Diplomacy and Bluff roll made in my game... your assistance if you please.

[Pielorinho]

Moderator's Notes: Keep the disagreement civil, please.
/Moderator

In fact (and I say this as a poster, not a mod), if you want to debate whether to use diplomacy or bluff rolls at all, you're probably better off starting a new thread on the subject, since the OP is pretty clearly asking what modifier to use, not whether to use one.

I agree with Takyris, that diplomacy could but doesn't figure into things as written. However, I'd give the player another chance: send the player an email saying, "I'll consider the bluff check, but if you want the diplomacy check to matter, you'll need to give me some diplomatizin'." I'd add, "You're aware that this is an extremely unlikely bluff: if your characters discovered some Draconians and goblins sneaking around your base, would you be likely to accept a similar explanation from them?"

That kind of feedback is, IMO, vital to helping characters understand the world in which they operate.

Also, and maybe this is just me being a big old softie, but I really like letting high dice rolls have at least some small benefit. Consider having a few of the goblins turn in confusion to one another, asking each other what the heck the "6th research party" is; if the PCs take quick advantage of the distraction, the combat will begin with a surprise round in which the distracted goblins may not act. This way, the player gets to enjoy having bluffed and rolled well, without letting a lame bluff completely break plausibility.

Daniel

 

[Voadam]

You might as well require people to demonstrate how they would make that 15 ft. jump, climb the castle wall or hit the wary orc in plate armor with a sword.

If you were running a larp, then sure you would have to actually do it. For tabletop rpgs however, all the physical actions are handled either narratively or by dice rolls and mechanics. There is no possibility for first person action, you have to say "I do this" you can't just do it.

Social interactions you can actually do. You could also say "I bluff him" which introduces the dice mechanic as you step back to second person, but it is not necessary to resolve the PC lying to an NPC as he can simply do it and keep everything going without using any game mechanics with dice rolls.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In which case, again, the abilities of the character stop mattering.

Why, then, is the 8 Charisma Fighter a better diplomat than my 24 Charisma, Max-Diplomacy, Max-Bluff, Max-Sense Motive Bard with the Negotiator feat?

And why can't I just decide to be a better warrior than him?

 

[Voadam]

In which case, again, the abilities of the character stop mattering.

Why, then, is the 8 Charisma Fighter a better diplomat than my 24 Charisma, Max-Diplomacy, Max-Bluff, Max-Sense Motive Bard with the Negotiator feat?

And why can't I just decide to be a better warrior than him?

A the abilities can either matter or not depending on the DM, he could either play it out straight or roleplay a bit in the differences without making rolls. i.e. the max skill face man gets things interpreted better, gains the benefit of the doubt, people are nicer in their interactions with him in general, etc.

That is the way monboesen was handling high int. You will note there was no dice rolling needed in there, no task resolution, just DM interaction based off of abilities. You will be hard pressed to tell the difference between the hints given to a 17 int versus an 18 int character, but a 10 vs 18 could be apparent.

Second, correct, if a DM does away with skill interactions altogether there is little point in putting skill points into social skills that don't also have mechanical effects (feinting with bluff, countering feints and sensing enchantments with sense motive, etc.). And concurrently characters with an emphasis on mechanical social skills will not be as effective in this style of play whereas other characters have developed mechanical aspects of their characters that come into play.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

You went from a reasonable disagreement to pure nonsense in 1 post. Congratulations!

Comments like this is why I rarely post here any more.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

So JRR.. you actually do not allow shy, socially less adept people to suspend belief and play charming characters. Do you also penalize skinny weak people so that they can't play brawny fighters ? And by gods, who gets to play a Int 18 wizard in your group, have any certified geniouses at the table ?

Sure they can. And I take their stat modifiers into consideration when we ROLE PLAY the encounter. They don't have to come up with some grand plot. Something like "er, we're the, uh, scouts, sent to, uh........check up on...er, things." I'd realize the character would have put it more eloquently and play the encounter accordingly.

And for those that suggest we "Act out" the fights, that's just absurd. You role play the social encounters and roll dice for combat. That's the way it's always been. Otherwise there'd be no point in calling it a role playing game.

"I bluff the guard" gets you nowhere in my games. Give me a legitimate reason - an explanation of HOW you're bluffing the guard and I'll decide wether or not the guard believes it. If a player can't stutter out a few sylabbles to explain his actions, he has no business playing anyway. Perhaps he'd be happier playing a wargame of some sort - which is what bluff checks encourage.

But, hey, if you want to play the game as a strategical skirmish war game, go right ahead.

This is all I'll say on the matter, because I've hijacked the thread enough as it is. For that I apologize to the original poster.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I've stepped on that mine too, JRRNeiklot. Around here RP is a very touchy subject.

 

[monboesen]

But JRRRNeiklot then we are handling social skills in just the same way and you do allow the Bluff skill to have an effect regardless of the players personal ability.

You give a very different image of your attitude in this post than in the first.