# Are things like Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy too easy?



## NewJeffCT (Jun 11, 2011)

I've been playing D&D for over 30 years now, and have played first 3.5E and now 4E for almost four years now.

One thing I've found is that "social" skills are Bluff, Intimidate & Diplomacy are usually too easy in game.  A good Bluff check, and the formerly loyal guard with strict orders is letting the PCs into the castle... a good Intimidate check and the fanatical follower of the Evil Tyrant God is spilling the beans on his group's secret hideout.

I really think these things should be much more difficult.

Sorry but, IMHO, the loyal guard who has strict orders not to let anybody into the castle (under penalty of death) isn't going to suddenly forget his job because a PC rolls a good Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate check and defeats his Will defense or he fails his Will save or whatnot.  I mean, if the king finds out, the guard may end up being beheaded and his family also executed.  I would think that would put any sort of bluff/intimidate out of reach without magical persuasion.

Similarly, the fanatical follower of Evil God of Tyranny isn't going to give up the location of his secret hideout because a PC says "Boo" to him and rolls a 19 Intimidate check, modified up by X ranks in Intimidate and more through Aid Another.  I would think the intimidation of betraying your god and spending an eternity being tortured for that betrayal is worth more than some PC talking to you sternly.

Using magical charm or domination spells is another story.  I'm talking about just using the "social" skills.

How do people handle this situations?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> I've been playing D&D for over 30 years now, and have played first 3.5E and now 4E for almost four years now.
> 
> One thing I've found is that "social" skills are Bluff, Intimidate & Diplomacy are usually too easy in game.  A good Bluff check, and the formerly loyal guard with strict orders is letting the PCs into the castle... a good Intimidate check and the fanatical follower of the Evil Tyrant God is spilling the beans on his group's secret hideout.
> 
> ...




I think they need more limitations built in so you don't get silly outcomes.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 11, 2011)

I think it's the DM's job to make the NPCs react in a realistic way so one doesn't get silly outcomes.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 11, 2011)

Does that not depend on the DC of the check? Or, indeed, the skills of the target? An easy DC is going to be easy; a difficult DC is going to be hard.

Your guard has a +20 situational intimidate bonus from his scary king, for example.


----------



## MatthewJHanson (Jun 11, 2011)

I agree with Crothian, and I'll also add that most systems take this into consideration by allowing the DM to up the DC. In the bluff example you mention, in 3.5 the guard would get at least a +10 bonus to Sense Motive, maybe a +20.  If the PCs still bluff the guard even with that crazy bonus, the deserve the victory.


----------



## RedTonic (Jun 11, 2011)

At least for 3.x, the Rules Compendium has good information on the social skills and guidelines on how a successful (or unsuccessful) check shapes an NPC's reaction towards the PC, and what that reaction should (roughly) entail. There's really no reason for  loyal NPC guard to allow hostile PCs into his liege's castle based on a social skill check.


----------



## Noumenon (Jun 11, 2011)

Yes, this is hard for me.  Does anyone actually use the "move your attitude up two steps" rules?  Social skill checks tend to be pass/fail, yes/no affairs.  What does it mean for the Intimidate to succeed, if not that the guard lets the PCs go by?  "The guard still says no, but now in a scared voice?"

Skill challenges should work better, as an easy intimidate leads to a medium stealth and maybe more diplomacy later on.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 11, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> I've been playing D&D for over 30 years now, and have played first 3.5E and now 4E for almost four years now.
> 
> One thing I've found is that "social" skills are Bluff, Intimidate & Diplomacy are usually too easy in game.  A good Bluff check, and the formerly loyal guard with strict orders is letting the PCs into the castle...




The bluff, IMO, should make sense given his orders. If the guard is told not to let someone through, they shouldn't, unless the PCs come up with the "right" bluff (eg I'm the king's assistant spymaster and need to deliver an urgent message right away, or didn't the king tell you the Fellowship of Ee would visit today?). Even if the guard fails, they should demand the PCs drop their weapons.

(And I think in the above scenario, you have to fool a bunch of guards. No guard is willing to do something dodgy with witnesses, and even a private meeting with the PCs is suspicious.)

I think the real problem is trying to write a set of rules for social skills that are too simplistic. If they're complicated, it becomes a new subsystem like combat, which means time has to be spent learning them, _and_ it's going to be less structured than combat, too. If you just follow the simplistic rules as written, then rolling high means the guard falls under mind control, and that's just silly.



> a good Intimidate check and the fanatical follower of the Evil Tyrant God is spilling the beans on his group's secret hideout.




If you've got him at your mercy, sure. Even arrested al-Qaeda members sometimes spill, and I'm not talking torture here. But not if you just spook him. I think 4e has a specific Interrogation skill challenge, but I don't recall any rules about "having the NPC at your mercy".

For Diplomacy (possibly the worst offender in 3.x), Rich Burlew, writer of OOTS, came up with a great system that's level-based, but more importantly (from a flavor perspective) also has good modifiers for "making a deal". In that system, Diplomacy isn't "make friends", it's "make a deal". Which means even if you deal with the guard to sneak into the king's chambers once, you're going to have to make it worth his while the next time.


----------



## AeroDm (Jun 11, 2011)

Something that I've been thinking about lately is the idea that changing an attitude is problematically vague. Social skills are often resolved into "change beliefs" but all that is needed to propel the game forward is "change behavior." If a good Bluff convinces the guard to let you into the castle by changing his belief, the guard then goes back about his day manning his post. But if it just changes his behavior, then the PCs continue onto the next challenge but the guard still feels uneasy about what just happened. He let them pass for fear of what would happen if he interfered, but now he is double checking with his superiors and reinforcements are on their way. It is a small difference in interpretation but it gives more room for degrees of success to be introduced to social skills.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 11, 2011)

I always just set whatever DC I think is reasonable after listening to the player's spiel, then they roll vs the DC - if I'm using a static DC like the target's Will defense then I tell the player "roll at +5" or whatever, depending on how scary/persuasive they were etc.  So this problem never arises for me.

Edit: I don't recall having had any problems with this approach, but in the extreme case of a socially retarded player who builds a diplomacy-centric PC I suppose might have to get them to rebuild their character.  Has never happened IRL though.  And really that's much like a player who makes an 'optimised' combat PC but is utterly hopeless at combat tactics so they still lose.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 11, 2011)

AeroDm said:


> Something that I've been thinking about lately is the idea that changing an attitude is problematically vague. Social skills are often resolved into "change beliefs" but all that is needed to propel the game forward is "change behavior." If a good Bluff convinces the guard to let you into the castle by changing his belief, the guard then goes back about his day manning his post. But if it just changes his behavior, then the PCs continue onto the next challenge but the guard still feels uneasy about what just happened. He let them pass for fear of what would happen if he interfered, but now he is double checking with his superiors and reinforcements are on their way. It is a small difference in interpretation but it gives more room for degrees of success to be introduced to social skills.




I think the rules actually support that. IIRC Bluff results don't last that long, but DMs and players forget this really fast.

(Alas, that's no fix to Diplomacy. As far as I can tell, that's permanent, barring mistreatment of the "victim" of Diplomacy.)


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2011)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> If you've got him at your mercy, sure. Even arrested al-Qaeda members sometimes spill, and I'm not talking torture here. But not if you just spook him. I think 4e has a specific Interrogation skill challenge, but I don't recall any rules about "having the NPC at your mercy".




This actually comes up in our game Terror Network some times. It is different from d20 and 4E though, so the probabilities aren't the same. In our game, Interrogation is a d10 dice pool (0-3 based on skill, with 0-3 possible modifiers) against the target's resolve score (6-9). This leads to a lot of what you are describing. The problem is, if you have (had) Osama Bin Laden, it is hard to imagine him spilling the beans on much of anything. What we've had to do since is encourage the GM to use his judgment based on the NPC. Some NPCs are simply not going to talk. They may become more amiable, or more open to discussing other things, but if they are true believers in a cause, the GM is within his right to say in advance on the NPC sheet, "this guy doesn't reveal what he knows no matter what"


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 11, 2011)

Just to avoid hard feelings...

Well one, I don't allow evil PCs, so torture is right out, but for a different campaign, couldn't you have a resolute NPC simply fall unconscious or even die?

PC 1: "Tell us what you know."
NPC: "I'll tell you nothing!"
PC 1: "Increase the current."
NPC: "Blaarrrghhh...."
PC 2: "His heart's stopped. ... He's dead Jim."

(Where are the rules for this? There aren't any!)

In d20 Modern, if a character is dying, they can make a Fort save DC 15 to hang on. Of course, you can always deliberately fail a save. It's probably stretching the rules a little bit to say you can deliberately fail a save while unconscious, but not by that much.)

I don't know how it works for Terror Network; I'm hoping there's some kind of "choose to live" rule. Although you could exercise your GM right to say "he dies under the knife/shock/whatever".

I guess I'm saying, you could have a player revolt if the captive is still alive and not talking. Their plot role is done, so they can give a vague warning, a defiant threat and then die from the unsanctioned medicine.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 11, 2011)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> Just to avoid hard feelings...
> 
> Well one, I don't allow evil PCs, so torture is right out, but for a different campaign, couldn't you have a resolute NPC simply fall unconscious or even die?
> 
> ...




We don't really tell people what they can or can't do with the game (and we certainly don't endorse torture), but we do point out that the laws don't permit torture, so agents going that path would probably lose their clout and even face charges. 

But Interrogation skill (in TN), is more about proper Interrogation of a suspect (questioning, bargaining, etc). Anything beyond that would really just be a modifier I suppose. So the way I handle NPCs who simply wouldn't give up information on their organization is they may accidentally give away some minor information on a success or they simply become more friendly and well disposed toward the PCs.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 11, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> But Interrogation skill (in TN), is more about proper Interrogation of a suspect (questioning, bargaining, etc). Anything beyond that would really just be a modifier I suppose. So the way I handle NPCs who simply wouldn't give up information on their organization is they may accidentally give away some minor information on a success or they simply become more friendly and well disposed toward the PCs.




Oh, I see. I had a very different mental picture 

I can see even OBL letting things slip.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jun 11, 2011)

I generally don't use them, because it's been my experience if a person doesn't want to tell you something then barring something extreme, such as shoving them against a wall or water boarding, they pretty much won't change their minds and stay silent.

I do use them in a crunch in some places though, such as when I'm out of ideas on how they should respond.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 11, 2011)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> Just to avoid hard feelings...
> 
> Well one, I don't allow evil PCs, so torture is right out, but for a different campaign, couldn't you have a resolute NPC simply fall unconscious or even die?.




Eh, real torturers do horrible things to people that run no risk of the subject's death, and often may not leave any obvious long-term mark either.  It's usually more about humiliation and fear of the loss of bodily integrity (eg by removing body parts like fingernails) than infliction of pain _per se_.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Jun 11, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> Sorry but, IMHO, the loyal guard who has strict orders not to let anybody into the castle (under penalty of death) isn't going to suddenly forget his job because a PC rolls a good Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate check and defeats his Will defense or he fails his Will save or whatnot.  I mean, if the king finds out, the guard may end up being beheaded and his family also executed.  I would think that would put any sort of bluff/intimidate out of reach without magical persuasion.
> 
> Similarly, the fanatical follower of Evil God of Tyranny isn't going to give up the location of his secret hideout because a PC says "Boo" to him and rolls a 19 Intimidate check, modified up by X ranks in Intimidate and more through Aid Another.  I would think the intimidation of betraying your god and spending an eternity being tortured for that betrayal is worth more than some PC talking to you sternly.




This is why I don't like the PHB telling you the DC to talk someone from being about to kill you to death to being your best friend. Short of magical compulsion: NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.

You may have a honeyed tongue, or a dagger to their throat, but some people are not going to do what you want. No matter what.


----------



## Stormonu (Jun 12, 2011)

I think part of the disconnect comes in the fact we're used to having to defeat monsters by whacking on them several times to wear away their hit points, whereas the social skills in 3E turned it into a one-roll affair.

4E made an attempt to fix this with the mechanics of Skill Challenges in that it took several successful attempts to swing an individual.  It's a good concept, but I don't think the resulting rules that came out were very good (there's been various a tweak, I'm talking as they were done in DMG1).

I think that it should be both a combination of difficulty and a number of rolls for social checks, if you don't want to use a system of "You the PLAYER, not you the character, have to convince the guard to let you past."*

* Personally, I have some issues with this playstyle; it's like asking the players to fight you with boffer swords to win a combat.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 12, 2011)

MatthewJHanson said:


> I agree with Crothian, and I'll also add that most systems take this into consideration by allowing the DM to up the DC. In the bluff example you mention, in 3.5 the guard would get at least a +10 bonus to Sense Motive, maybe a +20.  If the PCs still bluff the guard even with that crazy bonus, the deserve the victory.




Even then, a bard at level 5 with a maxed out CHA and maxed out Bluff (+5 for 20 CHA and 8 ranks), and some skill synergy bonuses is going to be putting a +15 to +17 to each roll of the dice, not counting his allies doing "aid another" and any magical enhancements.  +19 to +21 would not be unrealistic, which would cancel out the +20.  And, give the bard a few more levels and a few more bonuses...

Plus, I think the max situational bonus to skill checks in 3.5E was +4, with +2 being the norm in most "favorable" circumstances.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 12, 2011)

Maybe this is not the RAW but in our game not all social skills work all the time no matter what you roll. 

If the guard is a loyal and more importantly afraid of the King I don't care what your bluff roll is, it is not going to work unless you come up with something really believable. 

The same with diplomacy. If the Orc chieftain hates your kind then no matter what you roll he is not going to become your friend though you may convince him not to kill and eat you yet. 

The same with intimidate if you have a follower of an evil god and he is far more afraid of what that god will do to him then what you can do to him then it won't work.

I use social skill rolls in my game because not every player can just be glib enough to role play these things out so it helps these players it opens classes up to them. 

I believe that the DM should make a judgment call on each situation. I don't think we need a more complicated system.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Jun 12, 2011)

There are enemies who can't be persuaded, and enemies who can.  How far they can be persuaded is up to the GM, not the die rolls.

The prison guard is not going to unlock your cell and let you out, no matter what.  He's a prison guard, after all.  But he might give you an extra food ration, or put you in with a friend instead of the half-troll mass murderer, or allow some exercise time in the yard, or even a visitor, under the right circumstances.  And a smart player will be using that small opening to create a daring escape.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 12, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> * Personally, I have some issues with this playstyle; it's like asking the players to fight you with boffer swords to win a combat.




As opposed to moving minis around a tactical grid to win a combat.


----------



## Starman (Jun 12, 2011)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> For Diplomacy (possibly the worst offender in 3.x), Rich Burlew, writer of OOTS, came up with a great system that's level-based, but more importantly (from a flavor perspective) also has good modifiers for "making a deal". In that system, Diplomacy isn't "make friends", it's "make a deal". Which means even if you deal with the guard to sneak into the king's chambers once, you're going to have to make it worth his while the next time.




And here's a link for those interested in checking it out. I have also found it helpful.


----------



## Aldrick Tanith (Jun 12, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> I've been playing D&D for over 30 years now, and have played first 3.5E and now 4E for almost four years now.
> 
> One thing I've found is that "social" skills are Bluff, Intimidate & Diplomacy are usually too easy in game. A good Bluff check, and the formerly loyal guard with strict orders is letting the PCs into the castle... a good Intimidate check and the fanatical follower of the Evil Tyrant God is spilling the beans on his group's secret hideout.
> 
> ...




Okay, first of all... this should never, ever happen.  Imagine that you're approaching a guard post in real life (have you ever entered a military base?).  You approach the check point.  Normally, you flash your ID and you're let inside.  Well, ID Cards and stuff don't typically exist during medieval times, but the premise is very much the same.  So, things go something like this...

The Players approach the castle gates.  There is a guard posted outside, and several posted on the wall looking down with crossbows.

*PC's (to guard at gate):*  "Ho there!  We've strict orders for you to allow us into the castle, straight from the Overlord himself!"

*PC (to DM):*  "Can I roll a bluff check?"

*DM (to Player):*  "No, not yet."

*DM (to PC who asked to enter the castle, as the guard):* "Huh?  I donno what your talking about!  We've been given strict orders by the Overlord to hold this castle and not let anyone in who don't come with his personal seal and writ."

*PC (to DM):*  "What... we need the Overlords personal writ and seal to get inside?"

*DM (to Player):*  "Yes.  That's what the guard told you."

*PC (to guard):* "Uh... erm... the Overlord was too busy!  He's given us strict orders to enter the castle immediately, and if you don't do it there will be trouble!"

*DM (to Player):*  "Roll an intimidate check."
*
The intimidate check is successful.*

*DM (as the guard):*  "The guard suddenly takes on a look of concern, shifting uneasily.  Then says, 'We can't let nobody in without his seal 'tis his own orders, I swear on the Evil God of Tyranny that it is true.  I'll get the Captain.'  

The guard then taps his sword on the castles stone wall making a loud clanging sound.  The head of one of the guards with a crossbow peers down at him, and you hear him muttering, 'Eh?  What?  What do they want?!' 

The guard from down below goes, 'Oi!  Grish go get the captain!  Some folk here claim the Overlord told 'em to come inside, but they don't have his seal and writ.'  

There are murmurs coming from up above that you can't make out, and it appears as if one of the guards - not Grish - leaves to get the Captain."

*The players shift uneasily in their seats, the DM grins.*

*DM (to Players):*  "Alright, one of the guards has gone off to get the captain.  Are you guys going to sit around and wait for him to show up, or are you going to do something else?"

*Players discuss it, and then decide they're going to wait.*

*DM (to all the PC's):*  "About twenty minutes pass in a long silence.  The guard you've intimidated looks uncertain of all of this, mostly confused, but also perhaps fearful of what the Overlord will do to him for disobeying.  

Finally, at last you hear commotion behind the gate.  You hear the sounds of wood scraping against wood.  Six armed guardsmen, swords drawn and ready with menacing glares all focused upon you appear as the door swings open.

You hear commotion from above.  Looking up, you see a tall and imposing figure, a man with a well kept black beard streaked with gray and a long scar running down the length of his face.  He is better dressed than the other guards, and you make the obvious assumption that this must be the captain.

Next to the captain are four more guards with crossbows drawn - all of them pointed in the direction of you guys."

This is where the DM grins broadly and chuckles, and the players begin to worry about the potential death of their characters.

*DM (as the Guard Captain):*  "You lot had best have a very good reason for attempting to enter this castle.  The Overlord has given me strict orders to not allow entry to anyone without his seal and writ.  I am told you lack these things.  Have I been told false?"

*Players (to DM):*  "When do we get a chance to bluff?!"

*DM (to Players):*  "You can begin bluffing now.  You're going to have to convince the Guard Captain that you really were sent by the Overlord without the things he's requesting."

*Player (to Guard Captain):*  "How dare you question us?  We've been sent by the Overlord.  He was too busy to give us these things that you want, and we have been given strict orders to be allowed entry!"

From this point forward, bluff checks are allowed.  Most likely they will fail, and if so, the Guard Captain will order his men to attack.  However, diplomacy could also be used in an attempt to seek a middle ground.  Perhaps the players rethink their strategy.  They attempt to persuade the Guard Captain to give them entry and to send a rider to the Overlord with a message to PROVE their claims.  This buys them time. 

However, no matter if or how they're successful, they'd be under heavy guard... but it gets them inside the Castle.

Other methods to increase their chances could have been used.  For example, had they spent some time spying on the castle rather than riding up to it, they might have seen some of the Evil Overlords men displaying his writ and seal.  They could have captured one such group and obtain that seal and writ for themselves, getting past the initial guard without too much trouble.  

It's the job of the DM to create obstacles for the players.  Anything that is considered an auto-win - regardless of what the rules state - is something that you have the ability to change and _*SHOULD *_change.

When it comes to things such as diplomacy, NPC's always have the opportunity to avoid engaging in such matters with the PC's.  They can avoid it by choosing to fight, refusing to engage the PC's, or remove themselves from the encounter.  Sometimes the NPC simply can't give the PC's what they want, as is the case of the guard above.  He didn't have the authority to allow the PC's in without a writ and seal, even after he was intimidated.  So he did what anyone in that situation would do:  they turned to someone else with the authority, in this case it was the guard captain.  

If you desire a more robust social resolution system, I've found someone's blog which has converted the AsoIaF Intrigue System to D&D.  I haven't used it, but it could be something you might find useful / helpful to you.  

You can view that blog entry here.  If you are interested here is the link to the AsoIaF Quick Start Rules (which includes the Intrigue System).

I hope this post has been helpful to you.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 12, 2011)

I remember an incident in my game were the bard/beguiler tried diplomacy on a cleric of ST Cuthbert.

He rolled a natural 20 which in our game is a 30. He was able to get the cleric  to back down but not be friendly. There was a behind the screen reason and it was because of the bard's race.

The player was very upset and pulling out the rules. I tried to explain that normally he would have had the guy eating out of his hand but something didn't feel right about the cleric's animosity towards the PC. If the player had bothered to investigate he would have found an important clue of what was going on.  

Instead he fumed over it and I got tons of upset emails over the week and finally I relented and just came out and told him why. He was like oh wow that is so cool. Sorry I didn't trust you.

Now when I DM upfront I tell players that good rolls on social skills don't always work and there will always be a reason behind it when they fail or don't get the exact response you want.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 13, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> The player was very upset and pulling out the rules. I tried to explain that normally he would have had the guy eating out of his hand but something didn't feel right about the cleric's animosity towards the PC. If the player had bothered to investigate he would have found an important clue of what was going on.
> 
> Instead he fumed over it and I got tons of upset emails over the week and finally I relented and just came out and told him why. He was like oh wow that is so cool. Sorry I didn't trust you.




Sorry you had to get the upset emails.  I think once the DM told me that something didn't feel right, i would have assumed it was something unusual about the cleric - possibly something magical, or that the cleric was more powerful than he or she let on at the time.  (If the racial animosity was not common, I likely would not have guessed that at all...)


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 13, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> Sorry you had to get the upset emails.  I think once the DM told me that something didn't feel right, i would have assumed it was something unusual about the cleric - possibly something magical, or that the cleric was more powerful than he or she let on at the time.  (If the racial animosity was not common, I likely would not have guessed that at all...)




In my game the clerics of St Cuthbert are the law. They investigate and bring wrong doers to justice. Now the PC was a spellscale and the clerics had discovered that the majority of the spellscales were involved with Tiamat. Who the party was also fighting her and her agents.

It is why the cleric was so hostile to the PC. If they had investigated they would have found out what was going on with the spellscales, but the player was to focused on the fact that he felt I was nerfing his roll and his skill.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 13, 2011)

Social conflicts seem to work pretty well in my game (4e, more or less).

I think there are two reasons it works for me.

1. I use an "action resolution" system; to me, this means that the dice only resolve the outcome of actions that are grounded in the game world.  In other words, "I roll Diplomacy" makes no sense and we can't proceed with resolution.  That's because I don't know if the player needs to roll, what modifiers would be added to the roll, what the DC would be, and what the outcome of that roll means.  All of that depends on what the PC actually says.

2. I use a simple criteria to judge if a roll needs to be made based on what the PC's action is: did what the PC say or do trigger an internal conflict in the NPC?  In other words, as I'm playing the NPC, if the player has his or her PC say or do something and I don't know how the NPC will respond, I call for a roll.  The roll determines how it shakes out.

The number of successes required is interesting because it leads to more complex interactions and compromises made by opposing sides.

Here are some of the guidelines:

[sblock]1. Conflict
* Only Conflict: This procedure resolves social conflicts between characters.  If there isn’t a conflict of interest between characters, do not continue with the procedure.
2. Determine Successes Required
* Reaction Roll Determines NPC Obstinacy: The DM sets the number of successes that are required to resolve the conflict based on the NPC’s disposition.  If this is not known, the DM makes a Reaction roll, consulting the table below.

```
3d6 Roll 
+ Charisma Modifier	Reaction				Successes
4 or less		Extremely hostile, no dialogue possible	--
5-8			Hostile, possible attack		8
9-12			Uncertain, cautious, and wary		6
13-16			Interested in dialogue			4
17+			Looking to make friends			2
```
3. Declare Actions, Determine Modifiers, Determine DC, Take Action, and Resolve Actions
* Skill Checks: For these steps, use the same procedures outlined in steps 2 through 6 of the Skill Check sub-system.
* Resolve *what the character actually says*, not the outcome of the die roll!  This is the most important piece of resolution.  A success or failure has no meaning on its own; it is only when combined with the actual words and physical actions of the character that there can be any resolution - and thus the NPC's response.  If the player does not describe their action, the NPC can not respond, and resolution will break down.
* Actions Take Any Form: Actions may take any form – physical, social, or even magical.  Although this system resolves social conflicts, characters may take any action they want.
* Saying "No": Sometimes the PC will say or do something that makes no sense for the NPC to listen to.  There's no way the PC will be able to convince the NPC of what was just said.  In these cases, there is no conflict.  Think of a social conflict resolving _internal conflicts_ within the NPC; if what the PC says does not trigger some kind of internal conflict, there's no need to roll; just say no.  Saying no results in an automatic failure as long as it is the PC's action and is relevant to the context of the ongoing discussion.
* Saying Yes: The flip side to saying no is saying yes.  When the PC says or does something that triggers no internal conflict because the _NPC already agrees_, there's no need to roll.  Saying yes results in an automatic success as long as it is the PC's action and is relevant to the context of the ongoing discussion.
* Only Players Roll: The players make rolls for PCs who are taking actions.  The DM does not roll for the NPCs, though he still declares actions for them.
* Modifiers: Make sure to apply modifiers to both the PC's action and the NPC's defence, as outlined in the Skill Check sub-system.
* DM Advice: Each action should be resolved in the normal manner, with each roll resolving the conflicting actions taken.  Remember that, save in the presence of magic or physical compulsion, no character can be forced to do something.  The number of successes the PCs need to roll determines the NPC’s obstinacy, so as a DM you have to keep this in mind.  You have to give the NPCs something to keep fighting for – something they want - as long as the social conflict carries on.
* Passionate Characters: Social conflict is more rewarding when the characters involved have something they want to fight for.  When playing NPCs, the DM should push as hard as possible – without sacrificing characterization – against the PCs.
4. Tally Failures and Successes
* Each Action Carries Risk or Reward: The outcome of each action the characters take, if it resolves some conflict, must have either its success or failure tallied up.
* Keep It Fresh: Try not to have the NPC remain static, using the same line of argument repeatedly.  Change your arguments based on how previous actions have been resolved.  As the PCs accumulate successes, the NPC becomes more and more amenable to the PC’s suggestions; the reverse is true as the PCs accumulate failures.  Make sure you know what the NPC wants and what kind of compromises they are willing to make.
5. Repeat Steps 3 – 4
* Continue to have characters declare actions and tally successes and failures until either the required number of successes (as set in step 2) have been achieved, or 3 failures have occurred.
6. Determine Outcome
* Based on the outcome of the skill challenge - failure or success - determine the actions of the characters involved based on what has been said, promised, or negotiated.
7. Bank XP
* If the conflict resulted in a success for the PCs, Bank the XP to the PCs for overcoming the encounter.[/sblock]


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 13, 2011)

I think we should all bear in mind, that having "ranks" in any skill, makes one...

...somewhat "good" at what he does.

Having ranks in a social skill, means that the PC/NPC is above average in:

Lying/encouraging/making his point etc... etc..

So when something starts to look a bit to "easy", always keep in mind, that

the character who tries to do, whatever he wants to do, has a certain experience in doing it.

A spy (rogue), lying is what he does. It's only normal that he can manage some

incredible stuff through his lies...

On the other hand the DM is always there to balance things out...


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 13, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> I think we should all bear in mind, that having "ranks" in any skill, makes one...
> 
> ...somewhat "good" at what he does.
> 
> ...




I agree that lying is what a rogue or a bard can do, and should do.  However, there is a difference between lying to an informant and then slipping him a few gold pieces and the informant then spilling the beans; and, the otherwise loyal guard being fooled by a lying PC that the PC should step aside while the PCs march into the castle...


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 13, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> I agree that lying is what a rogue or a bard can do, and should do.  However, there is a difference between lying to an informant and then slipping him a few gold pieces and the informant then spilling the beans; and, the otherwise loyal guard being fooled by a lying PC that the PC should step aside while the PCs march into the castle...




Lying to a Loyal guard should have a high DC.

Even the very fact that you try to enter a castle for "some" reason, when no one is supposed to enter,

should have a high DC...

Does a rogue personify a merchant that is "expected"?

Does he have a a good reason so as to convince the guard to lets him by?

Let's not forget that a lie that is "out there" augments the DC by +20...

Moreover, the fact that the guard is loyal, does not make him any more intelligent/wise (sense motive).

If ones keeps in mind the increase in DCs for how big a lie is in respect to a situation...

he shouldn't have a problem.

As i said in my previous post, ...In the end, the DM is there to balance things out....


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Jun 13, 2011)

Honestly, one of the drawbacks of the current edition(s) (And I lump 3.x/PF/4E together in this) is the use of die-rolling to avoud role-playing.

Though I mostly prefer to play, I do DM occasionally, and I always (both as player and DM) try to add some role-playing to the mix, to encourage active participation.

I use the Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate rules as a guideline; most times simply asking the players "HOW do you try to bluff the guards?" usually is enought to elicit some sort reaction fomr the players, and sparks inter-character exchange, adding to the experience, rather than relegating it to a single die roll.

Then, (taking into account the context of the encoutner, and the RP'ing attempt), I give a situational penatly or bonus to the roll to be made.

It's not a perfect simulation (there's always the case of the shy/quiet player playing the character with stats of 18 and high ranks in DIP/BLU/INT), but it seems to work pretty well overall.


