing in combat? When the character hits the target, do you then rule that he actually missed because, well, your opponent is just to fast to be hit by such a slow weapon as a maul? I doubt it. So, why are you interpreting successes out of combat in such a way that they fail?

Yeah, that's one way to do it! Using this method and the example of the "paranoid duke" I posted, the Bluff checks might have really high DCs. If the players are the ones who assign the DCs - because they are determining the validity of the approach - you can get issues with challenge-based play.

Umm, where did this come from? I never said that the players determine DC's. I don't think anyone else did either. The only thing that I said is that once you, the DM, have set the DC and I, the player, have beaten that DC, don't take that success and spin it into a failure.

It might even be that a given choice of action really is impossible. That's fine. At that point, we actually agree LostSoul - don't roll the dice. Or, at least tell the players what's going on. Don't just say, "Hey, I know you just got a really high number on that roll and you know (because you're not a new player) that you succeeded, but, for some reason you fail."

And then sit back and expect the players to start pixel bitching their way into reading your mind as to why they failed.

But, no, at no point do the players get to determine DC's. Although, typically, the DC's will at least be ballparkable by the players if they have any experience with the system.

The bottom line is, if the players actually succeed, LET THEM SUCCEED. Blocking success is frustrating to the players, breaks all immersion and leads to your players giving up on trying things that are not so basic simple that the DM cannot block the success.

 

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by JamesonCourage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Soul
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesonCourage
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?

How does this show that the PC's can succeed. If they fail the roll, they fail. If they succeed, the King is called and they fail. There is NO SUCCESS here.

 

[JamesonCourage]

So, what's the point of bluffing then?

To get an NPC to believe what you're telling him.

If all a bluff does is make someone believe something, but, has zero influence over what they actually do about that belief, then what's the point?

Bluff should affect how somebody acts. It does not dictate how they act. They should process the new information they've received, and act on it as they should reasonably be expected to act.

Great! I succeeded in my bluff. He believes me. Now, I can actually make the next roll that might actually matter.

There is no "get into the castle" check.

Oh, wait... that roll didn't matter either since diplomacy doesn't actually make anyone do anything, it only influences reaction... I guess I'll do Intimidate. But, that doesn't make any sense in the context of the game.

Actually, by the rules, even Intimidate doesn't dictate how NPCs actually act, it just modifies their behavior towards you (just like Diplomacy does).

Well, at least it gets the results that I want. Granted it undoes all the groundwork I previously did with diplomacy and bluff, but, hey, it's the only way I get to actually drive the campaign and not be led around by the nose by the DM.

Again, I don't know where you're getting this. If you could point how I'm advocating leading players around by the nose, I'll address that statement.

If your players prefer your way, then, hey, more power to you. To me, and to most of the players I've played with, when they succeed, they actually want to succeed. They don't want the DM turning their successes into failures so that they can "earn" their successes.

Success on the Bluff check only indicates whether or not the bluff is believed. That's all. Bluff checks are not "get into the castle" checks, and no such checks exist in 3.5, to my knowledge.

Do you do the same thing in combat? When the character hits the target, do you then rule that he actually missed because, well, your opponent is just to fast to be hit by such a slow weapon as a maul? I doubt it.

I do not act that way, you're correct. Just like with the social skills, I play by the rules. This is a pretty straightforward concept.

So, why are you interpreting successes out of combat in such a way that they fail?

They've succeeded in exactly what they've rolled on. Just like a hit in combat would indicate that they probably get a damage roll (unless something wonky is going on, like some sort of class ability that negates damage rolls).

I'm not using GM fiat when I play by the rules in both of these scenarios. Technically, you are when you say a Bluff check equates to PCs being entitled a specific action being taken. But, as always, play what you like

Let me ask you this: as far as I can tell, you're saying that if a player Bluffs, he succeeds, and should be let in. When a player attacks an enemy with the intent to kill it, and he rolls a hit, does he automatically kill it? Because that seems like the equivalent to me, and I doubt you play that way.

And then sit back and expect the players to start pixel bitching their way into reading your mind as to why they failed.

It's not pixel bitching, and I'd once again ask you to cease with the inflammatory terms (ie, pixel bitching, railroading, etc.).

