Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?

[JamesonCourage]

First off, I think I should just become GSHamster's sock puppet from now on because he's explaining my points much better than I am.

But, that intention is entirely your own interpretation. As you said, the ONLY thing the bluff skill does is cause someone to believe you. Ok, fair enough. The DM then proceeds to have the NPC act on that belief in a manner that the DM feels is consistent.

Ok, I'm still on board.

Cool

The DM has a fair number of possible actions he could choose to take, all of which are consistent (or at least reasonably consistent).

Again, I'm still on board.

Again, cool

The DM chooses the course of actions that is the most disadvantageous to the PC's, not because it's obviously the only sane course of action, but because ... well, I honestly don't understand why. It's not like it's the only plausible course of action.

And, this is where I get bogged down.

But, where did I say I always make things the most disadvantageous to NPCs? Please, point it out to me.

Because I see it time and time again. The DM chooses the most disadvantageous result every single time in the assumption that it's more interesting to constantly throw roadblocks in front of the PC's.

THAT'S what I don't like. Granted, doing it from time to time is perfectly fine. All things in moderation. But, don't pretend that this is something that it's not. You're choosing this interpretation specifically to throw more challenges at the party, not because it's somehow more believable. Because, as this thread has shown, there are any number of other courses you could take that are equally as believable.

I really don't agree. I'm pretty sure that passing the buck up is the most reasonable things the guard can do here, unless he's a little different from your standard castle guard, which wouldn't happen very easily, as the guard captain and chancellor pick their guards very carefully.

And again, where did I say I make things the most disadvantageous to the players they can be?

This is the thing that I really dislike. As GSHamster so rightly points out, if the players succeed at a challenge, then they should be in a better position than they started from.

That is a play style, but it's not supported by the rules. It's not wrong, but it's not universally right for every group.

And, looking at the phylactery example above, that's what I mean by pixel bitching. "You successfully KN Arcana'd the pretty rock. Yup, it could function as a phylactery" and then jumping out with the "AHA GOTCHA!" later on because they didn't go down the list of skills, trying each and every one to make sure that they got all the information.

No, the players were not careful. Period. Very literally, some random guy walked up to them from the street and said, "your friend Gateon is a lich now. If you want to deal with this, his phylactery is inside a box that he carries around on his person." The players asked who he was, he said he was a follower of Vecna and that Gateon had fallen out of favor, and they decided to destroy the lich before he got out of control.

They showed up, killed him, found the box, opened it, asked me if the papers could be the phylactery, destroyed the papers, and took his stuff, then went back to normal activity. There was some talking, trying to get him to repent by letting them kill him and resurrect him, etc., but that's pretty much the extent of how it went down.

They weren't careful, and a lich set them up. One of them died. It's only a "gotcha" insofar as an intelligent, Evil NPC set them up and won.

I mean, after all the points you've raised JC about following the rules, you pretty much abandoned the rules for Forgery. They don't allow you to detect forged objects. Forgery only allows you to produce documents, not objects and detect forged documents, again, not objects.

Since we're being absolutist with RAW and all that.

Let me quote you something about liches:

The most common phylactery is a sealed metal box containing strips of parchment on which magical phrases have been transcribed. Other forms of phylacteries can exist, such as rings, amulets, or similar items.

The base type of phylactery is paper. That'd be opposed by Forgery. I mean, they recognized that it could be a phylactery with Knowledge (arcana), but it's definitely opposed by Forgery.

Since we're being absolutist with RAW and all that

As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

RE: The bushwhacking lich plot

When I am running a game I make a conscious effort to remember that the characters will be doing things "off camera" that the players don't specifically say they are doing.

And I do that as well, as long as they mention it to me that it's their standard. If they have a history of performing an action, or declare that "from now on, we're doing this" then I'll take that as the new standard.

One of those things would be the whole "Examining the phylactery with magic" thing.

In the proposed scenario I would assume that even if the players simply gathered up all the loot in a big bag and never mentioned looking at it at all, at some point in their downtime they would eventually go back through everything inspecting it at greater length.

I would then make a secret D20 Arcana check for all the players who have that skill and give them the "fake" information for the lower DC (Yes, its a phylactery and arcane fingerprints seem to connect it to Steve the lich) and the "real" information for the higher DC (Yes, its a phylactery and arcane fingerprints seem to connect it to Steve the lich, but something about it seems off to you, etc)

I would never in a million years expect or require my players to ask if they can "Make a forgery roll" on a phylactery.