On a side tangent, I _detest_ skill challenges in 4E, another mechanic that I think relegates role-playing and description [HOW is the player gathering that information? Or traversing that gaping chasm?] in favor of dice-rolls.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 13, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I remember an incident in my game were the bard/beguiler tried diplomacy on a cleric of ST Cuthbert.
> 
> He rolled a natural 20 which in our game is a 30. He was able to get the cleric  to back down but not be friendly. There was a behind the screen reason and it was because of the bard's race.
> 
> ...




Being up front works best with some players, not so well with others.  When you change the rules behind the screen and refuse to explain why, instead relying on the player to be able to step back and re-examine the situation, it often won't work.

You have to remember that while you may have had fantastic, wonderful reasons why the roll didn't succeed, the three DM's he had before you didn't and used the whole "You don't know why" schtick to simply throw up road blocks to stop the player from doing whatever it was the DM didn't want him doing.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 13, 2011)

ShadowDenizen said:


> Honestly, one of the drawbacks of the current edition(s) (And I lump 3.x/PF/4E together in this) is the use of die-rolling to avoud role-playing.
> 
> Though I mostly prefer to play, I do DM occasionally, and I always (both as player and DM) try to add some role-playing to the mix, to encourage active participation.
> 
> ...




Diplomacy has been around since 2E when it was a Non-Weapon Proficiency. (It may have been a late 1E NWP introduced in Oriental Adventures even?)

In fact, I remember my group using Diplomacy quite a bit back in the 90s... however, I was a player back then and our DM was much better than me.

I think part of my problem is that when the PCs do something unexpected in game and then end up in a social situation where they need to Bluff, be Diplomatic, etc and I'm not prepared for it.  The tendency for me is to use the roll as a crutch, rather than as an impromptu skill challenge that would allow me to expand the role-playing.  I'm just not the improviser I was when I was a teenager or in my early to mid 20s.


----------



## Aldrick Tanith (Jun 13, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> I think we should all bear in mind, that having "ranks" in any skill, makes one...
> 
> ...somewhat "good" at what he does.
> 
> ...




You bring up some good points. 

A wider point of discussion that really isn't brought up often, and a lot of DM's in my experience tend to ignore, are the not-so-subtle hints players give about the type of game they want.

If a player is putting a lot of skill points into bluff or other social skills, that player is screaming:  "I want to play a character that can convince people of almost anything!  I'm creating a silver-tongued con-man!"

It's the DM's job to notice these things and create situations in which such a character can shine.  To neglect this would be the equivalent of having a character who is built specifically for combat, but place him in a game that is 90% or more political intrigue. 

Skills, feats, classes, etc.  These are all statements of interest by players - statements on the type of game they want, information given to the DM of what is important to them. 

It's no different than if someone decided to play a druid, they're telling you - my character cares about nature.  He's not suited for a city-based adventure, and he wants to be tested regarding his dedication to nature.  It's the DM's job to create situations in which the druid can be druidic (or fail and become fallen).  Just as it is the DM's job to create situations in which paladins and clerics can have their faith / religion / church tested.

If you have a player who is attempting to play - whether or not the player themselves can pull it off well - a character which is a social animal, then there needs to be situations in which he can potentially be successful.  Maybe he, and he alone, can convince the guard captain to allow the group into the castle.  Without him they'd all be heads on a pike sitting on the castle wall as a warning.  Maybe he is the only one who can convince the Nobleman of the need to aid the group, or the merchant of the necessity of extending the group a line of credit, etc. 

A good DM, IMO, is watchful of what the players are doing with their characters, and is building obstacles to test them - to push them.  When players fail it should, in large part, due to their own foolishness.

Sometimes, of course, players need some meta-encouragement.  "Hey, I see you've given your bard a lot of skill points in diplomacy, why aren't you trying to soothe things over between the group and the guardsmen?"  Often times, players don't realize what they can accomplish, little nudges like that brings their skills to the fore and make them feel useful - it gives them the opportunity to shine.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 13, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> Lying to a Loyal guard should have a high DC.
> 
> Even the very fact that you try to enter a castle for "some" reason, when no one is supposed to enter,
> 
> should have a high DC...




My problem is that the listed "hard" DCs for 4E are generally pretty easy to make.  Example: a Hard DC for level 8 is supposed to be DC:24.

A 4E Bard with a 22 CHA at level 8 is going to be like +15 without any magical enhancements or feats - +5 for trained, +6 for CHA and then +4 for half of their level.  Out of the box, you beat the DC more than 50% of the time.  If you have a +2 item and maybe a feat that adds to your score, you're already up to +19 or +20 without Aid Another.  Pretty soon, the bard doesn't even fail on a roll of "1"...

Even if you add in the +10 for "hostile", you're still going to win a majority of the time for a Hard DC.

(Heck, my group has a player with an encounter power that allows a reroll at +4 after a failed skill check...)


----------



## Stoat (Jun 13, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> My problem is that the listed "hard" DCs for 4E are generally pretty easy to make.  Example: a Hard DC for level 8 is supposed to be DC:24.
> 
> A 4E Bard with a 22 CHA at level 8 is going to be like +15 without any magical enhancements or feats - +5 for trained, +6 for CHA and then +4 for half of their level.  Out of the box, you beat the DC more than 50% of the time.  If you have a +2 item and maybe a feat that adds to your score, you're already up to +19 or +20 without Aid Another.  Pretty soon, the bard doesn't even fail on a roll of "1"...
> 
> ...




I think the skill challenge system is supposed to make up for that.  In other words, the party isn't supposed to just sit back and let the Bard fool the guard with a single skill check.  The guard insists on interrogating everybody in the party, and they all have to say something (and make some kind of check) to get in.  I like this idea in theory, but I think WotC muffed it a little in practice.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 13, 2011)

Aldrick Tanith said:


> A wider point of discussion that really isn't brought up often, and a lot of DM's in my experience tend to ignore, are the not-so-subtle hints players give about the type of game they want.
> 
> If a player is putting a lot of skill points into bluff or other social skills, that player is screaming:  "I want to play a character that can convince people of almost anything!  I'm creating a silver-tongued con-man!"
> 
> It's the DM's job to notice these things and create situations in which such a character can shine.  To neglect this would be the equivalent of having a character who is built specifically for combat, but place him in a game that is 90% or more political intrigue.




I agree with that completely and I love it as a DM when a player plays the silver-tongued bard or the charming rakish rogue or similar.  However, I also don't want a situation where the player is only going to fail a situation when he or she rolls a "1" on the d20, even with a 10 modifier for it being a hostile situation - I want the fear of failure in there, be it when the BBEG and his horde is bearing down on the players, or when they gain an audience with the hostile lord of the barbarian tribe.

I think a tough encounter should stretch the players to their limits, be it a combat encounter or a role-playing one.


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 13, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> My problem is that the listed "hard" DCs for 4E are generally pretty easy to make.  Example: a Hard DC for level 8 is supposed to be DC:24.




Well, I was referring to 3.x.

Whatever the case, the situation has to be role played out. Perhaps some like to just roll their bluff, 

without even saying a word, or by saying: "I try to convince him to...."

This is not how I play this. I let the player explain himself in front of the NPCs. 

Of course, I take into account the PC's skill so as to adjust the reactions. 

Having said that, the players have to always take into account their "character's character"

Is the PC a silver tongued social freak?

Even if so, the player has to play him that way. His skill are there to make things easier for him.
No matter how good a player roleplays out a specific encounter, if his PC has a bluff of 30, there is no way
he can roleplay it as good as his PC would in realife. In that case, the bluff skill can come in and save the day,
even if the lie that was roleplayed out was not as good. Thats not to say that the skill will always save him no matter what,
but it should somehow affect the outcome of things.

On the other hand, a savage barbarian with 0 bluff, is expected to roleplay his PC correctly.
Even if the player wants to convince the guard, and has a good idea to do so, he shouldn't try it.
The character comes first. His barbarian wouldn't normally do such a thing, even if the player wants to.

That way, skills becomes important in the game.

If I come up with a super powerful build (yet with 0 bluff and a low charisma), and my DM

lets me roleplay out every social encounter just by taking into account my "convincing" skills as a player,

what's the point of another player picking a less powerful build with 10 ranks in bluff?

If the 10ranks-bluff PC has equal chances of making it through the social encounters, why did he even bother

spending ranks in it?

To conclude: Roleplaying comes first. A player should react to the situations as his character would.

Is his a social freak? Fine. FIRST let him roleplay it out, and then adjust reactions according to his performance AND according to his character's skills

Is the character a brute? He is expected to play him that way. Even if it comes down to him to make the social interactions necessary, no matter his performance, his character's skill should keep  the effect to a minimum, if not to a complete fail.

Do the players want their PCs to be good at it?

Make them spend skill points in those skills.

Those skills are not fluff....


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 13, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> My problem is that the listed "hard" DCs for 4E are generally pretty easy to make.




So do you tell your players "don't bother taking feats or items that make you really good at skill checks because i'm just going to make them harder so you fail as often as I think you should"?

Do you do the same with combat feats and items?

DS


----------



## Eric Tolle (Jun 13, 2011)

I agree that allowing players to talk their way past obstacles is anathema to D&D the way it is played. Trying to persuade NPCs leads to amateur thespianism, which leads to men wearing mascara and wearing black trenchcoats in summer.

Fortunately, this is an easy problem to solve; just have NPCs attack on sight. Not just guards and minions, but watchmen, merchants,  farmers, nursing mothers, doxies, small children, etc.. Once the players get used to having to kill, bespell or sneak by everyone they meet you can slack off a bit, but until then you need to drill in the idea that talking to NPCs is Not How It's Done.

Remember- only YOU can prevent amateur thespianism!


----------



## Stormonu (Jun 13, 2011)

Aldrick Tanith said:


> Okay, first of all... this should never, ever happen.  Imagine that you're approaching a guard post in real life (have you ever entered a military base?).  You approach the check point.  Normally, you flash your ID and you're let inside.  Well, ID Cards and stuff don't typically exist during medieval times, but the premise is very much the same.  So, things go something like this...
> 
> The Players approach the castle gates.  There is a guard posted outside, and several posted on the wall looking down with crossbows.
> 
> ...




Or the wizard just casts a charm person/suggestion/dominate and bypasses the DMs attempt to be an ass about using social skills.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 13, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> Or the wizard just casts a charm person/suggestion/dominate and bypasses the DMs attempt to be an ass about using social skills.




For me the issue isn't the players getting around my cool series of encounters by talking (I love it when players think outside the box, and am happy to consider alternative solutions and shortcuts in my adventures). Heck I've let PCs skip to the end with a single clever idea. The issue is realism. I can see a charmed guard handing the PCs the keys the gate. But I think it is going to be very hard in most circumstances to smooth talk your way through the gate without a real prepared plan (false papers, etc).


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 13, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> .But I think it is going to be very hard in most circumstances to smooth talk your way through the gate without a real prepared plan (false papers, etc).




EXACTLY!

whenever the DM feels its necessary, he should increase the DCs considerably.

If the idea is "out there" its +20... or even more if the DM sees it should.

A proposition that is "out there" does not necessarily mean that you try to convince the other,

that the whole "world" is carried on the back of a Donkey-God. It might as well be a simple thing that

is very hard to achieve.

If the Guard is NOT supposed to let ANYONE IN, trying to convince him without a plan

should have a VERY VERY high DC...


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 13, 2011)

Sabathius42 said:


> So do you tell your players "don't bother taking feats or items that make you really good at skill checks because i'm just going to make them harder so you fail as often as I think you should"?
> 
> Do you do the same with combat feats and items?
> 
> DS




My point above was that even the melee warriors are still going to miss a decent amount of the time in combat.  Maybe the warrior will still miss less than half the time, but it's not an automatic success like a PC that is maxed out in a skill making a skill check.  

Plus, in combat, a "1" is an automatic miss, but not so with skills.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 13, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> My point above was that even the melee warriors are still going to miss a decent amount of the time in combat.  Maybe the warrior will still miss less than half the time, but it's not an automatic success like a PC that is maxed out in a skill making a skill check.
> 
> Plus, in combat, a "1" is an automatic miss, but not so with skills.




It's not hard at all to create a character that can hit on a 2 every time. With a few re-roll abilities, it's possible for such characters to go several encounters without missing with an attack. Honestly, I think it is more likely for someone to build this type of character than they are to build one with a max skill in anything.

However, I have encountered a player that put everything possible into diplomacy such that hard DCs were unfailable. We always just treated as if her diplomacy _was _magical compulsion. (The character's Words of Friendship power, which gave her an additional +5 diplomacy once per encounter, even had the charm keyword). When the bard convinced a guard to let us through so easily, we just assumed it was because every word that came out of her mouth was dripping with arcane power (also why Vicious Mockery could literally kill people or knock them unconscious). It was a really cool and flavorful way of explaining why she could easily beat a DC 40. Your mileage may vary with martial characters, of course.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 13, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Being up front works best with some players, not so well with others.  When you change the rules behind the screen and refuse to explain why, instead relying on the player to be able to step back and re-examine the situation, it often won't work.
> 
> You have to remember that while you may have had fantastic, wonderful reasons why the roll didn't succeed, the three DM's he had before you didn't and used the whole "You don't know why" schtick to simply throw up road blocks to stop the player from doing whatever it was the DM didn't want him doing.




That is of course assuming you didn't try and explain things without giving it all a way. I said things like "you are surprised at his hostility because you have never faced this open kind of hostility from a cleric of St Cuthbert before." 

I went on to say it is not normal but the player could not get past his I rolled a 20 this guy should be eating out of my hand.

He did accomplish what he set out to do with the diplomacy roll which was prevent a huge fight with weapons drawn between the cleric of St Cuthbert and a cleric of Pelor. I didn't totally make his roll worthless. His objective was to stop the fight and he accomplished that.What I didn't do was make this well informed cleric of St Cuthbert become this PCs best bud because it didn't make sense. 


The player in question had never played a 3E game with any other DM then me. So there was no past of being screwed over by other DMs.

I can't stand whiny player entitlement issues if you can't trust your DM not to screw you then don't play. I have gotten really tired of this attitude that I am seeing a lot lately that players expect only positive outstanding outcomes. That if somehow the DM changes things like monster stats or decides that there is no way you can use diplomacy to make an NPC friendly then somehow the DM is cheating.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 13, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> Or the wizard just casts a charm person/suggestion/dominate and bypasses the DMs attempt to be an ass about using social skills.




That is one way to look at it or another way is the DM is giving the players a challenge not a walk in the park so maybe they have to come up with a convincing plan.

Having the wizard cast charm is one around the situation another way is maybe using forgery to get the papers you need or you can try sneaking in , disguise , polymorph spells. 

My mantra is if you don't trust your DM to be fair then why are you playing with them? Sheesh some players acts as if the rules are the only thing protecting them from a DM screwing them over. Which I find a sad state of affairs.


----------



## Aldrick Tanith (Jun 13, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> Or the wizard just casts a charm person/suggestion/dominate and bypasses the DMs attempt to be an ass about using social skills.




Sure, those spells are useful, but there are downsides.  Just some examples:

1.  Charm Person has both a verbal and somatic component.  The guards on the wall above the gate should receive a check to see if they catch the wizard using his magic on the other guard.  Not entirely likely, as I'd rule that casting this particular spell is not readily obvious, but they should receive a chance to catch the wizard all the same.  Some feats could help avoid this...

2.  Charm Person wears off.  When it does, the guard is going to remember what he's done, and may have second thoughts.  You could have him make a check to see if he goes and spills the beans to someone else, such as a buddy, who then might go and inform the guard captain.  The charm person might get you in the door, but you're on a timer...

3.  Charm Person might not even work in this situation, depending on what would happen to the guard if he allows them in... according to the description:  "An affected creature never obeys suicidal or *obviously harmful orders*,  but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is *worth doing*."  You could easily argue that allowing them in counts as obviously harmful (he could, at a minimum, lose his status as guard - at worst, be executed).  However, with an opposed charisma check (as per the spell description), and perhaps a diplomacy (not intimidate because you can't threaten) check to convince the guard that allowing them in is worth doing.  

So, just to recap:  Charm Person could get you inside but you must...  First, avoid getting spotted by the guards on the wall above when casting the spell.  Second, overcome the guards will save.  Third, make a successful opposed charisma check.  Fourth, make a successful diplomacy check.  And even after doing all this, you STILL might be on a timer of one hour per level.

Additionally, let's not forget that once you bypass the first guard he isn't the only guard you're going to encounter once you're inside.  So, really, I wouldn't think this is a very good course of action, unless you have a really generous DM.

Charm Person is more useful in isolated social situations, such as convincing a merchant to lower his prices on an item, or a guard that it isn't worth arresting another member of the group for a minor offense - that a warning is sufficient, convincing a wealthy nobleman to become the groups patron, etc.  These are all very useful, subtle, and isolated social situations.


----------



## Aldrick Tanith (Jun 13, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> It's not hard at all to create a character that can hit on a 2 every time. With a few re-roll abilities, it's possible for such characters to go several encounters without missing with an attack. Honestly, I think it is more likely for someone to build this type of character than they are to build one with a max skill in anything.
> 
> However, I have encountered a player that put everything possible into diplomacy such that hard DCs were unfailable. We always just treated as if her diplomacy _was _magical compulsion. (The character's Words of Friendship power, which gave her an additional +5 diplomacy once per encounter, even had the charm keyword). When the bard convinced a guard to let us through so easily, we just assumed it was because every word that came out of her mouth was dripping with arcane power (also why Vicious Mockery could literally kill people or knock them unconscious). It was a really cool and flavorful way of explaining why she could easily beat a DC 40. Your mileage may vary with martial characters, of course.




I agree with that assessment.  At a certain point, if you raise your skills high enough, you effectively have supernatural powers.  Whenever I think of insanely high skills, I always think of epic skill checks and "Swimming Up A Waterfall".  Mentally, the very thought of doing this is impossible, silly, and ludicrous in the extreme.  The only plausible way to have it make any sense at all is that it's supernatural.

This makes me think of the essay "D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations" by Justin Alexander.  I think it pretty much covers how super high skills should be viewed from the (real world) perspective - they are beyond the ability of anything we could ever hope to achieve.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 13, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> It's not hard at all to create a character that can hit on a 2 every time. With a few re-roll abilities, it's possible for such characters to go several encounters without missing with an attack. Honestly, I think it is more likely for someone to build this type of character than they are to build one with a max skill in anything.
> 
> However, I have encountered a player that put everything possible into diplomacy such that hard DCs were unfailable. We always just treated as if her diplomacy _was _magical compulsion. (The character's Words of Friendship power, which gave her an additional +5 diplomacy once per encounter, even had the charm keyword). When the bard convinced a guard to let us through so easily, we just assumed it was because every word that came out of her mouth was dripping with arcane power (also why Vicious Mockery could literally kill people or knock them unconscious). It was a really cool and flavorful way of explaining why she could easily beat a DC 40. Your mileage may vary with martial characters, of course.




Interesting, in my group, between the six PCs, they can throw a maxed-out skill at almost every type of skill problem out there (not just the social skills, but things like History, Dungeoneering, Nature, etc, as well)  However, unless my level 7 party is fighting bad guys that are below their level, they're all missing if they roll below a 7,8 or 9 in combat.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 13, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> Interesting, in my group, between the six PCs, they can throw a maxed-out skill at almost every type of skill problem out there (not just the social skills, but things like History, Dungeoneering, Nature, etc, as well)  However, unless my level 7 party is fighting bad guys that are below their level, they're all missing if they roll below a 7,8 or 9 in combat.




We may have different definitions of what constitutes a "maxed-out" skill here. Of course it's easy to get a very high skill, but to max it out, I would have to include the proper background, race, items, maxed stat, and of course, Skill Focus. A party that all took Skill Focus in different skills is certainly possible, and would even be interesting and effective to an extent.

Similarly, to "max-out" an attack, you need a maxed out stat, +3 proficiency, various feats such as Nimble Blade, Deft Blade, an always up-to-date enhancement bonus, constant Combat Advantage, and of course, Expertise.

I guess I just meant that I've seen many more players take Expertise than I have Skill Focus. In fact, that one bard I mentioned is the only one I've ever seen to pick up that feat (Skill Focus - Diplomacy), and man did she ever make it her own.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 13, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> We may have different definitions of what constitutes a "maxed-out" skill here. Of course it's easy to get a very high skill, but to max it out, I would have to include the proper background, race, items, maxed stat, and of course, Skill Focus. A party that all took Skill Focus in different skills is certainly possible, and would even be interesting and effective to an extent.
> 
> Similarly, to "max-out" an attack, you need a maxed out stat, +3 proficiency, various feats such as Nimble Blade, Deft Blade, an always up-to-date enhancement bonus, constant Combat Advantage, and of course, Expertise.
> 
> I guess I just meant that I've seen many more players take Expertise than I have Skill Focus. In fact, that one bard I mentioned is the only one I've ever seen to pick up that feat (Skill Focus - Diplomacy), and man did she ever make it her own.




I had not included Skill focus or anything like Deft Blade/Nimble Blade when calculating being "maxed out"


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 14, 2011)

Just for fun (I hope I'm not derailing the thread):

Max Skill vs. Max Attack (at level 2 in order to get in an interesting item and an extra feat):

Level 2 Half-elf Bard Diplomacy: +5 (Trained) +5 (Charisma) +1 (Level) +2 (Half-elf) +2 (Background) +2 (Mark of Scribing) +3 (Skill Focus) +2 Skald's Armor = +22 Diplomacy versus Level 2 Hard DC 20 not including encounter power bonuses from Words of Friendship/Knack for Success. Chance to fail level 12 hard DC with + power bonus = 0%; Chance to fail level 18 moderate solo Diplomacy skill challenge = 0%!!!

Level 2 Elf Rogue Piercing Strike: +5 (Dexterity) +4 (Dagger Proficiency) +1 (Level) +1 (Luckblade Dagger) +2 (Combat Advantage) +1 (Nimble Blade) +1 (Light Blade Expertise) = +15 vs average level 2 Reflex 14 (level + 12) not including enounter reroll and daily reroll. Chance to miss in an average level 2 encounter with two rerolls = <1%. Chance to hit an average level 11 soldier with 2 rerolls = 95.7%.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> EXACTLY!
> 
> whenever the DM feels its necessary, he should increase the DCs considerably.
> 
> ...




But, then we get to the problems with math.  What constitutes a "High DC"?  Since the player only gets one shot at this, unlike combat where a miss doesn't really matter that much - you just try again next round - a missed check means that you fail outright.  What is a "difficult" chance of failure?  80%?  Why bother rolling?  50%?  Well, at least it's even odds, it might be worth trying.  30%?  Well, now I only fail 1/3 of the time, now talking seems like a fairly good idea to try.



Elf Witch said:


> That is of course assuming you didn't try and explain things without giving it all a way. I said things like "you are surprised at his hostility because you have never faced this open kind of hostility from a cleric of St Cuthbert before."
> 
> I went on to say it is not normal but the player could not get past his I rolled a 20 this guy should be eating out of my hand.
> 
> ...




I don't think this is necessarily player entitlement.  The player did everything right - he engaged the NPC, he played the game and he, by all expectations, gained the best possible result.

If he had no chance of success, why did you have him roll in the first place?

Since you play with critical successes for skills, it is unreasonable for the player to expect best results for rolling a critical success?

While you might dislike the player entitlement issues, personally, I loathe pixel-bitching.  If there's a reason why my expectations are unreasonable, tell me.  Don't leave me flailing around wondering what I did wrong when, from my perspective, I did everything right.

Don't expect that your players will care as much about your setting as you do.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> Interesting, in my group, between the six PCs, they can throw a maxed-out skill at almost every type of skill problem out there (not just the social skills, but things like History, Dungeoneering, Nature, etc, as well)  However, unless my level 7 party is fighting bad guys that are below their level, they're all missing if they roll below a 7,8 or 9 in combat.




So, you have a group that has spent a large amount of their character resources on skills to ensure that their skills are going to be successful most of the time, thus making them weaker in combat (and with what you say here, MUCH weaker in combat) and you think that this is a problem with the system?


----------



## Kzach (Jun 14, 2011)

I think too many people see the skill system as being binary; either you succeed or fail. I see it as allowing for degrees of success and failure. And ultimately, the DM decides what limits to place on those degrees. If he decides that, no matter what you roll or roleplay, the guards simply aren't going to let you inside, then guess what?

Now, that doesn't mean skill checks have to be automatic failures. You could still get useful information out of the guards. Heck, even those guards in London that are famous for not interacting with anyone give you information. They're loyalty, training and dedication are informative, although I'd say that's probably an extreme situation in any fantasy milieu.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I don't think this is necessarily player entitlement.  The player did everything right - he engaged the NPC, he played the game and he, by all expectations, gained the best possible result.
> 
> If he had no chance of success, why did you have him roll in the first place?
> 
> ...




He did have a chance at stopping the bloodshed which was his goal. And which he succeeded in. The cleric of Pelor reacted very positively to the bard and became very friendly. The cleric of St Cuthbert while listening to the bard and stopping his attack did not become friendly. 

He was being a pissy baby because he felt that he didn't get to shine enough. The player is a good friend but I am glad he moved to far away to play with us anymore because he often had issues like this. He had fit in my roommate game because she made him take the penalty for fighting prone without having the feat. Because it made him less cool.

As I said before there was a good ingame reason which the player when he found out what it was thought it was cool and apologized for being so untrusting. 

I don't leave my players hanging I don't make them flail around. All the other players at the table knew something was up but because they were not there they didn't feel right acting on knowledge their characters would not have had.

I expect players at my table to be willing to role play and be engaged in the world. They signed up to play in a role playing heavy game. If this is not the style they want then they are at the wrong table. No one is forcing them to be at it. As the DM I am not their slave and I need to have fun at the table as well.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, you have a group that has spent a large amount of their character resources on skills to ensure that their skills are going to be successful most of the time, thus making them weaker in combat (and with what you say here, MUCH weaker in combat) and you think that this is a problem with the system?




Well, I've been playing D&D since the late 70s and I've seen a lot of power gamers over the years, but I've never seen anybody in game that regularly hits in combat on a 2 or better when faced with creatures of around the same level in any edition.  Sure, a high level fighter against goblins is going to mow through them and only miss on a "1", but a level 15 fighter against the Big Bad Evil Guy, no, never seen it.

and, as I mentioned above, with just having a skill trained in 4E, plus having the max score in that ability makes it tough to fail even a "hard" DC, especially considering you have the rest of the party do "Aid Another" when the situation allows (which it does with skills far more than in combat)  It's not a matter of spending a precious feat on Skill Focus to get +3 or something else that gives +1 bonuses to a skill. (A level 1 Wizard with a 20 Intelligence and trained in Arcana gets +12 right out of the box, meaning he only fails a Hard DC on a roll of 1-6.  Two party members do Aid Another and his failure is only on a 1-2)


----------



## Krensky (Jun 14, 2011)

I agree with the argument that it social skills require appropriate use of modifiers, but also that static DCs are usually the wrong basis.

All of these should really be opposed rolls, and need appropriate modifiers and GM adjudication along with appropriately limited scope.

To make use of the example so far, using the social char in one of my current games and a generic Mercenary NPC from the Rogue's galery to provide odds:

The PCs show up and tell the guards they have orders to be let in. 
The claim is suspicious and the guard is Cold, so the PC is looking at a -16 to -20. Note that if the PC in question rolls a 1 (which is also a failure) or a negative result bad things happen. PC (at level 3) in question has a +11, so a final opposed roll is the PC at -5 to -9 vs the NPC at +1.

Now, if the PC makes the roll, the guard buys the lie. They still have no reason disobey their orders without more though.

So the PC tries to persuade the guard. Since he believes the lie regarding their orders, I'll give them a +2. So the PC is at -20 to -24 (Cold, dangerous, no incentive). So the PC is at -7 to -13 vs +1.

Now, the PC in question has a few more tricks to make pulling this off somewhat more likely, and actual forged papers would help a lot. So would some bribery. Those modifiers are straight out of my preferred game, and it works quite well.

Now, granted, they also let the PC in question twist those who like her around her little finger but of course they want to help her, she's their friend.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> Well, I've been playing D&D since the late 70s and I've seen a lot of power gamers over the years, but I've never seen anybody in game that regularly hits in combat on a 2 or better when faced with creatures of around the same level in any edition.  Sure, a high level fighter against goblins is going to mow through them and only miss on a "1", but a level 15 fighter against the Big Bad Evil Guy, no, never seen it.
> 
> and, as I mentioned above, with just having a skill trained in 4E, plus having the max score in that ability makes it tough to fail even a "hard" DC, especially considering you have the rest of the party do "Aid Another" when the situation allows (which it does with skills far more than in combat)  It's not a matter of spending a precious feat on Skill Focus to get +3 or something else that gives +1 bonuses to a skill. (A level 1 Wizard with a 20 Intelligence and trained in Arcana gets +12 right out of the box, meaning he only fails a Hard DC on a roll of 1-6.  Two party members do Aid Another and his failure is only on a 1-2)




I take it you didn't play much higher level D&D then (in any edition).  If you had, then you'd see that it wasn't all that uncommon for the fighter types at least to pretty much only miss on a 1 (at least with their primary attacks).  I find it very difficult to believe that in 30 years of gaming you've never seen characters that only miss on a, say, 1-5 regularly.

You also presume that the allies can always Aid Another, which is not always true, ignore the fact that failing an Aid Another check imposes a -1 penalty to the check, and, you still haven't answered the question:  what constitutes a "hard" check?

When the check is binary, what chance of failure makes it a "hard" check.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> He did have a chance at stopping the bloodshed which was his goal. And which he succeeded in. The cleric of Pelor reacted very positively to the bard and became very friendly. The cleric of St Cuthbert while listening to the bard and stopping his attack did not become friendly.
> 
> He was being a pissy baby because he felt that he didn't get to shine enough. The player is a good friend but I am glad he moved to far away to play with us anymore because he often had issues like this. He had fit in my roommate game because she made him take the penalty for fighting prone without having the feat. Because it made him less cool.
> 
> ...




