Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 5082935" data-attributes="member: 63214">So, I was DMing the adventure in the back of the 3E Eberron campaign guide adapted to 4E, and came across a realization of some flaws in the social skills of D&D. After taking down a warforged named "Cutter," or she runs away and you are left with her victim, the Sharn City Watch run up and ask something like "What's going on here?!"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 aDiplomacy 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.Sometimes players will react without any attention to their skills. This, I will posit, is a good thing and makes for a creative, quick-thinking and quick-playing environment. What I do is allow anyone to make a diplomacy check to satisfy the needs of the mechanic, no matter who actually said something. 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.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?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. So, I thought about it, and it makes sense that if you can convince someone of a lie, you can convince someone of the truth. If not, it's a bit ridiculous that in a more rules abiding scenario, the Ardent is better off telling a bit of a lie in order to sound more convincing than the truth. 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.)Maybe it makes for an interesting character, someone who can lie easily but when it comes to telling the truth they get nervous? But should that be the general rule? No, I believe.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 it doesn't have to encroach on the territory of Diplomacy. I do, however, think there are situations in which they can overlap. Diplomacy is in a mechanical sense making yourself seem friendly, not necessarily truthful, though that would probably be the assumption of the other party. Diplomacy is therefore, basically, an impression. Impressions are useful for all kinds of social interaction. It's also controlling your tone and body language to be friendly.A. Diplomacy guy tells the truth and he is trusted because of his apparent good character and qualities. The other party is not entirely convinced from a logical stand point, but ignores that for gut feeling and emotion.B. Persuasion guy tells the truth and he is believed because he doesn't have any tell-tale signs of lying. The other party is convinced, but doesn't necesarrily trust or like the speaker otherwise.There is a fine line, and in the original scenario, either could be used. I see this as a good thing. If anyone has any better interpretations of the difference between the two, please submit them. 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? Another thread pointed out that intimidate should be benefited with the addition of a death threat, especially one that the PC's can easily carry out. 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.This isn't a problem for everyone, I suppose, but for me, it's easy to see that intimidate doesn't have a good niche to fill. It seems useless in combat situations, outside of the cheesy (as I see it) surrendering scenario, 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. 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.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, but instead, the pretty much go-to skill for issuing ultimatums. "King, either give us troops, or your kingdom will fall." If the king is completely stubborn and doesn't care about your character or apparent virtue (diplomacy) or the size of the orc army (persuasion) he will not change his mind unless his world is forcibly 'jarred.' You notice I'm being a bit abstract here, but I'm just trying to find a place for intimidate to fill it's own useful niche.But let's say the king is open to all three. The three different attempts could look something like:A. Diplomacy: the speaker is trustworthy, has a calm yet powerful, respectable tone, "King, the east marches need troops, your people need you; allow us to help on this monumental task."B. Persuasion: the speaker is calm and speaks what sounds like the complete truth, "King, the east marches need troops, the Orc Army grows larger by the day, reaching 10,000 in a fortnight." (Could be a lie, doesn't matter.)C. Coercion/Intimidate: the speaker is powerful, commanding attention "King, the east marches need troops, your kingdom will surely fall without this important flank."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?Any comments or insight would be gladly received.</blockquote>

Verification