I think, especially regarding puzzles, low stats are to be taken into consideration by the DM and not the player. If a player has high wisdom he can figure out how to gain more out of the solution of the puzzle by perhaps approaching the puzzle a different way.
Issues with Social Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate
- Thread starter fuzzlewump
- Start date
I think, especially regarding puzzles, low stats are to be taken into consideration by the DM and not the player. If a player has high wisdom he can figure out how to gain more out of the solution of the puzzle by perhaps approaching the puzzle a different way.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
How would you, as a DM, "rule" in the situation I described? How would you take the stats in considerations?
It depends on the situation but generally a low stat character will have either a bigger price to pay or less benefits than a higher stat one.
For example in 2e D&D there was a social encounter table (friendliness-unfriendliness) regarding NPCs based on charisma. Same with spells. A higher wisdom gave a better saving throw against spells.
Now, lets say for example that a low wisdom character encounters a sphinx that poses him with a riddle. If he were a high wisdom character, he would immediately get more clues about the sphinx, such as the sphinx's deeper scopes and intentions or something about the story behind the encounter with the sphinx or both. A lower wisdom character could find the riddle's answer but a high wisdom character would have more clues about the actual situation.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I actually meant the climbing/rope example specifically, because I have a hard trime figuring out how to do what you described.
awesomeocalypse
First Post
Another great example of this from Lost is the character Ben. He always lies, and people even know that, but he's just so damn good at it that he can get them to do what he wants. But when he tries to tell the truth in earnest, he's such a weasel that people tend not to believe him.
What I was trying to say has to do with plot and is pretty similar to the "guards" example you laid out yourself.
Figuring out to climb with a rope does not require any wisdom or intelligence. A high wisdom character could have a clue of what may be waiting for the characters at the top or the bottom of the wall. Whether and how it may be guarded for example.
lin_fusan
First Post
Well, the fighter did fail that social skill. NPCs stopped listening to him.
But what I found interesting was that the player found this outcome frustrating. His questions were really interesting: "I had a perfectly reasonable plan. Why wouldn't they listen to me?" " "Why wouldn't I put in a low CHA, because I'm the fighter." and "What was the point in putting us in a situation where we would fail?"
It made me wonder, in a mechanics-heavy system like 3.0/3.5, what players thought of CHA-based skills and stats. STR, DEX, CON all have combat specific applications. INT gives you extra skill points. WIS at least helps your Will Save, but what does CHA do?
I feel that players undervalue it because it doesn't have a lot of mechanical applications (except for Bards, Sorcerers, and maybe Paladins/Clerics). Most players feel like that all they need to be is real life charismatic, or real life reasonable, and that should take care of the problem of a low CHA.
[That part of the Savage Tide Adventure Path assumes that the players will have their characters take leadership positions. Those with high CHA can motivate and command NPCs. Those with low CHA can simply take on the physical challenges.
The result? The druid who had a moderate CHA let other people do the talking. The wizard/thief that should have had the proper skills changed characters because he felt wizards were underpowered. And the fighter player, who had never shown an interest in NPC interactions, suddenly wanted to be a commander/leader in this town.]
lots of good points have been made from different viewpoints. In a way, I agree with all of them. The trick is, the OP needs a consistent reasonable solution, but he has many to choose from.
Here's some of my thoughts, in response to some of the points made:
jack99 has posted that he actually makes his players study real books on the skills/classes for their PC. In short, the fighter is at least booksmart about fighting.
I really do agree that a player's real life skills (especially social) do have a game impact. Dumb players make dumb combat moves. Persuasive players can persuade the DM and other players more often.
I also agree that if you have a low CHA/no social PC, and you play him contrary, you are playing out of character. I at least spent points to increase my 8cha barbarian's social skills, just to rationalize not being the socially inept barbarian, but just brusque. I also didn't play him as an orator.
I see the point somebody made about having a thief in the party means the PARTY can pick locks. Having somebody in the party with a skill, doesn't mean every PC has the skill, it means the PARTY has the skill. The PCs without are still screwed when the skilled PC isn't able to help.
I agree with the guy who asked, "why did you make them roll a check anyway?" But for that matter, I see that the guards showing up, was meant to complicate matters, which would only be fairly arbitrated by a dice roll.
Based on all the ideas and interpretations of the bluff/diplomacy/intimidate skills, I recommend more study. Read the RAW. Read some articles complaining about their implementation (Rich Burlew has some good ideas). Consider what's been said here. Then write up in your house rules document, your interpretation of those skills, and follow that. You won't please everybody, but there's been a lot of good ideas about how and why they work.
