Issues with Social Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate

[fuzzlewump]

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.

Are you okay with those disadvantages causing a player not to participate? Or rather, having the potential for causing it?

Anyway, good points. But the goal isn't realism, it's getting players to participate and have fun. Here is what happens at my table when there is a social skill check or challenge, assuming I run it by the book:

1. The player of the non-social characters will tell the other players the idea OOC, then we'll return to IC and the high diplomacy guy will just parrot it. It's just kind of ridiculous. I'd rather skip the middle man. Anyone can say their ideas and someone rolls a diplomacy. It's completely unrealistic, makes it so you really only need one guy trained in it, but I'm not convinced those are bad things. Is it different from having one guy trained in a knowledge skill or one guy trained in thievery? Or what have you? If you don't train Arcana you aren't punished, unless the guy with Arcana doesn't tell what his arcana checks confer, which is its own issue. Or...

2. The player is intimidated and doesn't say anything at all.

So, what I can do is encourage my players to participate no matter what their numbers say, because I'll assure them failure is fun too, or I can pull back a layer of restriction on the rules. Or I can try to force them to be in in character. Force + D&D = ...not me.

EDIT: To be clear, the final idea still has to be good. The barbarian can't rage in saying "ME FOOOOD!" and the bard rolls a 40 diplomacy for him. It's just so the game can keep flowing easily and well, with the social situation occurring elegantly. Completely case-by-case.

 

[fuzzlewump]

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.

A lie is still a lie no matter what the skill is called. Allowing you use bluff/persuasion to be convincing when you tell the truth doesn't change the ethical implications of using bluff/persuasion to lie.

In other words, it doesn't follow that there needs to be a distinction between skills because there should be a distinction between lying and truthing.

Also, see SteveC's example of the guy who explained himself well but was still not trustworthy. Good example of Persuasion vs. Diplomacy. The cop is convinced that the kid thinks he's telling the truth, but he came off with an attitude, so was unlikable. If you can't use bluff to tell the truth, then you would use diplomacy... and given that real life scenario, how could he tell the truth well and still not be likable with diplomacy? Another skill would have to come into play. Namely, 'persuasion.' Or, to be clear, Bluff with the ability to also tell 'truths' as well as lies.

 

[Hussar]

There's some serious walls of text there boys that I'll admit I didn't fully read, so, if something has already been covered here, feel free to move on.

My first question is, why was the diplomacy check called for in the first place?

I come from the belief that you only call for checks when doing so will lead to a more interesting result - good or bad. Did it matter, really, if the guard did or did not believe the PC? Was this a major point of the adventure? Or just a roadblock?

In other words, if your adventure is about the PC's chasing the murderer and how they try to catch him, why are they spending time talking to Random Guardsman? Is Random Guardsman important? Is this a direction you want the game to go? If not, then the Random Guardsman buys the story immedietely and you move on. I don't know the particulars of the scenario, but, it could be the PC's have something of a reputation and so, their word is pretty good. ((The presense of particular classes might help - a paladin in 3e or earlier editions for example))

Is "The party gets mistaken for the murderer" part of your plot for your adventure or not? If it's not, then don't bother with the diplomacy in the first place. If it is, then it doesn't matter if the PC succeeds or fails - either contingency leads to more interesting play.

 

[Celebrim]

Is "The party gets mistaken for the murderer" part of your plot for your adventure or not?

Well, if the plot is that tight, then you definately better not throw the dice ever.

The only thing more likely to wreck plot than throwing dice is player choice.



Best to avoid either. The consequences are to horrid to bear consideration.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Some things are so trivially easy that no roll is required for success. This is almost universally accepted for physical skills (no Athletics roll to ascend a staircase or jump a 2 foot ditch), but for some reason not as commonly accepted in social situations. I would submit (no pun intended) that waving a sword and shouting at a peasant to get out of your way does not require an Intimidate roll at all; you have a SWORD!

He may not like you much, and if he works in the kitchen he'll spit in your soup before he serves it, but he will get out of your way.

Are there analagous situations where Diplomacy or Bluff would also be an auto-success? We don't roll to buy an item at regular price from a merchant who wants to sell it, for example. I'm not sure there is an auto-success for bluff; you are lying after all.

 

[Leatherhead]

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?

Well, natural 1's aren't an auto-failure. I would say that having a gun grants a circumstance bonus of at least +2 for using a tool, and another +2 because they broke down the door. It is a group of people breaking in the door, so we are going to say they made heavy use of Aid other with four or five people helping out. A SEAL is probably a around 4th level (being an exceptional human), and would have intimidate maxed out.

The quick math would be 0(10 cha)+7(ranks)+2(masterwork tool) +2 (circumstance) +10 (aid other). Even with a natural 1 you are looking at an effective 22, which is enough to make most people stop.

But math aside: If it is a failure, I am imagining someone getting angry and cussing the SEALs out for breaking down their door. All the while shouting things like "I'll sue you!" and not being very helpful in general. Most people are going to know better than to outright physically fight them. Alternatively I am picturing the guy busting out in laughter because he thinks its a practical joke.

 

[N0Man]

I personally think you're looking at the encounter in too limited of a way when dealing with this confrontation with the watch. Why does a social encounter only have to involve social skills? Does it have to involve skills at all? Why can't it involve skills on the part of the NPC? Let me give examples of each:

Examples of how Skills might be used:

• Diplomacy: Persuasion and dealing with watch (obviously), or maybe knowing a higher up person in the watch or someone with some social weight he could vouch for you.
• Bluff: Deflecting suspicion, coming up with an excuse that may not be true but helps casts doubt on guilt.
• History: Knowledge of the city and its laws and your rights in this situation.
• Perception: Spot a clue at the scene that might help prove your innocence.
• Heal: Point out forensic evidence regarding the death to prove innocence.
• Streetwise: Know how to deal with guards, or maybe be able to reference a useful contact who could help somehow.

They don't all have to be social skills.

However, it may not be necessary to make them roll anything. Let them roleplay it out. Just because he's not charismatic doesn't mean he can't make a valid and convincing point with his character.

Or maybe let the NPC roll to come to a conclusion, such as Insight, Perception, or Heal to get a feel for the situation and how much he trusts the NPCs.

 

[Nightson]

Here's how it's handled in my game.

Diplomacy is gone, it's axed, it does not exist. To talk to people you just talk. And the players play differently. The noble eladrin is chatty, eloquent, and a bit of a brat. The dwarf tends to be gruff and a little insolent. The halfling rogue prefers to stay quiet but jumps in during negotiations, planning or anything illegal is being discussed. The sorcerer is quiet most of the time and chimes in whenever she has something to add. The ranger sits in the back, scowls at things and gets drunk.

Diplomacy stifles roleplaying. Now that's not a judgement statement, it has it's benefits, but it's not something I want in my campaign.

Now bluff and intimidate are different. I admit I had a hard time with bluff, right until I saw the show Lie to Me, after seeing that, bluff made perfect sense as unconscious body language that insightful characters could pick up on. If the bluff check succeeds, the NPC treats it like any other piece of information (which is not to say immediate belief), if it doesn't then the NPC is either distrustful or outright knows it's a lie (depending on the degree of failure).

Intimidation is body language with a supernatural aspect as well. People can radiate danger in a world suffused with magic. Intimidation is a projection of your force, it does not make enemies think you're helpless if you fail. For example, you tell the king that if he chooses a course of action you'll be forced to oppose him. Now, you can say that and just have it be said, or you can say it and roll intimidation, and if you succeed when you say it that way, you send a little shiver of fear down the kings spine.

I find this system works very well for not getting in the way of roleplaying.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

When it comes to social skills, one thing that is often brought that if physical skills the player has have no relevance for the character, than so shouldn't his social skills.

But I am afraid that misses the reality of the game. The players very clearly have always advantages based on their mental abilities - including social skills.
Intelligence helps when you play RPGs. Tactics matter. Character Building matters. Connecting the dots in the plot matters. All this requires the player's abilities, not the character's abilities.

The players skill intelligence can "manipulate" the difficulty of other checks just fine. "Hey, we could each try to climb this wall individually. Or the guy with the highest modifier goes first, and then drops a knotted rope! Changing the DC from 20 to 5 for the rest." The character with this idea could be the guy with INT 6 and no training in Climb.

At some point, we cannot simply ignore our own abilities. It would make the game pretty pointless. There could be some "work-around". Maybe the INT 6 player makes the brilliant suggestion out-of-game, and then the party Wizard with INT 22 makes it in-game.

It is part of the fun of the game that the player's choices matter and have an impact on the story. If players have to "dumb down" their choices because the character they play isn't particularly smart or eloquent, that seems a bad choice.

The trick for the DM is to figure out how to still make these skills count. In my Climb example, the plan still required at least one guy with a good skill. (But if they just had to climb down, that wouldn't have been the case).

An alternative approach - especially for social skills - is to use the skill check result as a measure not of success, but the degree or nature of the success.

Maybe the guards are convinced that the PC did just catch a murderer and took him down in self-defense. But a failed check might indicate they felt their action was rash or uncalled for, or that it was none of the players business to deal with the problem. Maybe they still take the players for questioning. On a succesful check, they might remind the PCs that there is a reward for apprehending the murderer, or they keep them in mind for later "jobs".

 

[jbear]

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?")



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



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.

I agree.

I have to remind my players very often that no one rolls anything until they tell me what they are doing.

Then I try and judge whether a roll is necessary depending on how convinced I am by the action/idea and it's difficulty depending on the hostility/difficulty/danger of the situation.

I hadn't read the rules very thoroughly when we began to play and so I ruled that Intimidate attempts could be made 1/encounter as a minor action to leave bloodied enemies shaken (-2 ATQ til Saved).
After I read it was a standard action and used to make bloodied enemies surrender I played it the official way with the creature's surrender being implicitly at my discretion.

Intimidate disappeared from combat and with it some stirling rp moments that went with it is as my players enacted their war crys and death threats to gain a +2 RP bonus on the roll.

It was sorely missed. So after a group sit down and chat about house rules, we decided to bring it back.

As far as using Intimidate out of combat, I am also of the view that the pcs shouldn't have to worry that their imposing presence might displease the person they are talking to and thus endangering positive outcomes in social interaction. I strongly dislike the overly polite submissive way they tend to interact with people they want something from. This is the kind of thing an evil, self indulged egomaniac tyrant might demand from those around him/her... but if you want someone tough and capable to do a job, a gruff and intimidating persona that refuses to cower even before the mightiest of lords is probably just what you are looking for.