Ah, well, context is of course everything.  A problem player is a problem player.  I cannot comment on players that I've never seen.  I simply pointed out that it isn't always the player who's at fault.

I've seen this go both ways, so, fair enough.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 14, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> Well, I've been playing D&D since the late 70s and I've seen a lot of power gamers over the years, but I've never seen anybody in game that regularly hits in combat on a 2 or better when faced with creatures of around the same level in any edition.  Sure, a high level fighter against goblins is going to mow through them and only miss on a "1", but a level 15 fighter against the Big Bad Evil Guy, no, never seen it.



Then your players are significantly worse at building combat characters than they are at building skillful ones. This has been possible since 3rd edition.

I think this whole topic is yet another example of "martial characters don't get to do cool things".

Noone bats an eye when charm person (which makes someone your friend) gets the guard to let you past. But when the bard (or insert other skill user) does the exact same thing with diplomacy, it's somehow an issue.

I think part of the key is probably not to expect the player of the diplomizing character to be an expert in con games, any more than you expect the player of a warrior to be an expert in swinging a sword. If the idea of persuasion above and beyond mortal men is really that hard to swallow, you might consider reading some works on con games, giving the character in question a cheat sheet on them and then giving the characters enough time and the setup to pull them off.

Lets face it, most DMs will think hard about the location and layout of a fight with guards, but chances are they won't detail the guards on a complex enough to allow a con man a decent chance to do his thing.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I remember an incident in my game were the bard/beguiler tried diplomacy on a cleric of ST Cuthbert.
> 
> /snip
> 
> Now when I DM upfront I tell players that good rolls on social skills don't always work and there will always be a reason behind it when they fail or don't get the exact response you want.




Going back to your first point on this sidebar Elf Witch.

Did the problem player know beforehand that you had house ruled how skills worked?  That there was a chance that you might rule by fiat that a given skill will fail, based on how you feel the setting works?

I guess this is what my problem here is.  If the player didn't know that you were changing the rules, his reaction is fairly understandable.  And, since you now say that you are up front and inform the players that the rules are subject to change, I'd say that he didn't know beforehand.

OTOH, a problem player is a problem player regardless of the rules and no amount of rules and communication is likely going to help.  :/


----------



## S'mon (Jun 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Did the problem player know beforehand that you had house ruled how skills worked?  That there was a chance that you might rule by fiat that a given skill will fail, based on how you feel the setting works?




In which edition is it a house rule to use judgement in the application of social skills?  In which edition does it say that success in a social skill roll always gets the PC what he wants? Even 3e Diplomacy "Friendly, will take risks to help the PC" doesn't say that.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I take it you didn't play much higher level D&D then (in any edition).  If you had, then you'd see that it wasn't all that uncommon for the fighter types at least to pretty much only miss on a 1 (at least with their primary attacks).  I find it very difficult to believe that in 30 years of gaming you've never seen characters that only miss on a, say, 1-5 regularly.
> 
> You also presume that the allies can always Aid Another, which is not always true, ignore the fact that failing an Aid Another check imposes a -1 penalty to the check, and, you still haven't answered the question:  what constitutes a "hard" check?
> 
> When the check is binary, what chance of failure makes it a "hard" check.




My last campaign was 3.5E and ran from level 1 to level 18.  Even at the very end of the campaign nobody was hitting on a roll of 2 or better against anything.  That includes me (the DM) with bad guys built with help from people on here and the WotC forums.  And, the PCs included a level 18 dwarf fighter with max strength, a lot of combat-oriented feats, a belt of giant strength and an axe +4.

Of course, the final showdown was against the Big Bad Evil Guy, his pit fiend bodyguard and the general of the BBEG's armies, a specially built 'charging' paladin of tyranny.  The worst AC of the main evil group was probably the paladin of tyranny, and I'm pretty sure the paladin's AC was good enough to not get hit by the dwarf on a roll of 2.

(Also, I did not use the "standard" pit fiend from the Monster Manual with its "average" stats and no magic items)

And, in 4E, a "hard" DC is 19 at level 1, 24 at level 8 and 28 at level 12, 30 at level 16 and 38 at level 25.

My longest campaigns in 2E and 3.0 were as a player in a different group, but I know nobody was regularly hitting bad guys when rolling a 2 or higher, even when the 3.0 campaign got into the mid 20s level-wise.  And, not the 2E min-maxed elven bladesinger with great rolled stats.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 14, 2011)

Saeviomagy said:


> Then your players are significantly worse at building combat characters than they are at building skillful ones. This has been possible since 3rd edition.
> 
> I think this whole topic is yet another example of "martial characters don't get to do cool things".
> 
> ...




I think the difference is that charm person is a magical compulsion and will usually get people to do things that diplomacy won't and even that has limitations.

When I DM and have players who have made a social type character then I  make sure I put challenges into allow them to use their abilities. I have seen diplomacy, bluff, intimidate put to good use in my games. I had a bard/rogue in one game who had skills not just in bluff, but forgery and disguise. He often used all three to get the party into places that they shouldn't have been in.

My issue is with the idea that these social skills will always work on every NPC if you just roll high enough.

Look at it this way you have reached the climax of the campaign and you are facing the BBEG and his minions who have made your lives miserable. You are itching for payback. The fighter is buffed and ready , the mages have spells ready and the bard tries diplomacy to get the bad guys to just give up. And he rolls fantastically and basically under the rules he has succeeded in changing the BBEG mind to friendly and helpful.

Talk about anticlimactic and unrealistic. 

IMO there are some situations where it just ruins believability especially in a role playing heavy game for that to happen.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Going back to your first point on this sidebar Elf Witch.
> 
> Did the problem player know beforehand that you had house ruled how skills worked?  That there was a chance that you might rule by fiat that a given skill will fail, based on how you feel the setting works?
> 
> ...




I had never considered it a problem. In the games I had played in under other DMs there were times when no matter how high you rolled you were not going to be able to use social skills to drastically change things.

I had told the players that there were some changes from normal games like sentient creatures having a choice on their alignment and that you were just as likely to meet a good red dragon as you were an evil one.  

We all said that we wanted a heavy story type role playing game.

I didn't specially address the social skill issue. Because of what happened I do now.

One of the reasons I sound so irritated by it with this player is because he was the type who would moan and complain if you followed the RAW and it made it hard for him to do something. But he also complained if you didn't and it didn't work out good for him. Basically he never wanted anything other then  total success for his actions.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 14, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I think the difference is that charm person is a magical compulsion and will usually get people to do things that diplomacy won't and even that has limitations.
> 
> When I DM and have players who have made a social type character then I  make sure I put challenges into allow them to use their abilities. I have seen diplomacy, bluff, intimidate put to good use in my games. I had a bard/rogue in one game who had skills not just in bluff, but forgery and disguise. He often used all three to get the party into places that they shouldn't have been in.
> 
> ...




You said it a lot more eloquently than me, but this was what I was going for in terms of "social" skills.  Also, with Charms, the potential victim gets a saving throw.  With Diplomacy, there is no save.

I must spread XP around before giving to Elf Witch again, however.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> what constitutes a "hard" check?
> 
> When the check is binary, what chance of failure makes it a "hard" check.




I think a "hard" check would be one with a more than 60% chance of failure, if not more than 67%.

I think even an "easy" DC should still have a 33% chance of failure.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 14, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> I think a "hard" check would be one with a more than 60% chance of failure, if not more than 67%.
> 
> I think even an "easy" DC should still have a 33% chance of failure.




What about the theoretical character I gave that had a +22 Diplomacy check at level 2 (+27 with powers). Surely you wouldn't set the level 2 "hard" DC at 40 (roll a 13 or higher).

Or were you thinking more about those characters that have +12 at level 2, so you would set the hard DC at 25 (rather than 20), so that my bard friend still has a chance to shine.

A good example of a literary character than would be hard-pressed to fail a "hard" check would be Tyrion Lannister, IMO (from A Song of Ice and Fire Series). I've seen him talk himself out of even the most dire and  unfathomable of circumstances (with a little luck of course, which I guess would be the d20 roll). I'm sure you can think of many other examples.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 14, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> What about the theoretical character I gave that had a +22 Diplomacy check at level 2 (+27 with powers). Surely you wouldn't set the level 2 "hard" DC at 40 (roll a 13 or higher).
> 
> Or were you thinking more about those characters that have +12 at level 2, so you would set the hard DC at 25 (rather than 20), so that my bard friend still has a chance to shine.
> 
> A good example of a literary character than would be hard-pressed to fail a "hard" check would be Tyrion Lannister, IMO (from A Song of Ice and Fire Series). I've seen him talk himself out of even the most dire and  unfathomable of circumstances (with a little luck of course, which I guess would be the d20 roll). I'm sure you can think of many other examples.




No, a DC:40 would be too difficult for a level 2.  However, I definitely could see adding 5 or so to the DC, like you suggested.

Tyrion is also very skilled with Diplomacy - as he says in the books, his weapon is his mind and he has spent years honing it, like his brother had spent years honing his skills with the sword (when he wasn't boffing his sister...)


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 14, 2011)

I just thought of an example for Tyrion:

Some people have complained that the d20 and 4e mechanics make it too easy for characters to make Diplomacy checks that seem unrealistic (that is the purpose of this thread, after all). In fact, logically it would seem impossible to move an NPC from hostile to friendly, no matter what a player's roll was.

However, isn't this similar what Tyrion does (who has no magical abilities what-so-ever) when he returns to Winterfell coming back from the wall and is greeted with much hostility from Rob Stark. I'm not sure he moves him all the way from hostile to friendly, but from what I remember it's pretty close.

Some of my other favorite examples from that same book of his Diplomacy skills is when he is in the Eyrie (both in sky cells with the guard and when he "confesses"), and also when he convinces the wild men not to kill him on his way out of the vale.

These examples are fresh on my mind because of the TV adaption, but I've read the entire series, and there are many, many more examples.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 14, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> I just thought of an example for Tyrion:
> 
> Some people have complained that the d20 and 4e mechanics make it too easy for characters to make Diplomacy checks that seem unrealistic (that is the purpose of this thread, after all). In fact, logically it would seem impossible to move an NPC from hostile to friendly, no matter what a player's roll was.
> 
> ...




I just re-read the book, but have barely watched the TV series, so I can't comment on that.  In 3E/3.5E, Tyrion would obviously be a higher level Aristocrat with most of his feats & ranks in social skills.

I wouldn't say Robb was hostile in the book.  However, I would say Tyrion managed to change his attitude from Unfriendly to Indifferent only after Robb got confirmation that the saddle diagram Tyrion drew up for Bran was something that could work.

The prison guard got a large sack full of gold, and that was only to tell Lyssa that he was going to confess.  The guard also knew that a Lannister always pays their debts.  Unfriendly to Friendly is DC:25, while Unfriendly to Helpful is DC: 40.

Convincing the wild men was impressive, but keep in mind that Tyrion is likely decently high in level   In 3.5E, turning a Hostile party to Indifferent is a DC: 25.  

If he is a level 10 aristocrat, he could have up to 13 ranks in Diplomacy, plus another 2-3 for Charisma of 14 or 16, plus another 3 for Skill Focus and another +2 or +4 for various skill synergies.  So, possibly a +23 to his roll.


----------



## [OMENRPG]Ben (Jun 14, 2011)

Certainly Tyrion is a highly skilled aristocrat, but the biggest reason he's able to persuade people is due to his family's reputation. He offers them gold if they help, or death if they harm him. To most folks that's a fairly daunting proposition, especially if the reputation of said proposer can actually follow through with his claims. 

For instance, if the President is in a diplomatic meeting with some foreign sovereign, and he obliquely promises "aid" (whether it be money or weapons or troops) or the potential for war (occupation, regime changing, etc.) most would agree to the terms of the President's proposition, even if his diplomatic skills were terrible. 

What I'm getting at here is that the conditional modifier of someone's reputation is potentially one of the largest applicable in any game system. A Jedi can convince people to stop doing what they're doing not just with the Force (which certainly helps them with the weak minded) but because they are backed and supported by their extreme combat abilities and the massive military/economic force of the Republic. 

If the above mentioned level one diplomacy master with a potential for +27 could certainly be extremely convincing or persuasive, but if a guard at a gate is afraid that if he disobeys orders his family will be strung up from the battlements after he is executed, I doubt even the most convincing (yet otherwise unknown) character could convince him to leave his post. 

Transversely, if a host of 5 extremely well-known and extremely powerful characters, renowned for their tendency to behead obstinate guards, arrives at the gate, that guard would more than likely weigh his options.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 14, 2011)

I concede that those are two well reasoned and accurate posts above. 

I wonder how Tyrion will fare now that he has no gold or threat of force to back up his (inevitable) negotiations.


----------



## Jeffrey (Jun 14, 2011)

It was an attempt in 3e to substitute "rule-play" for "role-play". The problem being that role-playing such a situation involves a certain skill-set from the DM and players which not everyone has.

This deficiency was seen not as a player/DM problem, but as a problem with the game itself. So they "fixed" it, taking the role-play out of the equation completely.

It is one of the reasons I never played 3e.


----------



## [OMENRPG]Ben (Jun 14, 2011)

Jeffrey said:


> It was an attempt in 3e to substitute "rule-play" for "role-play". The problem being that role-playing such a situation involves a certain skill-set from the DM and players which not everyone has.
> 
> This deficiency was seen not as a player/DM problem, but as a problem with the game itself. So they "fixed" it, taking the role-play out of the equation completely.
> 
> It is one of the reasons I never played 3e.





That is similar to saying that adding rules for spells, casting times, and other such descriptions are designed to remove the "role-play" for the game. What if a player wishes to play a spellcaster but has no real idea how to describe his spells or how they would manifest on the battlefield? Similarly, if a player wanted to play a charming and diplomatic character while lacking the eloquence to do him justice, wouldn't it be fair for a diplomacy system to be put in place? That's not a lack of willingness to role-play, that is punishing players for an inability that might not be evident in their character. 

That is the whole element of the "game" in the Role-Playing Game. Otherwise you're just playing pretend.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 14, 2011)

Jeffrey said:


> It was an attempt in 3e to substitute "rule-play" for "role-play". The problem being that role-playing such a situation involves a certain skill-set from the DM and players which not everyone has.
> 
> This deficiency was seen not as a player/DM problem, but as a problem with the game itself. So they "fixed" it, taking the role-play out of the equation completely.
> 
> It is one of the reasons I never played 3e.




I guess that is one way to look at. In my experience having the ability to roll skills like that give players who don't have the real life skills to be glib of tongue a chance to pay and succeed at being a character that does.

I don't think it is perfect by a long shot. As a role player myself I would like to see it role played out and I would hate to see a wonderful speech fail because of dice roll.

Which is why when I DM I let the player try and role play it out first. Sometimes I don't even ask for a role. But if the player feels that he really can't role play it out well then I let him make a roll.

I am not sure how to make it better. Not having a skill check for it can be problematic for some players and having one can also cause problems.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 14, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I guess that is one way to look at. In my experience having the ability to roll skills like that give players who don't have the real life skills to be glib of tongue a chance to pay and succeed at being a character that does.




Agreed on that.  My last campaign featured a guy playing a charismatic sorcerer.  While he's a decent enough guy IRL, he certainly does not have the magnetic presence of somebody with an 18+ charisma.  However, that was his character concept and he ended up doing pretty well with the spells and everything.  And, he did try some role-playing towards the end of the campaign even...


----------



## Jeffrey (Jun 15, 2011)

Whats funny is that I understand the "why" of it, and how something like this was needed for the game to penetrate into new audiences and grow. I generally approved of many of the related decisions from 3e.

But that one was a philosophical deal-breaker for me. I just stuck with my house-ruled 1.795e. 

It was fun following the 3e explosion from the sidelines, however.

While it was not the game I played, it was *still* D&D.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 15, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I think the difference is that charm person is a magical compulsion and will usually get people to do things that diplomacy won't and even that has limitations.



The charm spell explicitly says that it makes the target your friend. It's not a compulsion to do a specific thing and it's not general purpose mind control. It makes the target consider you a friend. A good friend, but a friend. That same guard that is invincible to diplomacy and intimidate should still be saying "look, you're a good buddy but I still can't let you it".

 In 3rd, it does have an extra "you can get people to do things against their nature with a roll" clause, but you still have to ask them to do it, and it never says that they're happy doing it.

Again - it's part of the "magic gets away with anything" effect. DMs look at the spell and just assume that the target does whatever you want, while someone aceing that diplomacy or intimidate will get all kinds of funny looks.


> My issue is with the idea that these social skills will always work on every NPC if you just roll high enough.



I agree that the social interaction mechanics are fairly poor. However once again - cast a spell and it just works.


> Look at it this way you have reached the climax of the campaign and you are facing the BBEG and his minions who have made your lives miserable. You are itching for payback. The fighter is buffed and ready , the mages have spells ready and the bard tries diplomacy to get the bad guys to just give up. And he rolls fantastically and basically under the rules he has succeeded in changing the BBEG mind to friendly and helpful.



Yup, the BBEG likes the bard and wants to help him. That doesn't mean he'll spare his friends. It doesn't mean that he'll just give up and become a good guy unconditionally. It doesn't even mean that he won't kill the bard - it just means he'll see to it that he gets resurrected afterwards - death is just a speedbump after all. It does mean that he'll feel conflicted about it. It does mean that he'll most likely accept the bard's surrender. He might change aspects of how he goes about his plan. He might believe the bard if the bard can convince him that his plan is flawed.

Just take a look at the interaction between Professor X and Magneto (as the first thing to spring to mind). The guys are friends, really good friends. That doesn't stop magneto knocking Prof. X out of action, and doesn't stop him from continuing his plans for eradicating the human race. It doesn't stop professor X from seeing that magneto is imprisoned for his crimes. In fact pretty much the only thing that it changes is that Magneto seems to make at least some effort not to kill Prof X. and vice versa.

I'd also like to point out that it's pretty anticlimactic if the wizard just does something like cast imprisonment.


> Talk about anticlimactic and unrealistic.



An anticlimax is just an excuse to have a bigger climax later.


> IMO there are some situations where it just ruins believability especially in a role playing heavy game for that to happen.




You don't need to change the rules and assign arbitrarily large penalties if you just read the rules. The rules aren't the unrealistic and unbelievable thing here - the adjudication of those rules is. Friends don't unconditionally obey each other. Friends disagree. Friends fall out. Friends become the bitterest enemies.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 15, 2011)

Saeviomagy said:


> The charm spell explicitly says that it makes the target your friend. It's not a compulsion to do a specific thing and it's not general purpose mind control. It makes the target consider you a friend. A good friend, but a friend. That same guard that is invincible to diplomacy and intimidate should still be saying "look, you're a good buddy but I still can't let you it".
> 
> In 3rd, it does have an extra "you can get people to do things against their nature with a roll" clause, but you still have to ask them to do it, and it never says that they're happy doing it.
> 
> ...




I am one of these people who believe that magic is powerful should be powerful and trumps non magic because that is its nature. So yes a magical spell like charm person is more powerful than a nonmagical skill.

And if you read the charm person spell if letting the PCs it  will cause harm to the guard he is not going to do it. 

You can not make a charmed person put himself in deadly danger if you try he gets another saving throw to break the hold.

In my example the bard has killed many of the BBEG minions and his family he has ruined so many of his plans that BBEG just wants him dead well not just dead but hurting then dead. With that kind of mindset there is no way a diplomacy skill no matter how high should ever work.

Now if the two used to be friends like Professor X and Magneto then yes I can see using  diplomacy to try and resolve the issue.

To me its not just the roll that should matter the attitudes of the NPCs should also play a part. 

Its like say jump I don't care how many ranks you have in it without magical aid you are not jumping safely across the Grand Canyon. I don't care how well you roll.  

Once my suspicion of disbelief has been ruined the game loses the fun for me. Both as a player and as a DM.

You are right friends don't just blindly obey but in the skill description they can become friendly and helpful. That last part is what I had an issue with in my game. Which was the bard expected the cleric to become friendly towards him and not to stay hostile and suspicious. The player was upset because under the rules the cleric should not have been that way.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 15, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> I just thought of an example for Tyrion:




Tyrion doesn't convince just anybody, like Catelyn Stark.

On the way to the Eyrie, he charmed several guards (into losing bets and giving him clothing so he didn't freeze to death), and he charmed a dumb guard. He did _not_, however, manage to charm any important characters, except possibly Bronn. (And I think that was Bronn making an Int check.)

Of course, GRRM isn't a DM. He's the ultimate authority in his universe, so Tyrion can be super-charming and the story still works.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 15, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> /snip
> 
> One of the reasons I sound so irritated by it with this player is because he was the type who would moan and complain if you followed the RAW and it made it hard for him to do something. But he also complained if you didn't and it didn't work out good for him. Basically he never wanted anything other then  total success for his actions.




Ahh, I've played with him too.  Yeah, that sucks.  



NewJeffCT said:


> I think a "hard" check would be one with a more than 60% chance of failure, if not more than 67%.
> 
> I think even an "easy" DC should still have a 33% chance of failure.




See, that's where the problem lies.  If you have a 60% chance of failure on a check, that means that other solutions are almost universally better.  I mean, in 3e, most spells have a WAY better chance of success than that.  Simply beating the guard to death is probably much more effective as well.

By making the checks that much harder, you push your players into choosing other options because they are just as capable of calculating the odds as you are.  If I have two courses of action - letting the rogue sneak attack and knock the guard unconscious or trying to talk my way past - whichever option has the best chance of success is the most logical choice to make.

If you want to make the difficulty higher, I would suggest you also allow lots of retries as well - just like it works in combat.  Otherwise, why would a player ever actually use any skills?


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I am one of these people who believe that magic is powerful should be powerful and trumps non magic because that is its nature. So yes a magical spell like charm person is more powerful than a nonmagical skill.



"If you want to be a hero, play a spellcaster. Everyone else gets to be a henchman".

That's fine as long as you're up front with your players about it.


> In my example the bard has killed many of the BBEG minions and his family he has ruined so many of his plans that BBEG just wants him dead well not just dead but hurting then dead.



... and then meets him and he seems kind of nice. Or seems like he'd be worth more as an ally than an enemy (obviously he's powerful and ruthless...).

Like I said - the guy isn't going to just roll over and give up, but he might offer that traditional "Join me, and we rule the world as equals, or stand against me and be the target of my regretful wrath" speech.


> With that kind of mindset there is no way a diplomacy skill no matter how high should ever work.



Why, just because you say so?


> Now if the two used to be friends like Professor X and Magneto then yes I can see using  diplomacy to try and resolve the issue.
> 
> To me its not just the roll that should matter the attitudes of the NPCs should also play a part.



I totally agree. And so do the rules. Helpful creatures don't just hand over their loot and retire from evil. They just help you while remaining true to their nature.


> Its like say jump I don't care how many ranks you have in it without magical aid you are not jumping safely across the Grand Canyon. I don't care how well you roll.



If they actually had the ranks to do that, they'd be at the sort of level where colossal dragons are gnats they crush with their bare hands on a whim. And that's just the wizards.

Now, I seriously doubt that you're playing at that sort of level, and if you were, I'd be highly surprised to find that it was the moment when barry the fighter jumped across the grand canyon that was when your sense of verisimilitude broke.

So lets just put this one down to a strawman.


> Once my suspicion of disbelief has been ruined the game loses the fun for me. Both as a player and as a DM.
> 
> You are right friends don't just blindly obey but in the skill description they can become friendly and helpful. That last part is what I had an issue with in my game. Which was the bard expected the cleric to become friendly towards him and not to stay hostile and suspicious. The player was upset because under the rules the cleric should not have been that way.




I think you did the right thing in that scenario. Not being a supremely gifted negotiator, it's hard for me to imagine how the conversation that leads up to someone befriending the target of their hatred goes (however apply the same thing to, say, casting magic missile), but I don't see an issue with the result of that friendship being a grudging tolerance rather than skipping down the street holding hands.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 16, 2011)

Saeviomagy said:


> "If you want to be a hero, play a spellcaster. Everyone else gets to be a henchman".
> 
> That's fine as long as you're up front with your players about it.
> 
> ...




Well first you have to buy the argument that spellcasters are the greatest and everyone else is just a henchmen. Which I don't and funny enough I have never encounter this idea any place but on boards. One of my son's gaming buddies is a powergamer to the max. He is the one I go to for advice on how to build something or ask his opinion on if something is to powerful. And he doesn't buy this old argument.

Plenty of my gaming buddies choose to play non spellcasters have have a blast and never feel that they don't have narrative control or that they are anyone's henchmen.


But I have found that there is really no point in beating this dead horse. I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mind.

Yes you have murdered my wife but you seem nice so I will try and make an ally out of you. Why because you have such a golden tongue.

Damn skippy because I said so I am the DM and I have no problem accepting that has a player but then I only play with DMs I trust so I don't feel as if I am being screwed.

Sorry no I don't care if you can crush a dragon like a bug. You are crushing the dragon because of your fighting skill, your weapons training and most likely with the aide of a magical weapon. None of that means your thighs are strong enough to give you the power to jump the Grand Canyon without magical aid. Just like I don't care what your saving throw is if you fall into lava you die pretty much instantly even if you have resistance to fire.

Grudging tolerance is still not friendly or helpful in a lot  of players eyes. Which is my point that there are times no matter how well you roll a social skill it may not give you all the benefits you would have hoped for.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 17, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Sorry no I don't care if you can crush a dragon like a bug. You are crushing the dragon because of your fighting skill, your weapons training and most likely with the aide of a magical weapon. None of that means your thighs are strong enough to give you the power to jump the Grand Canyon without magical aid. Just like I don't care what your saving throw is if you fall into lava you die pretty much instantly even if you have resistance to fire.




*quote from Wikipedia*
The fifth Labour of Heracles was to clean the Augean stables. This assignment was intended to be both humiliating (rather than impressive, as had the previous labours) and impossible, since the livestock were divinely healthy (immortal) and therefore produced an enormous quantity of dung. These stables had not been cleaned in over 30 years, and over 1,000 cattle lived there.
*end quote from Wikipedia*

If you are going for a totally realistic campaign then DnD really isn't the system for it.  At high levels the skills can let the heros do things nobody in the "real world" can do without the aid of magic weapons or spells.

Such as...

1. Convincing a naked emperor he is wearing new clothes.
2. Convincing a dark lord of the sith to turn against his evil ways and regain his humanity (instead of just getting rid of him by slicing off his head).
3. Climbing a beanstalk all the way into the clouds without it breaking or you falling to your death.
4. Noticing a pea under multiples mattresses by feel alone.
5. Planting a forest of trees across the continental United States.
6. Becoming best buddies with a supremely powerful beast because you did him a minor favor he could have done himself (like say removing a thorn from his paw)

DS


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 17, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Sorry no I don't care if you can crush a dragon like a bug. You are crushing the dragon because of your fighting skill, your weapons training and most likely with the aide of a magical weapon. None of that means your thighs are strong enough to give you the power to jump the Grand Canyon without magical aid. Just like I don't care what your saving throw is if you fall into lava you die pretty much instantly even if you have resistance to fire.




No. At the level where you can jump across the grand canyon without magic aid, you are also beating fire-breathing blue-whale sized lizards to death with your bare hands and no magical assistance, when your chosen profession is to read books and generally avoid physical combat.

Also 

Viewing Hawai`i's lava safely - a reminder

Guy falls in lava. Sure he sustains some seriously bad burns, but survives. And he's nowhere near punching out an elephant.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 17, 2011)

Sabathius42 said:


> *quote from Wikipedia*
> The fifth Labour of Heracles was to clean the Augean stables. This assignment was intended to be both humiliating (rather than impressive, as had the previous labours) and impossible, since the livestock were divinely healthy (immortal) and therefore produced an enormous quantity of dung. These stables had not been cleaned in over 30 years, and over 1,000 cattle lived there.
> *end quote from Wikipedia*
> 
> ...




Hercules is part god. That means he is a magical creature.

I have been playing DnD since it came out and I have never felt that I needed a different game to play the style of game that I want.

I am not a slave to totally realism in any game. But there are a few dealbreakers for me. Anything that starts feeling like something out of a anime or a superheros comic is one of those things. 

I can accept Superman can fly  so I don't have an issue with people using magic to fly but if you crash to earth and you don't have feather fall then unlike Superman you are going to get hurt even possibly die.

There is a lot you can't do in the real world because magic does not exist.

The Darth Vader example could be done with a highly talented negotiator. Vader as we know from his past was conflicted about what he became. So Luke had an opening to work with.

The emperor needing new clothes might be accomplished in game if you had a great bluff and the emperor had a wisdom score in the minuses.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 19, 2011)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> The emperor needing new clothes might be accomplished in game if you had a great bluff and the emperor had a wisdom score in the minuses.




So, with a good enough social skill (bluff) I can convince a naked person that, despite the evidence of his own eyes, he is actually wearing clothing, but, I cannot be persuasive enough to convince Joe Grunt the Gate Guard that he should let me in the door.

I think there's a bit of a problem here.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 19, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, with a good enough social skill (bluff) I can convince a naked person that, despite the evidence of his own eyes, he is actually wearing clothing, but, I cannot be persuasive enough to convince Joe Grunt the Gate Guard that he should let me in the door.
> 
> I think there's a bit of a problem here.




depends on the emperor.  If he was new to the job and was a mere 1st level aristocrat, while having, as [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] said, a Wisdom penalty, it could be done if you're a high enough level in Bluff.

