Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[Elf Witch]

Maybe this is not the RAW but in our game not all social skills work all the time no matter what you roll.

If the guard is a loyal and more importantly afraid of the King I don't care what your bluff roll is, it is not going to work unless you come up with something really believable.

The same with diplomacy. If the Orc chieftain hates your kind then no matter what you roll he is not going to become your friend though you may convince him not to kill and eat you yet.

The same with intimidate if you have a follower of an evil god and he is far more afraid of what that god will do to him then what you can do to him then it won't work.

I use social skill rolls in my game because not every player can just be glib enough to role play these things out so it helps these players it opens classes up to them.

I believe that the DM should make a judgment call on each situation. I don't think we need a more complicated system.

 

[On Puget Sound]

There are enemies who can't be persuaded, and enemies who can. How far they can be persuaded is up to the GM, not the die rolls.

The prison guard is not going to unlock your cell and let you out, no matter what. He's a prison guard, after all. But he might give you an extra food ration, or put you in with a friend instead of the half-troll mass murderer, or allow some exercise time in the yard, or even a visitor, under the right circumstances. And a smart player will be using that small opening to create a daring escape.

 

[S'mon]

* Personally, I have some issues with this playstyle; it's like asking the players to fight you with boffer swords to win a combat.

As opposed to moving minis around a tactical grid to win a combat.

 

[Starman]

For Diplomacy (possibly the worst offender in 3.x), Rich Burlew, writer of OOTS, came up with a great system that's level-based, but more importantly (from a flavor perspective) also has good modifiers for "making a deal". In that system, Diplomacy isn't "make friends", it's "make a deal". Which means even if you deal with the guard to sneak into the king's chambers once, you're going to have to make it worth his while the next time.

And here's a link for those interested in checking it out. I have also found it helpful.

 

[Aldrick Tanith]

I've been playing D&D for over 30 years now, and have played first 3.5E and now 4E for almost four years now.

One thing I've found is that "social" skills are Bluff, Intimidate & Diplomacy are usually too easy in game. A good Bluff check, and the formerly loyal guard with strict orders is letting the PCs into the castle... a good Intimidate check and the fanatical follower of the Evil Tyrant God is spilling the beans on his group's secret hideout.

I really think these things should be much more difficult.

Sorry but, IMHO, the loyal guard who has strict orders not to let anybody into the castle (under penalty of death) isn't going to suddenly forget his job because a PC rolls a good Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate check and defeats his Will defense or he fails his Will save or whatnot. I mean, if the king finds out, the guard may end up being beheaded and his family also executed. I would think that would put any sort of bluff/intimidate out of reach without magical persuasion.

Similarly, the fanatical follower of Evil God of Tyranny isn't going to give up the location of his secret hideout because a PC says "Boo" to him and rolls a 19 Intimidate check, modified up by X ranks in Intimidate and more through Aid Another. I would think the intimidation of betraying your god and spending an eternity being tortured for that betrayal is worth more than some PC talking to you sternly.

Using magical charm or domination spells is another story. I'm talking about just using the "social" skills.

How do people handle this situations?

Okay, first of all... this should never, ever happen. Imagine that you're approaching a guard post in real life (have you ever entered a military base?). You approach the check point. Normally, you flash your ID and you're let inside. Well, ID Cards and stuff don't typically exist during medieval times, but the premise is very much the same. So, things go something like this...

The Players approach the castle gates. There is a guard posted outside, and several posted on the wall looking down with crossbows.

PC's (to guard at gate): "Ho there! We've strict orders for you to allow us into the castle, straight from the Overlord himself!"

PC (to DM): "Can I roll a bluff check?"

DM (to Player): "No, not yet."

DM (to PC who asked to enter the castle, as the guard): "Huh? I donno what your talking about! We've been given strict orders by the Overlord to hold this castle and not let anyone in who don't come with his personal seal and writ."

PC (to DM): "What... we need the Overlords personal writ and seal to get inside?"

DM (to Player): "Yes. That's what the guard told you."

PC (to guard): "Uh... erm... the Overlord was too busy! He's given us strict orders to enter the castle immediately, and if you don't do it there will be trouble!"

DM (to Player): "Roll an intimidate check."

The intimidate check is successful.

DM (as the guard): "The guard suddenly takes on a look of concern, shifting uneasily. Then says, 'We can't let nobody in without his seal 'tis his own orders, I swear on the Evil God of Tyranny that it is true. I'll get the Captain.'

The guard then taps his sword on the castles stone wall making a loud clanging sound. The head of one of the guards with a crossbow peers down at him, and you hear him muttering, 'Eh? What? What do they want?!'

The guard from down below goes, 'Oi! Grish go get the captain! Some folk here claim the Overlord told 'em to come inside, but they don't have his seal and writ.'

There are murmurs coming from up above that you can't make out, and it appears as if one of the guards - not Grish - leaves to get the Captain."

The players shift uneasily in their seats, the DM grins.

DM (to Players): "Alright, one of the guards has gone off to get the captain. Are you guys going to sit around and wait for him to show up, or are you going to do something else?"

Players discuss it, and then decide they're going to wait.

