Issues with Social Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I'm a big fan of role playing it out before doing the skill checks with the dice. In the case of the guards finding a party standing over a dead body of a murderer a few things would have to come into play here:

1) Guards are like police - they would question EVERYBODY not just the one with the highest CHA or Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate skill(s). They are there to keep the peace and to investigate.
2) I would allow the players to RP it out a bit and give them +'s or -'s based on their answers to the guards then add them to the d20 and decide on what the guards think of their stories.
3) What is the party's current standing in the town? Are they hated or loved? That would influence the guards' reactions as well.
4) Take it a step further -Lets say they fail to impress or influence the guards with their account in the group setting, I would even go as far as taking each player aside as me (the DM/Guard) questions them individually to see if their stories collaborate. This could be another chance to get some cool role playing going as well.

Ultimately this is the DM's world and it's his/her job to do with it as they like and how they want to play the skill challenges, meta-gaming, and role playing of their players. There are so many different things they can do and that's part of the reason D&D is so fun.

 

[Voadam]

I don't think it is, at least from a game balance perspective. The "best" attack stats in the game are Intelligence (which governs AC, reflex, and all knowledge skills), Dextrerity (which governs AC, Reflex, Initiative, Stealth, Thievery and Acrobatics) and Constitution (which governs starting HP, healing surges, Fortitude and endurance). A character with any one of those 3 as his primary attack stat can fairly easily just pour everything into maxing out that stat, and he'll gain a massive amount of surviveability in addition to amping his attack stat. Charisma is useful for skills, but I'll take an improved Initiative, AC and Reflex score over a good bluff check any day.

Every stat is connected with defenses in 4e.

Charisma as your attack stat will give you bonuses to your Will defense as well as every social skill in the game.

Wisdom will bump up your will and the key defensive skills of perception and insight.

Str will give you bonuses on fortitude defenses and the attack bonuses will apply on all your basic attacks while the other stats wont.

 

[Voadam]

Charisma does what it says on the tin. And if I'm DMing the Cha 4 PC would have been met by a shower of rotten fruit. Which wouldn't have been much of a surprise - seriously, Cha 4 means that there must be something badly and spectacularly wrong with you. And I'd have warned the PC in character creation about this. (And punished him before then).

Eh, a 4 Cha is a -3 on social rolls. For a skill roll in 3.5 this could be completely insignificant depending on level, class skills, skill point allocation, and miscellaneous modifiers.

 

[fuzzlewump]

@Loincloth: I like that. The way I would run it is if they are pretty much defenseless or going to die, then yeah they'll do what you want in a normal circumstance. The intimidate check can be how scared you make them, and thus, affects if they'll take the very first opportunity to get out of the situation or stay out of fear.

@Traveon: Good post, but I'm not sure that's up for discussion, to have a lot of different ways for a situation to turn out. I don't think anyone will argue against that. So, would you allow someone with a bluff check to convince a guard of the truth?

@Starfox: How is it a much smaller 'problem' in 3E, given that there were charisma casters? Sorcerer and Bard, right?

 

[awesomeocalypse]

Every stat is connected with defenses in 4e.

Charisma as your attack stat will give you bonuses to your Will defense as well as every social skill in the game.

Wisdom will bump up your will and the key defensive skills of perception and insight.

Str will give you bonuses on fortitude defenses and the attack bonuses will apply on all your basic attacks while the other stats wont.

Right, but while every stat keys to at least one defense, Intelligence and Dexterity key to two--reflex and AC. And while Con only keys to one defense, it also keys to hp and surges. I've played several con-locks and wizards, and the advantage of an attack stat that also gives you 4 extra surges, or 4 points of AC, can't really be overstated. There's a reason why Wizards are one of the only classes that can consistently afford a 20 in their starting array--with a high enough intelligence they not only hit all the damn time, they have excellent defenses too.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

@Traveon: Good post, but I'm not sure that's up for discussion, to have a lot of different ways for a situation to turn out. I don't think anyone will argue against that. So, would you allow someone with a bluff check to convince a guard of the truth?

Yep, I'd allow them to try anything they like. It's a matter of context though, and I just don't like it when people just want to roll on something instead of actually using their brains and role playing (just a little bit) out even simple situations. After all, this is RP'ing right? Isn't that the reason people play to be able to experience something in an imaginary realm? If you just go with a d20 vs everything and no actual thought or imagination to it (on the part of the player), it's better to hang up the dice and go play something like WoW IMO.

 

[LostSoul]

That said, I would love to come up with some ways where player skill can also count in social situations.

It's simple - the skill roll resolves the action the character takes, not some vague rules-generated result like "Attitude".

It's something like this:

DM (as guards): "What's going on here?"
PC: "We were attacked by these guys and had to kill one of them." (the truth)
DM: "Hmm. You're going to have to come with us. Drop your weapons."

and the PC responds...

PC: "We can't do that, we're being hunted by assassins."
PC: "Who are you to tell us what to do? The Law of Boom-Boom City says any free-willed man may wield a weapon at all times." (the truth, more or less)
PC: "Sure."
PC: "Isn't there some other way we can work this out?"
PC: "Go screw a gnome."
PC: <runs>
PC: "I carry the Fang of Arek-Hurr. Any man who holds it is doomed to die within a year. This is my curse to bear - don't let it be yours." (the truth)
PC: "We'd rather not. Get your superior - you don't need to deal with this today. Make us his problem."
PC: "No you don't. I'm friends with the Duke. He can vouch for us."
PC: "You'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands."
PC: "It's funny, that's what he-" pointing at the corpse - "asked us."
PC: <stares at the guard, eyes glowing with Infernal fire>

My point is that "what happens next", or what the die roll is going to resolve, is based on that specific action. What happens next is going to be different for each different action (well, actions, since the guards are doing something as well).

