Using Bluff

[DonVega]

Hey, first post.

I play a Sorcerer, high charisma, high diplomacy and bluff (+12/14 Dip/Bluff at Lv4) in a 3.5 circle. However, I find that the way people react to my Bluff skill is inappropriate given my character's 19 Charisma and skill scores. He's also the only real social character in the party, with everyone else being a hack and slasher.

The biggest issue comes from players simply saying, "I ignore him." What?! My character is a very useful part of the group, with extremely high Charisma, has a way with words and just because he's persuading you (Rolling a 30 or so) that doing 'x' is a bad idea while still role playing it... they can just up and totally ignore him?

It just seems rather useless seeing that any other skill can be used on a PC, but people can just ignore the words that they hear. Maybe I'm totally wrong and it can't be used at all outside of just plain lying and making them sense motive or something. But that a character's skill at speech cannot even pretend to influence a character is silly. It'd be like using intimidate, rolling high on it and the PC saying, "Oh, I wasn't scared."

 

[green slime]

Hi DonVega, and welcome to the boards.

Diplomacy is a tricky skill, because its purpose is to change people's attitudes. The reason you can only do this to NPCs, is that players do need to be in control of their character's actions and attitudes. That is the very heart of why people take up the game.

In a game where people are interested in roleplaying, they will enjoy the challenge. Most people, however, do definitely not like being dictated what they feel and like. Which is basically what you are trying to do, through a game mechanic. This causes resentment.

That is why, the rules specify that the Diplomacy skill is to be used on NPC's only. To avoid unnecessary player conflict at the game table.

Lastly, as some kind of consolation, there are people like that in real life: no matter how eloquent the debate, no matter how skilled the debater, no matter how conclusive the logic, there are people who will always do the opposite, for what appears to others as really stupid reasons.

 

[Herzog]

I assume, from your wording, that your group allows inter-party skill use.

I've had experience with something similar:

A new person joined the group.
When, after a fight, the 'loot' was devided, one of the other characters ended up with something he wanted for his character.
Because he was playing a thief, he decided to steal it.
The other characters found out, confronted him, and when he kept laughing it off, attacked him, eventually ending in his character death.

Afterwards, we found out we were playing along different inter-party rules than he was used to:
He was used to inter-party stealing being allowed, as well as a little brawling, but no inter-party fights with weapons.
We had a (admittedly, unwritten) rule that even inter-party stealing was 'not done'.
We felt like he broke the rules, and by that allowed the other rules to be broken too.

Back to your problem: Decide, as a group, whether inter-party skill use is allowed. My own groups use inter-party skill use as a guideline for roleplaying, but also allow characters to ignore it. It sounds like your group does the same, but make sure you all know the 'rules' and agree on them to avoid this kind of conflicts.

 

[DonVega]

That makes sense, but at the same time ignoring the roleplay element (The stat roll is just a somewhat desperate plea to the GM that my character is basically being ignored, when of course he is the first person sought when we find something magical) is really what bothers me the most. When the sorcerer tells you why something is not a good idea, gives you a perfect valid reason, and then is ignored various times... I dunno.

I guess I could find a cursed item identify it, and pass it to the offender. "Oh, yes. It's a pretty powerful magic effect." The same character (a Lawful Good warrior with a Knight of same alignment) is also one of the greedier players, despite being Lawful Good and (to my character) abuses his position as a liege by using his knight's gold in lieu of his own. He supports this by saying the action isn't 'evil', just greedy/selfish (??) and that he isn't breaking any law. Worse, he seems to use that character to buffer his own rolls and act as an insert for when he wants to be in two places at once. (He has control over his knight, which he gained from a Deck of Many Things)

 

[green slime]

Remember, DonVega, that the Diplomacy skill only allows you to influence their general attitude towards you.

Hostile => Unfriendly => Indiiferent => Friendly => Helpful

It doesn't mean that they are going to obey your every suggestion.

They can still be friendly with you, but disagree with your proposed solution.

 

[aboyd]

The biggest issue comes from players simply saying, "I ignore him."

