Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[JamesonCourage]

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.

That's not really what's happening here. Your "if they roll, and I tell them how they succeed" is just as much fiat as me saying that a guard believes you when you bluff successfully. Mine is supported by the rules, though, and the players know exactly what to expect. A success with Hussar is more arbitrarily defined than "if the Bluff succeeds, the NPC believes you" is by a long shot.

If you want consistent rules for players to follow, sticking to RAW has that added benefit. I don't think you disagree with me here, but maybe you do.

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

Yeah, no thanks.

I don't see how following the rules and not allowing players to narrate is somehow unfair. If you want, I can ask one or more of my players to voice their opinion here. We can see if they think it's railroading, GM fiat, or unreasonable.

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.

I still don't know where you're getting "let around" to the next objective.

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?

That's slightly amusing, Hussar. Their plan was to impersonate the diplomat in the example we've been using. I say that if they succeed on their Bluff and Disguise checks, they can pull it off. Yes, this reeks of railroading

As always, play what you like

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

I didn't feel grilled, so thanks for handling it with such civility. I do appreciate it.

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.

Thanks, and I don't think you, Hussar, or Lost Soul are bad GMs either, even though we all probably play differently.

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

Yep, went into that.

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.

A friend of 50 years ago. It wasn't hidden knowledge, though it wasn't widespread. So, probably not a hard check, but not one they made.

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)

Even in the example I gave, I said that successful Bluff checks and Disguise checks might get them in.

Let's stick with the same example (pretending to be a diplomat). The guard knows that the diplomat arrived earlier, the king greeted him, and he has orders to let nobody inside. The party shows up and succeeds in a Bluff check ("I'm the diplomat, and these friends are my escort"). The guard has the guard captain fetched, who gets the chancellor, who talks to the king and the diplomat about it. They all get some guards and make it to the gate and talk to the PCs. The PCs make another Bluff check "we're from the nation, we were sent after the diplomat with new knowledge that needs to be discussed immediately and privately." If their Bluff and maybe Disguise checks hold up, they'll probably be let in by the king.

And this is one of the worst case scenarios for the PCs (the example was originally given to show Lost Soul degrees of success and failure).

If the party had beaten the diplomat, as I said, the king would have greeted them, and his Sense Motive is much lower than the chancellor's Sense Motive skill (who wasn't at the gate to meet them). On top of that, they'd have to roll a successful Disguise check, but if that passes, the king will let them in.

This is not taking into account normal circumstances. This entire thread started from the original post, where the OP proposed a situation in which it would be harder. If they go to a castle that isn't ruled by an intimidating king, where guards aren't threatened with their family's death for failure, where there are no threats present, then we have an entirely different picture. The turnip farmer becomes feasible. Pretending to be a servant. Pretending to be a guard. Saying you have a message for someone. These are all reasonable.

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

Hopefully I cleared it up some, but if you want more, let me know.

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.

I've said this already. I've directly said that a successful Disguise check could save their botched plan. Other plans may have worked, such as claiming to be a runner with an urgent message (rather than being the diplomat). There are so many different ways that this could be salvaged or succeed with better conditions.

The fact that by following the rules I'm running a GM fiat, railroady, inferior game where I arbitrarily make things disadvantageous to the players and always rule against them and don't trust them is something that bugs me. These statements are incorrect, uncivil, and inflammatory. I have no idea why Hussar cannot accept the difference in play style and discuss it without using such phrases.

As always, though, play what you like

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.

I think you have a fundamentally different take on what the checks represent than what the rules portray them as.

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.

Only if failure is reasonable.

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

I don't think I can help you with that.

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:

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

Both Bluff and attack rolls state exactly what happens when you make a successful check. You can change the rules if you'd like, but you're still using the same amount of GM adjudication that I am when you narrate how that success plays out.

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

It's not negating any success, as I've shown time and again.

 

[GSHamster]

I still have to formulate responses to some of the posts and the more serious points within.

But tangentially, it occurs to me that reversing the order of arrivals might actually be a more interesting choice. If the PCs arrive first, and convince the guard that they are the ambassadors, at that point they are on a time limit. They have to accomplish their objectives and get out before the "real" ambassadors arrive.

In fact, if I recall correctly, this is the usual method used by spy shows like Alias. The copied person always shows up after, to cause maximum confusion.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I still have to formulate responses to some of the posts and the more serious points within.

But tangentially, it occurs to me that reversing the order of arrivals might actually be a more interesting choice. If the PCs arrive first, and convince the guard that they are the ambassadors, at that point they are on a time limit. They have to accomplish their objectives and get out before the "real" ambassadors arrive.