DS

That's a perfectly valid play style. Nothing wrong with it. Again, it does not make for a universally "better game" like Hussar has implied his previous method does. I really can't find fault for you playing a style you enjoy, or in myself for doing the same.

Because, as always, play what you like

I think Hussar's point is that, to the extent that this is true of 3.5, it's a flaw in 3.5's design.

For what it's worth, if I was GMing 3E I would treat Bluff as a persuasion skill. So you'd have three persuasion skills, as in 4e - one for persuasion by deception and fast-talking, one for persuasion by being scary, one for persuasion by being reasonable.

And that's fine to use. It's not RAW, and I'd argue it's not RAI, and it's much more powerful than if you use it by RAW. But, there are many, many people who play Bluff that way (and thus NewJeffCT made this thread). And I'm completely cool with that.

However, Hussar can think it's a flaw, and voice that opinion, but making the claims he has (ie, Hussar's Greatest Hits), like I always make things the most disadvantageous to the players possible, or that there's going to be an endless number of skill checks that they eventually won't win, or that I twist PC success into failure, or that I am playing an inferior game, or that I don't trust my players, or that I railroad, or that I run the game exclusively by GM fiat, etc., really hurt his argument, in my view.

These are not reasoned out arguments, they are assumptions and attacks on me. And while I feel I've been very patient, I find responding to Hussar more and more baffling. It's like my posts go ignored or twisted into something I never said. The things I do say are disregarded. I believe S'mon and Krensky have thought the same thing, this thread.

I think these five quotes capture the main issue here.

Janx makes clearly what I also take to be Hussar's key point - that the GM, in setting up the backstory and determining complications, is having a big influence on the scope of PC action, and in a different sort of way from giving a monster DR or regeneration - it's not just tweaking a dial in some otherwise transparent action resolution mechanic.

That's true.

Krensky mentions resolving the factual question by rolling on the Mythic Fate table. But GSHamster's response to that makes sense to me - the player, by investing PC build resources in the Bluff skill, has declared that s/he want to play a game in which his/her PC wins by (among other things) bluffinf. So instead of rolling on the Mythic Fate chart, why not let the PC's high bluff check settle the issue?

I would let Bluff settle what the guard thinks of the lie, but nothing beyond that. I'd let it affect how he reacted. This is following the rules. It's not railroading. It's not GM fiat. It's a different play style.

[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s concern - that this is, in effect, the player setting the challenge for his/her PC - I think is obviated if the DC is still set by the GM, and any complications that attend the success are also set by the GM. This also answers [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION]'s concern about social skills being too strong.

(On this approach, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s idea that the whole table's sense of reasonableness is relevant would come into play only as a threshold test for a Bluff check being permissible at all, rather than as an element in the resolution of the check once it is agreed that the check can be made.)

And, as I pointed out pages ago, he says that like all the players will agree out of game. I have two players who regularly agree with me, two who will advocate strongly for their PCs and disagree, and one who can be persuaded either way.

On top of that, let's take two scenarios, one favoring the PCs, and one against them.

Good for PCs: The PCs asked a moneylender about a slave ring in a neighboring nation, he directs them to a man they just happen to be hunting, and gives his location. Nobody questions how plausible this is, even though it's incredibly convenient for them.

I know why the moneylender gave them that man's name. He was a human in a nation of troglodytes, and the party is human. The moneylender naturally assumed they'd be more comfortable with a human contact. The players have no idea on my reasoning for this, and thus I'd argue that it makes more sense for the GM to decide plausibility in a dispute (for my group).

Bad for PCs: The PCs try to get into a castle by pretending to be diplomats, but it turns out the diplomat arrived 20 minutes earlier. Nobody in my group questioned how plausible this is, though it's getting questioned here.

I know when the diplomat showed up, why the king personally greeted him at the door, that the chancellor wasn't there, how they'd all react in finding out that there are new diplomats at the door, the orders given to the guard, the standard treatment of the guard, how loyal the guard is, how well trained the guard is, etc. With all of that information, I'd also argue that it makes more sense for the GM to decide plausibility in a dispute (for my group).

I have no problem with the players voicing what they think is plausible, and why. They might change my mind, they might not. But, for the reasons outlined above, it makes the most sense to me (and my players) for the GM to make the final call.

GSHamster also flags the GM being flexible with the timing of events in order to produce an interesting story, rather than the GM holding the events constant and making the players work around that conception of the gameworld. Ron Edwards discusses this sort of case as one relevant piece of data for distinguishing narrativist from simulationist (ie exploration-heavy) play.

