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

[LostSoul]

I'd give him a +5, and say something like, "Oh, you must mean the [insert campaign-specific name here] group. Carry on then," if he made the Bluff check.

I think that the roll is more important than exactly what the player says.

 

[Veritas]

To me, both the roll and what the player say have equal importance. It makes the player think to come up with a good excuse. If this was tabletop, I might be more lenient, but he's got a couple of days to come up with something better than that.

I'm gonna give the draconian a +15 to his roll... the bluff is pretty hard to believe, but maybe not in the realm of impossibility... the presense of Tas would preclude them being spies, since no intelligent leader would hire a kender as a spy... EVER. heh.

Do continue to discuss if you wish though, and I thank you for your input.

 

[monboesen]

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 ?

Try checking the actual modifiers for Bluff checks. To actually convince people of really out of wack stuff you need extremely high rolls. And even then its not magic. The queens guard might not let you in, but rather send a servant to ask the queen if she know these people and would like to see them.

Just as the draconian likely would not let them go and do their own business, but he might be a worried that they are some sot of secret research party and not immediately strip them of weapons and shackle them. Perhaps the bluff will be just enough to make him talk a bit more to determine who they are. Time that can be used to build on the lie to make it more credible or just position themselves better for combat.

And I would give him a +10 modifier too.

 

[Felonius]

+10 definitely.

The goblins all stand ready to attack on its command (ie: they have readied attacks awaiting your response.)

You cannot ready an action outside combat. That's what initiative is for.

- F

 

[Psychic Warrior]

Ignore the rolls. Is the draconian stupid enough to buy it? Has he any reason to believe there are units such as Tanis describes running around?

Bottom line, if the dm thinks the draconoian would think it a plausable bluff, it works. If not, they do what draconians do.

I detest bluff rolls. Make 'em role play it.

Which the player did. Did you even read the original post?

 

[Psychic Warrior]

Yeah, Bluff works real well.

Tanis: I tell him I'm hear to fix the air conditioning. (roll 20 +8 ranks +3 charisma=31.

Draconian: Huh? I've never heard of air conditioning. Sense motive roll (1 +0 ranks -2 for charisma= -1) Ok, you can go on in.

This might work for anything. Get you in to bless the new queen on her wedding night, etc. A simple lucky roll should not let absurd crap go on. Especially when the other side doesn't get to use the same tactics.

First time my players tried that crap, I'll just roll up an npc with skill focus in bluff and diplomacy. "Sorry, the ugly gnoll talks you into sleeping with him. You're not gay? You must have been curious, then. He made his diplomacy check."

Theoretically, the players could do this, but the npcs can't. That's just wrong.


Sorry for the high jack. Bluff is a pet peeve of mine.

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

 

[Mokona]

You should never penalize the player for roleplaying. Never give the NPCs a bonus because the PC chose to roleplay in a way that you don't agree with. The rules already cover this: if he had chosen a good excuse you'd give him a circumstance bonus to his bluff roll. Since he chose a poor excuse you effectively give him a penalty equal to the bonus you otherwise would have given him for good excuse.

In the current rules of D&D NPCs are not supposed to get a circumstance bonus because the PCs are good vs. bad roleplayers.

 

[billd91]

You should never penalize the player for roleplaying. Never give the NPCs a bonus because the PC chose to roleplay in a way that you don't agree with. The rules already cover this: if he had chosen a good excuse you'd give him a circumstance bonus to his bluff roll. Since he chose a poor excuse you effectively give him a penalty equal to the bonus you otherwise would have given him for good excuse.

In the current rules of D&D NPCs are not supposed to get a circumstance bonus because the PCs are good vs. bad roleplayers.

In the case of a bluff situation, you aren't penalizing the character for bad roleplaying. In fact, the character seems to be roleplayed just fine. It's the plausibility of the story that generates the penalty. Coming up with a and bull story about trying to capitalize on the blacksmith's (and the town's) misfortunes to settle an old score and then offering a bribe to see if the draconian would be willing to look the other way while it happens would be a far more credible bluff, probably worth no penalty. And that's regardless of how well it is or isn't role-played.

Edit: Actually, looking the Bluff skill in 3.5, I'd probably assign only a +5 modifier to the draconian's sense motive, especially if I felt that he was fundamentally lazy and didn't want to go though the extra work of actually killing or running the PCs in. Also note, that the bonus to sense motive doesn't mean that the draconian sees through the bluff completely, rather that he's reluctant to go along with it. it's not hard and fast.

Interesting, when I tried to say "c-o-c-k and bull story", the board automatically replaced c-o-c-k with four smileys. Well -a-doodle-doo to everybody.

 

[Voadam]

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 ?

.

In my game a stupid player can play an 18 int wizard. They get +4 skill points a level, +4 on int skill checks, +4 DC on wizard spells, and can learn up to 8th level spells. I don't give them any bonus on figuring out plots or tactics or keeping facts straight.


There are things that many people feel mechanical rolls are inappropriate for in a roleplaying game. Intelligent choices, figuring things out, and talking to people are some things that many legitimately feel should not be handled by dice rolls.

 

[monboesen]

Then we must likely just agree to disagree. None of my players have what I would consider int 18 in real life. So high int characters are going to get hints, I'll be sure to help them remember important details and inform them on possible problems from stupid actions.

In that same spirit anyone can play a charismatic sweettalker. Not everyone will do equally well with such a character as I will give circumstance bonuses for good roleplay and talk in character. But to just flat out say that it won't work unless you can play it out is pretty harsh.

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.

And of course talking and figuring things out should not be resolved only by dice rolls, the players should at the very least make an effort. But the dice rolls should guide the actual result too.