The problem with these social skills is that they usually do not offer any sort of defense/save against them.  The 3E/3.5E version offered a flat DC and it didn't matter if you were chatting to Joe Grunt the Gate Guard or Elminster himself.  At least in 4E, the challenge goes up as the level of the Diplomacized, Bluffed or Intimidated goes up.  However, as I stated in my OP, even those are sometimes very easy as written.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 19, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, with a good enough social skill (bluff) I can convince a naked person that, despite the evidence of his own eyes, he is actually wearing clothing, but, I cannot be persuasive enough to convince Joe Grunt the Gate Guard that he should let me in the door.
> 
> I think there's a bit of a problem here.




I was just using an example from someone else post on how you could make the fairy tale work. Using bluff.

Not that it would in any game I ran. Because it would be stupid.

Which brings me back around to my whole it needs to make sense to the setting and the NPCs when it comes to social skills.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Jun 20, 2011)

Of course you can intimidate your way past the guards into the castle.  You just need a holocaust cloak, a wheelbarrow, a torch, and a giant.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 20, 2011)

On Puget Sound said:


> Of course you can intimidate your way past the guards into the castle.  You just need a holocaust cloak, a wheelbarrow, a torch, and a giant.




well, having a holocaust cloak is another story...


----------



## Hussar (Jun 22, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I was just using an example from someone else post on how you could make the fairy tale work. Using bluff.
> 
> Not that it would in any game I ran. Because it would be stupid.
> 
> Which brings me back around to my whole it needs to make sense to the setting and the NPCs when it comes to social skills.




But that's my point.  "Make sense to the setting" according to who?  The DM?  Why?  Why is he/she the sole arbiter of what "makes sense"?

It's not like bluffing past the guard is so totally outside the context of genre.  It's done many, many times in all sorts of genre stories.

Heck, even taking it from a fairly realistic standpoint.  You're Joe Gateguard.  You are told that no one is allowed into the castle.  Five (ish) beings come up to you, each one carrying enough wealth on his/her/its body to buy your house a thousand times over and quite possibly capable of obliterating you with a thought and tell you that they are supposed to be let inside.

If I was the gate guard, I'd be opening the door then ducking around the corner to whack myself over the head with the flat of my own sword and claim that they ambushed me and forced their way in.

After all, is that really outside the realm of believability?  Heck, "The wizard guy, he made me do it, I tried to stop myself, but he sucked out all my will and made me his meat puppet!  boo hoo!" is a fairly believable excuse as to why the guard let them inside.

It's all in how you spin things.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Jun 22, 2011)

(Some spying beforehand has revealed that the bad guy does, in fact, employ a necromancer, and the party has obtained his name.  Before approaching gate:  use makeup kit to make one character look badly diseased and questionably alive, then cover him with a cloak and hood).

Good evening, sirs.  We're here to see Onyxel.  What?  Of course we're allowed in; the master is eager to examine my unfortunate friend Aldor.  Aldor, say hello.

(Aldor flips back the hood, lurches forward a few steps, then pretends to vomit, spewing the mouthful of sour wine and crumbled hard boiled egg yolk he's been holding directly on the guard)

Oh no.  Aldor!  What a mess.  Well don't worry, it's not a disease.  It's a curse, and I'm sure you can't catch it.  I think.  Only humans can... oh, you're a human, aren't you?  Still, I wouldn't worry.  Unless you start sweating.  Are you sweating?  Hmmm.  Itching or nervousness?  Unsettled stomach?  Oh, my.  Tell you what, why don't you come with us?  We'd better get you to Onyxel and let him have a look at you.   He'll know what to do.  Lead the way!


----------



## Janx (Jun 22, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> But Interrogation skill (in TN), is more about proper Interrogation of a suspect (questioning, bargaining, etc). Anything beyond that would really just be a modifier I suppose. So the way I handle NPCs who simply wouldn't give up information on their organization is they may accidentally give away some minor information on a success or they simply become more friendly and well disposed toward the PCs.




I think this answer touches on a point made during the early days of the "do we need torture" arguments of the war on terror.

Modern police can get the mafia to talk, without using torture.  Cops are very restricted on no torture, because the case could be thrown out.  So call whatever cops do in the interrogation room "Interrogation".  That's what I think Bedrock's referring to.

Contrast that to what we think the CIA is up to (or at least the stereotyped not nice things).  Waterboarding,  jumper cables, etc.  

Torture is effectively NOT Interrogation.


----------



## Janx (Jun 22, 2011)

On Puget Sound said:


> (Some spying beforehand has revealed that the bad guy does, in fact, employ a necromancer, and the party has obtained his name.  Before approaching gate:  use makeup kit to make one character look badly diseased and questionably alive, then cover him with a cloak and hood).
> 
> Good evening, sirs.  We're here to see Onyxel.  What?  Of course we're allowed in; the master is eager to examine my unfortunate friend Aldor.  Aldor, say hello.
> 
> ...




Nice colorful example.

I just watch Ocean's Eleven last night.  THIS is the kind of thing a party of social skill monkeys would pull.

Is the complaint that it's too easy for the party to trick the guard?  Versus the other most abused PC responses to problems:
kill it
burn it

Some folks seem to be disagreeing on the realism of these social skills.

Consider, somebody makes up their mind to hire you in the first 10 SECONDS of meeting you.  The rest of the interview is them rationalizing to themselves on your answers that "you show promise and can learn our business" or "this person doesn't get our business and we shouldn't hire him".  Seriously, there's been studies on this.  That means the social skill check is influencing this first impression effect.  Humans really are that poorly designed.

Additionally, consider Social Engineering, the hacker craft of talking people into letting you into buildings, giving up passwords.  And this is a social skill developed by nerds, a people not known for their social skills.

It is NOT that implausible that somebody with good social engineering skills could bluff their way into a White House dinner.  Oh wait, that actually happened.

Could the rules be better designed?  Sure.  are all the extreme results implausible?  Reality would disagree.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 22, 2011)

Well, rolling this back to the original point about are they too easy, something to remember is that 4e (at least) has the idea of skill challenges.  If a hard check is going to fail 60% of the time, then a hard skill challenge is effectively impossible.  12 checks at 40% chance of success before 3 fails is not very bloody likely.

And, really, that would solve a lot of our gate guard issue.  What is the goal here?  Not just getting past the guard, that's incidental, but, why exactly is the party trying to gain access to the castle?

Let's say they want to gain access to the princess that is locked in the tower.  Trite, but it works for this example.

Hard challenge, 12/3.  Make it a narrative challenge as well - each part of the challenge can possibly affect the next part.  They meet the guard at the door.  Succeed and they gain entrance.  Fail and they still gain entrance but all subsequent checks are made at -2 because the guards are a bit more active.

Next, a patrol comes near the party.  The party has to avoid the patrol (or possibly talk their way past).  If they try to avoid, 5 checks (1 for each PC) to avoid, no aiding possible because of time constraints.  If they try to talk, have a couple of checks for talking their way past.

Chuck in a few traps, maybe a second patrol, possibly a guard dog or something, maybe a wandering servant or two and you've got your twelve checks.  They fail, the alarm goes off and they have to get out of the castle (or not - perhaps slaughtering everyone is an option, or whatever, they might even be able to hide until the alarm dies down).

In any case, now a 20% chance of failure makes sense.  That makes the hard skill challenge a dicey thing, although not impossible.  Any higher than 20% and you might as well not even bother - the odds are too long.  Even cutting it down to 10% still means a significant chance of failure.

Thinking bigger and beyond just this specific instant makes the skill numbers work a lot better.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But that's my point.  "Make sense to the setting" according to who?  The DM?  Why?  Why is he/she the sole arbiter of what "makes sense"?




Because it's his/her game, and he/she determines the genre.  Of course the DM should communicate the genre to the players.  Within a broad system like any edition of D&D it can be played in a wide variety of fantasy genres, and what is appropriate and possible will vary accordingly.  Tolkienesque, Fairy-Tale, Swashbuckler, Conan 'grim & barbaric' S&S, Fafhrd/Mouser 'blackly humourous' S&S, Elric 'high fantasy apocalyptic' S&S, and various genres of low fantasy are some of the possibilities.

The players don't get to determine the genre.  But the DM should make sure they understand which genre is being played.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But that's my point.  "Make sense to the setting" according to who?  The DM?  Why?  Why is he/she the sole arbiter of what "makes sense"?




The pitfalls of narrative technique in rpg play  Game Design is about Structure

The problem we have here, specifically, is that when you apply narration sharing to backstory authority, you require the player to both establish and resolve a conflict, which runs counter to the Czege principle. You also require the player to take on additional responsibilities in addition to his tasks in character advocacy; this is a crucial change to the nature of the game, as it shapes a core activity into a completely new form. Now, instead of only having to worry about expressing his character and making decisions for him, the player is thrust into a position of authorship: he has to make decisions that are not predicated on the best interests of his character, but on the best interests of the story itself.​


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 22, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Because it's his/her game, and he/she determines the genre.  Of course the DM should communicate the genre to the players.  Within a broad system like any edition of D&D it can be played in a wide variety of fantasy genres, and what is appropriate and possible will vary accordingly.  Tolkienesque, Fairy-Tale, Swashbuckler, Conan 'grim & barbaric' S&S, Fafhrd/Mouser 'blackly humourous' S&S, Elric 'high fantasy apocalyptic' S&S, and various genres of low fantasy are some of the possibilities.
> 
> The players don't get to determine the genre.  But the DM should make sure they understand which genre is being played.




You  summed up nicely what I was going to post to this.

I would also add that as DM I know things that players may not. For example back to the incident in my game. I knew that the majority of spellscales had joined with Tiamat and I also knew that the clerics of St Cuthbert had discovered this. 

The players had not discovered this yet. 

Based on the knowledge of what was happening I had the NPC act in a way that was partly a clue and in a way that made sense to the game world. 

This is where trust in your DM comes in. Trust that there is a reason and not that he is just screwing with you. And if you can't trust him why are you playing with him?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But that's my point.  "Make sense to the setting" according to who?  The DM?  Why?  Why is he/she the sole arbiter of what "makes sense"?




Hey again 

I think we've had this type of discussion recently. It was a little illuminating for me. I'm glad that we had such a civil discussion.

At any rate, I think the GM should be in charge of these things in my group because the more the players start to dictate things, the less immersed they are. That doesn't make the game necessarily less enjoyable. I run a pretty narrative Mutants and Masterminds one-shot every couple of months. But, in terms of long term play, my group greatly prefers to be immersed, rather than helping craft a story.

Now, they love story. As I've said on other discussions, I've seen 24 hours or more of actual real play time (not game time ) pass by without any fights in D&D 3.X. From my observations on this board, this seems to be quite different than most people's experiences. Also, I'd like to point out that "more combat" than my group has does not equal "less story" than my group has. Since I don't use random encounters, pretty much every combat encounter is story-related. I understand very well that combat can propel story forward, so please don't take my initial comment in this paragraph to indicate that isn't the case.

At any rate, it comes down to play style preferences. Why should the GM be in charge of consistency? So that the players aren't pulled out of character. That is, that's why it works that way for my group.

As always, though, play what you like


----------



## Janx (Jun 22, 2011)

[OMENRPG]Ben said:


> If the above mentioned level one diplomacy master with a potential for +27 could certainly be extremely convincing or persuasive, but if a guard at a gate is afraid that if he disobeys orders his family will be strung up from the battlements after he is executed, I doubt even the most convincing (yet otherwise unknown) character could convince him to leave his post.
> 
> Transversely, if a host of 5 extremely well-known and extremely powerful characters, renowned for their tendency to behead obstinate guards, arrives at the gate, that guard would more than likely weigh his options.




Except that guards let people IN all the freaking time.  And in corrupt organizations, guards still make mistakes, and worse, do it on purpose.

Carry a clipboard, and wear an orange vest and a hat, and you'd be surprised the places you can get into or get away with being in without question.

Why would a guard let you in? Because you looked like you belonged.  Or because you paid him, and he THOUGHT he could get away with it.

The majority of the small company accounting fraud happened because the accountant was the only one watching the books, and he thought he could get away with it.  Places with better accounting oversight, that didn't happen.

Why do you assume that Saddam Hussein's guards are the worlds perfect soldiers who only follow orders, just because he'll kill their family if he finds out they screwed him.  The facts on the ground are quite different.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 22, 2011)

Janx said:


> The majority of the small company accounting fraud happened because the accountant was the only one watching the books, and he thought he could get away with it.  Places with better accounting oversight, that didn't happen.




Enron & Arthur Anderson might beg to differ on the size of the company coming into play.

Same with Lehman Brothers and E&Y

AIG and PWC

Nortel and D&T

Those accounting firms were supposed to be the best of the best.


----------



## Janx (Jun 22, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> Enron & Arthur Anderson might beg to differ on the size of the company coming into play.
> 
> Same with Lehman Brothers and E&Y
> 
> ...




As I heard it, for the small companies, places with 1 accountant and no oversight = high risk of embezzlement.  Places with 2 accountants = lower risk of that.  Because they think they MIGHT get caught.

The scenario really is, in a place where you think NOBODY would notice, you are more likely to abuse the situation.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2011)

S'mon and co. 

Obviously I disagree here.  And, no, it's not handing authorship to the player to say that if the only person determining what is believable at the table is the DM is not the only way to play.

Just because the DM doesn't buy that X can happen, why does it automatically mean that X fails?  See, I don't see it as "my" campaign.  I play with 4 or 5 other players.  It's "our" campaign.  If the players try X and I honestly believe that they believe it's plausible, unless I have some specific knowledge as to why it isn't (which, I will almost always share with the players) then whatever X is, should work.

Why should the players be hostage to my failure of imagination?


----------



## S'mon (Jun 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Why should the players be hostage to my failure of imagination?




If the players can't explain why something should work, then it's their imagination that has failed, not the DM's.

If a player wants to try something IMC, and gives a plausible in-genre explanation why it could succeed, then I will give it a chance to succeed.  The player has successfully used their imagination.  

If the player just says "I roll an X check" with no explanation, they have failed to exercise any imagination & they deserve to fail.

Or do you think only the DM has to exercise imagination?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2011)

S'mon said:


> If the players can't explain why something should work, then it's their imagination that has failed, not the DM's.
> 
> If a player wants to try something IMC, and gives a plausible in-genre explanation why it could succeed, then I will give it a chance to succeed.  The player has successfully used their imagination.
> 
> ...




Umm, no?

Player:  I want to get past the guard.  I'll bluff him by pretending to be a spy sent out by Baron Von Badass and just now returning with important information for the Baron.

DM:  No, you fail.  The Baron has left strict orders to not let anyone pass, so, you have no chance of success.  Since the Baron will punish the guard's family, I cannot see how you could possibly succeed here.

Yeah, the player has totally failed his imagination.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Umm, no?
> 
> Player:  I want to get past the guard.  I'll bluff him by pretending to be a spy sent out by Baron Von Badass and just now returning with important information for the Baron.
> 
> ...




See this situation is one where i think the roll is fine ( though the gm should assign a modifier to account for the whole family killing thing). In your example the player also details the actions and words behind the roll. Where i think these rolls can be an issue(and i dont fault the game as i created the same problem in my own game) is when very specific things are in play that would pretty much make such a roll impossible or at least require more preparatipn on tge part of the pc( fake papers, dishuise etc).

My bigger issue with these rolls lately is it can be too easy to gloss over the rp and dialogue ( which is one of my favorite parts of the game). I use social mechanics so dont get me wrong. I understand why they can be useful, but they can also turn interactions into abstractions. 

Because our games revolve around fbi and cia investigations i have been thinking about this a bit. My solution is if the players say they do or ask the specific things in an interaction i have specific results keyed to that (essentially a critical success) and they don't have to roll- ie i look inside the desk drawer, or i threaten to arrest his son if doesn't talk. But i still have the rolls.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> S'mon and co.
> 
> Obviously I disagree here.  And, no, it's not handing authorship to the player to say that if the only person determining what is believable at the table is the DM is not the only way to play.
> 
> ...




Two things.

One: In a challenge-based game, the player is the one who is supposed to face the challenge and, based on their abilities, overcome it.  If the player can determine the level of challenge - that is, if they can determine what a reasonable bluff is or not - they have a conflict of interest in their goals for play: they have to decide if they are going to overcome the challenge or maintain the consistency of the game world.

The DM doesn't have any such conflict.  Thus, the DM is the one who should make those decisions.

Two: If you feel that the DM is making poor decisions, you have to talk to the DM and let him know what you think he's doing wrong.  I've been through this before.  DMs aren't infallible, and sometimes we make poor decisions.  When a player challenges my ruling, I will explain it; I make a lot of rulings, and rarely have to do this.

I played a game last night where, in a specific "diplomatic" scene (in the nature of Deadwood), everything made sense to me based on my understanding of human nature.  After the scene was over, I went over with the DM what I thought was going on, just to make sure we were on the same page.  Turns out we were, so I don't have to worry about strange NPC actions in the future - if they do make such actions, I can react appropriately (charmed, perhaps?).


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> Two things.
> 
> One: In a challenge-based game, the player is the one who is supposed to face the challenge and, based on their abilities, overcome it.  If the player can determine the level of challenge - that is, if they can determine what a reasonable bluff is or not - they have a conflict of interest in their goals for play: they have to decide if they are going to overcome the challenge or maintain the consistency of the game world.
> 
> The DM doesn't have any such conflict.  Thus, the DM is the one who should make those decisions.




I disagree.  I don't think that the player(s) determining what is plausible in the game in any way detracts from the DM's authority.  Sure, things are going to be filtered through the DM, but, by the same token, it can get taken too far where the DM's sense of what is plausible or not is based purely on his or her own gut reaction and completely ignores what the players themselves might consider to be plausible.

Note, I'm not saying that the player should be dictating DC's here.  That's too much.  But, by the same token, the DM should not be dictating plausiblity either.  If the player is taking an action that he honestly believes is plausible, and there are no overriding concerns, such as charms or possession or the like, then why start monkeying with the rules?  Who is being served here?



> Two: If you feel that the DM is making poor decisions, you have to talk to the DM and let him know what you think he's doing wrong.  I've been through this before.  DMs aren't infallible, and sometimes we make poor decisions.  When a player challenges my ruling, I will explain it; I make a lot of rulings, and rarely have to do this.
> 
> I played a game last night where, in a specific "diplomatic" scene (in the nature of Deadwood), everything made sense to me based on my understanding of human nature.  After the scene was over, I went over with the DM what I thought was going on, just to make sure we were on the same page.  Turns out we were, so I don't have to worry about strange NPC actions in the future - if they do make such actions, I can react appropriately (charmed, perhaps?).




Now, imagine for a second that you take an action which, based on everything you currently know, should be perfectly plausible (not a guaranteed success of course, but, still possible) and the DM simply says, "nope, sorry, I don't think that works, you can't do it."  Is that serving the game and the group?  Or is it simply serving the DM?

I've seen far, far too many times the DM uses his or her "reality filter" to screw over players in situations where the DM is flat out wrong.  Granted, it's not always, but often enough that I'm much, much more willing to give the players the benefit of the doubt and trust that my players want to have a good game and don't need me to play school teacher and lay down the law on what is plausible or not.

I find trusting the players to be far, far more rewarding than any amount of trying to satisfy my own personal verisimilitude.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 26, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> My bigger issue with these rolls lately is it can be too easy to gloss over the rp and dialogue ( which is one of my favorite parts of the game). I use social mechanics so dont get me wrong. I understand why they can be useful, but they can also turn interactions into abstractions.




Well, as I stated above, my problem is that in 3E/3.5E, there is no save against the social skills and the max adjustments for difficult situations are +2 and +4.  So, it doesn't matter if the man guarding the gate is Willy the 1st level warrior or Beowulf himself, you beat the DC and he's in your pocket.

And, while 4E does a good job with scaling the DC with the level of the guardsmen, the DCs seem to be ridiculously achievable for anybody that has a positive bonus in Charisma and is trained in that social skill, unless you're talking about a 1st level PC trying to get in past the royal guard, whose level starts at 11.

My penchant as a DM is to not penalize a player who is not always that talkative out of game if he or she wanted to play a charismatic bard or similar.  So, sometimes you have to rely on the rolls because the level 2 gamer with a low CHA is not nearly as loquacious as his dashing bard with a 20 Charisma.


----------



## Krensky (Jun 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Umm, no?
> 
> Player:  I want to get past the guard.  I'll bluff him by pretending to be a spy sent out by Baron Von Badass and just now returning with important information for the Baron.
> 
> ...




No one's failed their imagination.

GM: The guard believes you're a spy with important info for the baron. He's still not letting you past, something about orders from the baron. He does call for a runner, probably to tell someone you're here though.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 26, 2011)

2 coppers on the overall topic:

I don't object to 'influence/social' skills in principle, but in practice, they tend to turn into 'saving throw vs. social interaction' or essentially a 'charm' type of effect on a successful check against NPCs. Also, as a referee, I prefer to reward creative player attempts at persuasion/coersion/etc. so that failed skill attempts tend to but a damper on the free-flowing 'rp' at the table; I prefer to favor players' creativity at 'persuasion' even if that means rewarding player ability over character ability, given the situation.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I disagree.  I don't think that the player(s) determining what is plausible in the game in any way detracts from the DM's authority.  Sure, things are going to be filtered through the DM, but, by the same token, it can get taken too far where the DM's sense of what is plausible or not is based purely on his or her own gut reaction and completely ignores what the players themselves might consider to be plausible.
> 
> Note, I'm not saying that the player should be dictating DC's here.  That's too much.  But, by the same token, the DM should not be dictating plausiblity either.  If the player is taking an action that he honestly believes is plausible, and there are no overriding concerns, such as charms or possession or the like, then why start monkeying with the rules?  Who is being served here?
> 
> ...




I think that the idea that I don't trust my players is pretty amusing to me, personally. I've been personally close friends with them for over 12 years (yes, all 5 players), and been playing with them for 8 or more years (depending on the player). I trust them very much.

It's not a matter of my "authority" being detracted from. It's a matter of consistency. All of the players are not of like mind on what makes sense. Occasionally a player (or more than one) will voice that something doesn't make sense (in a matter-of-fact way). I'll disagree. I'll usually have 2 players regularly see things from my point of view, and one kind of sits on the fence.

So, from my personal (anecdotal) experience, in games where I do very much trust the players, it has boiled down to a matter of consistency. If I let every player get their input in on plausibility, we'd be playing different games.

And, of course, all of this leads back to immersion for me. Immersion is huge. If players are constantly getting their out-of-game input in on things happening in-game, then it will kill immersion. As we don't like playing narrative fantasy games, this is really unappealing to us.

But, this is all from my personal experience, so it's not a comment saying how things are in general. However, I can state that while I can be brought closer to understanding your view (which has happened civilly in the past), I will not embrace it, as it goes against the outlines I've laid out above. Close-minded? Maybe. But, in matters of leisure, I tend to stick with great adhesiveness to activities that I enjoy (as does my group).

As always, though, play what you like


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 26, 2011)

I have noticed that some people just don't trust DMs. I think that is one of the issues here. 

Take the bluff issue with the Baron. If the DM feels that it is going to take some really clever maneuverings to get past the guards and set up the challenge that way. Then yes I can fully accept that an ordinary bluff "I am the spy and he is expecting me" won't just work. Or not work the way you expect like the guard going and getting a superior. 

If I had a situation set up like that I would give plenty of clues for the players to find on ways to improve the bluff or find another way in. But just rolling the dice and saying something may not work.

Now a clever bluff backed up with say forged documents or a disguise  that makes you look like someone the guards has seen coming and going or someone of impotence importance is going to have a much better chance of working. 

I don't set up every encounter to be that hard it is situational. 

Sure you can intimate the coward who is only working for the cult because he likes the rewards into giving up the location of the sacrifice to enable the big bad to enter the world. 

But a true believer who really believes that his god will punish him for all eternity if he gives up the information is not going to do so no matter what you do to him. 

As a DM I always reward my players imagination if they come up with something really creative then I will let it happen and if it is something social I won't even ask for a roll.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I disagree.  I don't think that the player(s) determining what is plausible in the game in any way detracts from the DM's authority.




I wasn't trying to say that it detracts from the DM's authority.  I was trying to say that, when a player who is trying to overcome challenges _also_ has the ability to define those challenges, you screw over the player.  The two things don't work together.  Does the player stay true to his goals for playing the game (that is, overcoming challenges) or does he stick up for plausibility in the campaign?

Players should be freed from the responsibility of determining what's plausible and what's not so they can fully engage the game.  The DM isn't trying to overcome challenges and is thus in the perfect place to make judgement calls on what's plausible in the campaign world and what's not.



Hussar said:


> Now, imagine for a second that you take an action which, based on everything you currently know, should be perfectly plausible (not a guaranteed success of course, but, still possible) and the DM simply says, "nope, sorry, I don't think that works, you can't do it."  Is that serving the game and the group?  Or is it simply serving the DM?




It's not a zero-sum game.  Exercising judgement serves everyone.  If the DM is constantly making poor judgement calls, it's probably time for a talk.  Poor judgement calls happen, we're human and we can't get away from them, but it's not that hard to DM well.



Hussar said:


> I've seen far, far too many times the DM uses his or her "reality filter" to screw over players in situations where the DM is flat out wrong.  Granted, it's not always, but often enough that I'm much, much more willing to give the players the benefit of the doubt and trust that my players want to have a good game and don't need me to play school teacher and lay down the law on what is plausible or not.
> 
> I find trusting the players to be far, far more rewarding than any amount of trying to satisfy my own personal verisimilitude.




Right.  I often ask players about the plausibility of something, or they speak up and challenge a judgement call.  What you don't want to do is lean on their judgement so much that the players can't engage the game.  You don't want to give them DM responsibilities that will take away from why they are playing the game in the first place.

(Quick example - the PCs were making a raft and I'm no boy scout.  One of the guys in my group does a lot of camping, so I told him: "I have no idea how long it would take.  What do you think?"  I can't do that all the time, though; "Do you think the guard is having a good day or is he in a surly mood?"  It's my responsibility to answer that question.)


----------



## Hussar (Jun 27, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> And, of course, all of this leads back to immersion for me. Immersion is huge. If players are constantly getting their out-of-game input in on things happening in-game, then it will kill immersion. As we don't like playing narrative fantasy games, this is really unappealing to us.




And having a result that you feel is completely implausible doesn't kill immersion for you?  The player feels that action X is plausible, thus he attempts the action.  The GM shuts down the action, declaring it impossible because the GM feels that it is not plausible.

And this is how you maintain immersion?  I would think that this would be far more jarring to the player than simply rolling with what the player believes in good faith (and that's important - if the player is being a weenie, that's a different issue).




LostSoul said:


> I wasn't trying to say that it detracts from the DM's authority.  I was trying to say that, when a player who is trying to overcome challenges _also_ has the ability to define those challenges, you screw over the player.  The two things don't work together.  Does the player stay true to his goals for playing the game (that is, overcoming challenges) or does he stick up for plausibility in the campaign?




But, he's not defining the challenge.  He's working within the framework that he's been given.  The guard is there.  The guard is just some peon with a sword.  The player tries to bluff his way past.  The GM declares that the action fails, not because the player did something wrong, or failed a roll, but because the GM doesn't think it can succeed.

How is the player defining the challenge in any way?



> Players should be freed from the responsibility of determining what's plausible and what's not so they can fully engage the game.  The DM isn't trying to overcome challenges and is thus in the perfect place to make judgement calls on what's plausible in the campaign world and what's not.




But, the player will have to determine what's plausible all the time.  There's no way around that.  The player will always be judging what is possible and realistic in a particular game based on past experience in that game (and possibly other games).  If the GM shuts down X because he declares that X is impossible, then the player is forced, every single time after that, to judge, not whether an action is mechanically possible, but whether or not it will pass the GM filter.



> It's not a zero-sum game.  Exercising judgement serves everyone.  If the DM is constantly making poor judgement calls, it's probably time for a talk.  Poor judgement calls happen, we're human and we can't get away from them, but it's not that hard to DM well.




Agreed.



> Right.  I often ask players about the plausibility of something, or they speak up and challenge a judgement call.  What you don't want to do is lean on their judgement so much that the players can't engage the game.  You don't want to give them DM responsibilities that will take away from why they are playing the game in the first place.
> 
> (Quick example - the PCs were making a raft and I'm no boy scout.  One of the guys in my group does a lot of camping, so I told him: "I have no idea how long it would take.  What do you think?"  I can't do that all the time, though; "Do you think the guard is having a good day or is he in a surly mood?"  It's my responsibility to answer that question.)




Fair enough.  And informing the player of that is obviously needed as well since that will affect how the player will proceed with his actions.  But, let's use the raft example.  You the DM declare that it will take 20 hours to build the raft.  The player disagrees and says so.

If the DM trusts the players, then the DM will probably defer to the players judgement with the knowledge that the players are not trying to be weenies, but are honestly trying to make the game better.

If the DM doesn't trust the players, then the DM will probably stick to his or her ruling.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And having a result that you feel is completely implausible doesn't kill immersion for you?  The player feels that action X is plausible, thus he attempts the action.  The GM shuts down the action, declaring it impossible because the GM feels that it is not plausible.
> 
> And this is how you maintain immersion?  I would think that this would be far more jarring to the player than simply rolling with what the player believes in good faith (and that's important - if the player is being a weenie, that's a different issue).




No, to me, it's far more jarring to have a drawn out discussion about it. That kills immersion much more than "I wonder why that didn't work on the guard. There must be something I don't know going on... [investigates in-game]."

The above method is the method I much prefer. It's about GM trust. As friends, I trust my friends to run the game fairly. As friends, they trust me to do the same. If something doesn't work when they think it should, they might initially voice that it would normally work, but if I say "it's not working right now, for whatever reason," then they know that there's a reason that I made that decision, and that it wasn't arbitrarily made to screw them over.

The players trust me, and accept that my rulings will keep a consistent game world. I trust them when they run things (as rare as that is). There's no lack of trust on our part. The idea that trust is an issue is still amusing to me.

