I agree that lying is what a rogue or a bard can do, and should do. However, there is a difference between lying to an informant and then slipping him a few gold pieces and the informant then spilling the beans; and, the otherwise loyal guard being fooled by a lying PC that the PC should step aside while the PCs march into the castle...
Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?
- Thread starter NewJeffCT
- Start date
I agree that lying is what a rogue or a bard can do, and should do. However, there is a difference between lying to an informant and then slipping him a few gold pieces and the informant then spilling the beans; and, the otherwise loyal guard being fooled by a lying PC that the PC should step aside while the PCs march into the castle...
Jimlock
Adventurer
Lying to a Loyal guard should have a high DC.
Even the very fact that you try to enter a castle for "some" reason, when no one is supposed to enter,
should have a high DC...
Does a rogue personify a merchant that is "expected"?
Does he have a a good reason so as to convince the guard to lets him by?
Let's not forget that a lie that is "out there" augments the DC by +20...
Moreover, the fact that the guard is loyal, does not make him any more intelligent/wise (sense motive).
If ones keeps in mind the increase in DCs for how big a lie is in respect to a situation...
he shouldn't have a problem.
As i said in my previous post, ...In the end, the DM is there to balance things out....
ShadowDenizen
Explorer
Honestly, one of the drawbacks of the current edition(s) (And I lump 3.x/PF/4E together in this) is the use of die-rolling to avoud role-playing.
Though I mostly prefer to play, I do DM occasionally, and I always (both as player and DM) try to add some role-playing to the mix, to encourage active participation.
I use the Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate rules as a guideline; most times simply asking the players "HOW do you try to bluff the guards?" usually is enought to elicit some sort reaction fomr the players, and sparks inter-character exchange, adding to the experience, rather than relegating it to a single die roll.
Then, (taking into account the context of the encoutner, and the RP'ing attempt), I give a situational penatly or bonus to the roll to be made.
It's not a perfect simulation (there's always the case of the shy/quiet player playing the character with stats of 18 and high ranks in DIP/BLU/INT), but it seems to work pretty well overall.
On a side tangent, I detest skill challenges in 4E, another mechanic that I think relegates role-playing and description [HOW is the player gathering that information? Or traversing that gaping chasm?] in favor of dice-rolls.
Though I mostly prefer to play, I do DM occasionally, and I always (both as player and DM) try to add some role-playing to the mix, to encourage active participation.
I use the Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate rules as a guideline; most times simply asking the players "HOW do you try to bluff the guards?" usually is enought to elicit some sort reaction fomr the players, and sparks inter-character exchange, adding to the experience, rather than relegating it to a single die roll.
Then, (taking into account the context of the encoutner, and the RP'ing attempt), I give a situational penatly or bonus to the roll to be made.
It's not a perfect simulation (there's always the case of the shy/quiet player playing the character with stats of 18 and high ranks in DIP/BLU/INT), but it seems to work pretty well overall.
On a side tangent, I detest skill challenges in 4E, another mechanic that I think relegates role-playing and description [HOW is the player gathering that information? Or traversing that gaping chasm?] in favor of dice-rolls.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
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.
Being up front works best with some players, not so well with others. When you change the rules behind the screen and refuse to explain why, instead relying on the player to be able to step back and re-examine the situation, it often won't work.
You have to remember that while you may have had fantastic, wonderful reasons why the roll didn't succeed, the three DM's he had before you didn't and used the whole "You don't know why" schtick to simply throw up road blocks to stop the player from doing whatever it was the DM didn't want him doing.
Diplomacy has been around since 2E when it was a Non-Weapon Proficiency. (It may have been a late 1E NWP introduced in Oriental Adventures even?)
In fact, I remember my group using Diplomacy quite a bit back in the 90s... however, I was a player back then and our DM was much better than me.
I think part of my problem is that when the PCs do something unexpected in game and then end up in a social situation where they need to Bluff, be Diplomatic, etc and I'm not prepared for it. The tendency for me is to use the roll as a crutch, rather than as an impromptu skill challenge that would allow me to expand the role-playing. I'm just not the improviser I was when I was a teenager or in my early to mid 20s.
Aldrick Tanith
First Post
You bring up some good points.
A wider point of discussion that really isn't brought up often, and a lot of DM's in my experience tend to ignore, are the not-so-subtle hints players give about the type of game they want.
If a player is putting a lot of skill points into bluff or other social skills, that player is screaming: "I want to play a character that can convince people of almost anything! I'm creating a silver-tongued con-man!"
It's the DM's job to notice these things and create situations in which such a character can shine. To neglect this would be the equivalent of having a character who is built specifically for combat, but place him in a game that is 90% or more political intrigue.