In fact, if I recall correctly, this is the usual method used by spy shows like Alias. The copied person always shows up after, to cause maximum confusion.

I agree. I mentioned that if they did beat the diplomat to the castle, failing a Bluff check outside the castle might be good for them, as it prevents them from being locked in once the real diplomat arrives.

But, even if it did work that way, I do agree that it'd be interesting.

 

[Hussar]

JamesonCourage - again, by literal interpretation of RAW, you are exactly right. A successful social check only makes the target believe you or changes their attitude. That's true.

So a helpful guard that believes I'm the diplomat still summons the king whereupon I have to make yet more skill checks. So, I succeed and the king believes me. What next? Does the King then let me get on with whatever I was trying to get into the castle for in the first place? Or does the king then lead me to the royal meeting room, where I meet the real Diplomat, necessitating another round of checks and the chamberlain (still more checks) and the King's nephew (yet more checks) until such time as I fail?

My problem here is that your "realistic response" is not objective. It's taking their success, which we both agree that they succeeded, and taking the worst possible interpretation for that success.

I'm not saying that the PC's should get the best possible interpretation every time, but, sheesh, let them actually succeed. All they wanted to do was get past the gate guard. But, in getting past the gate guard, they get sucked into more and more skill checks, that's not a success at all.

I'm not interpreting anything rules wise. The PC's succeeded. The Guard believes their lie. We both agree here.

The guard lets them past because he believes the lie. - Not an unreasonable response that actually validates that success.

The guard calls down the king that leads to an endless succession of yet more skill checks. - A not unreasonable response that negates that success.

My point isn't that it's unreasonable for the guard to call in his superiors. It is reasonable. But, it's not the only reasonable response. Given the choice between two reasonable responses, why not go with the one that actually allows the players choices rather than forces them down a single path?

 

[Krensky]

So, what's the point of bluffing then?

To lie. Well, and to be Distracting in combat. Or any other action that the GM wants to ask for a Bluff check on. But the defined uses are lying and the Distract action.

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.

Now you're back to arguing with the evil GM who traumatized you in your youth. Both Intimidate's Coerce check and Impress's Persuade check are used to convince a character to do something. Lie can provide a synergy bonus to either. A successful Bluff check might also reduce the penalties or provide a Discretionary bonus if it's a really appropriate lie.

For example:
You make your bluff. The guard believes your lie. So he calls for someone to escort you where you need to go in the castle. You're in, but you need to shake the escort in a way that seems natural and accidental.

-or-

You made your Bluff. The guard believes your lie. So he lets you and the turnip cart containing the rest of the party in and points you towards the kitchens.

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.

They did succeed. The problem is you want the Bluff skill to do more then it does.

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?

*sigh*

Once again.

I am not interpreting success as failure.
I am interpreting success as success.

You are interpreting 'I didn't get my way' with 'I failed'. And because of that, the GM is an evil abusive jerk who's leading you around by your nose.

Oh, and I regularly do this, in a sense.

PC: I roll a 18, that should hit the goblin based on past attacks. *Roll* Um, 6 damage.
GM subtracts the goblin's armor's DR. Then he rolls the goblin's damage save, and it makes it.
GM: Your swing is just blocked in the nick of time, the goblin's eyes wide in terror as a drop of blood trickles down the side of it's neck, it's spindly little arms shaking as it holds your sword back with a double grip on it's own.

Hey, this happened in combat last night! Player rolled a 19 and hit. They gave me an action die declaring they were activating the Threat. I handed it back informing him it wasn't a threat. Which told them something about the monster. Granted, this wasn't decided by me on the spot, I purposefully designed the Wrathspawn as a Horror.

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.

Beats me. Probably the same place your statements about us interpreting success and failure and screwing over the players. You beat the guard's opposing check. He believes you. You don't get to dictate how the guard reacts. Why? Because he's not your character. He's the GM's.

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.

That 19 isn't a threat example above? Well the player 'knew' it was a threat. That's what his weapon's stat line says. 19-20. Only he was wrong because he didn't know everything.

You know what? He didn't whine, he didn't complain about the GM railroading or cheating or being a jerk. He just said "Oh, crap. I guess I'll have to roll a 20 next time. Can I spend this die to boost my damage instead?" I told him sure.

He's an experienced player. He knew that roll should have been a threat. So why didn't he argue? Because he's the player and I'm the GM. Same goes when I play in his games. We mutually trust each other to not be douches. HE figured there was some reason the 19 wasn't a threat. He even had a good idea what it was, there aren't that many things that alter the other guy's threat range.