Here's some of my thoughts, in response to some of the points made:
jack99 has posted that he actually makes his players study real books on the skills/classes for their PC. In short, the fighter is at least booksmart about fighting.
I really do agree that a player's real life skills (especially social) do have a game impact. Dumb players make dumb combat moves. Persuasive players can persuade the DM and other players more often.
I also agree that if you have a low CHA/no social PC, and you play him contrary, you are playing out of character. I at least spent points to increase my 8cha barbarian's social skills, just to rationalize not being the socially inept barbarian, but just brusque. I also didn't play him as an orator.
I see the point somebody made about having a thief in the party means the PARTY can pick locks. Having somebody in the party with a skill, doesn't mean every PC has the skill, it means the PARTY has the skill. The PCs without are still screwed when the skilled PC isn't able to help.
I agree with the guy who asked, "why did you make them roll a check anyway?" But for that matter, I see that the guards showing up, was meant to complicate matters, which would only be fairly arbitrated by a dice roll.
Based on all the ideas and interpretations of the bluff/diplomacy/intimidate skills, I recommend more study. Read the RAW. Read some articles complaining about their implementation (Rich Burlew has some good ideas). Consider what's been said here. Then write up in your house rules document, your interpretation of those skills, and follow that. You won't please everybody, but there's been a lot of good ideas about how and why they work.
Celebrim
Legend
When I was in high school, there was a friend of mine (not close, as he was older than me) who was one of these natural leaders of men. He was magnetic. His ability to pick up women was legendary. He eventually became an air force pilot I think. On several occassions when I was trying to hang out with the 'cool kids', I made several japes that I thought were funny. No one paid even the slightest attention to me, except this friend who then proceded to tell the same joke to much laughter.
Reasonableness has nothing to do with it. It's a rather nerd perspective to imagine that you are primarily judged on a logical basis or that what most people notice about someone else is their intelligence. That's not even entirely true among nerds, but among non-nerds all the wetware is running on judging facial symmetry, the confidence and aggressiveness of the speaker, body posture, and so forth.
Well, obviously because you didn't want to fail in social situations.
Didn't someone in the party have a charisma above 8? Seriously, this is a classic example of my theory that pure power gamers always lose once the DM gets some skills.
Well, by the rules, admittedly very little. The combat applications of smooth talking and being a pretty face are limited. Partly this is because the social skills are so darn powerful.
However, I've always thought that there ought to be more reason not to have charisma as a dump stat. In my house rules, you get a number of 'destiny points' equal to your charisma bonus. This represents essentially the favor of spirits and the gods, who will on your behalf alter the universe just because they like you. You can use destiny points to buy rerolls or add bonus dice to the total of any throw. I also add some combat feats that depended on charisma, representing the ability to harness your emotions and to control the emotions of others.
Being real life charismatic and even more importantly, real life reasonable, is a big help because you can get your character doing the right thing. It's like being a good tactician or a good puzzle solver in real life. It means that your character will make the most of a given situation. But, if in fact all you need is player skill, then not only is there no point in having Diplomacy or Bluff as a skill, there is no point in having Charisma as an attribute.
I will take into account the player's reasonableness, cleverness, and social insight when making charisma based skill checks, but ultimately it still comes down to a die roll.
I should note however, that just as in the real world, not every friendship or relationship is defined by the charisma of the two parties. It's possible for even a very uncharismatic character through his actions to work his way into the esteem of others. If someone saves your life, for example, that person is likely to hold you in high esteem even if you have the social adeptness and graces of a pig. Likewise, if the character gains a reputation for learning, wisdom, and intelligence, people will still consult his opinions and hold them in high regard even if he's in public a stuttering socially awkward and foolish appearing person. Neither charisma nor dice is everything. If you have a high charisma, but turn out to be shallow and empty, then people will mostly come to disregard your opinions over time - even if they still like you. They just probably think of you as a charming child.
Even the best roleplayer will have a hard time bringing certain character concepts to life if only for the simple fact that not every character will be pleasing and satisfying for every player to run. A good roleplayer knows his limitations and creates a character which suits his desires. In my opinion this is more important than squeezing the very last +1 bonus into your base attack. In a reasonably complicated campaign, dumping everything to gain extreme specialization in one small area of the game (usually combat) is often a highly suboptimal strategy. Sure, you'll be a combat monster, but if you aren't successful in every other area of the game you'll be in for frustration - especially if everyone in the party has adopted the same basic specialization. If this occurs the DM is left with nothing but the rather unsavory choice of tailoring the campaign to be heavily combat focused, which usually involves essentially and endless dungeon crawl.
Similar Threads