But, hey, my group functions differently from yours. If it's not your style, don't play that way. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Jun 27, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> No, to me, it's far more jarring to have a drawn out discussion about it. That kills immersion much more than "I wonder why that didn't work on the guard. There must be something I don't know going on... [investigates in-game]."
> 
> The above method is the method I much prefer. It's about GM trust. As friends, I trust my friends to run the game fairly. As friends, they trust me to do the same. If something doesn't work when they think it should, they might initially voice that it would normally work, but if I say "it's not working right now, for whatever reason," then they know that there's a reason that I made that decision, and that it wasn't arbitrarily made to screw them over.
> 
> ...




See, to me, that kills immersion so quickly.  I expect that X will work and suddenly X doesn't work and there is no additional information given, my immediate reaction is to suspect the DM railroad because, quite often, that's exactly what's going on. 

The player tried to do something that will shortcut the DM's idea, so, the plan just fails.  Choo choo.

The players quite reasonably have expectations during the game.  The mechanics of the game say that X does Y and you have a rough idea of your chance of success.  If the DM starts adding in his "believability filter" then X no longer does Y and you have almost no idea of your chance of success unless you start to game the DM.

Again, like I said, I'd trust the players at the outset.  The player tries X with the expectation of having the chance of success since I'm allowing the die roll in the first place.  He won't know the exact odds, but, he should have a ballpark idea whether something should be routine or a hail mary.

The player attempts to get past the guard by bluffing.  He's telling me that he wants the story to go in a certain way.  It's not my job to stop that.  It's my job to react in a plausible way and keep the ball rolling.  If there is a specific reason why the guard is not bluffable (he's Dominated, for example) there will be in game cues _that the player does not have to ask for_ as to why the bluff didn't work.

Expecting the players to suddenly start asking questions without any cues other than "Well, X didn't work" is far, far to frustrating for the table IMO.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> See, to me, that kills immersion so quickly.  I expect that X will work and suddenly X doesn't work and there is no additional information given, my immediate reaction is to suspect the DM railroad because, quite often, that's exactly what's going on.
> 
> The player tried to do something that will shortcut the DM's idea, so, the plan just fails.  Choo choo.
> 
> ...




Since we're (my group) not really afraid of railroads in games, I guess we're not constantly on the lookout to defend ourselves against them. There's nothing but trust with my group, really.

This is obviously a play style difference. This seems to happen quite often during these disagreements. I think acknowledging that some people play differently would greatly help both sides. Saying "I don't think things should be done things should be done that way" is quite a bit more inflammatory than "I prefer it when things aren't done that way." (Not accusing you, Hussar, this is aimed at both sides).

So, Hussar, when you pose the question in the thread:


Hussar said:


> But that's my point.  "Make sense to the setting" according to who?  The DM?  Why?  Why is he/she the sole arbiter of what "makes sense"?




... then I'll give you an answer as to why that is, when I play:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> At any rate, I think the GM should be in charge of these things in my group because the more the players start to dictate things, the less immersed they are.




Now, sometimes people don't say "in my group" and that's fine. I think it's implied, as most people in this thread probably wouldn't say "no, you should change the style you enjoy to something I feel is better." However, even with the implication of "in my group" with most statements on both sides, I think both sides have a tendency to get more worked up when they don't see it. It might feel like someone is trying to invalidate your view, rather than give a new perspective.

Anyways, we've had a similar discussion before (narrative / simulation discussion), and I quite enjoyed it. I do, however, think that the tone of that discussion seemed much less defensive. I liked it quite a bit.

Just throwing out some observations. Take or leave what you will. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Jun 27, 2011)

Yeah, fair enough JC.  I can buy that.

I think where the real problem emerges is when the players and the DM aren't on the same page.  If everyone's on the same page (whichever page that happens to be) then everything's groovy.  But, if the players are expecting X and the DM chooses Y, then I think conflict is generally inevitable.

Which is why I dislike the advice of "just trust your DM"  ((I typoed that as "just tryst your DM which is a TOTALLY different thing )).  That might be groovy in some games, but, as a general rule, I'm not convinced that it's helpful.

Sometimes trusting that your players know how to keep the game going works just as well.  I don't think "just trust your DM" should be the default approach and advice for all players.

After all, DM's are fallible.  It just might be that the player's idea really is better than mine.

Then again, in our group, it sounds like we go a lot like the way LostSoul does it.  When the DM isn't sure, he's (or she's) got no problem opening it up to the table.  But, if the DM does appear to know what he's doing, then he gets the benefit of the doubt.  Most of the time.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And having a result that you feel is completely implausible doesn't kill immersion for you?  The player feels that action X is plausible, thus he attempts the action.  The GM shuts down the action, declaring it impossible because the GM feels that it is not plausible.




Whether the DM is making crappy judgement calls Which you seem to think is inevitable), or the players are seizing the reins and making those calls for the DM (which you advocate for), the players have already lost.  The game sucks.

For the game not to suck, the DM has to be able to make non-crappy judgement calls.  IME 99% of the time, this is exactly what happens.  DMs who can't make non-crappy judgement calls soon don't have any players.

I'm sorry you apparently live in a world of crap DMs.  Most of us don't.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, he's not defining the challenge.  He's working within the framework that he's been given.  The guard is there.  The guard is just some peon with a sword.  The player tries to bluff his way past.  The GM declares that the action fails, not because the player did something wrong, or failed a roll, but because the GM doesn't think it can succeed.
> 
> How is the player defining the challenge in any way?




The challenge in the Bluff instance is in two parts.  One: Character build choices, allocating resources to one area of character development over others.  Two: Coming up with a plausible bluff.

It's the second challenge that evaporates when the player can determine what's plausible and what's not.  For me personally, that's the far more interesting challenge.



Hussar said:


> But, the player will have to determine what's plausible all the time.  There's no way around that.  The player will always be judging what is possible and realistic in a particular game based on past experience in that game (and possibly other games).  If the GM shuts down X because he declares that X is impossible, then the player is forced, every single time after that, to judge, not whether an action is mechanically possible, but whether or not it will pass the GM filter.




Yeah, that's the second challenge that the player has to deal with - figuring out what's plausible and what's not.  It's an interesting challenge because it relies on the player interacting with the game world.  You can read "game world" as "the GM filter"; that's an accurate description of what's happening at the table between players.  The thing is, it's the DM's job to make sure that his filter is what keeps the game world consistent and plausible in order to provide that second challenge to the players.

The DM, being human, is never going to be perfect.  I think it's easy to be good, though.  One of the problems DMs face is that there's a lot of advice that can spoil the filter:

"If it's good for your story"
"If you're not prepped for it"
"If it's cool"
etc.

Good DM advice can make it far easier to get a good "GM filter" going.

I'm only talking about "challenge-based play" in the typical D&D style.  Other games are going to work differently.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 27, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> The challenge in the Bluff instance is in two parts.  One: Character build choices, allocating resources to one area of character development over others.  Two: Coming up with a plausible bluff.
> 
> It's the second challenge that evaporates when the player can determine what's plausible and what's not.  For me personally, that's the far more interesting challenge.




So, what happens when you have a player that is not good at putting his ideas into words, but wants to be a charismatic PC?  Do you tell him "no" you're not allowed to play somebody that excels in social situations?

*PCX*: We rush to the castle since we know the attack will occur at sundown, we must get there as soon as we can..."
*DM*: "After some hurried walking through the city, you approach the side gate of the castle and since it is late afternoon, there is only one guard there."
*Charismatic PC played by quiet, non-charismatic player*: "I try something crafty to bluff my way past the guard..."
*DM*: "Like what?"
*Charismatic PC played by quiet, non-charismatic player* "Umm, maybe I, umm, not sure.  What do you think?"
*DM*: "Do you pull out some forged documents?  Do you tell them you're an undercover spy with urgent news for the king?  Do you slip on a disguise? Something else?"
*Charismatic PC played by quiet, non-charismatic player*: "Umm, yeah, something like that..."


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 27, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> So, what happens when you have a player that is not good at putting his ideas into words, but wants to be a charismatic PC?  Do you tell him "no" you're not allowed to play somebody that excels in social situations?




I challenge the player to play the type of character he wants.  If the PC excels in social situations or not depends on how the character is played and the choices that the player makes.  There are no guarantees in my game that your PC will turn out how you want him to.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 27, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Whether the DM is making crappy judgement calls Which you seem to think is inevitable), or the players are seizing the reins and making those calls for the DM (which you advocate for), the players have already lost.  The game sucks.
> 
> For the game not to suck, the DM has to be able to make non-crappy judgement calls.  IME 99% of the time, this is exactly what happens.  DMs who can't make non-crappy judgement calls soon don't have any players.
> 
> I'm sorry you apparently live in a world of crap DMs.  Most of us don't.




See, this is what gets me.  The player attempting an action that he believes is plausible is somehow "seizing the reins" and stealing the DM's power.

What call is the player making for the DM here?  The PC approaches the guard and attempts to bluff.  Makes an honest attempt at it - puts in the proper touches, creates a plausible lie, and the rolls his check and gets an obvious success.

The DM then rules that the PC fails because the DM has decided that his NPC is immune to the rules.  See, S'mon, it's not a case of the inevitability of the DM making crappy calls, it's the example that's on the table.  The player attempts to do something in good faith and has his attempt shut down, not because he's being a jerk, not because the idea is so far fetched that everyone else at the table is pelting the player with dice, no.  The player is attempting something that is well within the realm of possibility, but, the DM has decreed that it Shalt Not Be Done

And somehow, that's a crappy player?  A crappy player who's trying to steal the power from the DM?

And you wonder why I advocate so strongly in favour of trusting that the players actually might know what they're doing and can move the game along quite interestingly all without having the Nanny DM standing over their shoulder tsk tsking whenever they want to do something the DM doesn't approve of.

Again, it all rolls back to the basic question - why is the DM the only one who gets to determine what is realistic in the game?


----------



## Krensky (Jun 27, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I challenge the player to play the type of character he wants.  If the PC excels in social situations or not depends on how the character is played and the choices that the player makes.  There are no guarantees in my game that your PC will turn out how you want him to.




This seems rather cruel. Maybe it's because I've played with and GMed for a handful of people with almost crippling social anxiety, and another who was by nature very quiet and shy. It just seems like you'd be rubbing their noses in their problems. Why should they be forced to, essentially, play themselves in a bit of escapism?

One of the core experiences, for me and those I play with, of any RPG is the chance to step outside who and what you are to play at what you want to or could be. By forcing them to only ever be as good at in game social interactions as they are in real life ones I'd be negating that. I'd also be potentially hurting some of my friends by making them confront their anxieties in a way and at a time they do not wish to. That's a job for their therapists, mine's to give them a chance to have fun playing swashbuckling rogues, connected fixers, charming courtiers, seductive femme fatales, or whatever other sort of character they want to play.

On the flip side, in the same group I have a guy who's a very successful commissioned sales person. Six figures successful when he wants to be. I've literally seen him sell a $30 extended warranty on a $15 tape walkman without lying or pressuring the customer who walked away happy with the deal. He's convinced me to drive him 90 miles at two in the morning to pick up his car. He tends to play characters of the Cronk SMASH! variety. He likes to break things in game.

Would he, in your game, be able to charm and sweet talk his way past anything even though, on his sheet, Cronk has a CHA of 6 and no ranks in any social skill?


----------



## Krensky (Jun 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> What call is the player making for the DM here?  The PC approaches the guard and attempts to bluff.  Makes an honest attempt at it - puts in the proper touches, creates a plausible lie, and the rolls his check and gets an obvious success.




The player is saying that because the guard believes the lie, that the guard will automatically do what the player wants instead of the guard doing what the guard would do when one of the baron's actual spies shows up. In most cases, if it's a mook guard and this is something outside the norm that would be to call for his boss so that the boss gets to make the decision and get shot by the mastermind if it's wrong.

Succeeding at a skill check does not, in most RPGs, give you complete agency over the world. It just means your character did something successfully. In the case of Bluff, in this context, that means they lied convincingly. What happens then is not determined by what the Player wants, but rather by how the person who believes the lie would react.

If a guard's under strict orders to not let anyone in without the proper pass on pain of death for him and his loved ones. If you don't have that pass (real or forged) or you haven't properly cultivated him as an asset, you're not getting in. Sure he believes your story, but that just means he'll pass the buck to someone higher up the ranks. That's far more plausible then:

 "I have an important meassage for the baron, let me pass!" 
Rolls.
"Very well sir, go right in. I'll just nip down to the torture chamber for my execution. Bob, could you send for my family? Thanks."



Hussar said:


> The DM then rules that the PC fails because the DM has decided that his NPC is immune to the rules.  See, S'mon, it's not a case of the inevitability of the DM making crappy calls, it's the example that's on the table.  The player attempts to do something in good faith and has his attempt shut down, not because he's being a jerk, not because the idea is so far fetched that everyone else at the table is pelting the player with dice, no.  The player is attempting something that is well within the realm of possibility, but, the DM has decreed that it Shalt Not Be Done




That seems way biased by your experiences with bad GMs. I see nothing about the PC failing. Just that the PCs success doesn't let them dictate what happens in the world in D&D like RPG.



Hussar said:


> And somehow, that's a crappy player?  A crappy player who's trying to steal the power from the DM?




You're the only one who's saying that. Succeeding at a skill check means your character did something successfully. It does not mean you gain agency to control the entire game world. At least it doesn't in most RPGs.



Hussar said:


> Again, it all rolls back to the basic question - why is the DM the only one who gets to determine what is realistic in the game?




Because he's the GM. His table, his rules. If the players don't like it, they can talk to the GM about it or leave for a different table.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> See, this is what gets me.  The player attempting an action that he believes is plausible is somehow "seizing the reins" and stealing the DM's power.
> 
> What call is the player making for the DM here?  The PC approaches the guard and attempts to bluff.  Makes an honest attempt at it - puts in the proper touches, creates a plausible lie, and the rolls his check and gets an obvious success.
> 
> ...




Wow, you're brilliant at not reading what I wrote.  I never said "crappy player".  It's just not there.

Edit: Last time I'll say this.  In your example, you have a DM making a crappy call, so better to let players decide.  I'm saying most DMs don't make crappy calls, not often, and better to let DMs decide.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 27, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> So, what happens when you have a player that is not good at putting his ideas into words, but wants to be a charismatic PC?  Do you tell him "no" you're not allowed to play somebody that excels in social situations?




They're in the exact same situation as the player who wants his PC to be a combat god, invests the resources, but is incompetent at tactics & the game's combat system.  They don't get the full benefit of their +20 Diplomacy, just as the combat-incompetent player doesn't get the full benefit of his +20 attack bonus.  He's still better off than the guy with +0; the +20 is still a resource he can draw on, but it doesn't make him invincible; his weakness in applying it effectively gets in the way.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 27, 2011)

S'mon said:


> They're in the exact same situation as the player who wants his PC to be a combat god, invests the resources, but is incompetent at tactics & the game's combat system.  They don't get the full benefit of their +20 Diplomacy, just as the combat-incompetent player doesn't get the full benefit of his +20 attack bonus.  He's still better off than the guy with +0; the +20 is still a resource he can draw on, but it doesn't make him invincible; his weakness in applying it effectively gets in the way.




So, if I was the quiet reserved type, I would never be able to play a loquacious bard to his or her best effect at your table because I can't act it out at the table and think of what to say when I want to bluff the guard or charm the noble's daughter?  So, therefore, I should stick to playing a class that allows me to play myself in game?

Similarly, if I was not good at tactics, but wanted to play a mighty fighter or warlord who will eventually lead armies, I would be less effective than I wanted to be because I am not as good as Hannibal or Julius Caesar when it comes to military tactics & strategy?

And, vice versa, Sam the Sweet Talking Salesman will sometimes be extremely effective in social situations in game even though he is playing (as stated above) CRONK the head-bashing barbarian with a 6 Charisma just because he is good in social situations IRL?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 27, 2011)

S'mon said:


> They're in the exact same situation as the player who wants his PC to be a combat god, invests the resources, but is incompetent at tactics & the game's combat system.




Except they aren't at all, really.

For lack of a better phrase, the combat side of the game has a much better "safety net" than the social side (probably because we're still playing an up-jumped wargame at heart).

Accordingly, while the +20 BAB pile-o-hit-points played by the combat naif may not be as effective as the same character played by the resident Sun Tzu, that character's minimum baseline of effectiveness will be much, much higher.  The very structure of the rules will limit his ineptitude.  I mean, a blaster wizard is the weaker option in 3.XE, proving much less effective over the long term than a battlefield controller, but the blaster wizard will almost always still contribute very meaningfully to the adventure's resolution.

Contrast this with LostSoul's (very common, IME) position:



			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> I challenge the player to play the type of character he wants. If the PC excels in social situations or not depends on how the character is played and the choices that the player makes. There are no guarantees in my game that your PC will turn out how you want him to.




Because the safety net isn't there on the social side, the player who invests a lot of character resources into the social side of things is not guaranteed the same return on that investment as the combat god.

Whether or not he plays wonderfully, the combat guy will still get to cleave every time it comes up.  The social guy?  Well, with the "DM Plausibility Rule" in play, there's no guarantee he'll convince anyone of anything.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 27, 2011)

I actually think the point about tactics in combat was a good one.

I mean, yeah, the guy with Cleave will still cleave every time it comes up. However, it doesn't mean his player positions the character next to two enemies. He may never cleave, simply because the player is bad at tactics. Nor does it stop the blaster wizard from preparing all fire spells before making a trip into the Abyss.

The guy with +10 on Bluff may never pick a good lie, but it sure helps offset that bonus to Sense Motive that the guard gets for listening to a bad lie. The character is still definitely better at lying than someone without the +10.

I do, however, think both sides in this thread are polarizing. Or, I think one side is playing with house rules without mentioning it. For example, I played with the house rule "if there is no way that they'll believe the lie, period, under any circumstances, than you can't Bluff them" for years. You're not going to convince most people that they can't think. It will simply fail, regardless of roll, for nearly everyone in my game (although, since I wrote the book for my game in a very literal sense, it's actually in the rules).

So I think there are people who play by those rules, which while they aren't RAW, seems like a common enough practice (as evidenced by the thread, in my opinion). Then there are others who go the route of "you can lie, yeah, but it doesn't give the character control over anyone. You might have convinced the guard that you should be let in, but it doesn't mean he'll do it." I think that's where Risk vs. Reward comes into play (and one of the reasons I liked the Diplomacy skill from GitP when I saw it... in fact, I made one use of Bluff help your Diplomacy skill mechanically).

At any rate, I'm not sure why Hussar reverted back to the "GM vs. the group" argument after it's an admitted play style thing (and a mischaracterizing argument, in my mind). Arguing over it isn't going to get it resolved, and this whole conversation seems much too defensive to think that one side is trying to actually learn another point of view.

Anyways, just my views. As always, play what you like


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 27, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I actually think the point about tactics in combat was a good one.
> 
> I mean, yeah, the guy with Cleave will still cleave every time it comes up. However, it doesn't mean his player positions the character next to two enemies. He may never cleave, simply because the player is bad at tactics. Nor does it stop the blaster wizard from preparing all fire spells before making a trip into the Abyss.
> 
> The guy with +10 on Bluff may never pick a good lie, but it sure helps offset that bonus to Sense Motive that the guard gets for listening to a bad lie. The character is still definitely better at lying than someone without the +10.




It is a lot easier for many people to move their miniature adjacent to 2 or 3 enemies and cleave... or, pick out fire or cold or acid spells that are appropriate for the environment... than it is to come up with a convincing lie/bluff at the table at a moment's notice. 

And, if I was DMing somebody that picked out all fire spells before a known trip to the Abyss, I would give them an INT and/or WIS roll to make sure they knew what that a heck of a lot of bad guys in the Abyss have fire resistance or immunity.

Having been a gamer for 30+ years, I don't think I've ever seen somebody that bad with basic tactics or spell selection.  Sure, I've seen people pick out a spell or two that might not be appropriate, but not their whole arsenal. And, maybe if a fighter doesn't put himself in a situation where he or she can Cleave, they can still be an effective combatant in a one-on-one situation.

However, I've seen a lot of gamers that are socially inept and couldn't lie/bluff/intimidate or be diplomatic if their lives depended on it.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 27, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> So, if I was the quiet reserved type, I would never be able to play a loquacious bard to his or her best effect at your table because I can't act it out at the table and think of what to say when I want to bluff the guard or charm the noble's daughter?  So, therefore, I should stick to playing a class that allows me to play myself in game?
> 
> Similarly, if I was not good at tactics, but wanted to play a mighty fighter or warlord who will eventually lead armies, I would be less effective than I wanted to be because I am not as good as Hannibal or Julius Caesar when it comes to military tactics & strategy?
> 
> And, vice versa, Sam the Sweet Talking Salesman will sometimes be extremely effective in social situations in game even though he is playing (as stated above) CRONK the head-bashing barbarian with a 6 Charisma just because he is good in social situations IRL?




Yes to all, BUT Sam would be a lot MORE effective at social situations if he had a PC with high interaction skills too.  Likewise in your first example, you'll still have the high Bluff skill as a resource even if you use it inefffectually.  In your second example, if the game has a Military Tactics skill, you'll still have that as a resource even if you can't use it effectively.  In all cases the character attributes are a resource for the player to draw on, they don't fully define what the character is capable of, or there'd be no point playing the game.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 27, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Whether or not he plays wonderfully, the combat guy will still get to cleave every time it comes up.  The social guy?  Well, with the "DM Plausibility Rule" in play, there's no guarantee he'll convince anyone of anything.




Completely untrue.  The combat-incompetent player will forget to position for 'cleave'.  He'll forget he has Cleave.  In a 3e game he'll attack the high-hp foe so the Cleave doesn't come up.  He'll forget he has Cleave on his character sheet.  He'll forget what it does.  If he's not doing those things then he's not combat-incompetent!  

If you really think "the combat guy will still get to cleave every time it comes up" I suspect you have not actually seen a combat-incompetent player in action.

Likewise with a high-Diplomacy character.  Eg as DM I set up situations for the dashing-swordsman PC to use his PC-skills to shine, to wow everyone with his dashingness as he disarms the mooks/rescues the maiden/swings from the chandelier.  The table waits for the dashing swordsman to do his thing.  The player kinda curls up into a fetal ball of un-dashingness.  I have seen this.

I certainly don't require the dashing swordsman player to be Zorro, the military genius player to be Patton, the Bard to be Orpheus.  I expect an average-ish level of ability to step-on-up and role assumption.  But I've seen some truly appalling, abysmal play; in those cases the player is not fully excused from their poor play because it's putatively not something their character will do.  The world will interpret their character's actions kindly, but can't ignore them.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 27, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> It is a lot easier for many people to move their miniature adjacent to 2 or 3 enemies and cleave... or, pick out fire or cold or acid spells that are appropriate for the environment... than it is to come up with a convincing lie/bluff at the table at a moment's notice...
> 
> ...However, I've seen a lot of gamers that are socially inept and couldn't lie/bluff/intimidate or be diplomatic if their lives depended on it.




Why discriminate in favour of a particular sort of gamer nerd (socially retarded, good at abstract game tactics)?  Why are their preferences privileged over eg people who aren't so good at rules minutiae, but are normally socially adept?  I suspect there are a lot more of the latter kind of people in the world, even if not so many play D&D.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 27, 2011)

In our most recent 3e game one player, John, maxed his diplomacy skill and wanted to be the diplomatic leader guy. Problem is, his words were always those for an intimidate check, a skill he didn't have. No matter what the situation he'd be making threats. He'd literally be in the king's court, with no one but the other PCs to back him up, threatening to kill the king. And then roll for his diplomacy check.

That's gotta be worth a -2 penalty, surely.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 27, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Why discriminate in favour of a particular sort of gamer nerd (socially retarded, good at abstract game tactics)?



Cause that's the only sort of person who plays rpgs.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 27, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Why discriminate in favour of a particular sort of gamer nerd (socially retarded, good at abstract game tactics)?  Why are their preferences privileged over eg people who aren't so good at rules minutiae, but are normally socially adept?  I suspect there are a lot more of the latter kind of people in the world, even if not so many play D&D.




because the game is Dungeons & Dragons - at its heart, it is about going into dungeons and killing dragons for their treasure. 

And, learning the basics of a cleave or a full attack is a lot easier for a person playing a fighter in D&D than it is to teach somebody that has been socially inept for their 20, 30 or 40 years of their life how to come up with interesting bluffs or intimidates or to be diplomatic in the right situation.

Plus, with learning the basics of being any class, we've always been pretty generous and helpful with newcomers: "OK, you're a melee tank, the best feats at this level would be A, B and C if you want to continue on your current path..."  or, "You can attack the two goblins on you and likely finish them off, or you can take two attacks of opportunity and charge the leader that seems about to strike the party wizard..."  or, "you learned you're going to be fighting a pit fiend your next adventure and it is immune to fire, so selecting spells that use fire might not be your best option."  

That sort of thing is something you can teach and a person can learn.  Creativity with their social skills is not nearly as easy to teach.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 27, 2011)

Doug McCrae said:


> Cause that's the only sort of person who plays rpgs.




Have you ever heard of these things called "_girls_"?


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 27, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Why discriminate in favour of a particular sort of gamer nerd (socially retarded, good at abstract game tactics)?  Why are their preferences privileged over eg people who aren't so good at rules minutiae, but are normally socially adept?  I suspect there are a lot more of the latter kind of people in the world, even if not so many play D&D.




and, it seems that when you penalize a person for selecting a class that goes against their out-of-game personality, you're the one that is discriminating against those types of gamers when you say that somebody that is not a sociable person would not excel at playing a social class in your game (and vice versa, somebody not good at tactics wanting to play a tactician would not be able to excel)


----------



## S'mon (Jun 27, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> and, it seems that when you penalize a person for selecting a class that goes against their out-of-game personality, you're the one that is discriminating against those types of gamers when you say that somebody that is not a sociable person would not excel at playing a social class in your game




I ask for a moderate capacity for role-assumption - you don't have to *be* charming and charismatic IRL, just act like those charming and charismatic characters you see on TV/movies.  We can fill in the blanks.  

What doesn't work for me is "I roll Diplomacy - 28" without anything more to go on, I have no way to know what that 28 means, no way to implement it in-game.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 27, 2011)

Talking in character, giving a voice to one's character, whether it's PC to PC, or PC to NPC, is one of my favourite aspects of roleplaying, so I don't want to reduce that to a die roll unless it's minor stuff like talking to shopkeepers.

In most of the games I've played over the last five years, we've used a mix of talking in character and die rolling. Usually the speech comes first and it acts as a modifier for the roll. For example in the 4e game I last ran, I would ask for an easy, moderate or hard diplomacy check depending on the likelihood of the dialogue being persuasive and any other pertinent factors. That seems to work okay for us. I don't remember a GM ever flat out banning a social skill roll, saying "That's impossible" or the like. However that's probably because, as players, we act in a pretty reasonable fashion. When we don't, as in the example of John above, our system breaks down a bit.

Impossible diplomacy checks could be allowed if the PC has a superhuman level of skill, though I'm not sure how high that would be in 3e. High level PCs can certainly make superhuman leaps, so why not superhuman persuasion? In a game of Silver Age Sentinels d20 (a superhero game) there actually was a PC with this power, I think he had both mind control and a ridiculously high diplomacy check and the way the GM played it, he pretty much could persuade anyone of anything. The other players all ran with this and we allowed the super-diplomacy guy to tell us what to do, which he didn't abuse. However I felt it didn't work terribly well as, even with no abuse, imo it stepped on our agency as players, our freedom to present a unique character's thoughts and actions.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 27, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> It is a lot easier for many people to move their miniature adjacent to 2 or 3 enemies and cleave... or, pick out fire or cold or acid spells that are appropriate for the environment... than it is to come up with a convincing lie/bluff at the table at a moment's notice.




I'm going to go point by point for ease of conversation. Don't take this as aggressive argumentation on my part, please, as that's not the intent.

I won't play in a group that uses minis (I don't condemn them, but it kills the immersion too much for me, personally, while I understand it helps others in that same area). My group doesn't use minis. So, someone can say, "I'll move next to the bandit that looks badly wounded, and position myself next to another bandit as well, if possible," and that's fine. It doesn't mean that people will.

Just like it isn't assured that people will prepare spells that will be remotely useful.



> And, if I was DMing somebody that picked out all fire spells before a known trip to the Abyss, I would give them an INT and/or WIS roll to make sure they knew what that a heck of a lot of bad guys in the Abyss have fire resistance or immunity.




When I GM, if someone says a lie that is too outrageous for their character (based on their Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma), I'll let them know that it's a bad lie because of _X_. If there mental stats don't meet what I think is necessary to get it automatically, I'll give them a roll.

There's no real reason your Int and or Wis roll would apply to fire spells and not to lies, in my mind.



> Having been a gamer for 30+ years, I don't think I've ever seen somebody that bad with basic tactics or spell selection.  Sure, I've seen people pick out a spell or two that might not be appropriate, but not their whole arsenal. And, maybe if a fighter doesn't put himself in a situation where he or she can Cleave, they can still be an effective combatant in a one-on-one situation.




It's true about spells. Preparing all fire spells before going into the Abyss is worse than not positioning yourself for a cleave.

But, missing out on a cleave is only one missed opportunity, though it can make a big difference, potentially, when missed. Just like blowing a Bluff check is missing out on one opportunity, though it too can make a big difference if blown.



> However, I've seen a lot of gamers that are socially inept and couldn't lie/bluff/intimidate or be diplomatic if their lives depended on it.




Our mileage has greatly varied. My group doesn't really suffer from either regularly, though we've been known to blow either (especially when we were new players). Just like new players often need help with combat tactics, I think new players players often need help with social practices as well.