PCs who want to get all smart and tactical about it can just say something smart.

1) Guards are like police - they would question EVERYBODY not just the one with the highest CHA or Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate skill(s). They are there to keep the peace and to investigate.

I thought they were there to work for the guys who pay them, while trying to eke out as much in bribes for themselves as possible. (I don't like the idea of city guards as modern western police, not unless your city and/or guards are run by LG-types. That would be interesting - an order of LG Paladins acting as guards in a corrupt and decadent city.)

 

[fuzzlewump]

(Hypothetical) I feel like if D&D really wanted to go the route of no matter if you succeed or fail, it's fun! then a lot of skills shouldn't really exist. Why would you want to be a bard with his +diplomacy ability when it doesn't really matter if you succeed or fail? If both routes are going to interesting, might as well not even get any social stat or skill. What's the point of changing the probability of paths if both are going to way-super-awesome?

Here are some possible different reasons why structures like skills and abilities that increase your probability of succeeding at a skill exist, and I would appreciate anyone's insight:

1. People want to succeed at what they are trying to do, even if failing would be interesting too. They aren't reading a book, and so some players will want to succeed at everything they do, going to measures like just letting the guy with diplomacy talk. Even if, to outsiders reading the scenario like a book, it seems boring.

2. Failing, a lot of the time, is not fun in published adventures, and may take a lot of work to become fun, and takes a lot of work outside of published adventures to be sure that every conflict has at least two fun outcomes. This is especially true for skills like "Climb" and whatnot, the physical skills. Climbing up a cliff or a wall and then falling isn't fun, unless by falling you smash open the floor and a new room is open. That's a good idea actually. But it would become stale if used a lot.

3. Failure should not be fun. That's why you can die in combat, and that's why you have feats, abilities, weapons, etc etc to make sure you don't die. It's what the game is based on in a way. People can dying fun, maybe, but that's probably not the intent. (Or is it?!)

4. People will think of a concept and create it, no matter how crappy it may be in the system. If they want to be a smoothtalker, they will make it, even if it doesn't really have any effect on the outcome of the game. (Different from the outcome of the story.)

5. People want the story to go their way, and will get the skills and abilities necesarry to make sure that happens. Sure, they'll have fun even if they fail, but their primary goal is swing things their way. This actually seems like the best answer, to me, but it's also hard to pin down.

 

[Starfox]

I would love to come up with some ways where player skill can also count in social situations.

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.

(About Cha Classes linked to Cha skills being a problem) I don't think it is, at least from a game balance perspective.

I'm coming more from a concept angle here, not so much a balance angle. My objection is mainly that the RP tax of having a diplomatic fighter (or any non-Cha class) is so high. It restricts certain roles to certain classes.

@Starfox: How is it a much smaller 'problem' in 3E, given that there were charisma casters? Sorcerer and Bard, right?

Attribute discrepancies in 3E with its fewer attribute advances was less pronounced in 3E. And the Bard is very much a social class, while the Sorcerer had lousy social class skills making him worse socially than others, for example the rogue. Additionally, it can be argued that the most important social attribute in 3E was Intelligence, because with extra skill points you could train your social skills. While this is not IMO a good feature of 3E, it did lessen the impact of a high Cha on social skills.

 

[xechnao]

(Hypothetical) I feel like if D&D really wanted to go the route of no matter if you succeed or fail, it's fun! then a lot of skills shouldn't really exist. Why would you want to be a bard with his +diplomacy ability when it doesn't really matter if you succeed or fail? If both routes are going to interesting, might as well not even get any social stat or skill. What's the point of changing the probability of paths if both are going to way-super-awesome?

Here are some possible different reasons why structures like skills and abilities that increase your probability of succeeding at a skill exist, and I would appreciate anyone's insight:

1. People want to succeed at what they are trying to do, even if failing would be interesting too. They aren't reading a book, and so some players will want to succeed at everything they do, going to measures like just letting the guy with diplomacy talk. Even if, to outsiders reading the scenario like a book, it seems boring.

2. Failing, a lot of the time, is not fun in published adventures, and may take a lot of work to become fun, and takes a lot of work outside of published adventures to be sure that every conflict has at least two fun outcomes. This is especially true for skills like "Climb" and whatnot, the physical skills. Climbing up a cliff or a wall and then falling isn't fun, unless by falling you smash open the floor and a new room is open. That's a good idea actually. But it would become stale if used a lot.

3. Failure should not be fun. That's why you can die in combat, and that's why you have feats, abilities, weapons, etc etc to make sure you don't die. It's what the game is based on in a way. People can dying fun, maybe, but that's probably not the intent. (Or is it?!)

4. People will think of a concept and create it, no matter how crappy it may be in the system. If they want to be a smoothtalker, they will make it, even if it doesn't really have any effect on the outcome of the game. (Different from the outcome of the story.)

5. People want the story to go their way, and will get the skills and abilities necesarry to make sure that happens. Sure, they'll have fun even if they fail, but their primary goal is swing things their way. This actually seems like the best answer, to me, but it's also hard to pin down.

Ability choice is not there to determine winning or losing, success or failure but a means to differentiate characters and so a way to live the D&D party experience.
The mentality you describe makes part of a commercial endeavor that started with RPGA and by wikipedia:
"The RPGA was originally formed to provide tournaments to conventions that would be both fun to play and fair to the players in the event. Each player was given a pre-generated character with a background, equipment, and some limited information about the other characters at the table, and a great deal of effort was spent trying to create balanced events."

Emphasis mine. You can play D&D in a competitive fashion but I doubt this is what social skills are about since there is not any formal background developed that lets to use them that way.
You may have this mentality due to the acclaimed need for system mastery regarding 3.xe but this is not generally something to be desired for, at least IMO.