DM (to all the PC's): "About twenty minutes pass in a long silence. The guard you've intimidated looks uncertain of all of this, mostly confused, but also perhaps fearful of what the Overlord will do to him for disobeying.

Finally, at last you hear commotion behind the gate. You hear the sounds of wood scraping against wood. Six armed guardsmen, swords drawn and ready with menacing glares all focused upon you appear as the door swings open.

You hear commotion from above. Looking up, you see a tall and imposing figure, a man with a well kept black beard streaked with gray and a long scar running down the length of his face. He is better dressed than the other guards, and you make the obvious assumption that this must be the captain.

Next to the captain are four more guards with crossbows drawn - all of them pointed in the direction of you guys."

This is where the DM grins broadly and chuckles, and the players begin to worry about the potential death of their characters.

DM (as the Guard Captain): "You lot had best have a very good reason for attempting to enter this castle. The Overlord has given me strict orders to not allow entry to anyone without his seal and writ. I am told you lack these things. Have I been told false?"

Players (to DM): "When do we get a chance to bluff?!"

DM (to Players): "You can begin bluffing now. You're going to have to convince the Guard Captain that you really were sent by the Overlord without the things he's requesting."

Player (to Guard Captain): "How dare you question us? We've been sent by the Overlord. He was too busy to give us these things that you want, and we have been given strict orders to be allowed entry!"

From this point forward, bluff checks are allowed. Most likely they will fail, and if so, the Guard Captain will order his men to attack. However, diplomacy could also be used in an attempt to seek a middle ground. Perhaps the players rethink their strategy. They attempt to persuade the Guard Captain to give them entry and to send a rider to the Overlord with a message to PROVE their claims. This buys them time.

However, no matter if or how they're successful, they'd be under heavy guard... but it gets them inside the Castle.

Other methods to increase their chances could have been used. For example, had they spent some time spying on the castle rather than riding up to it, they might have seen some of the Evil Overlords men displaying his writ and seal. They could have captured one such group and obtain that seal and writ for themselves, getting past the initial guard without too much trouble.

It's the job of the DM to create obstacles for the players. Anything that is considered an auto-win - regardless of what the rules state - is something that you have the ability to change and SHOULD change.

When it comes to things such as diplomacy, NPC's always have the opportunity to avoid engaging in such matters with the PC's. They can avoid it by choosing to fight, refusing to engage the PC's, or remove themselves from the encounter. Sometimes the NPC simply can't give the PC's what they want, as is the case of the guard above. He didn't have the authority to allow the PC's in without a writ and seal, even after he was intimidated. So he did what anyone in that situation would do: they turned to someone else with the authority, in this case it was the guard captain.

If you desire a more robust social resolution system, I've found someone's blog which has converted the AsoIaF Intrigue System to D&D. I haven't used it, but it could be something you might find useful / helpful to you.

You can view that blog entry here. If you are interested here is the link to the AsoIaF Quick Start Rules (which includes the Intrigue System).

I hope this post has been helpful to you.

 

[Elf Witch]

I remember an incident in my game were the bard/beguiler tried diplomacy on a cleric of ST Cuthbert.

He rolled a natural 20 which in our game is a 30. He was able to get the cleric to back down but not be friendly. There was a behind the screen reason and it was because of the bard's race.

The player was very upset and pulling out the rules. I tried to explain that normally he would have had the guy eating out of his hand but something didn't feel right about the cleric's animosity towards the PC. If the player had bothered to investigate he would have found an important clue of what was going on.

Instead he fumed over it and I got tons of upset emails over the week and finally I relented and just came out and told him why. He was like oh wow that is so cool. Sorry I didn't trust you.

Now when I DM upfront I tell players that good rolls on social skills don't always work and there will always be a reason behind it when they fail or don't get the exact response you want.

 

[NewJeffCT]

The player was very upset and pulling out the rules. I tried to explain that normally he would have had the guy eating out of his hand but something didn't feel right about the cleric's animosity towards the PC. If the player had bothered to investigate he would have found an important clue of what was going on.

Instead he fumed over it and I got tons of upset emails over the week and finally I relented and just came out and told him why. He was like oh wow that is so cool. Sorry I didn't trust you.

Sorry you had to get the upset emails. I think once the DM told me that something didn't feel right, i would have assumed it was something unusual about the cleric - possibly something magical, or that the cleric was more powerful than he or she let on at the time. (If the racial animosity was not common, I likely would not have guessed that at all...)

 

[Elf Witch]

Sorry you had to get the upset emails. I think once the DM told me that something didn't feel right, i would have assumed it was something unusual about the cleric - possibly something magical, or that the cleric was more powerful than he or she let on at the time. (If the racial animosity was not common, I likely would not have guessed that at all...)

In my game the clerics of St Cuthbert are the law. They investigate and bring wrong doers to justice. Now the PC was a spellscale and the clerics had discovered that the majority of the spellscales were involved with Tiamat. Who the party was also fighting her and her agents.

It is why the cleric was so hostile to the PC. If they had investigated they would have found out what was going on with the spellscales, but the player was to focused on the fact that he felt I was nerfing his roll and his skill.