After a while, though, you can't just get advice anymore, and you can't just say "I roll, and if I get a result of X, then I made something cool up" in my group. You need to say what your lie is, have it judged on believability, have the appropriate DC set, and then roll at it. You don't necessarily have to RP it out if you had some sort of crippling social disorder, but a "I tell him _X_" would be necessary. I'd potentially allow others players to help or give advice if your mental stats were high enough (as that character is probably better than any single member of the group, I have little problem letting players team up occasionally).

I'm not saying that you should play differently. I hope that's not what you're getting from this. I'm saying that you're not playing in any invalid way, but neither are the people you're arguing against. It comes down to what works for a group. Groups usually play their preferences, and usually have reasons for doing so. You may not agree with the reasons, but they sure aren't going to have less fun because of your disagreements.



S'mon said:


> Completely untrue.  The combat-incompetent player will forget to position for 'cleave'.  He'll forget he has Cleave.  In a 3e game he'll attack the high-hp foe so the Cleave doesn't come up.  He'll forget he has Cleave on his character sheet.  He'll forget what it does.  If he's not doing those things then he's not combat-incompetent!
> 
> If you really think "the combat guy will still get to cleave every time it comes up" I suspect you have not actually seen a combat-incompetent player in action.




This is my experience too, for new gamers (or gamers new to a particular system).



> Likewise with a high-Diplomacy character.  Eg as DM I set up situations for the dashing-swordsman PC to use his PC-skills to shine, to wow everyone with his dashingness as he disarms the mooks/rescues the maiden/swings from the chandelier.  The table waits for the dashing swordsman to do his thing.  The player kinda curls up into a fetal ball of un-dashingness.  I have seen this.
> 
> I certainly don't require the dashing swordsman player to be Zorro, the military genius player to be Patton, the Bard to be Orpheus.  I expect an average-ish level of ability to step-on-up and role assumption.  But I've seen some truly appalling, abysmal play; in those cases the player is not fully excused from their poor play because it's putatively not something their character will do.  The world will interpret their character's actions kindly, but can't ignore them.




I have a list of 5 things to go over your character before you start to mechanically create him. Number 5 is "making sure that the player can play the character" and it's one of the more important rules. It doesn't mean you need to play to the same level as the character. It means that you need to be able to lie if you're lying, to be Lawful if you're a monk, be forgiving if you're playing a forgiving priest.

I know that some in this thread might strongly disagree with that, but D&D is not escapism for me or my group. It is not a place to go to create the Alternate Better Me. It is a game we play, with the intention of having fun, and often times with the intent of exploring new points of view, or to see what it's like to have another outlook on life. While my 5th rule does limit this exploration, if you can't play that type of character anyway, then it won't go over well even without that rule. You won't know what a Lawful monk is actually like if you can't be play a Lawful character.



Doug McCrae said:


> Cause that's the only sort of person who plays rpgs.




Our mileage has varied, etc. etc.



NewJeffCT said:


> because the game is Dungeons & Dragons - at its heart, it is about going into dungeons and killing dragons for their treasure.




I know this is true for many people, but I'll disagree from my group's experience with it. I think we have yet to experience a traditional dungeon delve. Traps are rare things indeed.



> And, learning the basics of a cleave or a full attack is a lot easier for a person playing a fighter in D&D than it is to teach somebody that has been socially inept for their 20, 30 or 40 years of their life how to come up with interesting bluffs or intimidates or to be diplomatic in the right situation.




Maybe our group is just made up of very different people (I suspect it is), but this sounds so fringe to me.

If they're just lightly socially inept, then I hold that they can absolutely improve at making up lies or diplomatically dealing with NPCs. That's something they'll need advice on, need to practice, need reminders on, and maybe even need to state from a more detached viewpoint "I'll compliment him on his castle" rather than a more flowery description in-character complimenting the fountain, architecture, etc.

If, however, someone is highly socially inept, then it's a lot more fringe to me. Yeah, it'll be easier for them to learn Cleave then to be charismatic. I still hold that they can learn what types of lies might be good or bad, or that bowing in most games is universally understood as some sort of sign of respect. I don't believe, however, that if they're so socially inept that they cannot learn these basic things, that they should be playing with your average group. And that is not to ostracize them, but because if their social leaning is really that inept, that interactions with most people in general will have problems, and that people trained in the correct areas are best at changing this, not your average D&D group.

If they're somewhere in between, then I think it scales appropriately.



> Plus, with learning the basics of being any class, we've always been pretty generous and helpful with newcomers: "OK, you're a melee tank, the best feats at this level would be A, B and C if you want to continue on your current path..."  or, "You can attack the two goblins on you and likely finish them off, or you can take two attacks of opportunity and charge the leader that seems about to strike the party wizard..."  or, "you learned you're going to be fighting a pit fiend your next adventure and it is immune to fire, so selecting spells that use fire might not be your best option."
> 
> That sort of thing is something you can teach and a person can learn.  Creativity with their social skills is not nearly as easy to teach.




No, but you can just as easily give them tips and advice:

"OK, you're a noble diplomat, the best skills at this level would be A, B and C if you want to continue on your current path..." or, "You can attempt to lie to the duke, but you did find out earlier that he knows who paid for the assassin, or you can try to intimidate him, since you found out about his illegitimate son that he's been trying to hide from his wife..."  or, "you learned you're going to be talking to a king in your next adventure and he especially hates elves, so bringing in your elven goods and singing your songs in elven like you normally do may not be a good idea."

Again, I see no reason not to give advice to both. It's been the standard in my group from the get-go (even if we're much better at it now than we used to be).

As always, play what you like


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 27, 2011)

Krensky said:


> This seems rather cruel. Maybe it's because I've played with and GMed for a handful of people with almost crippling social anxiety, and another who was by nature very quiet and shy. It just seems like you'd be rubbing their noses in their problems. Why should they be forced to, essentially, play themselves in a bit of escapism?
> 
> One of the core experiences, for me and those I play with, of any RPG is the chance to step outside who and what you are to play at what you want to or could be. By forcing them to only ever be as good at in game social interactions as they are in real life ones I'd be negating that. I'd also be potentially hurting some of my friends by making them confront their anxieties in a way and at a time they do not wish to. That's a job for their therapists, mine's to give them a chance to have fun playing swashbuckling rogues, connected fixers, charming courtiers, seductive femme fatales, or whatever other sort of character they want to play.




I see where you're coming from.  I try to be as clear as possible about why you'd want to play the game.  If you're looking for escapism where your character is as you imagine regardless of most choices during play, then I hope it's clear that my game is not the right one.

I think _cruel_ is a harsh way of looking at it.  We don't point and laugh at players when they say something stupid, especially if we know the player is shy or withdrawn.



Krensky said:


> On the flip side, in the same group I have a guy who's a very successful commissioned sales person. Six figures successful when he wants to be. I've literally seen him sell a $30 extended warranty on a $15 tape walkman without lying or pressuring the customer who walked away happy with the deal. He's convinced me to drive him 90 miles at two in the morning to pick up his car. He tends to play characters of the Cronk SMASH! variety. He likes to break things in game.
> 
> Would he, in your game, be able to charm and sweet talk his way past anything even though, on his sheet, Cronk has a CHA of 6 and no ranks in any social skill?




Possibly.  That's part of the point of the game.  A tactical or strategic genius would have the same level of success in those areas.

It's not like character build resources don't have an effect on the game; the shy player with a highly socially-adept PC would tend to have NPCs react positively (Reaction Rolls modified by Cha) and more likely to succeed at any checks called for.  The player of the low-Cha, unskilled PC would be forced to avoid skill checks and most NPCs would start off with an unfavourable reaction.

Here's my reaction roll table, by the way.  It's basically the same as the one from Basic D&D, expanded for higher Cha modifiers.  The high-Cha PC is going to have NPCs "interesting in dialogue" as the most typical response.  There's a big difference between "Hi, can I help you?", "What are you doing here?", and "Get lost".

[sblock=Reaction Rolls]
	
	



```
3d6 Roll 
+ Charisma Modifier	Reaction				Successes
4 or less		Extremely hostile, no dialogue possible	--
5-8			Hostile, possible attack		8
9-12			Uncertain, cautious, and wary		6
13-16			Interested in dialogue			4
17+			Looking to make friends			2
```
[/sblock]



Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Because the safety net isn't there on the social side, the player who invests a lot of character resources into the social side of things is not guaranteed the same return on that investment as the combat god.
> 
> Whether or not he plays wonderfully, the combat guy will still get to cleave every time it comes up.  The social guy?  Well, with the "DM Plausibility Rule" in play, there's no guarantee he'll convince anyone of anything.




I try to keep the "DM Plausibility Rule" for both combat and social situations.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 27, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Because the safety net isn't there on the social side, the player who invests a lot of character resources into the social side of things is not guaranteed the same return on that investment as the combat god.
> 
> Whether or not he plays wonderfully, the combat guy will still get to cleave every time it comes up. The social guy? Well, with the "DM Plausibility Rule" in play, there's no guarantee he'll convince anyone of anything.




This made me think of Burning Wheel. In BW, the safety net is there for social skills! However, the safety net is there the same way that it is for combat. If you are good at tactically manipulating your options in the BW "Duel of Wits", or perhaps good at the poker element of blind scripting of your moves against another person, then you can compensate somewhat for mediocre skills and other resources or relatively poor roleplaying ability.

But note that this also means that you can be the smoothest of smooth talkers with your roleplaying *AND *have the stats to back up this character, but then turn around and get owned--if you lack those tactical skills and go up against another person that has them. It won't happen every time, but it can definitely happen.

So maybe the irritation of picking between player social skills and character resources is heavily compounded because in so many system those are the only elements that really matter. Maybe introducing additional ways to manipulate the results would make people more comfortable with the results. Yet, when you do so, you also provide new ways for someone to come up short. 

In effect, several people have been indirectly referring to a third point of manipulation since the subject was broached: If your knowledge/attentiveness to the game world is sufficient to allow you to marshall in-game elements in your favor, then those can become the critical factors for winning/losing the social challenge--where player social skill and character mechanical social skill are thresholds where you need whatever minimum is required by system and table habits.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 27, 2011)

Very good post, board wouldn't let me XP it.



JamesonCourage said:


> I have a list of 5 things to go over your character before you start to mechanically create him. Number 5 is "making sure that the player can play the character" and it's one of the more important rules. It doesn't mean you need to play to the same level as the character. It means that you need to be able to lie if you're lying, to be Lawful if you're a monk, be forgiving if you're playing a forgiving priest.




Very interesting, thanks.  I think I wouldn't want to put less-confident players on the spot by asking them "Are you *sure* you can play this PC?" - because 99 times in 100 they can so so fine.  But if a player has a proven track record of being highly Chaotic then there may come a time the DM should disallow them from putting down "LG Paladin" on their PC sheet.

I agree with your point that IME extreme social retardation is not nearly as common among players as NewJeffCT makes out.  Maybe my experience is unusual, but I don't have any particular reason to think so other than maybe I'm in the UK, most gamers are in the USA, maybe the USA is different.  I've certainly met a few players with problems in that regard, but out of many many dozens.


----------



## Janx (Jun 27, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> and, it seems that when you penalize a person for selecting a class that goes against their out-of-game personality, you're the one that is discriminating against those types of gamers when you say that somebody that is not a sociable person would not excel at playing a social class in your game (and vice versa, somebody not good at tactics wanting to play a tactician would not be able to excel)




I think "discriminating" is a loaded term.

It's not like we're talking about Rosa Parks here. or the kids in the Special Olympics.

We're talking about a game, where players take on roles that represent being able to do things that you may NOT be able to do in real life.  

However, the reality is, is somebody sucks at something, they suck at it.

It might not be nice to tease them about it.  But it is also a disservice to those who ARE good at it, to sugar coat and water down the rules, just so those who suck can keep up.

D&D isn't golf, where a handicap means you and I can play on the same field together and sort of compete.

Instead, if you suck at one role, you are supposed to go take on a role that you ARE good at.

How do you learn to get good at something?  Practice while doing your main job.

Since being social isn't something that you need game skills in, there's plenty the Fighter can be doing to work on being social without trying to use game skills to get an in-game advantage.  Talking to NPCs didn't used to take skill checks, and a person who wants to play a social PC should be studying and mimicing what actual social people do.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 27, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Very good post, board wouldn't let me XP it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hehe this is so true, I mainly DM but the few times I play I've found that I am completely incapable of playing anything other than NG characters.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 28, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> /snip
> 
> At any rate, I'm not sure why Hussar reverted back to the "GM vs. the group" argument after it's an admitted play style thing (and a mischaracterizing argument, in my mind). Arguing over it isn't going to get it resolved, and this whole conversation seems much too defensive to think that one side is trying to actually learn another point of view.
> 
> Anyways, just my views. As always, play what you like




I went back because S'mon characterized my argument as either the group having bad players stealing power from the DM or a bad DM making crappy calls.  I'd argue that if you have good players and a good DM, allowing the players to take actions and then letting the dice determine success or failure, rather than the DM, makes for a better game.

After all, determining if the lie is believable or not is the whole point of rolling the dice in the first place isn't it?

And, as to the argument that the mook goes and gets his superior, I can see that.  Fine.  So long as it's actually a success.  Is the superior bluffable?  If not, then there's no difference, the PC's success is negated.  Is the superior going to then get _his_ superior if the PC's succeed against him in a never ending chain of ever increasing DC's until the PC's eventually fail?  Again, that's negating the PC's success.

Sure, no problem.  The mook goes and gets his boss.  The boss comes and the PC's bluff him successfully as well.  What happens?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 28, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Very good post, board wouldn't let me XP it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This I pretty much agree with.  Honestly, I think the percentages of bad players and bad DM's are probably pretty close.  Somewhere in the 1/4 to 1/3 range, IME.  It's just that a bad player is easier to launch out of the game than a bad DM.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 28, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I went back because S'mon characterized my argument as either the group having bad players stealing power from the DM or a bad DM making crappy calls.  I'd argue that if you have good players and a good DM, allowing the players to take actions and then letting the dice determine success or failure, rather than the DM, makes for a better game.
> 
> After all, determining if the lie is believable or not is the whole point of rolling the dice in the first place isn't it?
> 
> ...




Just because somebody believes you, it doesn't mean that they'll act in the way you want them to. If you get his superior, and his superior thinks he should let you in, he may not, even then. I've convinced my friends of many "unbelievable" things while not playing D&D just for the fun of it. They don't change their lifestyle, world views, or outlooks on it. They might think differently about one thing, sure, but they won't end up missing work because of it, unless they have a very good reason to (the lie is more "believable" than not).

Keep in mind your wording on things, too. When you say the following: 


			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I'd argue that if you have good players and a good DM, allowing the players to take actions and then letting the dice determine success or failure, rather than the DM, makes for a better game.




... it's not "in my group." And, while it may be implied somewhat, the more assumptions made in delicate conversation, the more we wind up with people being offended, or words being put in people's mouths that were never meant that way.

For example, your quote could indicate that you honestly think it'll make a better game for everyone. If that's the case, you're essentially communicating that we're "doing it wrong" when we play, which is a very inflammatory thing to say.

If, however, you meant "better for my group" then it communicates preference. That's much less inflammatory. However, I have to assume that's what you mean, and I think that too many assumptions will lead us along a path of conflict. So that's a pretty dangerous path too, for communication.

I know it gets old typing "YMMV" or "in my group" over and over again. But I think it really does communicate preference much better. And it's by no means just you in this thread, there are people on both sides doing this. Saying "_X_ makes for a better game" or "the GM is right because of _X_" and not qualifying it in non-inflammatory terms.

I think people have very well expressed why letting the players gain more narrative control after rolling the dice doesn't work for their group. I think people have also expressed well why they prefer it. The same goes for setting decisions being decided by the GM, or being greatly affected by the players.

That's not to say that there's no point in continuing the discussion. I'd just point out that in order for it to be a discussion and not an argument, it'd be better if everyone laid off the "this way / my way is the best" and not qualifying it with "in my group."

Just my opinion. I'm really not invested in any argument here. I'm eager to invest in a discussion. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Jun 28, 2011)

Honestly JamesonCourage, on this point I do think it makes for a better game, period.  Just because I think X is better doesn't mean that I think Y is bad.  Y could be good, but, X is still better.

The DM interrupting the game to force his views of what is plausible on the group breaks immersion for the group.  Again, IMO, of course.  And, that's what the DM is doing here.  The DM is taking away the PC's success, not because the PC did something wrong, or failed, but because the DM (and in this case, ONLY the DM) cannot see how the PC could succeed.

To me, this is far more damaging to immersion than simply letting the PC's success stand or, better yet, working with the PC's success.  The PC succeeded and the player knows that he did (at least he would normally).  Don't take that away.  Work with it.  

Like I said, is the superior bluffable?  Is it actually possible to succeed?  I think most people wouldn't have a problem with the superior having a higher DC than the mook, that's perfectly reasonable.  But, is it actually possible?  Or does the superior NPC now have Rules Immunity?

Why have the players roll the dice if you're already determined the outcome?  If the NPC is Rules Immune, why did you have the players roll to see if they could succeed?  At least in combat, if the PC cannot hurt the bad guy, because of some immunity for example, that single failure is not the end of things.  But, D&D's skill system is very binary.  Either you succeed or you don't.  If you have an automatic failure, the player is now stuck in a hole without any means of getting out of that hole.

After all, if the NPC is Rules Immune to bluff, what else is he Rules Immune to?

I think this approach of the DM determining plausiblity makes for bad games for two reasons:  (and mind you, these are just my beliefs)

1.  It makes the DM too visible.  It's not that I failed, but rather I failed because the DM said so.  Every decision point I make from that point forward has to be viewed through the lens of what will my DM think is plausible in addition to any other criteria.  The DM becomes too intrusive here.  I believe a lighter touch makes for a better game.

2.  It shows too much distrust for the players.  The player is honestly attempting to try something in the game.  The player is not being a jerk, not trying to abuse the system, not trying to gain an unfair advantage, but actually trying to engage the game in a manner that isn't just killing everything in sight.  That should be rewarded, not shut down.  I believe that if you trust that your players will bring a good game to the table, then they will.  I do not believe that the DM has to be Nanny and make sure that the players are "playing the game right".  If the player thinks X is reasonable, and no one else at the table is objecting, let it slide even if you might not think it's all that reasonable.  Success is much, much more fun than having a success blocked.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 28, 2011)

I think that in most games, if the can-only-miss-on-a-2 fighter says "I stab the mook with my sword", the DM will most likely point out every possible scenario where that d20 roll may be vetoed, and will probably allow the player to correct it, and in general a DM who wouldn't allow an inept player to correct those things might be viewed as unfair. Furthermore the failure of a single attack isn't likely to immediately end the party's course of action.

ie:
"I stab the goblin with my sword."
"Sorry, you don't have a sword marked on your sheet and you didn't say that you moved next to the goblin. Your attack fails and the goblin beats you all unconscious."

is not how most of us envision a reasonable game being played. Most DMs would either allow the character to have a sword (within reason) or choose a different weapon (again within reason). Most would suggest that the player should use his move to get adjacent to the goblin, and it's a rare DM indeed that would immediately declare that a failed attack resulted in the defeat of the PCs.

And yet that's pretty much how skills work, and doubly so with a DM who isn't willing to advise his players when they misstep.

I think the solution is to treat skill use somewhat more like combat. Everyone should have a baseline that allows for the possibility of success. Adeptness in the field should help. Failures should not doom the party, simply mean a lack of progress. The success of the opposition should be what slowly brings the party closer to defeat. There should be some resource expenditure.

Just to be clear, I don't advocate a game of "I hit him with my diplomacy, 1d4+8 contriteness damage!", just that some of the things which make combat a complete and enjoyable system be brought over to the use of skills.

Even if there's not a system in place to do this, I think it behooves a DM to write up skill encounters with these points in mind.

In the stubborn guard scenario, I think the encounter would actually be all the way from the guarded door to the objective: otherwise it's the equivalent of a fight against a single mook.

You need some number of successes to win (ie - get to the throne room) and the guards need some number of successes to make you lose (ie - throw you in the dungeon). Each party member could be taken out of the action by some number of guard successes (arrested, ignored, told to go fetch someone etc) and rehabilitated by some party member's action ("No, he's not a spy, he's just an idiot!"). You can probably leave the encounter in some way before it's conclusion (escape or start a combat).

To broaden the number of skills that can come into play, I would probably allow some rolls to backdate actions (ie - "forgery: I already made a pass" "streetwise: I already know this guard has a kid called larry").

I think the key is not just having a single roll resolve the action one way or another. The more satifying method is to treat it as if it's as important as combat.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 28, 2011)

I hope you take everything I say as civilly as possible. I know tone is hard to get across in text.



Hussar said:


> Honestly JamesonCourage, on this point I do think it makes for a better game, period.  Just because I think X is better doesn't mean that I think Y is bad.  Y could be good, but, X is still better.




Well, if that's your statement, then it's understandable while so many people are so defensive. Saying "you could be having more fun than you are" is nice and all, but saying "you're not playing the game as well as you can" is pretty close to that statement. That's understandably inflammatory, and I'd personally recommend against it, as it contributes very little to a discussion, and greatly to an argument. Just my views.



> The DM interrupting the game to force his views of what is plausible on the group breaks immersion for the group.  Again, IMO, of course.  And, that's what the DM is doing here.  The DM is taking away the PC's success, not because the PC did something wrong, or failed, but because the DM (and in this case, ONLY the DM) cannot see how the PC could succeed.




This is what makes it seem like you should be saying "in my group" to me. The statement of "breaks immersion for the group" is going to vary _*wildly* _ from group to group. I dislike minis, as they break immersion for me. Lanefan likes them (I think), as they assist him in feeling immersed.

That you're extending your personal experience to accompany what makes a better game for others is problematic to civil discussion in my mind. You _can_ have a discussion, yes, but it will cause more problems than the statement contributes.



> To me, this is far more damaging to immersion than simply letting the PC's success stand or, better yet, working with the PC's success.  The PC succeeded and the player knows that he did (at least he would normally).  Don't take that away.  Work with it.




If that's your preference, that's cool. Play what you like 



> Like I said, is the superior bluffable?  Is it actually possible to succeed?  I think most people wouldn't have a problem with the superior having a higher DC than the mook, that's perfectly reasonable.  But, is it actually possible?  Or does the superior NPC now have Rules Immunity?




It seems like you're looking to argue this, still, not discuss it. I could be wrong, but that's how this is coming across. This has been answered in my post. The superior might believe you, but it doesn't mean he'll act on it. I've convinced people to believe things that are outlandish, but they still will not ditch work to deal with it. The Risk vs. Reward prevents them from doing so. They might believe me, but the relatively little payoff compared to the risk involved is not worth it.

Again, people seem to house rule this. This seems apparent from this very thread. That there's a house rule to deal with a specific group's play style should in no way be surprising, nor controversial.



> Why have the players roll the dice if you're already determined the outcome?  If the NPC is Rules Immune, why did you have the players roll to see if they could succeed?  At least in combat, if the PC cannot hurt the bad guy, because of some immunity for example, that single failure is not the end of things.  But, D&D's skill system is very binary.  Either you succeed or you don't.  If you have an automatic failure, the player is now stuck in a hole without any means of getting out of that hole.




This isn't a railroad. You portraying it as such does not make it so. You repeatedly attempting to paint the side who you think could be playing a "better game" in a poor light is not constructive. If you have a specific problem, I have no problem going more in-depth on it. If you want to argue, I'll have to withdraw, and continue to discuss this with those who wish to do so.



> After all, if the NPC is Rules Immune to bluff, what else is he Rules Immune to?




I'm going to take this as a "the game world is losing consistency" rather than in any offensive manner. As I wrote upthread, my reaction when playing is "that's odd. Things don't normally work that way... [investigates in-game]"

This method is completely valid. The investigation might reveal why something didn't work. "Oh, he didn't believe me because the actual diplomats (who we were claiming to be) had already arrived, about twenty minutes before we arrived, who the king greeted (and knows) personally." The roll was still allowed because the players don't know what's up. It has basically zero chance of success, because the guards saw the king's interactions. The player thinks "Not only is my bluff believable, as they're expecting diplomats that fit our descriptions, but I rolled a 34, you'd think that'd be good enough!" Investigation in-game reveals why this didn't work out.

Nobody on the other side of your argument has said it's arbitrarily being stopped to foil the players. They're saying certain things cannot be made to sound true. No matter how good you are at lying, you cannot convince me that I cannot think. Just the fact that I can process your statement makes it wrong.

Certain things fail because of pure absurdity. Certain things fail because of in-game issues that players are unaware of. The fact that you and your group and probably many others prefer your play style does not mean that others are playing a worse game by not adopting it. Such a statement is obviously insulting.



> I think this approach of the DM determining plausiblity makes for bad games for two reasons:  (and mind you, these are just my beliefs)




Awesome, I'd love to hear these. This statement looks much more like a discussion than an argument.



> 1.  It makes the DM too visible.  It's not that I failed, but rather I failed because the DM said so.  Every decision point I make from that point forward has to be viewed through the lens of what will my DM think is plausible in addition to any other criteria.  The DM becomes too intrusive here.  I believe a lighter touch makes for a better game.




That makes sense. I think my solution also fixes that (in-game investigation), but if this is what you prefer, then play what you like 



> 2.  It shows too much distrust for the players.  The player is honestly attempting to try something in the game.  The player is not being a jerk, not trying to abuse the system, not trying to gain an unfair advantage, but actually trying to engage the game in a manner that isn't just killing everything in sight.  That should be rewarded, not shut down.  I believe that if you trust that your players will bring a good game to the table, then they will.  I do not believe that the DM has to be Nanny and make sure that the players are "playing the game right".  If the player thinks X is reasonable, and no one else at the table is objecting, let it slide even if you might not think it's all that reasonable.  Success is much, much more fun than having a success blocked.




See, I don't distrust my players. It seems like you think I do, since I don't play the style you prefer. If that's the basis for your second point, you can see how I'd disagree with it.

I hope you take everything I say as civilly as possible. I know tone is hard to get across in text. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Jun 28, 2011)

JamesonCourage - my skin is considerably thicker than that, so, don't worry overmuch about being less than civil.    I'm stating MY preferences.  I'm stating what _*I*_ think makes a better game.

I would hope that the multiple times that I repeated IME and whatnot would have made that clear.

The danger in "play what you like" as a mantra is that it invites stagnation.  "So long as you guys enjoy what you're doing, keep doing it" is not a means of improving a game.  Trying new things, even though some of those things won't work, is the means of improving a game.

I've played the way you are talking about.  I've done that on both sides of the screen.  I stopped doing it and found that it improved my game.  It made things run smoother, it was FAR less headache at the table and it meant that my players get to surprise me constantly because the events of the game will proceed where they direct them, not where I do.

Sure, what breaks immersion varies from group to group.  I can buy that.  But, I've never seen a group ever who wouldn't have their immersion broken by the DM negating a PC success by fiat.  Any time I've done it as a DM, I immediately had an argument on my hands from the players and every time I've seen a DM do it, it caused problems at the table.

True, I'm generalizing from my own experience, but, I'm really not sure how it wouldn't break immersion.  The player has a reasonable expectation - he obviously succeeded at an action and the DM denies that success and refuses to explain why, instead expecting the PC to shrug and then start trying to figure out why.

Now, ok, let's run with that for a second.  You try to bluff the guard, your roll obviously succeed, and the DM denies the success.  Now, how do you figure out that the guard won't let you in because of threats to his family.  It's pretty unlikely the guard is going to tell you.  Who do you ask?  Who can tell you these things?

If it's down to a Local Knowledge roll (or something that the PC's have in their possession), then why wasn't this done before they met the guard?  After all, the players have absolutely no context with which to ask the question, so, it's not like they're going to ask the DM "Hey, does the Baron keep the guard's families hostage?"

And, I really, really doubt that "Hey, is there anything special we should know about the gate guards?" would elicit a response from the DM that would tell the PC's that the guards are Rules Immune before they've met the guard.

So, why withhold information from the players?  What is gained by not actually being forthcoming?  Even if it's simply adjusting the success with something like this:

DM:  Your story is very good, but the guard, sweating and looking around guiltily says, "I'm sorry, but, the Baron was very specific.  It's me family on the chopping block if I lets you pass sir.  I can't."

See, for me, there's two problems.  One, the DM is being very intrusive into the game, but, that's a personal preference thing and the second is that the DM is negating the success and then letting the PC's flail around, pixel bitching until they can find out why their attempt failed.

I've never understood the reason for withholding information from the players.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 28, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Now, ok, let's run with that for a second.  You try to bluff the guard, your roll obviously succeed, and the DM denies the success.




For what it's worth, in my game there would be no roll.  The roll would resolve nothing because there's no conflict to resolve.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 28, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> For what it's worth, in my game there would be no roll.  The roll would resolve nothing because there's no conflict to resolve.




Ahh, now THIS, this is totally fair.  Don't roll unless you mean it.  100% agree with this.



JamesonCourage said:


> /snip
> 
> 
> See, I don't distrust my players. It seems like you think I do, since I don't play the style you prefer. If that's the basis for your second point, you can see how I'd disagree with it.
> ...




Let me ask a question.  How?  How are you showing that you trust the players?

The player attempts X.  You do not feel X is plausible, but the player does.  You might very well be right, but the player disagrees.  You might also be wrong.  Or it might be just a judgement call.  Doesn't really matter.

How does over ruling the player and telling him that he's wrong, that X is not plausible, showing that you trust the player's judgement?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 28, 2011)

Hussar said:


> JamesonCourage - my skin is considerably thicker than that, so, don't worry overmuch about being less than civil.    I'm stating MY preferences.  I'm stating what _*I*_ think makes a better game.
> 
> I would hope that the multiple times that I repeated IME and whatnot would have made that clear.





I'm glad that it's not personal, then. That's certainly not my intention, and I won't take your text that way.