Skills, feats, classes, etc. These are all statements of interest by players - statements on the type of game they want, information given to the DM of what is important to them.
It's no different than if someone decided to play a druid, they're telling you - my character cares about nature. He's not suited for a city-based adventure, and he wants to be tested regarding his dedication to nature. It's the DM's job to create situations in which the druid can be druidic (or fail and become fallen). Just as it is the DM's job to create situations in which paladins and clerics can have their faith / religion / church tested.
If you have a player who is attempting to play - whether or not the player themselves can pull it off well - a character which is a social animal, then there needs to be situations in which he can potentially be successful. Maybe he, and he alone, can convince the guard captain to allow the group into the castle. Without him they'd all be heads on a pike sitting on the castle wall as a warning. Maybe he is the only one who can convince the Nobleman of the need to aid the group, or the merchant of the necessity of extending the group a line of credit, etc.
A good DM, IMO, is watchful of what the players are doing with their characters, and is building obstacles to test them - to push them. When players fail it should, in large part, due to their own foolishness.
Sometimes, of course, players need some meta-encouragement. "Hey, I see you've given your bard a lot of skill points in diplomacy, why aren't you trying to soothe things over between the group and the guardsmen?" Often times, players don't realize what they can accomplish, little nudges like that brings their skills to the fore and make them feel useful - it gives them the opportunity to shine.
My problem is that the listed "hard" DCs for 4E are generally pretty easy to make. Example: a Hard DC for level 8 is supposed to be DC:24.
A 4E Bard with a 22 CHA at level 8 is going to be like +15 without any magical enhancements or feats - +5 for trained, +6 for CHA and then +4 for half of their level. Out of the box, you beat the DC more than 50% of the time. If you have a +2 item and maybe a feat that adds to your score, you're already up to +19 or +20 without Aid Another. Pretty soon, the bard doesn't even fail on a roll of "1"...
Even if you add in the +10 for "hostile", you're still going to win a majority of the time for a Hard DC.
(Heck, my group has a player with an encounter power that allows a reroll at +4 after a failed skill check...)
I think the skill challenge system is supposed to make up for that. In other words, the party isn't supposed to just sit back and let the Bard fool the guard with a single skill check. The guard insists on interrogating everybody in the party, and they all have to say something (and make some kind of check) to get in. I like this idea in theory, but I think WotC muffed it a little in practice.
I agree with that completely and I love it as a DM when a player plays the silver-tongued bard or the charming rakish rogue or similar. However, I also don't want a situation where the player is only going to fail a situation when he or she rolls a "1" on the d20, even with a 10 modifier for it being a hostile situation - I want the fear of failure in there, be it when the BBEG and his horde is bearing down on the players, or when they gain an audience with the hostile lord of the barbarian tribe.
I think a tough encounter should stretch the players to their limits, be it a combat encounter or a role-playing one.
Jimlock
Adventurer
Well, I was referring to 3.x.
Whatever the case, the situation has to be role played out. Perhaps some like to just roll their bluff,
without even saying a word, or by saying: "I try to convince him to...."
This is not how I play this. I let the player explain himself in front of the NPCs.
Of course, I take into account the PC's skill so as to adjust the reactions.
Having said that, the players have to always take into account their "character's character"
Is the PC a silver tongued social freak?
Even if so, the player has to play him that way. His skill are there to make things easier for him.
No matter how good a player roleplays out a specific encounter, if his PC has a bluff of 30, there is no way
he can roleplay it as good as his PC would in realife. In that case, the bluff skill can come in and save the day,
even if the lie that was roleplayed out was not as good. Thats not to say that the skill will always save him no matter what,
but it should somehow affect the outcome of things.
On the other hand, a savage barbarian with 0 bluff, is expected to roleplay his PC correctly.
Even if the player wants to convince the guard, and has a good idea to do so, he shouldn't try it.
The character comes first. His barbarian wouldn't normally do such a thing, even if the player wants to.
That way, skills becomes important in the game.
If I come up with a super powerful build (yet with 0 bluff and a low charisma), and my DM
lets me roleplay out every social encounter just by taking into account my "convincing" skills as a player,
what's the point of another player picking a less powerful build with 10 ranks in bluff?
If the 10ranks-bluff PC has equal chances of making it through the social encounters, why did he even bother
spending ranks in it?
To conclude: Roleplaying comes first. A player should react to the situations as his character would.
Is his a social freak? Fine. FIRST let him roleplay it out, and then adjust reactions according to his performance AND according to his character's skills
Is the character a brute? He is expected to play him that way. Even if it comes down to him to make the social interactions necessary, no matter his performance, his character's skill should keep the effect to a minimum, if not to a complete fail.
Do the players want their PCs to be good at it?
Make them spend skill points in those skills.
Those skills are not fluff....
Similar Threads