You've obviously had tons of truly horrible experiences with wretched and abusive GMs. You've said as much and your continual interpretation of our statements in the worst possible way supports it. You need to stop conflating those experiences with this discussion.

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, no success was blocked. They didn't fail. They just didn't get the result they wanted. That is not failure. Calling it such is one of the few cases where I will call it player entitlement. I typically detest the term, but complaining that because things didn't go the way you wanted them to is the GM screwing you out of success counts.

Here's the heart of it.

How would you react if the GM says:

"The minstrel comes up and spins a story to you about these being magic beans that grow plants that bear golden peas. * Rolls dice* You completely and totally believe him. You hand him the 3000 silver worth of treasure you've been saving in exchange for three died peas."

I know I'd be a bit upset.

The thing is, what you're saying is the exact same thing. It's the player's dictating what the GM's characters do.

 

[JamesonCourage]

JamesonCourage - again, by literal interpretation of RAW, you are exactly right. A successful social check only makes the target believe you or changes their attitude. That's true.

Yep, glad we agree.

So a helpful guard that believes I'm the diplomat still summons the king whereupon I have to make yet more skill checks. So, I succeed and the king believes me. What next? Does the King then let me get on with whatever I was trying to get into the castle for in the first place? Or does the king then lead me to the royal meeting room, where I meet the real Diplomat, necessitating another round of checks and the chamberlain (still more checks) and the King's nephew (yet more checks) until such time as I fail?

Only if that's reasonable, Hussar. In the example I gave, if they arrive after the diplomat (and succeed in convincing the guard that they're the diplomat, even though he's already shown up), the the king, chancellor, and real diplomat (who are all together discussing business) will get a contingent of guards and meet the party at the gates, to sort this whole thing out.

That's reasonable. If they succeed in some Bluff checks with quick thinking, then the NPCs will believe their bluffs. If their bluffs are reasonable enough that they can complete their goal, then I have no problem with that being the case.

You're looking at one of the worst case scenarios for the PCs, because I specifically gave one to Lost Soul at his request to demonstrate how I use degrees of success and failure in my game. So, things start out bad for them. I am in no way out to get my players.

My problem here is that your "realistic response" is not objective. It's taking their success, which we both agree that they succeeded, and taking the worst possible interpretation for that success.

I think we differ on what they succeeded on. I say they succeeded on the lie (and you and the rules seem to agree with me), but you also seem to think that means they succeeded at manipulating their way into the castle (the goal of their lie). So, while we both agree that they succeeded, we're talking about different things when we say "success".

Additionally, these factors were determined before the PCs acted on it. The date the NPC was to arrive, his background with the king, etc. All of this was not manipulated on the fly to screw over the players.

I'm not saying that the PC's should get the best possible interpretation every time, but, sheesh, let them actually succeed. All they wanted to do was get past the gate guard. But, in getting past the gate guard, they get sucked into more and more skill checks, that's not a success at all.

Well, they can succeed at getting past the gate guard, as I've pointed out over and over and over. If you still don't think I'll let that happen, all I can do is shrug and tell you that my experience at my table trumps yours.

I'm not interpreting anything rules wise. The PC's succeeded. The Guard believes their lie. We both agree here.

Yeah, looks like we do

The guard lets them past because he believes the lie. - Not an unreasonable response that actually validates that success.

The player dictating that is against the rules, and considering the example we're using (the one I provided for Lost Soul), it's unreasonable. If we use the example NewJeffCT used in his original post, it's also likely unreasonable that he just lets you in without some sort of justification. Maybe the bluff is adequate, maybe it isn't. Other factors will really decide this.

The guard calls down the king that leads to an endless succession of yet more skill checks. - A not unreasonable response that negates that success.

Again, you're talking about something that isn't happening, and have referenced it multiple times throughout this thread. There is no "endless succession of yet more skill checks" in any example I've given. In fact, in the example I've given in this very post, it's trying to Bluff the king, diplomat, and chancellor (1 check, opposed by 3 others).

Where you get some of these assumptions is beyond me, especially after I've addressed them time and again.

My point isn't that it's unreasonable for the guard to call in his superiors. It is reasonable. But, it's not the only reasonable response. Given the choice between two reasonable responses, why not go with the one that actually allows the players choices rather than forces them down a single path?

I go with the most reasonable response. The players know to rely on that. To favor the players is akin to fudging rolls, which I don't do (I roll out in the open, and have never owned a DM screen). I don't pull punches. I don't favor them in-game (even if I root for them as a friend). I don't favor their opponents in-game. If a PC dies, I tell the player I'm sorry, and he tells me "it's okay" and we move on. I don't like doing it, but I don't pull punches.

