NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5605905" data-attributes="member: 6668292">First of all, I was being told repeatedly that by running it the way I explained, I was pulling some sort of GM fiat. The way I've described it is RAW. There's no rules violations in the way I've described things. So, the people who have advocated consistency in the game rules should, by all rights, be on my side. They should know what to expect by RAW.Secondly, keep in mind, I don't play in or run a 3.5 game. I don't play in or run a D&D game at all. I'm running my own game at the moment, where the use of the Bluff skill is different in it's use.Lastly, I would not want to run things the way Janx has described, because it seems like there might be different points when somebody would do something I would think is out of character. That'd kill immersion for me. His description of tricking his friend about the scratch or the bluff from Ocean's Eleven are very reasonable bluffs to probably most people. However, I'm not sure how his style handles things when more out there bluffs are made, and people are manipulated. If it's exactly as described, then it would strain belevability and break immersion for me and my group.This isn't the problem.Social conflict isn't as important as physical conflict in my game for one reason: most of the time, it's not your life on the line. Yeah, your goals are on the line, and losing sucks, but if you survive, you can always play damage control.However, social conflict is more prevalent than physical combat in my game by a substantial amount. The way my group handles it is just fine for my group.In a fantasy setting? I'll disagree with you.Out of curiosity, how is saying "you've misinterpreted, here's my take on it" supposed to convince me? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I believe the DM decides. But, I was pointing out that it doesn't say. I think the player can have an incredibly good grip on how it will manifest, though.The first bluff ("the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time [usually 1 round or less]") is obviously used for short term bluffs, in my mind. Getting the shopkeep to look down at his "untied" shoes. Getting someone to glance away briefly because you said there's somebody stealing someone's money pouch. These are obviously short term goals of lying, and fall under the first umbrella to me.The second use of bluff ("believes something that you want it to believe") is obviously used for long term bluffs, in my mind. Getting the guard to believe you're the diplomat that is due to show up, or getting the shopkeep to think you're actually the crown prince. These are obviously long term goals of lying, and fall under the second umbrella to me.And in the absence of such a chart, and DM ruling is entirely appropriate. If he decides that you cannot make a bluff that is "too incredible to consider" because it's not covered by RAW, then he's playing by the rules.To some people in the thread, letting the dice fall decides why this works. I don't agree. RAW doesn't agree. To me, common sense doesn't agree. Adopting the practice of -in this case- sticking to RAW, and saying "if the type of bluff isn't on the chart, then you have no chance of successfully making it" is fine by me, and it stops actual bluffs like the example above.Yep. They could be tricked. So, where it comes in is the Risk vs. Reward of the proposed scenario with the guard. He could let you in. If you're allowed in, then no problems. If you're not, then he loses his family.So, here comes the myriad of options for him weigh. Do you have your papers? Was he expecting people to enter? Does he have specific orders to allow nobody in? Any of these could stop him from letting you in, as while he believes you, he doesn't want his family killed. This is generally the point of putting his family on the line.If there's nothing on the line for the guard, maybe just his job, then he'd probably be much more willing to do it, but that has not been the running example thus far. Additionally, if he has orders specifically not to let anyone in, then he may not, even if he believes you. There's a good chance he'd get his superior (who you'd have to convince to let you in based on another Bluff and his Risk vs. Reward factors).Yeah, the bloodshed things doesn't bug me. I mean, it's fictional bloodshed. Also, there's a really good chance (almost impossible to escape) that trying to kill your way into a castle in my game will end in your death. Unless, that is, you're using the Tactics and Leadership skill to gather an army and having them assault it.But, considering the mechanics of the game, you aren't going to take the castle by yourselves. They're going to volley crossbow bolts at you, and you're going to die. Like I said, I tend to avoid High Fantasy games, and my mechanics support Low Fantasy by default (with optional rules for running it High Fantasy style).I hope I've explained adequately why I don't feel I'm misinterpreting the rule, even if you don't agree with it.He might act that way, but if his family's lives are on the line, or he has specific orders not to let you in on pain of X, then he might believe you, but not act on it. Or he might. It really just depends on the guard, his Risk vs. Reward, and his personality.It's really not violating RAW, and it's really not overly complex. It's not hurting the players when it's out preferred gaming style, as your style would break immersion for us.Like I've been saying, these are basic play style differences. On that note, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I agree. Sorry if this has been too much of a tangent.I see no reason not to help players if they're lacking, but as I said, our sessions are not about escapism, so your style isn't right for my group. And as I've repeatedly said, I'm advocating what works for my group, and why Hussar's "better game" is in fact wrong in that regard.If we're trying to play a deeply immersed game that is both enjoyable and allows us to see a new point of view when playing a character (which is only achievable when you're deeply immersed for us), then the proposed player who can't effectively play a charismatic PC shouldn't play one in our group. It would end up breaking immersion for everyone, especially that player, considering our style.In groups at large? I think that if someone is slightly socially handicapped when playing a charismatic PC, they can deal with it. Just like if someone plays a class and can't quite wrap their head around the mechanics, or for people who just can't get skirmish tactics down.If they're new, you help out (in either area, social or combat), and as they learn more and more, you help less and less. Then, you let them handle things on their own, and you let them try to immerse, and help keep us immersed. This is how things are at my table, and it works for us.The fact that my table doesn't adhere to Hussar's "better game" is not a bad thing for it.This is fine with me when someone is starting. But, I've already advocated help for new players or players new to a system in this thread. Once they get used to things, though, it's on them. And they won't start off as good as you were when you were filling in for them.I'd prefer to help them along, "what are you relating? Did you want to mention the goblin boss specifically? Did you want to leave out the part where you slipped in his blood and fell so you still look cool, or include it for laughs?"This way, he is hands on saying what he wants. Once he's used to that, he'll do it more and more without me. He'll develop a sort of Perform skill drill that he'll use for a while, going down a checklist and relating what he's talking about. I might ask for a description, eventually, and let him start adjusting to that. Then, eventually, it's all on him.Just my preferred method, though. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification