Issues with Social Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate

[fuzzlewump]

So, I was DMing the adventure in the back of the 3E Eberron campaign guide adapted to 4E, and came across a realization of some flaws in the social skills of D&D. After taking down a warforged named "Cutter," or she runs away and you are left with her victim, the Sharn City Watch run up and ask something like "What's going on here?!"

One of my players responds with the truth, that they came upon a murder and slew the murderer or at least their attacker. I call for aDiplomacy check, but then he realizes that he isn't the guy for the job because he isn't trained and doesn't have a whole lot of Charisma, being an ardent.

Sometimes players will react without any attention to their skills. This, I will posit, is a good thing and makes for a creative, quick-thinking and quick-playing environment. What I do is allow anyone to make a diplomacy check to satisfy the needs of the mechanic, no matter who actually said something. I do requires that someone says something, though. So, in the game world, the Ardent says the truth, maybe wavering slightly, shaken perhaps, but then the Dragonborn Paladin nods and looks official behind him.

1. Do you find an issue with social skills being tied to the roleplayer who says them? Or, do you find that players will not contribute unless their mechanics can back up their creativity? What ways do you get around it, or if its not a problem for you, why not?

The next issue comes up with what I really allowed. In the mission, I off-handedly said that he could use his 'Bluff' check in convince the guard... of the truth. So, I thought about it, and it makes sense that if you can convince someone of a lie, you can convince someone of the truth. If not, it's a bit ridiculous that in a more rules abiding scenario, the Ardent is better off telling a bit of a lie in order to sound more convincing than the truth. Like instead of the truth, saying "We saw this warforged kill this man," (which they didn't, but all evidence points to it, and the warforged probably said he killed him in battle.)

Maybe it makes for an interesting character, someone who can lie easily but when it comes to telling the truth they get nervous? But should that be the general rule? No, I believe.

2. Should bluff be named and considered something more like "persuasion?" You get someone to believe what you want them to believe, whether it's the truth or not. In what ways does this step on the toes of Diplomacy? Or does it?

I think it doesn't have to encroach on the territory of Diplomacy. I do, however, think there are situations in which they can overlap. Diplomacy is in a mechanical sense making yourself seem friendly, not necessarily truthful, though that would probably be the assumption of the other party. Diplomacy is therefore, basically, an impression. Impressions are useful for all kinds of social interaction. It's also controlling your tone and body language to be friendly.

A. Diplomacy guy tells the truth and he is trusted because of his apparent good character and qualities. The other party is not entirely convinced from a logical stand point, but ignores that for gut feeling and emotion.

B. Persuasion guy tells the truth and he is believed because he doesn't have any tell-tale signs of lying. The other party is convinced, but doesn't necesarrily trust or like the speaker otherwise.

There is a fine line, and in the original scenario, either could be used. I see this as a good thing. If anyone has any better interpretations of the difference between the two, please submit them.

The third problem is not related to the original scenario, but I think it should go here: where the heck does intimidate fit in, and fit in well? Another thread pointed out that intimidate should be benefited with the addition of a death threat, especially one that the PC's can easily carry out. In fact, I think if a creature can be intimidated, and it's either talk or die, then the creature will talk no matter what anyone has on their intimidate skill or on the roll itself.

This isn't a problem for everyone, I suppose, but for me, it's easy to see that intimidate doesn't have a good niche to fill. It seems useless in combat situations, outside of the cheesy (as I see it) surrendering scenario, because you can threaten death and most things will bow to you no matter how scary you sound, so long as you have a weapon and apparent ability to use it. It seems useless out of combat because it makes people hate you and just does the same thing that diplomacy could do most of the time.

Intimidate could instead be seen as "Coercion." Really, any social skill could be seen as coercion but let's roll with this. So, not necessarily a death threat, but instead, the pretty much go-to skill for issuing ultimatums. "King, either give us troops, or your kingdom will fall." If the king is completely stubborn and doesn't care about your character or apparent virtue (diplomacy) or the size of the orc army (persuasion) he will not change his mind unless his world is forcibly 'jarred.' You notice I'm being a bit abstract here, but I'm just trying to find a place for intimidate to fill it's own useful niche.

But let's say the king is open to all three. The three different attempts could look something like:

A. Diplomacy: the speaker is trustworthy, has a calm yet powerful, respectable tone, "King, the east marches need troops, your people need you; allow us to help on this monumental task."

B. Persuasion: the speaker is calm and speaks what sounds like the complete truth, "King, the east marches need troops, the Orc Army grows larger by the day, reaching 10,000 in a fortnight." (Could be a lie, doesn't matter.)

C. Coercion/Intimidate: the speaker is powerful, commanding attention "King, the east marches need troops, your kingdom will surely fall without this important flank."

3. Do you have problems with intimidate? Does it seem to be nearly worthless compared to Diplomacy in your games, or especially, in published adventures? Do you allow intimidate to work as an 'until the end of the encounter' surrender mechanic? Or do you just play it by ear? If the characters didn't roll any checks and one said "We're going to kill you all if you don't surrender" would you effectively take the same action?

Any comments or insight would be gladly received.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I always hate being asked to make diplomacy/bluff/intimidate rolls to get NPCs in the world to do their jobs. I also hate when I have to make diplomacy/bluff/intimidate rolls to convince low level peons and commoners to do what I need.

If a fully equipped squad of Navy SEALS busts down my front door and demands I come with them if I want to live...i'm probably just gonna put on my shoes and grab my wallet and go...not argue with them about why I should listen to them. I'm a peon and that's how i'd react.

