Issues with Social Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate

[Garthanos]

@ fuzzlewump: Of course, there is a problem particular to 4e where dumping a stat like Strength no longer carries the necessary negative consequence to combat ability, whereas dumping a stat like Charisma retains necessary negative consequences. I'm not really sure how to address this within the context of the 4e design parameters...
RC

Nyeah, but a fighter can use his charisma based intimidate to get passed a wall by forcing somebody to help ;-) ... and the historian can remember a mention of an old utility exit in the walll both get passed the wall.

Different techniques ... same goal.

 

[bert1000]

Selecting what to try and convince each NPC of and how to do it are tactical decisions. Selecting between Bluff (for a gullible person), Diplomacy (for a reasonable one) or Intimidate (for a timid one) also have secondary consequences. There is still much for the player (as opposed to the character) to do.

Sure, these are player choices, but I wouldn't really call this a rich set decisions. In combat, the player gets to choose where to move, which power to use, who to target, whether to use certain limited resources (e.g., action points, healing surges), etc.

 

[LostSoul]

Sure, these are player choices, but I wouldn't really call this a rich set decisions.

I think the decisions to be made are as rich as human interaction.

 

[S'mon]

At least in 4e, level affects all rolls, higher level PCs have more 'presence', and the 20th level Fighter isn't going to fail a DC 10 Diplomacy check to get the Town Guard to do what he wants.

So I think this is really a 3e problem. One solution for 3e would be to only require rolls where the PC is below a certain level. Low level NPCs can be assumed to be so impressed by a 10th level Fighter that they'll not ignore him, even if he is tongue-tied.

 

[Starfox]

In the context of 3E, I think this discussion is missing a point...which is that a dumped stat actually has far less impact on a skill roll than a class choice....

I think this is really a 3e problem.

This is a 4E problem as well, it only looks a little different in 4E than it did in 3E. In 4E, it is a problem because the attribute modifier at high level is higher than the +5 bonus from being trained. In other words, a low-Cha character has to be both trained and specialized in a Cha skill to match the bonus of an untrained character with Cha as his main stat. The spread in skill value in 4E is not as big as it was in 3E, but it is still very big.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Beyond the roleplaying at the table issue, I find Diplomacy is too broad, and bluff/intimidate are too narrow. Celebrim pointed out that you can only use intimidate if you are making a personal threat, rather than any kind of threat like "If you don't help, your kingdom will fall." Bluff is for 'passing off a lie,' and as far as I can tell, diplomacy is used for everything else in a talky-talky situation. I think they should be closer to evenly split. That is, they can all be go-to social skills, instead of having one general go-to skill and two niche skills.

I think that's truer to the richness of human interaction, that is, that some people will respond to being intimidated (EDIT: And not become hostile! They will only listen to a powerful speaker, or whatever) better than being convinced(not necessarily being lied to!), and not at all to someone appearing diplomatic. And more fun for the players who only have access to intimidate or bluff. I think I imply my stance in the OP, but I figured a more well-stated position would garner discussion. Anyone have any thoughts?

 

[Jhaelen]

Beyond the roleplaying at the table issue, I find Diplomacy is too broad, and bluff/intimidate are too narrow.

Yeah, you have a point there.
I've seen countless skill challenges in adventure modules now, and there's only a very small minority where it's ever useful to use intimidate.
In contrast Diplomacy almost always grants you a success. Bluff's somewhere inbetween.

I believe part of the reason may be that Intimidate is seen by the developers as an in-combat option rather than a diplomatic tool.

Anyway, it's one of the reasons I prefer ad-hoc skill challenges: All skills can be equally useful if the players' roleplaying and/or argumentation is convincing.

Imho, while players may complain if they did great roleplaying but failed their skill check because their character simply isn't as eloquent as the player is, they'll just have to suck it up - or create a character that is actually good at this stuff.

If a rpg system has a skill system to decide on the success of diplomatic endeavours than it should be used. A player who makes an investment here, has to be rewarded. Otherwise you'll end up with a situation I've often seen in previous editions:
Everyone uses Charisma as a dump stat but it doesn't have a negative effect ever, because the player's such a charming person.

I.e. the alternative is to get rid of social skills.

 

[xechnao]

I think I imply my stance in the OP, but I figured a more well-stated position would garner discussion. Anyone have any thoughts?

I think you will always enter into problems with these social skills because they make no real world sense as to how things function in the real world. Entrances like "history" (4e) or etiquette (2e) seem to make more sense on when and how you can apply them in game.
For skills or abilities you want something descriptive that helps you understand what the character may already know or not. Characteristics like wisdom or charisma can be seen as broad descriptors of this sort of thing.
I think "diplomacy" can be a lot more ambiguous for figuring out what it may actually mean than just establishing that your character is a wise guy or a guy that knows his stuff -which is simpler to understand and figure out how to use it in game. Admittedly, the later it is a bit lacking regarding particulars but the details 3e introduced fail to make any sense IMHO. Let me make clear here that I believe you can have a more refined design than the broad categories of 2e(and before) but that 3e failed in the effort. I believe this happened because 3e had to both retain 2e's characteristics and use something different at the same time - in practice its design had to be a combination of two different designs and thus it ends up problematic.

IMO if you want to use the classic 6 stats you should not be using any skills of this kind (old school design, ideal for the fast paced hack&slash adventure). If OTOH you want something more refined, search for something different than D&D -a different design- and try to use this in your adventures.

 

[S'mon]

This is a 4E problem as well, it only looks a little different in 4E than it did in 3E. In 4E, it is a problem because the attribute modifier at high level is higher than the +5 bonus from being trained. In other words, a low-Cha character has to be both trained and specialized in a Cha skill to match the bonus of an untrained character with Cha as his main stat. The spread in skill value in 4E is not as big as it was in 3E, but it is still very big.

I don't find it a problem if the Bard is better at Diplomacy than the Fighter-trained-in-Diplomacy.

At least in 4e, the GM can set DCs such that both auto-pass ("Milord, the Undead are at the gates! Let us help you defend your Keep!"), or even auto-fail ("Mr Lich, have you considered the spiritual wonders of Sehanine?"). In 3e *any* roll on Diplomacy was a ticket to failuresville for the low-CHA Fighter.

 

[roguerouge]

What? No. I'm saying that if its okay to have one guy in the party with thievery, it should be okay for one guy in the party to have diplomacy. Does that suddenly mean everyone should dump charisma? No more than they would dump dexterity.

Now, allowing the high diplomacy person to roll his or her check for another person is a different idea altogether. That's just so people will participate, and not go OOC and just wait to go back IC for the diplomacy trained person to say it, like I mentioned in a previous post.

What you're doing then is saying that because the rogue has lock picks, the barbarian can open the chest with his axe with the same skill. That doesn't make any sense to me. And, yes, there's the face man role in the 4 person party, but yes, bad things happen if you don't let the face man do his job.

Build the character you can play and want to play. If you can't play dumb or unwise or unpersuasive, don't build your character to require you to role play that. I can't understand why this is difficult.

So, if you make house rules to allow players to play their own personality or to use other people's skills rather than their own and then find that social skills and CHA aren't working, the problem is not with the rules as written but with YOUR implicit or explicit house rules.

Every advantage comes with a disadvantage. Your players should know that. Bards (and enchanters and rogues, to a lesser degree) pay very, very dearly for the ability to be important in the social interactions part of the game. The sacrifice hit points, AC and combat ability to have that strength. If your house rules make that strength less powerful, you send the very clear message that only a sucker should invest in social skills because you'll never make there be consequences for not having those skills.