Which means that JamesonCourage's concern about making the game too narrativist would apply to both of GSHamster's suggestions. The game would no longer be strictly exploration, because significant elements of the gameworld would be settled as part of the actual adjudication of the situation, by a combination of GM decisions in order to introduce complications, and GM decisions as part of the adjudication of player skill checks.

I think this is a very deep difference in playstyles.

Thank you, I've been saying this since just about the time I came into the thread.

This is true, but how is it to be achieved? And what are the points at which the beating will take place? In particular, who has primary say over what will be the nature of the key challenging situations - the players, or the GM?

Different answers to this experience produce very different play experiences, in my view.

Yep. Neither way is wrong, and hearing that my style makes me play the time of game Hussar thinks it is just baffles me.

As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

In the Lich example (a case of NPC deception): the creator of it mentioned the PCs doing a Knowledge check to identify the phylactery.

JS goes on about how that skill wouldn't reveal the answer.

In all of these discussions, is each of us NOT taking the time to verify the intent of the writer, and instead sticking to an interpretation of what they said?

The author could have meant "made appropriate checks to find the phylactery". But because he said a skill name, JC seems to have taken him literally. Which then shapes his response.

I don't like the term "author" for obvious reasons

At any rate, if the PCs say "I want to make sure it's real" then I'll give them all tests they'd reasonably think of, and some they wouldn't (if PC skill knowledge eclipses player knowledge). If they just ask "could this be the phylactery?" then that's what I'll give them.

They want to if this could be it. I tell them which lets them know if the object could be the phylactery. That's all. I let them run their character. If they ask if there's a way to test it, or say "I'm going to test it any way I know how" or some such, then I apply a broad brush, but not before that.

the premise that each success should move me forward should still be valid. Each hit on an enemy reduces his HP, making him closer to dead (my apparent goal). Obviously, when my goal is misguided (wrong person to be killing), I've got a different problem. But in the microcosm of 'killing this NPC", the sucess is still valid. That I've got the wrong man is a different problem, which will reveal itself an encounter or two down the road.

I agree here. Just like the Bluff check is whether or not somebody will believe you (the apparent goal). That you have the wrong bluff is a different problem.

Listen, I know what you're getting at, but that's a distinct play style. It's not wrong, but neither is following the rules, and playing by them, especially if the players and GM prefer it.

What the phylactery and gate house pose is, how does a GM fairly hide the information and fairly reveal the information. Note, I have no specific meaning on "fair" in terms of GMing. I suppose it means that there is a way of truly succeeding that is discernable via reasonable methods in game.

Since the social skills tend to be about PCs manipulating and decieving NPCs, and the phylactery example are about an NPC manipulating and decieving PCs, they are relevant in arbitration similarities.

With the gatehouse, the PCs make some gather info checks to inform them of the security conditions, opportunities and vulnerabilities. Apparently they rolled low. they also dickered around, so the GM made the situation more complicated. The net effect was, they never should have gone for the guard.

Well, they could still go for the guard, but being the diplomat was the wrong tactic. Saying they're runners with important information, or the like, would be much more acceptable than "we're the diplomat that's already here."

With the phylactery, the lich made a fake. That's a forgery. Phylactery's are known to be a hidden item because of their vulnerability. So the PCs are going to be inspecting EVERY item they find. So once the correct skills/spellss to use are identified, they roll. Their might find no phylactery, find the fake and fall for it or not, find the real one.

JC's counter to the scenario seemed to imply they find the fake, and don't realize they are carrying the real one. It assumes a certain search order through the loot and that they STOP when they misidentify the fake. And that they don't do further tests (because the example didn't say).

Player: "Do we see a box on him?"
Me: "Yes, he dropped it when the last attack took him down."
Player: "I'm going to pry it open. Does it look like it could be a phylactery?"
Me: "Roll your Knowledge check."
Player: "31."
Me: "It fits the description of what a phylactery could look like, yes."
Player: "I'm going to destroy the papers, and then the box."
Me: "Done."

And that was that. No inspecting his gear. No looking for traps. No Detect Magic or Detect Evil. That's all it was. Just "we gather his stuff, and move back to camp with Teleport."

As I said, they weren't careful. It cost them. If they had said "we look for the phylactery" then that's another matter. They singled out the box, because the NPC tipped them off to it (a lackey of the lich, turns out).

Do you make your party roll these skill checks per item, or for the entire pile?

If you make them roll for the entire pile (as in searching the entire pile for the 1 expected phylactery), then failure means they find NO phylactery, or they fall for the fake phylactery. Success means they identify the fake as fake, and MIGHT find the real one (if the roll is high enough).

