Issues with Social Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate

[fuzzlewump]

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.

Imagine the SEALs nat oned on their intimidation check. They still have guns. Maybe guns give such a bonus to intimidation that it's essentially auto-success?

 

[Celebrim]

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 Diplomacy 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.

It's a little too late to back out of the interaction here. He's spoken up; a diplomacy check is warranted whether he wants one or not. And sometimes, you are forced to make a diplomacy check whether you want one or not. If the watch sergeant asks you what happened, however you respond either by saying something or not saying something incurs a diplomacy check. But if you don't say anything, it incurs a diplomacy check with a rather large circumstantial penalty because the behavior is one which would normally be considered insulting.

So yeah, maybe he isn't the right one for the job, but that's ok, he's roleplaying. If he gets in trouble, he can always be rescued from the situation by a more charismatic character if there is one. And, he might actually succeed, in which case its like the wizard scoring a critical hit with a staff attack.

Sometimes players will react without any attention to their skills.

I would hope players will react with primary attention on the character of their character. That is afterall why we call it a character. The should react how their character would react, and if their character doesn't pay special attention to their lack of social graces, then neither should the player in acting out the character. That is part of what makes for a fun game. A game in which everyone is primarily paying attention to the rules, rather than to the game world, is one that I find gets deadly dull in a hurry.

What I do is allow anyone to make a diplomacy check to satisfy the needs of the mechanic, no matter who actually said something.

Which is I think ridiculous. So, in your world, all I have to do to be fantasticly charismatic in every situation, is walk around with someone who is? No one people hire 'escorts'. This sort of ruling encourages everyone in the party to dump stat charisma heavily, because there is virtually no penalty for doing so.

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.

Which is fine, but should be handled I think with two charisma checks. It's possible for the watch sergent to develop a dislike for one member of the party, which is mitigated by the respect he has for someone else.

1. Do you find an issue with social skills being tied to the roleplayer who says them?

No. I don't have an issue with tumble checks being tied to the roleplayer who says them, or spot checks being tied to the character who makes them, or search checks being tied to the character who makes them, or saving throws being tied to the character who makes them. Why then should I have a special difficulty with social skills? Why do you want to make proficiency in social skills so much less important than proficiency in every other area of skill?

Or, do you find that players will not contribute unless their mechanics can back up their creativity?

I can't say that I've ever noticed it. The closest I can think of to this situation is the player who made a Wookie character for Star Wars, and then realized sheepishly that this meant he could primarily interact with most NPC's by grunting and roaring. But, having realized that he couldn't take the role he was used to in negotiations, he then made the most of it.

What ways do you get around it, or if its not a problem for you, why not?

I find that most gamers are more willing to be involved than they are to sit on their hands whatever stats that they have. I think its quite possible to play a compelling, interesting, and entertaining character without being the face of the party. If you absolutely must have a mechanical justification, anyone that can pass a DC 10 diplomacy check can assist the party face by granting him a +2 bonus. Thus, if the player plays his character in a supporting role to the party face - much as if the player plays his character in a supporting role to the party tank in combat - he can both roleplay and effectively contribute to party success.

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.

I wouldn't allow that. It risks making the bluff skill too broadly applicable. In my opinion, Bluff has a very narrow application - if you succeed at your check, the hearer is convinced that you believe what you say even though you actually don't. Generally, for most people in most situations this convinces them that what you say is true, though, in the event of a really outlandish lie, what you might actually convince them is that barring any evidence to the contrary that you are insane.

Note that bluff does not do either of the following:

a) You can't use bluff to persuade anyone to believe what you say. You can only convince them to believe that you believe it. Most people take this as a point of evidence in favor of what you say being true, but it doesn't automatically convince anyone to believe what you tell them or to act on that belief in a particular way. More on that latter.
b) You can't use bluff if you yourself believe it to be true. You can only use bluff to be deceptive.

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.)

But now, you must make a bluff check. If it succeeds, the gaurd almost certainly buys your story - because all other evidence points to it and he has no reason to not believe you. If it fails though, the gaurd knows you to be lying so his reaction with respective to you deteriorates, act he still doesn't know the truth. And because his reaction to you has deteriorated, a diplomacy check to persuade him of the truth now gets much harder.