The bottom line is, if the players actually succeed, LET THEM SUCCEED. Blocking success is frustrating to the players, breaks all immersion and leads to your players giving up on trying things that are not so basic simple that the DM cannot block the success.

Again, blanket statements on how all players feel or react are probably unwise.

If the players succeed at what the rules dictate (ie, a Bluff), then I let it succeed. I do not pile unwarranted success on it arbitrarily. The fact that you seem to think that I'm using massive amounts of GM fiat when I follow the rules, once again, baffling. If you want me to go over the 3.5 rules on Bluff again, I can try to explain my point again. I don't think you've given me your interpretation on the Bluff rules yet, other than how you think they should be used. I stated my case here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/5610655-post236.html

As always, though, play what you like

How does this show that the PC's can succeed. If they fail the roll, they fail. If they succeed, the King is called and they fail. There is NO SUCCESS here.

First of all, this was an example to show various levels of success or failure to Lost Soul.

Secondly, if you did read my post on the last page where I pointed out that they can succeed, I indicated that a successful Disguise can fool the king as well. I can grab that quote again if you'd like.

Hope that clears this up.

Play what you like

 

[Hussar]

JamesonCourage

Yeah, so, basically, it's all up to DM fiat since, as you say, strictly going 100% literal on the rules, there is no skill that actually lets the players achieve what they want. There is no "Open the Gate" skill, no skill that actually makes an NPC do anything. So, you feel completely comfortable with taking any success and manipulating it in such a way that your feelings of "realistic" are satisfied and you get to negate any player successes at the same time.

All the while secure in the knowledge that any complaints by the players can simply be met with the rulebook.

Yeah, no thanks.

At this point, we're simply not going to agree here. You are, if you take a 100% literal interpretation of the rules, correct. After all, believing the PC's, being outright helpful to the PC's, none of that actually achieves any of the players goals. They get led around by the nose into your next "objective" interpretation that unsuprisingly results in yet again, the PC's failing.

Secondly, if you did read my post on the last page where I pointed out that they can succeed, I indicated that a successful Disguise can fool the king as well. I can grab that quote again if you'd like.

So, basically, any other choice, except for the one single one you've chosen beforehand will fail, regardless of any rolls to the contrary. How exactly is that not a railroad?

 

[Janx]

I can see what hussar is digging in on. I grilled JC on the example as well.

And yes, parts of the example wouldn't be run the same way if i was gming. But we also got to cut JC some respect that he's not a crap dm.

The diplomat arriving before the pcs was a complucation because the party wasted time.

The party not knowing enough about the diplomat to invalidate him as a candidate was likely a botched gather info check. Though i think close friend of king would have been more widely known than other details about him.

Perhaps a counter example from JC? How COULD the party have socialed their way in (rather than brute force, spells, or climb and stealth rolls)

Since it was his example based on some fragments from a real game,what was a viable social approach?

I think folks have offered alternatives. Can the argument be ended if JC validates that the party chose the wrong point (guard after lockdown posing as known person), and there still was other viable social attack points that could have worked with the right story and die rolls.

 

[Hussar]

I think folks have offered alternatives. Can the argument be ended if JC validates that the party chose the wrong point (guard after lockdown posing as known person), and there still was other viable social attack points that could have worked with the right story and die rolls.

That's not really my issue though to be honest. It's not that there wasn't any other approach possible, it's that an approach that is mostly reasonable is successfully completed - the relevant skill checks are succeeded - but the results are massaged in such a way that success still results in failure.

The justification for this is that success cannot result in anything but whatever the DM deems the appropriate response. There is no "open the gate" check after all. So, the DM takes the success and incorporates it into a response that results in failure for the PC's.

That's my whole problem in a nutshell right there.

It's not that success should equal complete and unqualified success. The combat example where the player wants to kill the baddie is obviously not going to happen. However, I would not negate the PC's successful attack by saying that a "hit" doesn't actually mean you do any damage". Because, strictly by the SRD:

Attack Rolls

An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent.

Your attack roll is 1d20 + your attack bonus with the weapon you’re using. If the result is at least as high as the target’s AC, you hit and deal damage.

it specifically states the effects of hitting an opponent, unlike a skill check which is truthfully, left up to the DM's interpretation.

My beef here is that the idea that the DM's interpretation should be used to negate a success.