Its possible, just using 1 die roll can arbitrate the whole mess. Or the GM could make the party roll per item (despite that for 10 items, 8 rolls are meaningless).

I'd probably have them inspect everything separately. A blanket search would be made, but Knowledge checks and the like would all be made separately.

Another way to look at the gatehouse, was that if it was combat, and combats take an average of 6 rounds per. There would be a whole lot of dice rolling to kill your way into the castle. It takes a few checks for Climb to go over the wall. A few checks for stealth to sneak in.

I suspect then, that requiring a few checks to social your way in would count as fair play. Though it is fair to assume the Gather Info and Disguise checks to assist in this con count towards that # of die rolls required expectation.

Except that there are no rules on this. There is no expected number of successes to succeed in combat, much less in any other situation. 4e implemented the skill challenge system, but it's not in 3.5.

In the case of the gatehouse guard, the PCs chose the wrong time and target. Posing as diplomats had too many catches, higher DC and probably get you passed up the chain.

Posing as turnip delivery = lower DC and probably get you into the kitchen and ignored during the hustle and bustle.

In real life, it REALLY is that easy to get past the right guard with the right simple story.

A better lie (such as someone besides the diplomat) would have gone over better, in all likelihood.

I assume most folks don't want the rules to allow a ridiculous lie told to the wrong NPC to be allowed to work because the PC went all munchkin on his social skills.

I'd assume that as well, but I don't know. I just know what my group thinks, and what I can try to piece together from these boards.

There's a castle with 2 locked doors. One leads into the quiet kitchen, where nobody's at because supper is over. The other leads to the guard house before rest of the castle, which is chock full of guards. The kitchen lock is of poor quality and easy to pick.

If the PC goes for the kitchen door, it's easy to get in (roll a succes).
If the PC goes for the guard house door, it's a harder lock and IF he picks it, he just walked into a room full of guards.

Assuming the PC is a master lockpicker, one door leads to success, one door leads to more trouble (failure). Who's at fault? The GM or the PC?

I'd say the PC, in this example, for trying to go into a room full of guards.

This example is intened to be a parallel to the social attempt to Bluff the guard. If the PC goes to the harder door, I think the player has some culpability. If the GM negated any means of gaining intel (refusing any attempts and making both doors of equal nature), then it's the GM's fault.

Only if the intel can be gathered. If he arbitrarily stopped it from getting leaked, I agree.

As to should the Bluff not engender belief, but also action, it probably depends on the nature of the presented truth. Certainly, that's what the liar intends to happen. When I bluff in poker, I am trying to get you to react as though you KNOW I have the cards I am PRETENDING to have. When I lie to my parents, I am trying to NOT get punished for doing what i did.

By the rules, that's not how it works, really. Only the short term bluff can cause an NPC to act a specific way, and it's limited in use. I can link it again if you'd like.

A case could be argued, that if the guard's reaction to somebody showing up at the gate is to call his supervisor regardless, then he is in effect, unbluffable. If his reaction is identical to whether he believes or not, then the roll was a waste of time. If the difference is that when the boss shows up and he BELIEVES the lie, then how he presents them to his boss might affect the bluff to the supervisor. If I show up at the gate and my underling says "these guys CLAIM to be the diplomats" versus, "these diplomats showed up, their papers appear to be in order". That subtle difference acts as an influence on the supervisor who makes the final call.

and this is where more DM fiat comes in, the supervisor might believe the bluff, but be stuck with the 'no entry after 10pm" rule. He might say, "hey, I'm sorry but we're not permitting entry after 10PM. I know, it's late, you guys are tired. Here's a note to the innkeeper at the Weary Arms. He'll put you guys up for the night, and if you come back tomorrow and ask for me, I'll make sure your not hassled again."

Depending on the circumstances, this is all very reasonable to me.

Here's what happened:
I just denied immediate access to the castle, as that wouldn't make sense
I left an open for them to get in tomorrow with minimal fuss
I did not escalate this further up the chain to cause more skill checks (which one will inevitably fail).

The ball is still in the PCs court. the skill checks suceeded, so no alarms have been raised. The party has a chance to back out or move forward. If the party has an urgent need to get in TONIGHT, once they leave the gate, they are free to pursue a new strategy.

I have no problem with this. I have a problem with fudging in PC favor, but if this is the reasonable response, then it's all good.

Also, I see you included Hussar's "more skill check chain which the PCs will inevitably fail!" argument, which has never been advocated.