> The danger in "play what you like" as a mantra is that it invites stagnation.  "So long as you guys enjoy what you're doing, keep doing it" is not a means of improving a game.  Trying new things, even though some of those things won't work, is the means of improving a game.




Bottom line for me? Having fun. It's not worth it if you're not having fun. If that means trying new things, then try new things. If that means trying new systems, try new systems. If that means playing the same character personality over and over even if the class changes, then by all means do that.

I really don't mind the RPG industry stagnating for any particular person or group. Not if they're having fun. If they're trying to progress, and not having fun, then I'd suggest they start playing what they like.



> I've played the way you are talking about.  I've done that on both sides of the screen.  I stopped doing it and found that it improved my game.  It made things run smoother, it was FAR less headache at the table and it meant that my players get to surprise me constantly because the events of the game will proceed where they direct them, not where I do.




That's cool, and I'm glad it works for your group. I do think that making a statement, however, that indicates that everyone would be playing better if they played your way is both unnecessary and incorrect.



> Sure, what breaks immersion varies from group to group.  I can buy that.  But, I've never seen a group ever who wouldn't have their immersion broken by the DM negating a PC success by fiat.  Any time I've done it as a DM, I immediately had an argument on my hands from the players and every time I've seen a DM do it, it caused problems at the table.




Our mileage has differed. How so? My players might (and often don't) question me, pointing out rule X just in case I forgot. If I indicate that I'm aware of that, they'll explore it in game. It builds immersion.

It may not ever work for any group you've ever seen or will ever see. It works for my group, and I assume other groups. Your style would not let us have more fun, because we'd have to withdraw from our characters to wrap our heads around how such a lie worked.

Telling someone "you can't think" and having them believe it may be possible by D&D RAW, but it's so incredibly absurd that it will not work with my group, no matter who is GMing. To have that statement work would be so preposterous that it would likely stop game while we figured out how someone could believe that. This would _greatly_ detract from our immersion.

How you can say that your method is universally better for a game for all groups when I've indicated that it wouldn't be for mine is a little baffling to me.



> True, I'm generalizing from my own experience, but, I'm really not sure how it wouldn't break immersion.  The player has a reasonable expectation - he obviously succeeded at an action and the DM denies that success and refuses to explain why, instead expecting the PC to shrug and then start trying to figure out why.




That's how my group would likely handle things, yes.



> Now, ok, let's run with that for a second.  You try to bluff the guard, your roll obviously succeed, and the DM denies the success.  Now, how do you figure out that the guard won't let you in because of threats to his family.  It's pretty unlikely the guard is going to tell you.  Who do you ask?  Who can tell you these things?




That's where investigation comes in. Is there a town nearby? Can you get the guard to talk, or spill some information? Can you talk to his superior? Do any of the players know anything with any appropriate skills, like Knowledge?

The investigation portion involves actively looking into things. If he says "no" and you don't know why he would, our group would assume there's a reason for it. If it's revealed why at some point in-game (through active investigation or not), the players (not PCs) will usually let out a collective nod, as something was just clarified. This adds to our game, not detracts from it.



> If it's down to a Local Knowledge roll (or something that the PC's have in their possession), then why wasn't this done before they met the guard?  After all, the players have absolutely no context with which to ask the question, so, it's not like they're going to ask the DM "Hey, does the Baron keep the guard's families hostage?"




My players would ask for knowledge about the situation before trying to get through the door. They'd effectively do their homework. They'd ask if they know of any good way to get in. That might be automatic from experience (if you've been living in the castle for years, you might know of a secret door), or might be from a skill (like Knowledge). Then, they'd start throwing out ideas, and form a plan. They expect me to punch holes in their plan based on in-game information that their characters would know that they don't (which, again, can be in the form of automatic information from experience, or from a skill check). Once the plan was hammered out, then they'd attempt the bluff.

So, not so much a problem for us. If they're trying to do it on the fly, and they say a specific lie (no chance for preparation), and their character might / would know something that would make them not say that lie, I'll either have them roll the appropriate skill check (or maybe Wis check), or I'll just tell them (if their character would know already from experience).

It's straightforward enough for us. Your method would strain our believability and break immersion. Our groups our different. But that's okay, because, play what you like 



> And, I really, really doubt that "Hey, is there anything special we should know about the gate guards?" would elicit a response from the DM that would tell the PC's that the guards are Rules Immune before they've met the guard.




You don't even know my rules. There's a specific "+∞" to Sense Motive when the target will never believe the lie. By RAW, the guard can just say "no" and it's completely within the rules.

Even when I was playing 3.X, my players knew that some lies will never, ever work. "You can't think" is not a lie that will ever work on a human with an average Intelligence. They'd object if it did work.

You, again, seem to be trying to paint my method in a negative light with the "Rules Immune" statement that you keep using. It's misleading and incorrect. I'd appreciate it if you used something more appropriate in its place.



> So, why withhold information from the players?  What is gained by not actually being forthcoming?  Even if it's simply adjusting the success with something like this:




Because the players may not know why something happens. This is a very basic type of play style that many, many people embrace. We can fork a new thread if you want to talk about this game theory.



> DM:  Your story is very good, but the guard, sweating and looking around guiltily says, "I'm sorry, but, the Baron was very specific.  It's me family on the chopping block if I lets you pass sir.  I can't."




Some guards _will_ say this, in an attempt to get pity (since they believe you). Others won't, as they're too afraid to voice it (for fear of looking incompetent, and having their family punished). It really depends on the NPC. The players get no special plot treatment in my game, so you can see why I wouldn't use this exclusively.

Again, this is a very basic play style that is commonly used.



> See, for me, there's two problems.  One, the DM is being very intrusive into the game, but, that's a personal preference thing and the second is that the DM is negating the success and then letting the PC's flail around, pixel bitching until they can find out why their attempt failed.




It's not pixel bitching. Investigative actions have long been supported in D&D (which I'm not playing, either). Investigation is, again, a commonly supported play style. If you don't prefer it, fine, but others are correct to use it _if that's fun for them_.

I'm really not sure why you seem so opposed to a different type of play than your own, especially when it's not being pushed on you, personally. I mean, I can understand wanting to voice your own preference when people say "I'd advise this" and you disagree, but to make a statement that your method is universally superior to common play style is just incorrect. There's just no way around that in my mind when the measuring stick used to determine which style is better is Fun and that Fun is incredibly subjective.



> I've never understood the reason for withholding information from the players.




Never understood, or never agreed with? I have a good friend (fellow gamer and roommate) who says "never understood" or "don't understand" when he means "don't agree" on occasion, and it has lead to some basic misunderstandings in our discussions.

If you don't understand, I can explain further why I prefer it (and my group does). If you don't agree, I accept that, but I have no urge to argue over it.

As always, play what you like


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 28, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Ahh, now THIS, this is totally fair.  Don't roll unless you mean it.  100% agree with this.




I embrace a play style where you roll, even if it doesn't mean anything. Here's another play style difference for us. You roll to show the degree of success.



> Let me ask a question.  How?  How are you showing that you trust the players?
> 
> The player attempts X.  You do not feel X is plausible, but the player does.  You might very well be right, but the player disagrees.  You might also be wrong.  Or it might be just a judgement call.  Doesn't really matter.
> 
> How does over ruling the player and telling him that he's wrong, that X is not plausible, showing that you trust the player's judgement?




I find the assertion that if I disagree with a player shows distrust to be quite amusing. I can trust somebody without thinking they're right. Trust does not suspend judgment, it augments it.

The guard at the gate can be bluffed successfully. He can believe what the PC tells him. It doesn't mean he'll act differently.

I can trust that a man on the street is telling me the truth when he claims he used to be a millionaire. I can believe his statement and think he's incorrect. You're changing this from trust to judgment.

My players have lapses in judgment. I have lapses in judgment. We'll chip in when we see either occur. In the end, when someone needs to make a call in-game, it's within our social contract that the GM decides, as a referee would. For the exact reasons I've gone through multiple times now.

Let me ask you this, though: do you think I don't trust my players? If that's the case, then our conversation cannot be resolved, because disregarding my statement on that shows so much dismissal that I can't see resolving this civilly. That is akin to questioning my friendship to these players. Nobody on these boards besides myself can make that judgment, and I'd ask you to refrain from making any judgment as well.


----------



## Janx (Jun 28, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Just because somebody believes you, it doesn't mean that they'll act in the way you want them to. If you get his superior, and his superior thinks he should let you in, he may not, even then. I've convinced my friends of many "unbelievable" things while not playing D&D just for the fun of it. They don't change their lifestyle, world views, or outlooks on it. They might think differently about one thing, sure, but they won't end up missing work because of it, unless they have a very good reason to (the lie is more "believable" than not).





I disagree here.  When somebody is using Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy, they are NOT just trying to convince somebody of an unbelievable thing.  They are trying to MANIPULATE the person into taking a desired course of action.

There's a HUGE difference.  I have convinced my friend MULTIPLE times that there was a scratch on his new Mustang.  My desired intent was to make him race out and check on it.  Because that is what someone who is convinced that his NEW car has been scratched does.  That is manipulation, and it is the point of bluffing somebody.

Therefore, when I am Daniel Ocean and I approach the guard saying I represent the Nevada Gaming Commission, I make whatever skill checks the rules say I need to, and if I succeed, he lets me in.

The guard has not ceased to think.  The guard has taken in the information presented before him, that a person with proper papers and appropriate attire and is saying the expected things of somebody who belongs there, needs to be let in.

If I succeed at the proper skill checks and the guard "believes" I am who I say I am, but he "thinks" of a reason NOT to let me in, then the GM has thwarted my legal use of the skill.  Active thwarting of player intent is the slippery slope to railroading.

I can certainly agree that there are variations on that bluff the guard attempt that should fail.  A low level PC attempting too unbelievable a con for instance (which the DCs should make inevitably impossible).

Nor would I be impressed by a non-role player saying, "I walk up to the guard and make a bluff check to convince him to let me in."  That basically means the player did no thinking, and is going to expect me to come up with the entire plausible reason for the guard to let him in IF he suceeds.  That's crap.

However, if I have a high level social skill PC, and I know a bit about the area (a casino in Nevada) and I come up with the idea to pose as some agency official that oversees gambling, then I am on the right track, and once the DC is set and I make my roll, I expect to be able to get in as far as an NGC rep could expect to get in (which Ocean's 11 shows is reasonably far).

If, as a GM, you say that such a scenario can't be allowed to suceed, I'd be concerned about your judgement.  Fiction advises and inspired RPG action.  If I can't run a PC inspired by such movies, barring a genre misjudgement on my part (wrong PC for the campaign), I should have a fair chance of succeeding at such a con.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 28, 2011)

Janx said:


> I disagree here.  When somebody is using Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy, they are NOT just trying to convince somebody of an unbelievable thing.  They are trying to MANIPULATE the person into taking a desired course of action.
> 
> There's a HUGE difference.  I have convinced my friend MULTIPLE times that there was a scratch on his new Mustang.  My desired intent was to make him race out and check on it.  Because that is what someone who is convinced that his NEW car has been scratched does.  That is manipulation, and it is the point of bluffing somebody.
> 
> ...




First off, let me say that I won't be judging the Bluff skill based on movies. I tend to shy away from High Fantasy style games. I won't let you do something because you saw something in Ocean's Eleven. That's really not good enough for me.

Secondly, my Bluff skill is different from D&D's. But, since I'm mainly acquainted with 3.5 (out of D&D), let's look at the d20SRD:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell.




This means that the guard will let you in (if it takes 1 round or less), or he'll believe you. It doesn't say the player chooses, nor does it specify if the GM does.

Now, let's look at the modifiers to Sense Motive:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> The target wants to believe you.	-5
> The bluff is believable and doesn’t affect the target much.	+0
> The bluff is a little hard to believe or puts the target at some risk.	+5
> The bluff is hard to believe or puts the target at significant risk.	+10
> The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider. +20




By RAW, there's no rule for "too incredible to consider." Such as the statement, "you can't think." If someone said "you can't think" to an NPC, and the GM then went on to consider this "too incredible to consider," then the GM would give the appropriate bonus / penalty / adjust the DC appropriately. Since, by RAW, that isn't covered.


From the 3.5 Player's Handbook:



			
				3.5 Player's Handbook said:
			
		

> A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell. For example, you could use a bluff to put a shopkeeper off guard by saying that his shoes are untied. At best, such a bluff would make the shopkeeper glance down at his shoes. It would not cause him to ignore you and fiddle with his shoes.




This seems to indicate that the shopkeeper is not going to do something out of character. He'll take your information, weigh it, and make his judgment. Just because you want him to ignore you ("A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time [usually 1 round or less]") it doesn't mean he will ("or believes something that you want it to believe").

The guard will believe you're telling the truth. The guard will then make a judgment based on that new information. Unless he has some other reason to trust you (such as knowing you), then he can act on that in many different ways. Just because he believes you when you lie it doesn't mean that he thinks you're correct if that goes against his judgment.

That isn't supported by RAW in 3.5. It just isn't.

But, as always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Jun 28, 2011)

Saeviomagy said:


> I think the solution is to treat skill use somewhat more like combat. Everyone should have a baseline that allows for the possibility of success. Adeptness in the field should help. Failures should not doom the party, simply mean a lack of progress. The success of the opposition should be what slowly brings the party closer to defeat. There should be some resource expenditure.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Is this deliberately intended as a defence of a skill-challenge style mechanic?



Janx said:


> When somebody is using Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy, they are NOT just trying to convince somebody of an unbelievable thing.  They are trying to MANIPULATE the person into taking a desired course of action.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I couldn't XP this post, but agree with it.



JamesonCourage said:


> let's look at the d20SRD:
> 
> This means that the guard will let you in (if it takes 1 round or less), or he'll believe you. It doesn't say the player chooses, nor does it specify if the GM does.
> 
> ...



I want to ask - what is the reason, from the point of view of smooth gameplay, for _not_ running social skills in the way Janx describes?

If the answer is that this would make it too easy or anti-climactic for the players to achieve their goals for their PCs, then the solution is, in my view, something along the lines of Saeviomagy's suggestion - make social conflict just as important a part of the game as physical conflict.


----------



## Janx (Jun 28, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> First off, let me say that I won't be judging the Bluff skill based on movies. I tend to shy away from High Fantasy style games. I won't let you do something because you saw something in Ocean's Eleven. That's really not good enough for me.




well, the actual ability of humans to trick other humans is far more plausible than anything else in any RPG.




JamesonCourage said:


> Secondly, my Bluff skill is different from D&D's. But, since I'm mainly acquainted with 3.5 (out of D&D), let's look at the d20SRD:
> 
> 
> This means that the guard will let you in (if it takes 1 round or less), or he'll believe you. It doesn't say the player chooses, nor does it specify if the GM does.




I think you misinterpret that rule.  the "act or believe" is the player's option because as I explained what a real bluff is, it is a manipulation.  If your interpretation leads you to believe there's ambiguity on whether the DM decides if the NPC takes an action or INSTEAD just believes the PC but takes no action, then the wording of the ruling has done your players a disservice.




JamesonCourage said:


> Now, let's look at the modifiers to Sense Motive:
> 
> 
> By RAW, there's no rule for "too incredible to consider." Such as the statement, "you can't think." If someone said "you can't think" to an NPC, and the GM then went on to consider this "too incredible to consider," then the GM would give the appropriate bonus / penalty / adjust the DC appropriately. Since, by RAW, that isn't covered.




the chart stops at +20.  You're looking for the extended chart... 

the "you can't think" scenario is a tough bind.  I do agree that a player may try to lie about something that is just so stupidly unbelievable that it should never work.

However, we're talking about tricking a guard into letting us in.  I suspect it should take more than just a bluff.  Presumably a Disguise to look like somebody who belongs there.  If the guards aren't robots, they are incredibly fallible, despite having directives to LET nobody in.

Here's the thing, if you run a game where I can not bluff a guard to let me in, I will have to kill him.  Because killing him is the surest way to get past him.  Bluffing him would have been more fun, and a lot less bloodshed.



JamesonCourage said:


> The guard will believe you're telling the truth. The guard will then make a judgment based on that new information. Unless he has some other reason to trust you (such as knowing you), then he can act on that in many different ways. Just because he believes you when you lie it doesn't mean that he thinks you're correct if that goes against his judgment.
> 
> That isn't supported by RAW in 3.5. It just isn't.
> 
> But, as always, play what you like




If you run it that way, you've violated the point of the Bluff skill (which as I've explained where I think u mistinterpreted that rule).

Belief is the tool to get the reaction for the desired manipulation.  If he only believes I'm telling the truth that I represent the NGC but doesn't ACT like I am an NGC agent, then the skill has no use and a style of play has been nerfed.

That just seems wrong.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 28, 2011)

ok, my original point was that in 3.5E there was no "save" or defense against being manipulated via Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy.  And, the roll vs. will defense or whatever in 4E seems very low as well.  Using a social skill to accomplish that task is an easier hill to climb than Charming or Dominating them, or attacking and killing them.  I thought the bar should be set higher when trying to Bluff/Intimidate/Diplomacize somebody to get information or have them do something for you when something bad could happen to them otherwise.

The problem after that is do you penalize a player who is playing a PC whose class depends on Charisma & social skills, but is not the most sociable of persons?  Do you tell them "no" you can't play that sort of class?  Do you penalize them for not coming up with a creative way to role-play their bluff or intimidate somebody?   My answer to both questions is "no", but others seem to strongly disagree.  My games tend to rely a pretty good amount on role-playing, and I would hate for somebody to feel handicapped because they're not as verbally creative as others.


----------



## Janx (Jun 28, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> ok, my original point was that in 3.5E there was no "save" or defense against being manipulated via Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy.  And, the roll vs. will defense or whatever in 4E seems very low as well.  Using a social skill to accomplish that task is an easier hill to climb than Charming or Dominating them, or attacking and killing them.  I thought the bar should be set higher when trying to Bluff/Intimidate/Diplomacize somebody to get information or have them do something for you when something bad could happen to them otherwise.




I think many would agree that the RAW for social skills don't do the topic justice.

A major con should require some prep, and more than just a high skill level and a lucky die roll.



NewJeffCT said:


> The problem after that is do you penalize a player who is playing a PC whose class depends on Charisma & social skills, but is not the most sociable of persons?  Do you tell them "no" you can't play that sort of class?  Do you penalize them for not coming up with a creative way to role-play their bluff or intimidate somebody?   My answer to both questions is "no", but others seem to strongly disagree.  My games tend to rely a pretty good amount on role-playing, and I would hate for somebody to feel handicapped because they're not as verbally creative as others.




I can't really say what's right for you.  Well I could, but I'd be wrong. 

If your game relies on a "pretty good amount on role-playing", somebody who is "handicapped because they're not as verbally creative as others" is going to bring your game down to his level.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 28, 2011)

Janx said:


> I think many would agree that the RAW for social skills don't do the topic justice.
> 
> A major con should require some prep, and more than just a high skill level and a lucky die roll.
> 
> ...




It depends - if you force the person to sit there until he or she can think of a good bluff or some flowery diplomatic words to say, then maybe it would bring the game down to their level.

However, if you can get a basic premise from the player, I see no reason why you can't just cut to the dice rolling and have the DM fill in the rest:

*DM*: (as pretty barmaid) - "You look like an adventurer. The barkeep over there gives a free meal to any adventurer who tells a good tale about their adventures!"
*Socially awkward PC*: "I umm, get my lute and... and, umm, sing a song about our fight against the goblins.  I roll 18 for perform, and with modifiers it is a 33."
*DM*: (inhales a bit) "OK... Balto the Bard winks playfully at the barmaid, and then deftly pulls out his lute, and then leaps onto the table so the whole room can see him.  He then starts on a daring & exciting song about the fight against the goblins - from overcoming their wolf rider sentries, entering the spooky dark caves and fighting off several waves of goblins until finally defeating their shaman and boss.  The crowd his held rapt by the his descriptions of the combat, growing nervous as tense situations were described, groaning when Balto took an arrow in his leg and finally cheering when the goblin boss was slain.  The pretty barmaid has stars in her eyes as Balto finishes, and the smiling barkeep says, 'Your meal is on the house tonight, and tomorrow, too, if you come back & tell your story again. Best story I've heard in months!'  Balto then bows with a flourish to the barkeep and hops back down into his seat."

That bit takes maybe a minute or two in game, but doesn't force the awkward player to come up with all the creative parts.  (The key is to try to get this player to give me a bit more over time, so the DM doesn't have to fill in all the blanks all the time.  However, it can be a long process.)


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 28, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I want to ask - what is the reason, from the point of view of smooth gameplay, for _not_ running social skills in the way Janx describes?




First of all, I was being told _repeatedly_ that by running it the way I explained, I was pulling some sort of GM fiat. The way I've described it is RAW. There's no rules violations in the way I've described things. So, the people who have advocated consistency in the game rules should, by all rights, be on my side. They should know what to expect by RAW.

Secondly, keep in mind, I don't play in or run a 3.5 game. I don't play in or run a D&D game at all. I'm running my own game at the moment, where the use of the Bluff skill is different in it's use.

Lastly, I would not want to run things the way Janx has described, because it seems like there might be different points when somebody would do something I would think is out of character. That'd kill immersion for me. His description of tricking his friend about the scratch or the bluff from Ocean's Eleven are very reasonable bluffs to probably most people. However, I'm not sure how his style handles things when more out there bluffs are made, and people are manipulated. If it's exactly as described, then it would strain belevability and break immersion for me and my group.



> If the answer is that this would make it too easy or anti-climactic for the players to achieve their goals for their PCs, then the solution is, in my view, something along the lines of Saeviomagy's suggestion - make social conflict just as important a part of the game as physical conflict.




This isn't the problem.

Social conflict isn't as important as physical conflict in my game for one reason: most of the time, it's not your life on the line. Yeah, your goals are on the line, and losing sucks, but if you survive, you can always play damage control.

However, social conflict is more prevalent than physical combat in my game by a substantial amount. The way my group handles it is just fine for my group.



Janx said:


> well, the actual ability of humans to trick other humans is far more plausible than anything else in any RPG.




In a fantasy setting? I'll disagree with you.



> I think you misinterpret that rule.  the "act or believe" is the player's option because as I explained what a real bluff is, it is a manipulation.




Out of curiosity, how is saying "you've misinterpreted, here's my take on it" supposed to convince me? 



> If your interpretation leads you to believe there's ambiguity on whether the DM decides if the NPC takes an action or INSTEAD just believes the PC but takes no action, then the wording of the ruling has done your players a disservice.




I believe the DM decides. But, I was pointing out that _it doesn't say_. I think the player can have an incredibly good grip on how it will manifest, though.

The first bluff ("the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time [usually 1 round or less]") is obviously used for short term bluffs, in my mind. Getting the shopkeep to look down at his "untied" shoes. Getting someone to glance away briefly because you said there's somebody stealing someone's money pouch. These are obviously short term goals of lying, and fall under the first umbrella to me.

The second use of bluff ("believes something that you want it to believe") is obviously used for long term bluffs, in my mind. Getting the guard to believe you're the diplomat that is due to show up, or getting the shopkeep to think you're actually the crown prince. These are obviously long term goals of lying, and fall under the second umbrella to me.



> the chart stops at +20.  You're looking for the extended chart...




And in the absence of such a chart, and DM ruling is entirely appropriate. If he decides that you cannot make a bluff that is "too incredible to consider" because it's not covered by RAW, then he's playing by the rules.



> the "you can't think" scenario is a tough bind.  I do agree that a player may try to lie about something that is just so stupidly unbelievable that it should never work.




To some people in the thread, letting the dice fall decides why this works. I don't agree. RAW doesn't agree. To me, common sense doesn't agree. Adopting the practice of -in this case- _sticking to RAW_, and saying "if the type of bluff isn't on the chart, then you have no chance of successfully making it" is fine by me, and it stops actual bluffs like the example above.



> However, we're talking about tricking a guard into letting us in.  I suspect it should take more than just a bluff.  Presumably a Disguise to look like somebody who belongs there.  If the guards aren't robots, they are incredibly fallible, despite having directives to LET nobody in.




Yep. They could be tricked. So, where it comes in is the Risk vs. Reward of the proposed scenario with the guard. He could let you in. If you're allowed in, then no problems. If you're not, then he loses his family.

So, here comes the myriad of options for him weigh. Do you have your papers? Was he expecting people to enter? Does he have specific orders to allow nobody in? Any of these could stop him from letting you in, as while he believes you, he doesn't want his family killed. This is generally the point of putting his family on the line.

If there's nothing on the line for the guard, maybe just his job, then he'd probably be much more willing to do it, but that has not been the running example thus far. Additionally, if he has orders specifically not to let anyone in, then he may not, even if he believes you. There's a good chance he'd get his superior (who you'd have to convince to let you in based on another Bluff and his Risk vs. Reward factors).



> Here's the thing, if you run a game where I can not bluff a guard to let me in, I will have to kill him.  Because killing him is the surest way to get past him.  Bluffing him would have been more fun, and a lot less bloodshed.




Yeah, the bloodshed things doesn't bug me. I mean, it's fictional bloodshed. Also, there's a really good chance (almost impossible to escape) that trying to kill your way into a castle in my game will end in your death. Unless, that is, you're using the Tactics and Leadership skill to gather an army and having them assault it.

But, considering the mechanics of the game, you aren't going to take the castle by yourselves. They're going to volley crossbow bolts at you, and you're going to die. Like I said, I tend to avoid High Fantasy games, and my mechanics support Low Fantasy by default (with optional rules for running it High Fantasy style).



> If you run it that way, you've violated the point of the Bluff skill (which as I've explained where I think u mistinterpreted that rule).




I hope I've explained adequately why I don't feel I'm misinterpreting the rule, even if you don't agree with it.



> Belief is the tool to get the reaction for the desired manipulation.  If he only believes I'm telling the truth that I represent the NGC but doesn't ACT like I am an NGC agent, then the skill has no use and a style of play has been nerfed.
> 
> That just seems wrong.




He might act that way, but if his family's lives are on the line, or he has specific orders not to let you in on pain of _X_, then he might believe you, but not act on it. Or he might. It really just depends on the guard, his Risk vs. Reward, and his personality.

It's really not violating RAW, and it's really not overly complex. It's not hurting the players when it's out preferred gaming style, as your style would break immersion for us.

Like I've been saying, these are basic play style differences. On that note, play what you like 



NewJeffCT said:


> ok, my original point was that in 3.5E there was no "save" or defense against being manipulated via Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy.  And, the roll vs. will defense or whatever in 4E seems very low as well.  Using a social skill to accomplish that task is an easier hill to climb than Charming or Dominating them, or attacking and killing them.  I thought the bar should be set higher when trying to Bluff/Intimidate/Diplomacize somebody to get information or have them do something for you when something bad could happen to them otherwise.




I agree. Sorry if this has been too much of a tangent.



> The problem after that is do you penalize a player who is playing a PC whose class depends on Charisma & social skills, but is not the most sociable of persons?  Do you tell them "no" you can't play that sort of class?  Do you penalize them for not coming up with a creative way to role-play their bluff or intimidate somebody?   My answer to both questions is "no", but others seem to strongly disagree.  My games tend to rely a pretty good amount on role-playing, and I would hate for somebody to feel handicapped because they're not as verbally creative as others.




I see no reason not to help players if they're lacking, but as I said, our sessions are not about escapism, so your style isn't right for my group. And as I've repeatedly said, I'm advocating what works for my group, and why Hussar's "better game" is in fact wrong in that regard.

If we're trying to play a deeply immersed game that is both enjoyable and allows us to see a new point of view when playing a character (which is only achievable when you're deeply immersed for us), then the proposed player who can't effectively play a charismatic PC shouldn't play one in our group. It would end up breaking immersion for everyone, especially that player, considering our style.

In groups at large? I think that if someone is slightly socially handicapped when playing a charismatic PC, they can deal with it. Just like if someone plays a class and can't quite wrap their head around the mechanics, or for people who just can't get skirmish tactics down.

If they're new, you help out (in either area, social or combat), and as they learn more and more, you help less and less. Then, you let them handle things on their own, and you let them try to immerse, and help keep us immersed. This is how things are at my table, and it works for us.

The fact that my table doesn't adhere to Hussar's "better game" is not a bad thing for it.



NewJeffCT said:


> It depends - if you force the person to sit there until he or she can think of a good bluff or some flowery diplomatic words to say, then maybe it would bring the game down to their level.
> 
> However, if you can get a basic premise from the player, I see no reason why you can't just cut to the dice rolling and have the DM fill in the rest:
> 
> ...




This is fine with me when someone is starting. But, I've already advocated help for new players or players new to a system in this thread. Once they get used to things, though, it's on them. And they won't start off as good as you were when you were filling in for them.

I'd prefer to help them along, "what are you relating? Did you want to mention the goblin boss specifically? Did you want to leave out the part where you slipped in his blood and fell so you still look cool, or include it for laughs?"

This way, he is hands on saying what he wants. Once he's used to that, he'll do it more and more without me. He'll develop a sort of Perform skill drill that he'll use for a while, going down a checklist and relating what he's talking about. I might ask for a description, eventually, and let him start adjusting to that. Then, eventually, it's all on him.

Just my preferred method, though. As always, play what you like


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 28, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I embrace a play style where you roll, even if it doesn't mean anything. Here's another play style difference for us. You roll to show the degree of success.




I know it's off-topic, but I was wondering if you could go into that a little more.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 28, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I know it's off-topic, but I was wondering if you could go into that a little more.




Well, let's take a situation.

A guard is guarding a gate for a king, who has ordered him not to let anyone in for the rest of the night, as his long friend (a diplomat) has arrived. The guard witnessed the diplomat arrive, witnessed the king greet him warmly and personally, and knows what the diplomat looks like. Additionally, the king has a standing threat to have the guard's family punished (maybe even killed) if the guard messes up enough.

