Issues with Social Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate

[ProfessorCirno]

So the character who made charisma his dump stat and doesn't have diplomatic skills found that he has low charisma and low diplomatic skills.

I'm uh, not seeing the big divide here.

 

[Vartan]

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.

Good point C. I like that 4E doesn't "glossarize" the terms "Unfriendly" or "Hostile," but if my Dragonborn Paladin flexes his muscles and the Prince laughs at him then I would qualify that as at least unfriendly, if not hostile. I was thinking more in terms of what the NPC would do next: if the subject of a failed Intimidate check laughs the PC off or is indifferent to their efforts then they are still probably open to other forms of manipulation (i.e., Diplomacy). I think the description of how an NPC reacts to a failed Intimidate check (i.e., they become "unfriendly" or "hostile") would discourage the use of Intimidate because failure might hobble your party in the skill challenge (e.g., the NPC "shuts down" on you) or lead to combat. I like to manage the Intimidate skill as representing a spectrum of actions and consequences, of which indifference (the absence of effect, just taking a failure on the skill challenge) is a potential outcome.

 

[Vartan]

So the character who made charisma his dump stat and doesn't have diplomatic skills found that he has low charisma and low diplomatic skills.

I'm uh, not seeing the big divide here.

I think the concern is that the character who dumped CHA and didn't train any social skills would be unwilling to engage in social encounters because if you make everybody who talks (or the first to talk) roll a skill check then they could ruin a social encounter by openeing their mouths. A character who stinks at combat can still participate in a battle without putting the party at risk, so a character who stinks at social skills should feel welcome to participate in social encounters without the fear of spoiling them just by opening his mouth.

By showing a little flexibility in how social skills are handled you can encourage everyone to roleplay in social encounters without fear of "blowing it," or without making social encounters the sole province of socially-oriented encounters (in which case the combat-oriented guys might decide to go outside for a smoke every time the swords are sheathed).

Let the barbarian talk...then let the bard elbow him out of the way, say "What my friend meant was..." and make the Diplomacy check, potentially at a penalty if the barbarian just plain stuck his foot in his mouth.

 

[fuzzlewump]

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.

Thanks.

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.

Interesting. But I can't agree, if the fast-talking con-man and the diplomatic person are so starkly different, how could anyone believe the fast-talking con-man when it's clear he can only use the bluff skill? I think that's why that's just a cliche or trope or whatever now. Wouldn't the effective liar appear to be a sincere, effective speaker? That way, more people are likely to believe him? Like you said with your "smoothtalker," shouldn't that same "smoothtalker" be just as convincing with the truth as with lies? Or, imagine he tells the truth but thinks it's a lie, is it a bluff check? A lie he thinks is the truth?

As far as should the rules cover convincing people of the truth? Definitely, I think so. Especially if it's something that is uncharacteristic of the parties involved, or whatever.

 

[Starglim]

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?

If the PCs fail a check, an NPC can always choose to act according to his own common sense and interests. "What a bunch of clowns. I doubt they know their butt from a hole in the ground. However, what they say seems to match what I know, and I can see they have guns. I'll go along with them until I have a chance to get them back for this."

Skill checks should influence NPCs to do what they wouldn't do otherwise.

 

[FireLance]

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.

Agreed. I know this probably runs counter to many DMs' instincts, but you don't always need to call for a check to determine whether a PC succeeds or fails. If there is no plausible reason why the PC should fail, just let him succeed without making a check. On the other hand, if there is some special reason why the PC's ability to succeed at a seemingly routine task is in doubt, the players should quickly realize that something out of the ordinary is going on.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

Building upon the perspective that Mike Mearls offered in his last Ruling Skill Challenges column, I would classify social skills as follows. Bluff manipulates an NPC's perceptions and expectations, ideally preying on his character weaknesses. Diplomacy appeals to an NPC's motivations and values. Intimidate preys upon an NPC's fears. What matters is not what the PC says but the effect they're trying to achieve.

In the case of telling the city watch the truth, I would say that you're trying to affect the sergeant's perceptions by seeming innocent, so Bluff is appropriate. (Note that the very first sentence of the Bluff entry in the compendium states: "You can make what’s false appear to be true, what’s outrageous seem plausible, and what’s suspicious seem ordinary." This attempt falls under the last category, since standing over a fresh corpse with weapons drawn certainly seems suspicious.)

Finally, I have no issue with players making rolls for their own characters. The skill DCs were errata'd precisely to encourage players to use skills they haven't optimized. But in general, I think the roll of dice in an RPG is to resolve uncertainty. If you as the DM are certain as to what effect a PC's actions will have, no roll is needed. Also, in general, social skills do not determine what a PC says or does, only how well they do it. Of course, this approach requires the player to know what their character is trying to do in-game, besides "make a bluff check."