Maybe it makes for an interesting character, someone who can lie easily but when it comes to telling the truth they get nervous?

For a high bluff but low diplomacy character, it might make sense to lie alot - you are more likely to be believed.

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.

No. Because I don't feel that bluff persuades people, per say. It's used to tell a lie without it being noticed. Whether that lie is persuasive will depend on other factors. Generally the lie may sow doubt and confusion, and in the event the target has no reason to disbelieve the lie it will certainly be acted on. But, a bluff like, "What do you mean the sun is shining? It's night and as dark as pitch", may succeed as an outlandish lie, but the target is more likely to believe you are simply insane or magically enchanted, than they are to disbelieve the evidence of their senses - unless of course they have reason to believe that they are magically enchanted, in which case doubt and confusion may be sown.

If bluff could actually persuade someone, it would be an at will suggestion spell. This is clearly more powerful than intended. For one thing, the Epic Handbook defined the DC of using bluff to perform a suggestion at +50 above the normal DC. So sure, if you can make 80 or more on your bluff check, you can get people to believe just about anything and persuade them to act on it, but that quite a bit more powerful than a standard bluff.

In what ways does this step on the toes of Diplomacy? Or does it?

I think it does. I think the basic divide is Diplomacy = honest attempt at persuasion, Bluff = dishonest attempt at persuasion. Or, bluff = trick, diplomacy equal persuade, though really you have to extend the definition of diplomacy somewhat to even encompass persuasion.

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?

Intimidate is the only one of the three that directly gets you what you want regardless of the reaction of the NPC toward you. You can not only use intimidate to persuade, but you can use it to persuade individuals who - because they are hostile to you - would be virtually impossible to persuade by diplomacy. In some respects, it is therefore the most powerful skill of the bunch. On the other hand, it carries the most dramatic penalties, since it deteriorates the reaction of the target to you regardless of whether it succeeds or fails.

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.

I very much disagree. If this was true, there would be no point in having the intimidate skill.

I think you have to draw a very clear line between the ability to frighten someone, and the ability to intimidate them. The intimidated character does what you ask. The frightened character essentially acts randomly and illogically, or becomes angry - and acts randomly and illogically - or if they are strong willed, acts stubbornly and cunningly to thwart your will.

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.

Why? I don't. I have virtually no flight instinct. It's nearly gotten me killed on occassion. You threaten me and I know from experience that I go beserk in a very irrational and illogical manner.

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.

The DC, especially when you are dealing with a hostile target, is much lower than with diplomacy. And the time required to make the check is much lower. Diplomacy might require minutes or even hours of in game time to make the check. Intimidate can be done basically as a full round action. And the effects are more direct. If you succeed, the target does what you say more or less immediately. Diplomacy might take a whole bunch of checks to build up good will and agreement on a complicated issue.

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...

Absolutely. Intimidate is a threat of any kind.

...., but instead, the pretty much go-to skill for issuing ultimatums.

Hmmm.... ok, I agree, but then the next thing you say isn't necessarily an ultimatum.

"King, either give us troops, or your kingdom will fall."

That's a threat only if its understood that you will be the one of the persons instrumental in its fall. Intimidate is, "Cooperate or else." It isn't, "Take my advice or bad things will happen." For example, "You must head to higher ground or the hurricane will wash you away.", isn't intimidate. That's diplomacy. If it fails, then you might resort to, "Head to higher ground, or I'll drag you there myself kicking and screaming.", which is intimidate.

3. Do you have problems with intimidate?

No.

Does it seem to be nearly worthless compared to Diplomacy in your games, or especially, in published adventures?

No.

Do you allow intimidate to work as an 'until the end of the encounter' surrender mechanic? Or do you just play it by ear?

I tend to play everything by ear. If I had to define it, I'd say intimidate lasts until the target fulfills the request or feels he has some measure of safety. At which time, I'd require a second check to extend the intimidation.

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?

No. I would have frightened beings take essentially random action. Some might surrender. Some might fight to the death. Some might try to run away. Others might try to open negotiations. Less frightened beings will take rational action as I see fit. But if you succeed at that intimidate check, then you get surrender.