On the topic of DM Fiat, which gets thrown around like a swear word, I think its important for all GMs to realize that they are making this stuff up. every bit of it. Whether you wrote it down before the game, or made it up on the spot, it is made up. And while the consequences for any PC action might seem logical, and in a way they are, for each action, there are a multitude of logical and varying responses.

Yep. Like I told Hussar, it's really no different than him dictating how the PCs succeed.

Personally, I believe responses that make things harder or more complicated should be used when the PCs make a mistake or choose poorly. it usually beats outright killing them, as well. I also use them as a plot device, when what I've designed was deliberately 'simple' and the complication is what makes it level appropriate. I'm a bit wary of making situations complicated for the sake of being complicated, as I find making it too hard is too easy.

To me, the PCs made a mistake by impersonating the diplomat, which they did based on failed investigation checks. Had they had that information, then they would have changed their plans. I think that speaks to the plausibility of the action in the player's eyes.

As always, play what you like

 

[Janx]

I don't like the term "author" for obvious reasons

By author, I meant the person who posted the example here, which at the time I couldn't remember. Now I see it is you on page 19.

At any rate, if the PCs say "I want to make sure it's real" then I'll give them all tests they'd reasonably think of, and some they wouldn't (if PC skill knowledge eclipses player knowledge). If they just ask "could this be the phylactery?" then that's what I'll give them.

As long as there are some trigger words the players can say that get the DM to expound upon the objects and clue in that more checks are possible. If the players have to play "guess the secret skill check" with no clues, that's probably not fair. If the players express any indication that they examine the objects and the GM asks open questions like "what all do you examine, or what are you looking for" Then I think the players can get the chance they need without resorting to game speak and having to say the exact skill needed.
[/quote]

I agree here. Just like the Bluff check is whether or not somebody will believe you (the apparent goal). That you have the wrong bluff is a different problem.

Listen, I know what you're getting at, but that's a distinct play style. It's not wrong, but neither is following the rules, and playing by them, especially if the players and GM prefer it.

I think the challenge here is that JC's examples show his players making mistakes and getting problems for it. Which somehow makes it look fishy.

I don't think JC should give examples anymore

I kid, he can do whatever he wants. But I think the conversation has been:
"social skills are too powerful"
"no they're not, look how my players failed"
"you just screwed your players"
"no I didn't, they're idiots!"

I suspect they right answers is, JC screwed his players because they screwed up.

Also, I see you included Hussar's "more skill check chain which the PCs will inevitably fail!" argument, which has never been advocated.

Supposedly, I see two sides to the problem. Hussar's not on crack that the more skill checks you make him make, eventually he will fail. It's actually a trick I employ in Dread, the jenga RPG game. If I make you make more skill checks, the odds are better that one of them will fail.

So I'm throwing him a bone, to indicate that the bluff's success could be handled that the PC didn't fail, but in fact avoided deeper trouble. He's not wrong that making somebody do more skill checks increases their risk of failure.

I think the angle that JC specifically did so to block the party may be a bit much. It's not nice, and it assumes the worst about JC, rather than that other extenuating circumstances (that his players weren't careful, and I mean that in the nicest way possible).

It sounds like JC gave them some rope to hang themselves with. They could have avoided the trouble.

So, moving on, are social skills too easy?

for JC, apparently not.

for those who let a single skill check bypass an encounter, quite possibly, given how easy it is to pump those skills.

I also suspect that the skills were not intended for un-roleplayed use. You can't say "I Bluff the guard, got a 19!" and make the GM figure out the result (because in that style game, he is stuck figuring out what you could have done to "win").

Conversly, when I have to declare what my bluff is "I'm the diplomat". the GM only resolves what my success means. It then means, I might still make a tactical mistake in the social engineering (by choosing the wrong person).

I like roleplaying, so i prefer everybody say what they're going to do, rather than hammer at the GM with skill checks. it also puts in a tactical layer to the social aspect. Who you impersonate, and what you say are your weapons and moves in the social skills game.

 

[JamesonCourage]

By author, I meant the person who posted the example here, which at the time I couldn't remember. Now I see it is you on page 19.

Alrighty then

As long as there are some trigger words the players can say that get the DM to expound upon the objects and clue in that more checks are possible. If the players have to play "guess the secret skill check" with no clues, that's probably not fair. If the players express any indication that they examine the objects and the GM asks open questions like "what all do you examine, or what are you looking for" Then I think the players can get the chance they need without resorting to game speak and having to say the exact skill needed.

They players can say "I want to make sure it's not fake" and I'll give them every check that's reasonable and applicable. If they don't say they want to check it, however, then I don't give it to them for free.

