Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5611589" data-attributes="member: 6668292">To get an NPC to believe what you're telling him.Bluff should affect how somebody acts. It does not dictate how they act. They should process the new information they've received, and act on it as they should reasonably be expected to act.There is no "get into the castle" check.Actually, by the rules, even Intimidate doesn't dictate how NPCs actually act, it just modifies their behavior towards you (just like Diplomacy does).Again, I don't know where you're getting this. If you could point how I'm advocating leading players around by the nose, I'll address that statement.Success on the Bluff check only indicates whether or not the bluff is believed. That's all. Bluff checks are not "get into the castle" checks, and no such checks exist in 3.5, to my knowledge.I do not act that way, you're correct. Just like with the social skills, I play by the rules. This is a pretty straightforward concept.They've succeeded in exactly what they've rolled on. Just like a hit in combat would indicate that they probably get a damage roll (unless something wonky is going on, like some sort of class ability that negates damage rolls).I'm not using GM fiat when I play by the rules in both of these scenarios. Technically, you are when you say a Bluff check equates to PCs being entitled a specific action being taken. But, 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=":)" />Let me ask you this: as far as I can tell, you're saying that if a player Bluffs, he succeeds, and should be let in. When a player attacks an enemy with the intent to kill it, and he rolls a hit, does he automatically kill it? Because that seems like the equivalent to me, and I doubt you play that way.It's not pixel bitching, and I'd once again ask you to cease with the inflammatory terms (ie, pixel bitching, railroading, etc.).Again, blanket statements on how all players feel or react are probably unwise.If the players succeed at what the rules dictate (ie, a Bluff), then I let it succeed. I do not pile unwarranted success on it arbitrarily. The fact that you seem to think that I'm using massive amounts of GM fiat when I follow the rules, once again, baffling. If you want me to go over the 3.5 rules on Bluff again, I can try to explain my point again. I don't think you've given me your interpretation on the Bluff rules yet, other than how you think they should be used. I stated my case here: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5610655-post236.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/5610655-post236.html</a>As always, though, 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=":)" />First of all, this was an example to show various levels of success or failure to Lost Soul.Secondly, if you did read my post on the last page where I pointed out that they can succeed, I indicated that a successful Disguise can fool the king as well. I can grab that quote again if you'd like. Hope that clears this up.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