Incidently, if "We're going to kill you all if you don't surrender" isn't true, then it first requires a bluff check, then an intimidate check. If the bluff check fails, then they certainly aren't going to be intimidated. If on the other hand, its true and their is manifest evidence of it, there is likely to be a large bonus on the intimidate check. Although I should say that I think, "We won't kill you if you do surrender" is likely to grant a bigger bonus. Again, bluff check may be required.

 

[Vartan]

Great post Fuzzlewump! As a DM I've seen a lot of social skill checks play out, and as a player I'm fond of pushing the envelope of what a given skill will let me do.

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?

I find that players will often contribute to a social encounter regardless of skill training, but this isn't much of a problem in my games: another, more appropriately trained character will usually elbow them out of the way to make sure they get a good roll. Also, I don't "snap" request a Diplomacy check as soon as someone starts talking: I role-play the scene out a little bit to give the characters a chance to help or hurt their chances when it comes time to roll. Usually, without table-talk or prompting, the guy with the high Diplomacy check will realize what's happening and put himself into position to make the check. In the aforementioned "What are you doing with this dead body?" scene I would have let the first to answer talk, then act out hesitation or doubt on the Guard's part, and say something to the effect of "The guard doesn't seem likes he wants to let you off so quickly. I'm gonna need a roll." If they had opened the scene with a lie then I would ask for a Bluff roll or a penalized Diplomacy roll ("Look, officer, my friend is a little crazy, here's what really happened, please let us off the hook."), and if they had opened the scene with threats then I would call for an Intimidate check or any combination of the primarily relevant social skills (with penalties or bonuses as appropriate).

I think the important thing is to create an environment where every player feels like they can take part in social encounters, but where characters who are more socially geared get a chance to shine. I don't want the guy playing a barbarian to clam up and lose interest once the fighting stops, and I don't want the guy playing a bard to miss out on a chance to take advantage of his character's awesome social skills. By giving the scene a little bit of breathing room in the form of open RP before asking for a roll I find a good balance. Plus, by not snapping to a skill check request the pre-check RP might take the encounter into new and fun directions.

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 that Bluff and Diplomacy exist well side by side. I think it's plausible to consider someone trained in Bluff as a "smooth-talker" who succeeds in social engagements by lying plausibly and manipulating others in a "devious" way. I think Diplomacy reflects the ability to be convincing through social graces, credibility and a gentler form of manipulation. A fast-talking con man might be able to roll you over with a plausible (but untrue) Bluff, but those bluffing skills wouldn't hold up well under the scrutiny of a more "Diplomatic" situation; a sincere, effective speaker might be good at persuading people when the truth is on his side but unable (or unwilling) to lie effectively; and a career politician would be trained in both skills and switch off between them from one minute to the next.

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?

I think Intimidate is problematic. As written, its use outside of combat looks like an "all-or-nothing" proposition: either you Intimidate the living crap out of them and succeed, or the sbject takes so much umbrage at your attempt that they become hostile towards you. The skill can be more useful if the DM handles it more loosely.

In social encounters I look at a few factors when a player makes an Intimidate check: whether they're relying on "presence" or making a threat; the nature of the threat; and the weight of the PC's "presence" or the credibility of their threat as it relates to the subject's state of mind.

Trying to leverage your "commanding presence" against a powerful, confident or insane subject should solicit a penalty to the roll, but it shouldn't necessarily invoke a hostile reaction: if you puff up in front of someone who won't be impressed by your inflated posture then they'll probably just laugh at you. If you do so in an especially insulting way then you might invoke the subject's ire.

Threats, whether veiled or explicit, require a nuanced response from the DM. Even a successful Intimidate based on threats might earn you a long-term enemy, if the subject is capable of getting back at you one day, but if that threat is credibly ruinous and/or the subject is too powerless or fearful to seek further revenge then it might just make them crap their pants and cross the street whenever they see you coming. Alternatively, the wrong threat against a powerful or willful subject might not just make them hostile, it might lead to an initiative roll.