I think the challenge here is that JC's examples show his players making mistakes and getting problems for it. Which somehow makes it look fishy.

You do know I'm JC, right?

I don't think JC should give examples anymore

Haha, maybe you're right

I kid, he can do whatever he wants. But I think the conversation has been:
"social skills are too powerful"
"no they're not, look how my players failed"
"you just screwed your players"
"no I didn't, they're idiots!"

I suspect they right answers is, JC screwed his players because they screwed up.

Indeed. If the players make a tactical mistake, I don't negate it with simply high rolls. This includes both combat and social encounters.

Supposedly, I see two sides to the problem. Hussar's not on crack that the more skill checks you make him make, eventually he will fail. It's actually a trick I employ in Dread, the jenga RPG game. If I make you make more skill checks, the odds are better that one of them will fail.

So I'm throwing him a bone, to indicate that the bluff's success could be handled that the PC didn't fail, but in fact avoided deeper trouble. He's not wrong that making somebody do more skill checks increases their risk of failure.

No, he's not wrong. However, he's said that if the guard passes the buck up, then the PCs therefore engage in a chain of skill checks that only ends once the PCs fail. That's false, and I don't know where he got it.

I think the angle that JC specifically did so to block the party may be a bit much. It's not nice, and it assumes the worst about JC, rather than that other extenuating circumstances (that his players weren't careful, and I mean that in the nicest way possible).

It sounds like JC gave them some rope to hang themselves with. They could have avoided the trouble.

Maybe you don't know I'm JC

The players have a very real chance of messing up tactically and socially. I had a level 8 party attack a group of about 20 level 2 fighters once. The party was on the ground, at the base of a mountain. The level 2 fighters were on a steep incline, waiting to ambush them. They had barrels of slick grease, crossbows, and the like, and they used that tactical advantage to devastating effect against the party (the party had to retreat, and 3 out of 5 PCs were bleeding out, but were healed in time).

Just like in combat, players can make bad social decisions. Impersonating the diplomat turned out to be such a decision. And I don't know why I have to say it again, but many other tactics could have worked there. The PCs screwed up, and it got them into some trouble, just like with the level 2 fighters on the mountainside.

So, moving on, are social skills too easy?

for JC, apparently not.

Well, in 3.5, I think they are. I changed them in my game. That is, I changed Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. They're all different, because I saw problems with all of them. But, I also completely gutted Craft, etc., so I'm pretty picky.

for those who let a single skill check bypass an encounter, quite possibly, given how easy it is to pump those skills.

Which is why I think playing by RAW is the counter balance. But, that's my personal opinion, and by no means do I think it should extend to every table.

I also suspect that the skills were not intended for un-roleplayed use. You can't say "I Bluff the guard, got a 19!" and make the GM figure out the result (because in that style game, he is stuck figuring out what you could have done to "win").

Exactly.

Conversly, when I have to declare what my bluff is "I'm the diplomat". the GM only resolves what my success means. It then means, I might still make a tactical mistake in the social engineering (by choosing the wrong person).

Exactly

I like roleplaying, so i prefer everybody say what they're going to do, rather than hammer at the GM with skill checks. it also puts in a tactical layer to the social aspect. Who you impersonate, and what you say are your weapons and moves in the social skills game.

I agree with this, really. Social skills, like Bluff, are only tools in seeing how successful you are, but player decision and tactics, be they in combat or social encounters, makes a huge difference.

As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

the premise that each success should move me forward should still be valid. Each hit on an enemy reduces his HP, making him closer to dead (my apparent goal). Obviously, when my goal is misguided (wrong person to be killing), I've got a different problem. But in the microcosm of 'killing this NPC", the sucess is still valid. That I've got the wrong man is a different problem, which will reveal itself an encounter or two down the road.

It doesn't push them further to victory. It pushes them further towards killing their opponent with is not a necessary requirment of victory.

I said "towards the goal, of victory by their PCs in the combat" - in Janx's terms, this is success within the microcosm of the immediate conflict, ie the combat.

In the bluff guard, what's the relevant microcosm? Making the guard believe the untruth? Or having the guard act a certain way in respect of it? In my experience, normally the latter.

What I was using the Fate Chart for was to decide the guard's response if I was drawing a blank.

I know. My point was, Why not use the player's successful Bluff check instead? Ie why not treat that check as having a metagame as well as an ingame significance?

The only answer given to this, so far, in this thread, has been from JamesonCourage, who has said it's too narrativist an approach.

