How do you convince someone of the truth

[S'mon]

And I don't think you can compare that accurately to a social skill. A person with a +100 Diplomacy check is talking with an NPC, who has their own free will. They can take what the character has to say, and make their own reasonable decissions.

I agree 100% with this statement in regards to the Diplomacy skill. Diplomacy is about changing someone's attitude to you, which is a relatively limited concept - the NPC executioner may still execute the +100 Dip bard prisoner, he'll just think "What a great guy" as he wields the axe*. OTOH Bluff skill does involve fooling someone, so +100 Bluff can be used to take away someone's free will, in a limited sense, by conning them. But it still has to play into their own desires - you might get a high level Fighter to pay 50,000gp for the +1 sword you convinced him was vorpal, but you wouldn't get him to pay that for a fake Staff of the Magi unless he thought he could sell it on at a profit.

*And with a Helpful result he'll take extra care to get a clean decapitation.

 

[S'mon]

We play that the story takes precedence over any die rolls, at least in social situations. For example, I don't care if you have a +100 Diplomacy roll, you're not going to persuade that merchant to give the magic sword to you for free. I don't care if you have a +100 Intimidate check, you're not going to "bully" the Paladin into going against his code. I don't care if you have a +100 Bluff check, you're not going to be able to trick the king into giving up his thrown to you.

Of course using magic to accomplish these things is another thing... But the story should trump the die roll in extreme instances such as the ones above... YMMV

I don't see these as story vs die roll issues. Main thing to bear in mind is that the brief descriptions in the DMG can only be taken as guidelines as to the result of successful skill use, but the skill use can (and IMO generally should) be taken into account.

1. Using Diplomacy, best result the Merchant feels Helpful - he may cut you a better deal than normal, but he won't go against his own interests by selling the sword at below what it cost him. He may offer some useful snippet of information also.

2. An Intimidated Paladin is a Paladin who's scared of you. Of course this won't mean he'll violate his Code, unless he's a coward, in which case why is he a Paladin? IMC 2 sessions ago the PC warlord was haranguing the governor of a conquered city. The poor man was horribly Intimidated and shaking like a leaf, but rather than co-operate he humbly asked if his death could be quick*...

3. I can actually imagine circumstances in which the +100 Bluff guy tricked the king into giving up his throne - "temporarily" maybe. But the Bluff guy would still have to come up with a plan & a spiel, and get to the king, and present that spiel. Success would almost certainly require use of lots of other skills, like Kno (Nobility & Royalty) and Gather Information. Think of it more like a combat, with lots of skills/abilities working together to achieve the desired result. A +100 to-hit means little if you have AC 10 and 1 hit point.

*I made some die rolls to determine the governor's personality, his sense of duty to his Queen vs his terror of the Warlord, etc.

 

[Space Coyote]

That sounds like a case for diplomacy to me. If you adjust their attitude to friendly, they believe you.

Thats what I thought as well. If you are sincere and honest, then diplomacy would be the skill used to convince someone. If you were lying and trying to fool someone, then use Bluff.

 

[glass]

Thats what I thought as well. If you are sincere and honest, then diplomacy would be the skill used to convince someone. If you were lying and trying to fool someone, then use Bluff.

The trouble is, should a rogue with lots of ranks of bluff be less convincing if he is telling the truth than if he is lying?


glass.

 

[S'mon]

Thats what I thought as well. If you are sincere and honest, then diplomacy would be the skill used to convince someone. If you were lying and trying to fool someone, then use Bluff.

I don't necessarily believe people just because I like them or even if I feel Helpful to them. I might _want_ to believe them, but...

 

[S'mon]

The trouble is, should a rogue with lots of ranks of bluff be less convincing if he is telling the truth than if he is lying?

Yep.

 

[Grogtar]

One thing that I've allways had a hard time with for D&D in regards to roleplaying : XP. Players do not gain XP for talking their way around a situation. Sure a 1,000 XP story award here or there, but characters dont level on that sort of thing.

If you want to encourage people roleplaying and not just "I have +30 Diplomacy, give me your sword" then award XP For it. Determine an Encounter Level and award them XP based on that. An encounter with a Merchant is probably EL 1, wheras an encounter with the head of a potent trade guild is much higher.

And after all, it silly to think that a level 14 Headmaster of the Magecraft guild got all his XP by killing Glaberzu's. Its also silly to think you shouldnt get XP for overcoming this obstacle.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

One thing that I've allways had a hard time with for D&D in regards to roleplaying : XP. Players do not gain XP for talking their way around a situation.

On the contrary, PCs earn XP whenever they "overcome a challenge."

A difficult negotiation, with more than just "Oh well" on the line, is certainly a challenge.

 

[IcyCool]

On the contrary, PCs earn XP whenever they "overcome a challenge."

A difficult negotiation, with more than just "Oh well" on the line, is certainly a challenge.

Indeed.