I try to weight the nature of the Intimidate check against the disposition of the subject, regardless of sucess or failure on the roll. This is realistic, it makes the use of Intimidate against weaker subjects less disastrous in the long run, and it can lead to interesting consequences in both the short- and long-term.

Watch a few good gangster movies--Godfather I & II, Goodfellas, Casino, The Sopranos, etc.--with an awareness of the various subtle and overt "Intimidate checks" made by the various characters: responses include making fudge, indifference (both wise and unwise), momentary compliance coupled with long-term hostility, and immediate violence.

As far as the use of Intimidate in combat goes, I think it works great as-is. As for what happens when someone says "Surrender or we'll kill you all," I don't take that as an Intimidate check: I put myself in the shoes of the enemies and try to weight whether or not all or some of them would realistically bow down to such a threat. Most of the sentient adversaries in my game aren't of the "fight to the death" variety, but they'll roll the dice (pun intended) and, if things go terribly bad for them (as they often do) then they might throw themselves at the mercy of the PCs.

Again, great thread! If I have some time I might fork off a discussion about Streetwise, the red-headed stepchild of the social skills.

 

[Rechan]

I really dislike the assumption that the player's SKILL at SOCIAL STUFF is more important than the Character's STATS at SOCIAL STUFF. I don't have to know how to swing a sword, nor am I expected to know all the knowledge my intelligent bookworm PC does, so why should I have to know how to talk well?

Just because someone can't come up with an eloquent or witty reply on the spot, suddenly, doesn't mean their character shouldn't.

Imagine the SEALs nat oned on their intimidation check. They still have guns. Maybe guns give such a bonus to intimidation that it's essentially auto-success?

Dude, navy seals could walk into my apartment witht heir guns over their shoulders, whistling, and say "Hey man we need you to come with us". The fact they are NAVY SEALS with GUNS says something.

 

[Vartan]

A Bluff-related footnote:

Most people aren't good liars. Psychologists and sociologists have done a lot of research into the social advantages that can be gained from lying: someone who is trained in Bluff but not Diplomacy might be described as someone who relies on lies to get things done in social situations. Someone trained in Bluff (or who is simply good at it by virtue of a high Charisma score) has the ability to look someone in the eye and tell them something that isn't true...and get away with it. This is a skill that is acquired and developed in a variety of ways, but it is distinct from the gift of persuasion. People lie when they can't be persuasive--because the facts are against them, because they're socially inept, etc.--without cutting corners.

 

[Vartan]

Dude, navy seals could walk into my apartment witht heir guns over their shoulders, whistling, and say "Hey man we need you to come with us". The fact they are NAVY SEALS with GUNS says something.

Hey, even SEALs without the guns are intimidating as hell

 

[Celebrim]

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

Technically, under the RAW, this should never happen which is the reason there are no explicit rules to cover it. As a practical matter I'd say, "Use more diplomacy." or present some additional evidence.

I have been thinking about skill checks and the pass/fail mechanics of skills. This is where our trouble may originate from.

I think you are probably right. I've never seen diplomacy as a pass/fail system, because if you look at it that way it is far too powerful. I've always treated it as requiring an accumulation of successes in order to obtain anything specific, with each success granting you a little more than the previous one. Not that I like the 4e skill challenge mechanics, but diplomacy is I think uniquely suited to a skill challenge like approach.

For a challenge like, "Give me command of the army so that I can attack the orcs at the pass.", you might get anything from an angier king that you even dared make the suggestion, to you being sent with a reconnaisance force to ascertain the truth of your claims, to the army going to the pass but not you in command of it, to you in command of the army but you given orders not to go to the pass, and perhaps with the greatest success what you have asked for in full.

 

[Celebrim]

Trying to leverage your "commanding presence" against a powerful, confident or insane subject should solicit a penalty to the roll, but it shouldn't necessarily invoke a hostile reaction: if you puff up in front of someone who won't be impressed by your inflated posture then they'll probably just laugh at you.

I agree with your post in most particulars, but I should point out that ridiculing you is a hostile response. Hostility doesn't have to take the form of a physical attack, any more than intimidate depends on the threat to kill the target.

 

[LostSoul]

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?

I like it when players first describe the action they are going to take, and based on that action the DM figures out if there's a check that needs to be made (and what kind of check applies).