It's a problem that they're following the rule books? Page 15 of the DMG:

The important point to remember regarding the actions of the player characters during an adventure is that each player controls his or her own character. Don't force a character to take a specific action (unless the character is under a magical compulsion). Don't tell a player what his or her character's emotions are.

Note the "magical compulsion" comment for this next part of my post.

But that a character's skill at speech cannot even pretend to influence a character is silly. It'd be like using intimidate, rolling high on it and the PC saying, "Oh, I wasn't scared."

Which would again be... in line with the rules. You need a magical effect to intimidate a player character. Perhaps a Will save vs. fear? As a sorcerer, don't you possibly have a Cause Fear spell? That should give you influence against your allies. Of course, they may also hold it against you once they're free of the effects. Yikes.

The reason for this is because the game is not purely in the game world. You are sitting around a table with other human beings who are ALSO there to have fun. The gameplay cannot ignore this, even though it means that the game is not run purely as character-driven. Instead, the game rules willingly straddle both sides of the fence because both characters and players need to be addressed. This is fair, and the imperfect solution that the designers of the game came up with is what you're stuck with. Of course, you could house-rule it, but that might be hard if you are not the DM and the DM likes the rules as-is (and the other players probably like it as-is too).

If they are good role-players, they will likely make concessions in small degree as time goes on. But they also may not be willing to do that if your actions as a player conflict with your stats as a character. In other words, if you as a player try to get everyone around the table to do what you want, and fail, and sulk about it... well, that's not very charismatic, and not role-playing the character very well. So you might expect that the players see that discrepancy and don't play along.

Unfortunately, charisma, wisdom, and intelligence need to at least slightly match up with the player & character in order for everyone to suspend disbelief.

 

[Aran Thule]

Hiya, will just give my opinion on things.

To be honest i would not try to compel people with your rolls, as mentioned by several people the rules state it doesnt work that way and it can cause some resentment.

If you want them to follow your advice it will come down to trust and that they value your opinion.
Next time you find yourself in a situation like you mentioned, instead of telling them what to do try advising them, it is up to them what they do but if they ignore you and things go bad then next time they might take notice.

Saying that some people will always do things their way and ignore everyone else, what is the point of playing a group game if you dont work as a team.

 

[irdeggman]

One of the main focuses of 3.0/3.5 when compared to earlier editions is that it promotes and rewards cooperative play.

There is no such thing as individual awards (except for role-playing) anymore. 2nd ed had a bunch of class-based awards which promoted individual play (including stealing from other party memebers).

In 3.5 you get no awards for attacking or doing anything to another party member.

It is not about a character getting his way it is all precluded on the party working together.

 

[green slime]

aboyd: You can Intimidate other players in combat as a standard action to make them shaken. Although why you would choose to do so is a completely different reason.

And the reason you can do this, is that it has a very specific game effect, and isn't telling a player that they can't choose to slice you into little pieces anyway...

 

[aboyd]

aboyd: You can Intimidate other players in combat as a standard action to make them shaken.

Sure, I'd probably agree to that. That's applying a mechanical effect, not telling the player what to do.

The same character (a Lawful Good warrior with a Knight of same alignment) is also one of the greedier players, despite being Lawful Good and (to my character) abuses his position as a liege by using his knight's gold in lieu of his own. He supports this by saying the action isn't 'evil', just greedy/selfish (??) and that he isn't breaking any law. Worse, he seems to use that character to buffer his own rolls and act as an insert for when he wants to be in two places at once.

I just read the description of a Deck of Many Things, and I think that player was exceptionally fortunate to draw a Knight card. Having said that, he drew it, he has the knight, the knight serves loyally until death. So... what in your post is wrong? He appears to have gained something like an awesome version of the Leadership feat -- a cohort who is loyal to death and there is no penalty when that knight dies (other than you lose the knight). So why wouldn't they pool their money, why wouldn't he send the knight out as an emissary, why wouldn't he use the knight to grant himself skill check assists? All of those seem like natural uses of a loyal-to-death cohort. They're not even particularly mean or selfish, I think. It's just the two of them working together, and the knight fulfilling his supporting role. Why is that wrong? I must be missing something.