To do what you suggest is fine, but it's too narrative for me. Our style is different. And that's fine. My group is not alone in how we play, and even if we were, it'd be fine.

I've answered these questions many, many times. I've attributed it to play style difference pages ago.

As always, play what you like

 

[LostSoul]

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.

I didn't mean to put words into your mouth, or suggest you were saying that! Sorry if it came out that way.

To me, having players set the DC is the logical end of the players being able to determine the validity of their character's actions. I guess you don't agree. That's cool.

Anyway. Hussar, if I said that you wanted the roll to resolve the character's goal instead of their specific action, would you agree?

 

[Stalker0]

To me, the debate comes down to Bluff as a "lie" skill vs bluff as a "persuade" skill.

Take the following hypothetical. The BBEG goes to the guard and says "Don't let anyone other than me go through this door!"

One of the PCs goes to the guard with a massive outrageous bluff skill.

PC: "I am the second in command, let me through!"

Guard: "Um...you don't look or sound like the second in command, buzz off!"

PC: "I am currently experimenting with the power to change my form, do not question me minion!" (rolls a very high bluff check and succeeds)

Guard: "Oh...I greatly apologize sir! However, the chief said I cannot let anyone else through, not even you"

PC: "I know what he said, but he has sent me down here on important business. I don't have time to waste, so let me through!"

Guard: "Sir, why wouldn't he have told me you were coming?"

PC: "Because the BBEG does not waste time with the likes of you when more important things are going on. He sent me, end of story" (passes another bluff check).


Now....at this point is where I think the road divides for a lot of groups. For some, the bluff checks have answered all of the guards concerns with lies. Therefore, the guard is convinced enough to let the PC through.

The other camp says, the guard believes the lies, but has not been persuaded of anything. That would require a diplomacy check to actually convince the guard to let him through.


Note that a key part here is that the guard does need convincing...specifically because of the BBEGs orders. If the second in command would normally have been allowed in, the bluff checks would have been sufficient (the goal is to convince the guard you are the guy, once that's done, you already have permission).

 

[JamesonCourage]

To me, the debate comes down to Bluff as a "lie" skill vs bluff as a "persuade" skill.

[SNIP full of good stuff]

Note that a key part here is that the guard does need convincing...specifically because of the BBEGs orders. If the second in command would normally have been allowed in, the bluff checks would have been sufficient (the goal is to convince the guard you are the guy, once that's done, you already have permission).

I pretty much agree with this. Thank you for contributing, and I hope that clarifies things. It's just a play style difference, as far as I can tell.

As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

The problem is Stalker0 - and I totally agree with how you have posted things - is that apparently, bluffing the guard isn't enough, nor is diplomacy.

After all, there is no open the gate skill.

According to JamesonCourage, no skill can get that gate to open. The only thing that gets that gate to open is if I press the correct series of buttons in the DM's head and he lets me get in the gate. If I fail to press any of the buttons, then I cannot enter. If I do not press ALL of the buttons, I still cannot enter. In fact, pressing the buttons doesn't actually do anything because it all comes down to the DM making an adjudication that I have apparently convinced him that I should be let in.

At no point does any of my successes actually let me in the gate. It's all up to DM Fiat.

I would say that the basic difference here is, how do you award success. After all, we all agree that the PC's succeeded. They bluffed the guard. The guard believes their lie. Maybe the DM requires a further diplomacy check, that's fine. But, in the example, even if I do that, the guard still calls down the king and I'm screwed.

Now, if any of the following is the result:

For example:
You make your bluff. The guard believes your lie. So he calls for someone to escort you where you need to go in the castle. You're in, but you need to shake the escort in a way that seems natural and accidental.

-or-

You made your Bluff. The guard believes your lie. So he lets you and the turnip cart containing the rest of the party in and points you towards the kitchens.

Then the PC's success ACTUALLY is a success. They get in the door and they are not subject to an endless string of subsequent challenges until they fail. See, both of these examples actually reward success instead of punishing it.

It all comes down to how do you reward success.

Anyway. Hussar, if I said that you wanted the roll to resolve the character's goal instead of their specific action, would you agree?

Not really. My point, and the thing that everyone seems to agree on, is that the PC's have already succeeded. They bluffed the guard, they jumped through the hoops, they got their 12 successes before 3 failures, whatever floats your boat. They succeeded. But, that success is then turned into a failure because the DM decides that their success just isn't quite good enough.

That's where I part company.