 

[LostSoul]

Social conflicts seem to work pretty well in my game (4e, more or less).

I think there are two reasons it works for me.

1. I use an "action resolution" system; to me, this means that the dice only resolve the outcome of actions that are grounded in the game world. In other words, "I roll Diplomacy" makes no sense and we can't proceed with resolution. That's because I don't know if the player needs to roll, what modifiers would be added to the roll, what the DC would be, and what the outcome of that roll means. All of that depends on what the PC actually says.

2. I use a simple criteria to judge if a roll needs to be made based on what the PC's action is: did what the PC say or do trigger an internal conflict in the NPC? In other words, as I'm playing the NPC, if the player has his or her PC say or do something and I don't know how the NPC will respond, I call for a roll. The roll determines how it shakes out.

The number of successes required is interesting because it leads to more complex interactions and compromises made by opposing sides.

Here are some of the guidelines:

[sblock]1. Conflict
* Only Conflict: This procedure resolves social conflicts between characters. If there isn’t a conflict of interest between characters, do not continue with the procedure.
2. Determine Successes Required
* Reaction Roll Determines NPC Obstinacy: The DM sets the number of successes that are required to resolve the conflict based on the NPC’s disposition. If this is not known, the DM makes a Reaction roll, consulting the table below.

3d6 Roll 
+ Charisma Modifier	Reaction				Successes
4 or less		Extremely hostile, no dialogue possible	--
5-8			Hostile, possible attack		8
9-12			Uncertain, cautious, and wary		6
13-16			Interested in dialogue			4
17+			Looking to make friends			2

3. Declare Actions, Determine Modifiers, Determine DC, Take Action, and Resolve Actions
* Skill Checks: For these steps, use the same procedures outlined in steps 2 through 6 of the Skill Check sub-system.
* Resolve *what the character actually says*, not the outcome of the die roll! This is the most important piece of resolution. A success or failure has no meaning on its own; it is only when combined with the actual words and physical actions of the character that there can be any resolution - and thus the NPC's response. If the player does not describe their action, the NPC can not respond, and resolution will break down.
* Actions Take Any Form: Actions may take any form – physical, social, or even magical. Although this system resolves social conflicts, characters may take any action they want.
* Saying "No": Sometimes the PC will say or do something that makes no sense for the NPC to listen to. There's no way the PC will be able to convince the NPC of what was just said. In these cases, there is no conflict. Think of a social conflict resolving _internal conflicts_ within the NPC; if what the PC says does not trigger some kind of internal conflict, there's no need to roll; just say no. Saying no results in an automatic failure as long as it is the PC's action and is relevant to the context of the ongoing discussion.
* Saying Yes: The flip side to saying no is saying yes. When the PC says or does something that triggers no internal conflict because the _NPC already agrees_, there's no need to roll. Saying yes results in an automatic success as long as it is the PC's action and is relevant to the context of the ongoing discussion.
* Only Players Roll: The players make rolls for PCs who are taking actions. The DM does not roll for the NPCs, though he still declares actions for them.
* Modifiers: Make sure to apply modifiers to both the PC's action and the NPC's defence, as outlined in the Skill Check sub-system.
* DM Advice: Each action should be resolved in the normal manner, with each roll resolving the conflicting actions taken. Remember that, save in the presence of magic or physical compulsion, no character can be forced to do something. The number of successes the PCs need to roll determines the NPC’s obstinacy, so as a DM you have to keep this in mind. You have to give the NPCs something to keep fighting for – something they want - as long as the social conflict carries on.
* Passionate Characters: Social conflict is more rewarding when the characters involved have something they want to fight for. When playing NPCs, the DM should push as hard as possible – without sacrificing characterization – against the PCs.
4. Tally Failures and Successes
* Each Action Carries Risk or Reward: The outcome of each action the characters take, if it resolves some conflict, must have either its success or failure tallied up.
* Keep It Fresh: Try not to have the NPC remain static, using the same line of argument repeatedly. Change your arguments based on how previous actions have been resolved. As the PCs accumulate successes, the NPC becomes more and more amenable to the PC’s suggestions; the reverse is true as the PCs accumulate failures. Make sure you know what the NPC wants and what kind of compromises they are willing to make.
5. Repeat Steps 3 – 4
* Continue to have characters declare actions and tally successes and failures until either the required number of successes (as set in step 2) have been achieved, or 3 failures have occurred.
6. Determine Outcome
* Based on the outcome of the skill challenge - failure or success - determine the actions of the characters involved based on what has been said, promised, or negotiated.
7. Bank XP
* If the conflict resulted in a success for the PCs, Bank the XP to the PCs for overcoming the encounter.[/sblock]

 

[Jimlock]

I think we should all bear in mind, that having "ranks" in any skill, makes one...

...somewhat "good" at what he does.

Having ranks in a social skill, means that the PC/NPC is above average in:

Lying/encouraging/making his point etc... etc..

So when something starts to look a bit to "easy", always keep in mind, that

the character who tries to do, whatever he wants to do, has a certain experience in doing it.

A spy (rogue), lying is what he does. It's only normal that he can manage some

incredible stuff through his lies...

On the other hand the DM is always there to balance things out...