 

[SteveC]

Here's my take, to combine what others have been saying:

First, if you take a low charisma and don't train any social skills, you've given yourself a disadvantage. You're going to have to live with that.

Second, if you've given yourself a low charisma and haven't trained any social skills, roleplaying like you're a suave talker is out of character, isn't it?

Third, if you absolutely have to try and talk your way out of a bad situation, the GM can give you a bonus, possibly a substantial one for actually telling the truth, especially where there's evidence...with a +2 or +4 "truth" bonus, you actually have a decent chance to persuade someone.

Fourth, if a player considers this to be the GM picking on them, consider that this is exactly how the mage might feel when they have to climb up a cliff, or the paladin in full plate may feel when asked to make a stealth check to sneak up on an enemy camp. Different kinds of characters have trouble with different situations...that's why 4E is a team game. If your weakness is social skills, it's still a weakness. Let's say in real life you're a good climber. Should the GM not have you make athletics checks to climb because you can explain exactly how your character would climb something?

Finally, I can tell you this sort of thing is not all that unrealistic. I had a couple of friends back in college who simply came off as having an attitude. Many times I had to step in and keep them from getting arrested when they were doing nothing wrong and actually doing a pretty good job of explaining to a police officer what was going on. More than a couple times we ended up joking about putting some points in diplomacy the next time they leveled up.

That's my take on it.

--Steve

 

[Vartan]

....if the fast-talking con-man and the diplomatic person are so starkly different, how could anyone believe the fast-talking con-man when it's clear he can only use the bluff skill?

I don't think the subject would know that the bluffer could only use the bluff skill: a trained bluffer can match the accomplishments of the trained diplomat but he relies on lies to do so. This has special benefits (the truth doesn't have to be on his side) and risks (if his lies are exposed then he provokes, at best, failure).

Wouldn't the effective liar appear to be a sincere, effective speaker? That way, more people are likely to believe him? Like you said with your "smoothtalker," shouldn't that same "smoothtalker" be just as convincing with the truth as with lies?

The bluffer appears to be sincere when he is lying; he is persuasive because of the advantages that come with effective lying. The Diplomat can be effective in social situations without lying, but he loses the advantages that come with being a skilled liar.

1. If you find the bluffer standing over the body of someone he didn't kill then he could leverage any number of lies to convince you that he isn't the killer. That flexibility carries risk: whether he's guilty or not, an unconvincing lie could seal his fate.
   
2. If you find the diplomat standing over the body of someone he didn't kill then he will have only his skills of persuasion--without the benefit of lies--to rely upon, but his failure won't be so spectacular as that of the bluffer.

The failed Diplomacy check might put you in front of a judge, but the failed Bluff check will put you in front of a judge with the weight of your lies around your neck.

This speaks to the need for a distinction between the two skills: if you had a "Persuasion" skill which enabled characters to be socially effective regardless of whether or not they tell the truth then player characters could "game" social encounters without regard for the moral or ethical implications of how they succeed at persuasion.

To say nothing of the fact that not every good liar is well socialized, and not every well-socialized person is a good liar.

Or, imagine he tells the truth but thinks it's a lie, is it a bluff check? A lie he thinks is the truth?

I've had to handle this situation before, and my rule of thumb is that if the character making the skill check believes he is telling a lie then he makes a bluff check, but if he believes he is telling the truth then he makes a diplomacy check.

CAVEAT: This breaks down in the most nuanced social situations--like asking a Conquistador whether or not he is a murderer when he doesn't think Mayans are human, or asking a Vietcong soldier whether or not he commited torture when he doesn't think that caning is torture. These corner cases turn on the philosophical nature of truth and perception: if your game enters this territory then I think it has left the land of dice rolls and stands firmly on the ground of roleplaying.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I freely give out bonuses for wit, ingenuity, eloquence, deviousness. Likewise, if I feel that I've come up with something really good while playing the part of a NPC, they might receive a +2 (or higher) bonus. The same goes for 'Insight' (or equivalent) skill checks, though in this case, it's typically the unspoken thoughts that, if conveyed -- and if well-reasoned or um, insightful -- might earn a bonus to the roll.

Penalties are not out of the question either. . .

But when you get down to it, if I'm using an even partly skills-mechanic RPG system, then that's what I'm using. So, if I or someone else rolls poorly, for example, it's simply a slightly different kind of improvisation that is required -- to represent a gaff, a stumble, a faux pas, whatever. And yes, the skill ranks (and mods) the character's got are what they have to work with, as a base number. If they wanted more (or less) they should've chosen that.

I keep 'em on their toes, yeah, but I also prefer that as a player. When I get to play (grumble, mutter.)