In the case of the gatehouse guard, the PCs chose the wrong time and target. Posing as diplomats had too many catches, higher DC and probably get you passed up the chain.

Posing as turnip delivery = lower DC and probably get you into the kitchen and ignored during the hustle and bustle.

This gives rise to another playstyle issue (related to the one I flagged quite a way upthread, of "gritty" vs "gonzo").

What's more fun - to pretend to be a turnip deliverer, or a diplomat? And which of these is more viable, overall for a first level knigh? a 9th level wizard? a 12th level thief? Does the castle have aura reading or detect magic? If it does, a high level PC would do better posing as a diplomat than a farmer.

There are a lot of variables here. Even if the turnip farmer is the most realistic in some realworld situations, it may not be the best way to push in game, for a range of reasons. (Including consequences - discovery and a resulting showdown in the throne room might be more exciting than discovery and a resulting showdown in the kitchen.)

Which makes it much more powerful.

Well, yes, but is this a flip of the switch from "good" to "overpowered", or from "mostly useless" to "good"? In my personal play experience with social skills, I think it's the latter.

So, moving on, are social skills too easy?

for JC, apparently not.

for those who let a single skill check bypass an encounter, quite possibly, given how easy it is to pump those skills.

I also suspect that the skills were not intended for un-roleplayed use. You can't say "I Bluff the guard, got a 19!" and make the GM figure out the result (because in that style game, he is stuck figuring out what you could have done to "win").

I agree about the need for some description - if the GM doesn't know what the PC is doing, s/he can't adjudicate the outcome.

As to "bypassing" encounters - whether or not that is a problem depends heavily on the preferences of those at the table. After all, one way of railroading can be to prevent the players' bypassing encounters. And for some players, bluffing the guard isn't bypassing an encounter but engaging with it and succeeding at it.

It's still the GMs job to determine the challenges, arbiter the results, make sure everyone is having fun, and move the game along.

Why?

Because that's what the GM does.

But this only gives rise to the question, what is the GM's role in relation to moving the game along? Different posters in this thread clearly have different views on that.

 

[pemerton]

That could be true. A big question is how does the DM determine what the DC is? Another question is what is the nature of the challenge - that is, how do players overcome it?

Could you elaborate on what you've got in mind with these questions?

As for setting the DC - I tend to use the 4e tables, with a level determined by the monster in question, or considerations of adventure or XP pacing (ie a lower level will make it easier, a higher level more significant and challenging).

As for means of overcoming - provided it looks tenable within the parameters of gonzo fantasy, and provided that it doesn' tread on the mechanical toes of an ability that someone has paid points for (eg using page 42 to try and get something better than another PC's daily power, without any commensurate trade off), I tend to be pretty relaxed about it.

Here are a couple of actual play examples (although the social challenge is against a bear rather than a person). You can see me get hauled over the coals by those with more simulationist sensibilities, and with a more robust sense of verisimilitude!

 

[Krensky]

I said "towards the goal, of victory by their PCs in the combat" - in Janx's terms, this is success within the microcosm of the immediate conflict, ie the combat.

In the bluff guard, what's the relevant microcosm? Making the guard believe the untruth? Or having the guard act a certain way in respect of it? In my experience, normally the latter.

To me it's obvious they wanted the former. Why? Because they chose a skill that does that. If they wanted to influence the guard's actions, they should have chosen a skill that, I don't know, influences the guard's actions. Like... wow... Impress or Influence! Hey, I'd even give them synergy for their Bluff skill and let other party members use Bluff or any other relevant skill to help the Talker (yes, Talker's a role in my game) out.

I know. My point was, Why not use the player's successful Bluff check instead? Ie why not treat that check as having a metagame as well as an ingame significance?

In that way lies Forge inspired madness. The rules say Bluff is for lying. They also say Intimidate and Impress are for influencing others actions and opinions of you. I tend to play by the rules unless they are completely egregious. The Lie check with the Bluff skill letting you lie convincingly and the Coerce and Persuade checks under Intimidate and Impress letting you influence the actions of others. The question isn't why I play this way, but why you and Hussar keep implying I'm wrong and for doing so and (in Hussar's case) an abusive jerk to boot.

The only answer given to this, so far, in this thread, has been from JamesonCourage, who has said it's too narrativist an approach.

I refuse to use those terms with students of Forge theory because they assume I'm using Edwards pretentious, counter-intuitive redefinitions of the words, rather then the ones that were in use for a decade before he began his pseudo-intellectual wankery.