DS

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

This is a great thread

The problem with these skills, I think, is that interaction with NPCs , to be fun, needs to be dependent on player skill, not character skill. It's a huge letdown when a good player makes an impassioned plea to an NPC, comes up with all kinds of great arguments, and then rolls a 2 on his diplomacy check.

Likewise, when the game degenerates to 'I persuade the guard to let us in' -- Look, I rolled a 20! -- I think the essential heart of roleplaying is lost.

The counter argument is always that less eloquent players shouldn't be penalized when they play eloquent characters. I see that point. But one could also argue that it isn't really fair to the other players to demand to play an eloquent PC, then not be able to walk the walk with your roleplaying skills.

The simulationist in me cringes at the argument I just made, but I think I've made up my mind on this one.

Ken

 

[ender_wiggin]

Spectacular roleplaying always earns an auto-success with me (unless there is some specific reason why it couldn't work).

In my experience players don't have the stamina to put up spectacular roleplaying all day -- in fact, it comes out once in a while. The rest of time, there's diplomacy.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

With 4e's flattening of the skill levels and Stalker0's Obsideon Skill Challenge rules..., no I don't find a problem with the Player vs character split. Your Ardent may not have been the ideal person to speak.. but he did. That leads you to two good scenarios:

1 - He succeeds at the Diplomancy check and you can have a good tale of how the gruff Ardent showed up those silver tongue CHA guys.

2 - He fails at the Diplomancy check and sets up for a follow on skill challenge to convince the now unpleasant town guard that he was indeed telling the truth. During which the Palidon and everyone else can pitch in.

Unless he chose CHA as his dump stat, he should have a chance of making the check.. more so if the guard are lower level.


There was a thread a while back about social skills and table rules. The choices were the 'roll then describe' or 'describe and then roll'. The latter could net the player a circumstance bonus to the check while the former avoided the elequent speech followed by a roll of a nat 1. I tend to go with the latter option as it encourages roleplaying and getting into character.

A. Diplomacy: the speaker is trustworthy, has a calm yet powerful, respectable tone, "King, the east marches need troops, your people need you; allow us to help on this monumental task."

B. Persuasion/Bluff: the speaker is calm and speaks what sounds like the complete truth, "King, the east marches need troops, the Orc Army grows larger by the day, reaching 10,000 in a fortnight." (Could be a lie, doesn't matter.)

C. Coercion/Intimidate: the speaker is powerful, commanding attention "King, the east marches need troops, your kingdom will surely fall without this important flank."

This I think is a fine example of how the skills can be used to the same intent.

 

[fuzzlewump]

I agree, for the most part, with allowing free successes for good role playing, but if I haven't really thought up a good scenario for failure. Otherwise, a +2/+4 does the trick. Both success and failure should have be interesting outcomes that both open more doors.

The king has you thrown out of his keep. Time to join the revolutionaries. The king agrees to sending troops; taking away just enough defense for the orcish ambush to begin. Or what have you.

In other words, relying on the mechanics isn't bad: even if the player's argument is well reasoned and sound, that doesn't mean the King accepts it. Look at any number of forum threads across the internet for real life evidence of that. Of course, like I said above, it doesn't have to end in frustration like said forum threads.

 

[lin_fusan]

I ran into a similar problem in my Savage Tide campaign, where the party fighter attempted to command townsfolk to follow a battle plan. I asked for a Diplomacy roll, and he replied, "Forget it."

What I forgot was that he had managed to tweak his character to have a CHA of 4 (I think) in order to build a duel-wielding damage monster (he also took the imperceptive flaw so his Spot and Searches were at -6 or something)...

Now I was kind of stuck... he built the character without any consideration for his other stats. His only concern was damage and hit points. Do I handwave his low CHA? But if I do that, then what was the point of having a CHA stat?

Honestly, I have never figured out a good way to handle this kind of situation.

 

[Wiseblood]

I felt the same way as the OP. I wondered what do you do when an NPC doesn't believe the truth?

I have been thinking about skill checks and the pass/fail mechanics of skills. This is where our trouble may originate from. On Gnome Stew some have mentioned that a failed check need not stonewall an avenue of approach and instead only introduce a complication. It will require more cleverness on the part of the DM. I look foreward to employing this cleverness very soon.

As I understand it this is how Mouse Guard handles skills.

 

[lin_fusan]

Mouse Guard! I bought that a couple weeks ago!

One of it's many conceits/tricks/mechanics/thingies is that while success is a success, failure requires the GM to create a complication/twist (ie. your failure causes something else to happen) or a condition (you succeed, but you are afflicted with something).

Someone on this board, perhaps Stalker0, suggested that 4ed skill challenges should use a similar approach. Success is still a success, but a partial success means that you succeed but are disadvantaged in some way. Whereas a failure means a complication arises.

In my example, if/when the fighter had failed, I could have had an NPC, perhaps the Captain of the Guard, or a rival noble step in at the last moment to say, "Surely this man speaks wisdom, if not with gentility! Follow his command!" and then extract some favor or get the PCs on his side of a future conflict.

Part of the trick is to have both failure and success achieve something interesting story-wise, so that the players don't feel so binary in the game; a failure simply mean more adventure, even if it's some side trek or complication.

 

[Crothian]

I always hate being asked to make diplomacy/bluff/intimidate rolls to get NPCs in the world to do their jobs. I also hate when I have to make diplomacy/bluff/intimidate rolls to convince low level peons and commoners to do what I need.

If a fully equipped squad of Navy SEALS busts down my front door and demands I come with them if I want to live...i'm probably just gonna put on my shoes and grab my wallet and go...not argue with them about why I should listen to them. I'm a peon and that's how i'd react.

DS

In your example the Navy SEALs made their intimidation check. Not all checks need to be accomplished with lots of dialogue, sometimes actions speak louder then words.