I like systems that require players to describe their action. The skill systems I've used in D&D haven't required this except with table rules (e.g. the DM asks the player, "Okay, what are you doing?")

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 (in 4e) Bluff is broad enough that it doesn't need to be changed.

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?

No problems with Intimidate. I think it's pretty useful; I'm not one of those people who believe that Intimidate is always going to generate a hostile reaction. People respect strength, and if you make the Intimidate check, they'll respect you. (In general.) I allow it to do a whole bunch of things, if it's the skill that seems appropriate to the action the PC is taking.

The last question is interesting. If the NPCs were going to take that action anyway, there's no need to make the roll in the first place. I think this ties into a bigger question:

When does the DM call for a roll? I don't think it's spelled out too well in 4e - at least for my sensibilities.

The other important question is What does the roll resolve? I think 4e handles that better but it's easy to get confused, for a number of reasons.

 

[fuzzlewump]

It's a little too late to back out of the interaction here. He's spoken up; a diplomacy check is warranted whether he wants one or not. And sometimes, you are forced to make a diplomacy check whether you want one or not. If the watch sergeant asks you what happened, however you respond either by saying something or not saying something incurs a diplomacy check. But if you don't say anything, it incurs a diplomacy check with a rather large circumstantial penalty because the behavior is one which would normally be considered insulting.

Sure, that's reasonable, right out of the books. But my players would take that and just clam up and let the guy with diplomacy trained to talk. I think this is more than just my experience.

And, he might actually succeed, in which case its like the wizard scoring a critical hit with a staff attack.

This is a funny analogy given the above, because most of the time the wizard won't even attempt a staff attack.

Which is I think ridiculous. So, in your world, all I have to do to be fantasticly charismatic in every situation, is walk around with someone who is? No one people hire 'escorts'. This sort of ruling encourages everyone in the party to dump stat charisma heavily, because there is virtually no penalty for doing so.

People dumped charisma before I made any ruling, which none of this is official ruling anyway. But, I'm not going to argue with you about what is realistic. That, frankly, never entered my mind and I simply don't care about that. I want to have fun at the table, and I know that me and my players will dump charisma if it isn't an attack stat or a secondary, or a spell-related thing if its 3E, and I also know that they'll avoid failure. Realism aside, it's no different than just having one person in the party with thievery. Yeah, so one person in the party is the one rolling to unlock all the chests, thus 'encouraging everyone to dump' dexterity?

If that's not a valid argument, then maybe it's a issue with the stat itself, which is another discussion entirely. Either way, I respect that you value simulation, but it's not important to me as you I'm sure figured out.

No. I don't have an issue with tumble checks being tied to the roleplayer who says them, or spot checks being tied to the character who makes them, or search checks being tied to the character who makes them, or saving throws being tied to the character who makes them. Why then should I have a special difficulty with social skills? Why do you want to make proficiency in social skills so much less important than proficiency in every other area of skill?

Surely you see a difference as far as the player is concerned between physical skills and social skills. I'm not sure we can go further with this particular point without that acknowledgment. The idea is to have the doors always open, especially during a skill challenge. I think it's bad to have the potential of the fighter sitting there because he doesn't want to make the group get a failure in the challenge, or otherwise doesn't speak his mind. Yes, it's completely unrealistic, but in my group it's nice. Thanks for sharing your experience.

I find that most gamers are more willing to be involved than they are to sit on their hands whatever stats that they have.

Well, I'm glad that's the case for "most gamers." My table requires a little more encouragement.

I wouldn't allow that. It risks making the bluff skill too broadly applicable.

Hmm, I'm not sure I'm following. So, let's just keep calling it bluff, and say you can use it to pass off the truth as something you believe as well? That's what I'm getting at. It's jarring to me that a character can be convincing in telling a lie but won't be convincing in telling the truth necessarily. Yes. I know that the rules don't work that way.

I'm not sure I said to increase the power of Bluff, that's certainly not my intent. Persuasion is just a name that doesn't imply a lie has to be involved. Feel free to give me a better word. If you think that "Bluff" should have to involve a lie because otherwise it would be brokenly powerful, despite my above objection, then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree there.