I can give you another one. Outside of certainly carefully delimited circumstances I don't get to control their actions. My NPC's Bluff result beating the PC's Sense Motive is not one of them. (See the magic bean example). I will tell them they believe the NPC. That he's a likeable or scary fellow. That a little voice says that they may want to listen to the reasonable request or maybe do what the Wookie says to avoid angering the walking rug. I don't tell them they give the con artist their money or run away in fear or whatever without a specific rule dictating so.

I apply the same rules in the other direction. The players don't get to dictate my characters actions outside of those same circumstances (although, admittedly, they don't have access to a few of them without home brewed character options).

This gives rise to another playstyle issue (related to the one I flagged quite a way upthread, of "gritty" vs "gonzo").

What's more fun - to pretend to be a turnip deliverer, or a diplomat? And which of these is more viable, overall for a first level knigh? a 9th level wizard? a 12th level thief? Does the castle have aura reading or detect magic? If it does, a high level PC would do better posing as a diplomat than a farmer.

Only if magic is a necessary requirement of high level play in your game. It's not in mine. No magic item provides more power to the characters then their origin and class abilities or their feats and skills.

There are a lot of variables here. Even if the turnip farmer is the most realistic in some realworld situations, it may not be the best way to push in game, for a range of reasons. (Including consequences - discovery and a resulting showdown in the throne room might be more exciting than discovery and a resulting showdown in the kitchen.)

I pushed nothing. If they ask for a Hint, say "What's the easiest way to get into the castle?". I'd likely tell them that it seems like the guards only pay cursory attention to the supply deliveries. What they do then is their choice.

Well, yes, but is this a flip of the switch from "good" to "overpowered", or from "mostly useless" to "good"? In my personal play experience with social skills, I think it's the latter.[/qupte]

The former. A thousand times the former. Then again, you have said almost all your play experience has been in Rolemastrer and 4e... I kid though. Bad jokes aside, that's a play style issue. It's also, to a degree a rule issue. For my game it breaks down like this:

Impress: Easier and more effective then Intimidate. Causes 'permanent' increases in Disposition and attitude. Social focused characters can generate incredibly massive bonuses to skill checks involving emotional states. A third level Striking Aristocratic Courtier in my game used Impress/Influence to generate a +20 to her Haggle check. It was admittedly a critical success. No use in combat. Well, the Fan Service feat lets you use it for Distract of Feint actions.

Intimidate: Harder then Impress, but faster. Lower bonuses and higher penalties. Very temporary and results in a net loss of Disposition. You can focus a character around using this the same way as Impress, but it's not as common because of diminishing returns. Very useful in combat. You really can use harsh language against your foes, doing damage to a target within 30 feet. The above courtier, although handy with a falcatta and buckler was deadly with an insult.

Bluff: Doesn't directly influence a character. Only defined modifier relates to the believably of the lie. The skill used to resist it isn't effected by many things, including Disposition. Also useful in combat. Succeeding vs the enemies Sense Motive drops the target's Initiative. The most limited of the three, but in many ways also the most simple and the one that can have the biggest impact since it actually direct effects the target's perception of reality.

But this only gives rise to the question, what is the GM's role in relation to moving the game along? Different posters in this thread clearly have different views on that.

And their welcome to their views. They just need to stop implying that I and doing something wrong and am a horrible person for holding a different one.

 

[pemerton]

In that way lies Forge inspired madness.

<snip>

I refuse to use those terms with students of Forge theory because they assume I'm using Edwards pretentious, counter-intuitive redefinitions of the words, rather then the ones that were in use for a decade before he began his pseudo-intellectual wankery.

<snip>

And their welcome to their views. They just need to stop implying that I and doing something wrong and am a horrible person for holding a different one.

You're also welcome to your view, but maybe could dial back a bit on calling others' approaches "mad" and "wank-ish".

 

[JamesonCourage]

You're also welcome to your view, but maybe could dial back a bit on calling others' approaches "mad" and "wank-ish".

I agree, but I do understand his frustration when Hussar has gone on and on about our playing style (I don't trust my players; I always rule against them; I run my game arbitrarily; I twist player success into failure; I'm not playing by his objective "better game"; I railroad; I run my game based on GM fiat; I don't listen to my players when they give me input on what's plausible; I always make things as disadvantageous as possible for the PCs; my players cannot succeed unless they satisfy my whims; I submit PCs to a chain of skill checks that only ends when they finally fail; I make my players "pixel bitch"; etc.).

I'd prefer both sides keep it civil (as I've asked for a few times). The discussion is much more interesting than any argument is.