The players are planning on bluffing their way into this castle. They do some homework, make some discreet Gather Information checks, roll some Knowledge rolls, consult some sages, etc. They find out that a diplomat is on his way to see the king at the moment. They do not know that the king knows the diplomat personally. With this information, they make their way to the gate, with the Party Face disguised as the diplomat, and the other party members disguised as an escort from the appropriate nation. They forge papers showing they are indeed who they claim to be.

They show up at the castle walls twenty minutes after the guard let the last diplomat in. The Party Face claims to be the diplomat, and produces papers showing it. Now, I rule that the guard is not going to let him in based on the real diplomat already arriving and the king's orders to let nobody else in, though he probably would have 25 minutes ago. The players don't know this.

I have the Party Face roll a Bluff check. He cannot convince the guard to let him inside, but he doesn't know it. If he fails the Bluff check, then the guard will actively think that the party member is lying, and react accordingly.

If, however, the Party Face blows the Sense Motive check out of the water, then the guard will think the Party Face is telling the truth, as he knows it. He still won't let the diplomat in, but he might think there is some sort of mix up, and that the nation sent two diplomats instead of one. The guard will probably go get his superior to deal with this (who might get the chancellor, who would likely inform the king of what is happening, who would then talk things over with the diplomat he knows personally, who would confirm that no such mix up should have occurred). The king, chancellor, and diplomat might head to the gates (with a large contingent of guards) to see if the party are impostors or if they are legitimate (based on the judgment of the diplomat, and the king).

In having the player roll the Bluff check, knowing that he would not succeed in his goal, I've determined the degree to which he has failed. If he rolls low, the gate guard knows he's lying. If he rolls high, then the gate guard believes him, and passes responsibility up.

Did that help?


----------



## Janx (Jun 28, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Well, let's take a situation.
> 
> ..snipped example of party impersonating diplomat who arrived already
> Did that help?




Its obvious from the example, that the party really doesn't have a chance of succeeding.  The party was late, and chose the wrong person to impersonate (by not knowing enough about him to avoid the identity collision).

I don't it has anything to do with the NPC being in "can't think" mode.  The game world says the lie you are trying to perpetrate has been directly contradicted in front of this NPC less than 20 minutes ago.

as such, you are correct that the party isn't going to achieve their Bluff goal of "let me in".

Out of curiousity, what determined the nature of the Diplomat?  What determined that he was a close friend of the king?  What determined his arrival time relative to the PCs?  Did the players have a chance of learning any of this and altering their plan?

Why does it matter?   Because a thwarting DM would make up just such and NPC so as to block the PCs plan.

That doesn't mean other styles of GMing wouldn't use the same trick (I might, just as a matter of complicating the players plan).  There may be some DM's who would roll for the real Diplomat's arrival time, and for his relationship to the king, just to take himself out of the equation.

If the PCs had gotten their first (maybe they dickered around too long, so you decided they act late), would you have allowed them their skill checks to get into the castle?

Bear in mind, in all this, I'm not really a fan of the social skills.  I rather prefer the players roleplay it out.  However, when it hits a "is this going to work" moment, rolling the dice takes the decision out of my hands, which makes me feel more comfortable that I'm not railroading them to a foregone conclusion.

And that's my core question to Jameson.  Can my higher level social PC run a con that is well planned and prepared for to get past a guard?  Something that a real person can do in real life?  Obviously, it won't work on all guard situations, as any GM can set up an impenetrable gate keeper.

I suspect we all agree that the social skill rules are weaksauce and easy to abuse.  However, I maintain that if you fix them, I should be able to play a social skills PC, who has a fair chance at getting past the guard.  Barring some genre reason where such a PC doesn't fit in.

So, as JC says, Play As You Like.  Well, I'd like to play Daniel Ocean, high level Rogue with max ranks in social skills.  And we are going to research the stuffing out of that castle and sneak my team in so we can rob his vault.

We are going to investigate all possible candidates for kinds of people allowed access to the castle, and the hours of gate operation, and any social vulnerabilities the staff may have (people with gambling debts are security holes).  Additionally, any regular deliveries or pick-ups are also vectors of entry.  Furthermore, the act of talking to a guard may be used as a distraction, even if that access attempt fails, the "standard delivery guy" behind me will probably be waved through as the guard and I go over my paper work.

If I do ALL that research and succeed at my gather information checks for it, and get my Disguises in order, and am not stupid enough to attempt entry when the castle is on lockdown unless I'm posing as the SWAT team that the king is expecting, then why should I not have a fair chance of succeeding.  

Versus the boring way of nuking the castle from orbit, killing everyone, teleporting it in, gassing the place, lighting it on fire, etc that the PCs are capable of doing in most D&D games.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 28, 2011)

Janx said:


> Its obvious from the example, that the party really doesn't have a chance of succeeding.  The party was late, and chose the wrong person to impersonate (by not knowing enough about him to avoid the identity collision).
> 
> I don't it has anything to do with the NPC being in "can't think" mode.  The game world says the lie you are trying to perpetrate has been directly contradicted in front of this NPC less than 20 minutes ago.
> 
> as such, you are correct that the party isn't going to achieve their Bluff goal of "let me in".




I agree. They _can_ convince the guards that they are diplomats, but they cannot convince him to let them in, really. Too much contradiction weighed against specific orders to him and the risk of his family's well being.



> Out of curiousity, what determined the nature of the Diplomat?  What determined that he was a close friend of the king?  What determined his arrival time relative to the PCs?  Did the players have a chance of learning any of this and altering their plan?




All of these things can be determined easily by one thing: recurring NPCs in a evolving setting. This diplomat and this king may not be making their first appearance. If Therall the paladin is a diplomat for the nation of Destrae, and he's known Blake the king of Rolis for 50 years, back from before either of them were in their current positions, then it makes sense for him to show up. This exact event has happened in my game, where Blake was a past PC and Therall was an NPC.

Additionally, all of the PCs could learn about it, based on sufficiently high skill checks (or maybe asking someone who knows without any rolls, though they'd be harder to find).



> Why does it matter?   Because a thwarting DM would make up just such and NPC so as to block the PCs plan.




Possibly. A thwarting DM would also use the PHB, MM, and DMG, but I'm not going to dismiss those because of it.



> That doesn't mean other styles of GMing wouldn't use the same trick (I might, just as a matter of complicating the players plan).  There may be some DM's who would roll for the real Diplomat's arrival time, and for his relationship to the king, just to take himself out of the equation.




I can see that. I probably wouldn't do it, but I can definitely see it.



> If the PCs had gotten their first (maybe they dickered around too long, so you decided they act late), would you have allowed them their skill checks to get into the castle?




As a point of semantics, they never, ever made a skill check to get into the castle. All they made was a skill check to convince the guard of something. The guard, based on how the PCs roll, will react reasonably and in-character, based on this new information.

In this example, if their bluff had succeeded before Therall arrived (the diplomat), then they would have been let in. However, in my example, Blake (the king) would have been there to greet them, and been surprised that it wasn't Therall. If they were quick on their feet, they could bluff him into thinking that they were replacements (Blake had about +3 to Sense Motive). Siris, the chancellor, had quite a bit more, but didn't greet Therall at the gate, so he wouldn't be there for that, and even if some of the guards thought the players were lying (they beat Blake's Sense Motive but not some of the guards), they probably wouldn't say anything, as they wouldn't want to question the king.



> Bear in mind, in all this, I'm not really a fan of the social skills.  I rather prefer the players roleplay it out.  However, when it hits a "is this going to work" moment, rolling the dice takes the decision out of my hands, which makes me feel more comfortable that I'm not railroading them to a foregone conclusion.




I really, really don't appreciate this being called a railroad, as it's not. Please refrain from using such a strong term in a civil discussion.



> And that's my core question to Jameson.  Can my higher level social PC run a con that is well planned and prepared for to get past a guard?  Something that a real person can do in real life?  Obviously, it won't work on all guard situations, as any GM can set up an impenetrable gate keeper.




Short answer: yes.

However, it really depends. You can never, ever make a "get into the castle" check. You can make a Bluff check that effectively amounts to the same thing in the right circumstances. But, to me, Bluff is not a narrative skill (at least, no more than Jump is).

You can convince the guard at the gate you're diplomats, _even after he saw the diplomat walk through 20 minutes ago_. That doesn't mean he'll let you in.

Can you con people? Yeah, when the conditions are right. No problem.



> I suspect we all agree that the social skill rules are weaksauce and easy to abuse.  However, I maintain that if you fix them, I should be able to play a social skills PC, who has a fair chance at getting past the guard.  Barring some genre reason where such a PC doesn't fit in.




Nope, don't agree. The fact that it's your concept gives you no more right to bypass guards then playing a Fighter gives you a right to kill the goblins when there's 30 of them and you're level 1. Yeah, it helps you deal with them, but it doesn't automatically let you bypass them.

I also changed the rules on Bluff, Intimidate, and Diplomacy, so I agree that they had problems. But, even by D&D 3.5 RAW, there's no such thing as a "bluff my way past the guards" check.



> So, as JC says, Play As You Like.  Well, I'd like to play Daniel Ocean, high level Rogue with max ranks in social skills.  And we are going to research the stuffing out of that castle and sneak my team in so we can rob his vault.




Awesome, good luck with that 



> We are going to investigate all possible candidates for kinds of people allowed access to the castle, and the hours of gate operation, and any social vulnerabilities the staff may have (people with gambling debts are security holes).  Additionally, any regular deliveries or pick-ups are also vectors of entry.  Furthermore, the act of talking to a guard may be used as a distraction, even if that access attempt fails, the "standard delivery guy" behind me will probably be waved through as the guard and I go over my paper work.




Sounds like a well thought out and executed plan so far. It has a chance of success, unlike many other, ill thought out plans.



> If I do ALL that research and succeed at my gather information checks for it, and get my Disguises in order, and am not stupid enough to attempt entry when the castle is on lockdown unless I'm posing as the SWAT team that the king is expecting, then why should I not have a fair chance of succeeding.




You do. I never said you didn't. It is _exactly_ the word you used, too: fair. It's probably just a different definition.



> Versus the boring way of nuking the castle from orbit, killing everyone, teleporting it in, gassing the place, lighting it on fire, etc that the PCs are capable of doing in most D&D games.




In some D&D games, yeah, they can do that. Not in mine. So, no problems there.

In D&D, you'd lose that fight with me, too, though, unless it's well thought out and executed. Social power translates to physical and magical power much of the time. I mean, the crown prince may be low level right now, but he has the money to buy the most powerful people in the land to defend him from everyone who'd think of doing what you've named.

At any rate, the assertion of "let me make Bluff checks to get in, or I'll be forced to kill everything" is pretty amusing still. I'm not really worried about it.

As always, play what you like


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 28, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> In having the player roll the Bluff check, knowing that he would not succeed in his goal, I've determined the degree to which he has failed. If he rolls low, the gate guard knows he's lying. If he rolls high, then the gate guard believes him, and passes responsibility up.
> 
> Did that help?




Yes, thanks!

I originally thought it would be about metagaming but there's more to it than that.  It's interesting how you use the mechanics of the Bluff check vs. Sense Motive to generate the guard's response, even though the bluff itself is not going to work.  That's something I didn't think about.

In my game, which is my own hack, I'd base the guard's reaction on a Reaction Roll, not a skill check.  From that I'd get a range of possible reactions to the bluff.  I wonder if your way would be better for my purposes, though.  It's something to think about.

Thanks again, that was illuminating.


----------



## Janx (Jun 28, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I agree. They _can_ convince the guards that they are diplomats, but they cannot convince him to let them in, really. Too much contradiction weighed against specific orders to him and the risk of his family's well being.



The threat to the guard has little to do with it in my mind.  The party chose to impersonate that which has recently been contradicted.  A con works when you appear to be exactly what the NPC expects.  Sans threat, the guard was going to be confused because he was not expecting another diplomat, and thus is likely to summon his boss.  This is what happens at any guardpost when something unexpected happens.

If I can't get into the castle, then the bluf failed.  it was the point of forging the papers, buying the expensive suit, and practicing my lines.  Geting routed to the supervisor is increasing my risk as further scrutiny increases my chances of geting caught.




JamesonCourage said:


> In this example, if their bluff had succeeded before Therall arrived (the diplomat), then they would have been let in. However, in my example, Blake (the king) would have been there to greet them, and been surprised that it wasn't Therall. If they were quick on their feet, they could bluff him into thinking that they were replacements (Blake had about +3 to Sense Motive). Siris, the chancellor, had quite a bit more, but didn't greet Therall at the gate, so he wouldn't be there for that, and even if some of the guards thought the players were lying (they beat Blake's Sense Motive but not some of the guards), they probably wouldn't say anything, as they wouldn't want to question the king.




Did the party have a chance to get their before the real Diplomat did?  Obviously, there's enough backstory that the party probably could have done the research to find out the relationship about this diplomat.



JamesonCourage said:


> I really, really don't appreciate this being called a railroad, as it's not. Please refrain from using such a strong term in a civil discussion.




In the text you quoted, I was clearly talking about how I prefer to roll to prevent myself from railroading the outcome. 

Since I wasn't there, nor was I privvy to your notes, I can't call it railroading.  But I am asking clarifying questions as to how you ran it to determine if the players had a chance to do it right or if the coincidence of a scared guard who follows his orders and the prior arrival of the real diplomat was a fair setup.

Nor do I think that I would wire up the encounter any better.  I very well may adapt to the players' spontaneous idea of "hey, let's impersonate a diplomat to get into the castle!" the same way (actually, I doubt mine would be as well thought out on back story).

That's actually quite a challenge with social skills.  They tend to be used on the spur of the moment.  Sure, combat skills get whipped out on random NPCs all the time, but it's pretty obvious how to resolve them (determine some stats, roll init, and start fighting).  When players decided to do a social skill, odds are good it was not an anticipated action by the GM.


The reason I'm curious, is because JC seemed against the very idea of being able to get past a guard with a bluff.  His example was one that clearly blocks a bluff from working.  What I wanted was verification that a bluff CAN be used in his game to get past the guard, or was his intent to block all bluffs.

I'm satisfied that his example was intended as "here's how a bluff can be impossible" rather than "here's why bluffs will never work in my game".


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 28, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> Yes, thanks!
> 
> I originally thought it would be about metagaming but there's more to it than that.  It's interesting how you use the mechanics of the Bluff check vs. Sense Motive to generate the guard's response, even though the bluff itself is not going to work.  That's something I didn't think about.
> 
> ...




Well, you're welcome, I guess 

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, really, other than that this works for my group, isn't a railroad, and isn't arbitrary. If it even makes you modify something else, like you Reaction Roll, and you don't use the Bluff check, than it's inspiration I didn't intend, but am happy to contribute 

Thank you for approaching this discussion with such civility. I do appreciate it. Play what you like 



Janx said:


> The threat to the guard has little to do with it in my mind.  The party chose to impersonate that which has recently been contradicted.  A con works when you appear to be exactly what the NPC expects.  Sans threat, the guard was going to be confused because he was not expecting another diplomat, and thus is likely to summon his boss.  This is what happens at any guardpost when something unexpected happens.
> 
> If I can't get into the castle, then the bluf failed.  it was the point of forging the papers, buying the expensive suit, and practicing my lines.  Geting routed to the supervisor is increasing my risk as further scrutiny increases my chances of geting caught.




That's true, though the Bluff check, the mechanic, doesn't necessarily fail. All the check indicates is whether or not the guard thinks you're telling the truth, as you know it. But, yes, your goal has failed.



> Did the party have a chance to get their before the real Diplomat did?  Obviously, there's enough backstory that the party probably could have done the research to find out the relationship about this diplomat.




If they had done things quicker, they could have beaten him there. When I decide that the diplomat leaves on the morning of the 4th, and he'll arrive on the evening of the 12th, that means they'll have to arrive before the evening of the 12th. Arriving in the evening of the 12th means there's a chance they'll beat him by a small margin, or fall behind by a small margin. The specifics of when the diplomat arrives exactly on the evening of the 12th don't come into play what until it needs to (such as when the party cuts it close). Then, I go with the time I envisioned in the evening (or perhaps consult the map again).



> In the text you quoted, I was clearly talking about how I prefer to roll to prevent myself from railroading the outcome.
> 
> Since I wasn't there, nor was I privvy to your notes, I can't call it railroading.  But I am asking clarifying questions as to how you ran it to determine if the players had a chance to do it right or if the coincidence of a scared guard who follows his orders and the prior arrival of the real diplomat was a fair setup.




I'm sorry, then, and I apologize. If that was the intent, then I shouldn't have reacted so defensively.



> Nor do I think that I would wire up the encounter any better.  I very well may adapt to the players' spontaneous idea of "hey, let's impersonate a diplomat to get into the castle!" the same way (actually, I doubt mine would be as well thought out on back story).
> 
> That's actually quite a challenge with social skills.  They tend to be used on the spur of the moment.  Sure, combat skills get whipped out on random NPCs all the time, but it's pretty obvious how to resolve them (determine some stats, roll init, and start fighting).  When players decided to do a social skill, odds are good it was not an anticipated action by the GM.




That's usually true. I find my players winging it about 70% of the time. Though they have long discussions and planning sessions, something they enjoy (so, fun for them). They called it "Committee D&D" back when we used to play 3.5. The newest player to the group (old friend still) disliked it a lot when he showed up, but after seeing that rash actions rarely work out great kind of slipped into it subconsciously, and enjoys it still.

I really don't think it's necessary, or that every group should do it, but my players like it, and when I'm playing, I like it. So, hey, it works for us 



> The reason I'm curious, is because JC seemed against the very idea of being able to get past a guard with a bluff.  His example was one that clearly blocks a bluff from working.  What I wanted was verification that a bluff CAN be used in his game to get past the guard, or was his intent to block all bluffs.




Different JC? Or me? Because I started to expand upon examples already used, and everyone else seems to have bailed on this conversation 

But, if this clarifies anything, the Blake character was a past PC. He was in a party with other PCs, obviously. One of the other characters was a con man from the get go. Pretty quick on his feet, too. Very effective. More of a silver-tongued salesman than Ocean's Eleven style con man, and he refused to break his word, if given (which he was extremely against giving). Boy would he bend his word, though.



> I'm satisfied that his example was intended as "here's how a bluff can be impossible" rather than "here's why bluffs will never work in my game".




Well, considering I never said the latter, I'm glad you see it that way 

As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Jun 29, 2011)

Let me take a different approach.

PC group includes a monk gets into a fight with a giant.  PC monk attacks the giant.  The DM rules that the monk cannot hurt the giant since the 180 pound unarmed monk simply cannot generate enough damage to harm the 3 ton giant.  Jackie Chan can't kill an elephant with his bare hands after all.  It breaks the DM's views of plausibility.

Would you argue with your DM here?  Should the players simply accept this ruling and move on?

And, if you would argue with the DM, how is this any different than the unbluffable guard?

See, I look at JamesonCourage's example of the Diplomat Impersonation upthread and think, "Well, the PC succeeded at his bluff, the guard actually believes that the PC is the real diplomat.  While he certainly could start the endless chain resulting in a zero chance of the PC's to succeed, it's also perfectly valid that he could decide that this is way above his pay grade and just let the diplomat through."

After all, he's just a gate guard.  It's not like he actually knows anything really.  He's just a side player.  Why negate the player's success?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 29, 2011)

BTW - JamesonCourage on the issue of trusting your players.

I'm sorry, but, I don't think you actually answered my question.

Imagine there is a disagreement between you and your players as to what is plausible.  How is ruling by fiat, simply because you're the DM, what is plausible, showing trust in their judgement of what is plausible?

Player:  I think X.
DM:  I think Y.
Discussion ensues.
DM:  Well, I rule that Y is true.

If you actually trusted their judgement, wouldn't you rule X?  If you always rule Y, then how does that show any trust in their judgement?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 29, 2011)

One of the ways I now handle this in my game is I am the one who rolls behind a screen for the players bluff , sense motive, diplomacy, Intimidate and find traps.

I also sometimes roll spot checks. Though they don't it unless they have spotted something. This way the players are not basing their decisions on how well or bad the dice rolled.

My players like it because they say it helps them be more immersed in the game.

My players tend to play smart most of them are Shadowrun players as well and they are to paranoid to do something like bluff the guards to get into the castle without checking things out first.

I think there are different type of play going on here. You have a play style where the players just want to get on with it. The goal is to get into the castle so they just want to go up to the guard roll bluff and get on with the game.

For that type of play it is best to use the RAW rules.

For others they want more than that, they want to investigate and plan and they don't mind being stymied because that just gives them more clues and they get to plan something different. 

And sometimes it is a mix. 

What I don't understand is how not letting a bluff work is not trusting your players. I trust my players and there have many times they have blown me away with their plans that right on the spot I have changed the game to incorporate their idea.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> A guard is guarding a gate for a king, who has ordered him not to let anyone in for the rest of the night, as his long friend (a diplomat) has arrived. The guard witnessed the diplomat arrive, witnessed the king greet him warmly and personally, and knows what the diplomat looks like. Additionally, the king has a standing threat to have the guard's family punished (maybe even killed) if the guard messes up enough.
> 
> The players are planning on bluffing their way into this castle.
> 
> ...





Janx said:


> Its obvious from the example, that the party really doesn't have a chance of succeeding.  The party was late, and chose the wrong person to impersonate (by not knowing enough about him to avoid the identity collision).



Interesting. My response to the example was that, as soon as it becomes clear to the Party Face that the guard is thinking of escalating the issue to his superior, the Party Face should explain that the first "diplomat" is really a doppelganger assassin, and that the only hope for the king is if the party rush in and save him right away! [EDIT: what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said a few posts up.)



Janx said:


> I suspect we all agree that the social skill rules are weaksauce and easy to abuse.  However, I maintain that if you fix them, I should be able to play a social skills PC, who has a fair chance at getting past the guard.





Janx said:


> That's actually quite a challenge with social skills.  They tend to be used on the spur of the moment.  Sure, combat skills get whipped out on random NPCs all the time, but it's pretty obvious how to resolve them (determine some stats, roll init, and start fighting).  When players decided to do a social skill, odds are good it was not an anticipated action by the GM.



The particular mechanical iimplementation of social skills in 3E may be weak, although in my view (admittedly as an outsider) this is mostly due to (i) a failure to have a robust way of handling ever-escalating skill bonuses, and (ii) a failure to try and correlate social skills with spells like Charm and Suggestion.

But I agree that there is nothing objectionable about playing a social skill PC. Every game I've GMed over the past 20+ years has had one or more socially-focused PCs in it. At one stage I had a couple of PCs (a RM mystic - something like an illusionist - and a RM moon mage - something like a ranger/illusionist) whose players had to maintain lists of their identities to keep track of what names and faces they were using in the various towns and cities of the gameworld.

And when I prep for play I give some thought to how different NPCs might respond to various sorts of threats or offers or approaches.  (Personality descriptions, relationship diagrams, etc).



JamesonCourage said:


> Social conflict isn't as important as physical conflict in my game for one reason: most of the time, it's not your life on the line. Yeah, your goals are on the line, and losing sucks, but if you survive, you can always play damage control.



I think we approach the game differently!

From my point of view, for the players it is always and only their goals that are on the line, whether the goal be "kill the goblin" or "rescue the prisoner" or "bluff the guard so we can meet the king". I want social conflict to be up to the task of handling the emotional stakes for the _player_. The fact that the PC can't die (and frankly, in the case of the king's guard bluff I don't think that's true - that's probably riskier for the typical 5th level PC than being surrounded by a dozen kobolds) strikes me as at best a secondary consideration.


----------



## Janx (Jun 29, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> One of the ways I now handle this in my game is I am the one who rolls behind a screen for the players bluff , sense motive, diplomacy, Intimidate and find traps.
> 
> I also sometimes roll spot checks. Though they don't it unless they have spotted something. This way the players are not basing their decisions on how well or bad the dice rolled.




Me too.  I believe the GM should hide all rolls for which failure may not be inherently obvious to the player.  Finding traps, appraising for example are all things that you may think you got right, but didn't.



Elf Witch said:


> What I don't understand is how not letting a bluff work is not trusting your players. I trust my players and there have many times they have blown me away with their plans that right on the spot I have changed the game to incorporate their idea.




Just guessing at Hussar's reasoning, but I think it's really a conflict between what players want to try to do, and the GM's assumption of what's plausible and how that impacts his decision.

If people can get past the Secret Service (who are highly motivated individuals interested in stopping that kind of nonsense) and into a White House dinner, I have faith that a good Bluff check can get you past a guard who's family was threatened.  It's all in the approach and timing.

For one thing, I might not come in as a Diplomat.  How about the caterer?

PC: hey, uh, where do you want these cakes?
Guard: What?
PC: yeah, these cakes.  The frosting's gonna melt if you make us wait around out here.  The queen's gonna be pissed if her desert is ruined for the banguet.
Guard: Queen?  Oh here, let me give you a hand with that.  Just go in that way, and turn left...

Best times to enter a facility, is when it is busy and people are distracted.  And there are more strangers about setting up and bringing in stuff.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], yeah if I saw the guard was going to just escalate me to his boss, I'd change tack as well.  But at some point, if the feels like the GM is just going to shut down every avenue, you gotta smell it coming.

Which is actually an important thing in planning any of these places.  Do NOT make them impregnable and perfectly defended.  That kind of defeats the purpose.  It is far easier for you to put some holes in, than it is to relay information to the players so they can allegedly detect holes in your perfect palace.  The information gap is so stupendously wide, your might as well put some chinks in the armor, so the players can actually find them.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 29, 2011)

Hussar said:


> BTW - JamesonCourage on the issue of trusting your players.
> 
> I'm sorry, but, I don't think you actually answered my question.
> 
> ...




This, again, is judgment, not trust. I answered this.

You didn't answer me. Do you think I don't trust my players? Because the answer determines whether or not we can have a civil discussion.



pemerton said:


> Interesting. My response to the example was that, as soon as it becomes clear to the Party Face that the guard is thinking of escalating the issue to his superior, the Party Face should explain that the first "diplomat" is really a doppelganger assassin, and that the only hope for the king is if the party rush in and save him right away! [EDIT: what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said a few posts up.)




They could try the bluff. As there aren't dopplegangers in my game, it probably wouldn't work. I mean, magic can mask your appearance, so it's still a plausible bluff. But with his family on the line, he'd probably yell for another guard to get a warning to the general / chancellor / king / king's family. He wouldn't let a diplomat in to deal with it without some reason to.



> I think we approach the game differently!




I know we do. We've been over this before. Your way of handling things is great. I wouldn't suggest otherwise for you. As we've discussed this exact topic before (I even worded this originally when I posted it because I knew that "goals" were more important to permerton than they were to me), I don't see any reason to bog this thread down with rehashing it again.

If someone else wants to engage you, I can vouch that it was quite illuminating.

As always, play what you like 



> The fact that the PC can't die (and frankly, in the case of the king's guard bluff I don't think that's true - that's probably riskier for the typical 5th level PC than being surrounded by a dozen kobolds)




Yeah, I tend to agree with you here, but as I said, combat determines life and death _more often_ than social interactions. That holds true.

However, experience in my game is rewarded on two fronts: danger, and story. If we just look at danger, you get more experience the more danger you were in. It does not specify combat (and the examples sometimes do not mention combat). So, I agree with you about social danger.

As always, again, play what you like 



Janx said:


> [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], yeah if I saw the guard was going to just escalate me to his boss, I'd change tack as well.  *But at some point, if the feels like the GM is just going to shut down every avenue, you gotta smell it coming.*
> 
> Which is actually an important thing in planning any of these places.  Do NOT make them impregnable and perfectly defended.  That kind of defeats the purpose.  It is far easier for you to put some holes in, than it is to relay information to the players so they can allegedly detect holes in your perfect palace.  The information gap is so stupendously wide, your might as well put some chinks in the armor, so the players can actually find them.




I really don't see this getting issue getting resolved between us. If, after this discussion, you still see it as effectively railroading* (I bolded the text to highlight the area this seems implied), then I think we have to agree to disagree and move on.

I'm not at all saying that you shouldn't continue the discussion with anyone else in the thread. You have every right to play how you want to, and express your views as long as they don't violate the TOS. I just don't think we'll come to an understanding in this matter. Thanks for the discussion, though. I thought it was fun.

* (I do know you used the qualifier "feels" in there, and I did take it into account, but the implication seems to be too much for me to handle in a continued discussion)

Play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2011)

Janx said:


> Which is actually an important thing in planning any of these places.  Do NOT make them impregnable and perfectly defended.  That kind of defeats the purpose.  It is far easier for you to put some holes in, than it is to relay information to the players so they can allegedly detect holes in your perfect palace.  The information gap is so stupendously wide, your might as well put some chinks in the armor, so the players can actually find them.



I agree about the width of the information gap.

I think there are (at least) two ways to approach this sort of situation as a GM. One is to design the situation (castle, king, guards, diplomat etc) in detail but, as you say, to build in some holes. I would call this approach one that focuses on _exploration_ as a priority. It rewards players who engage with the nitty-gritty descriptive detail of the gameworld. It also works best when players and GM are on the same page as to what is feasible, and what not, when it comes to running a bluff.

The other way is suggested to me by this quote from Paul Czege:

I know what I find interesting. I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​
With this approach, the GM has only a general idea of the situation, and is ready for the players to try hijinks that the GM has not foreseen, and is prepared to roll with those hijinks based on a combination of (i) using mechanical means to determine whether or not PC actions succeed or fail in their goal, (ii) using the players' descriptions of what their PCs are doing to determine the actual consequences of successes and failures, and (iii) using understandings of genre/table verisimilitude tolerance that are shared between the players and the GM to work out what sorts of hijinks are entitled to a roll, and what sorts of hijinks are excluded on absurdity grounds.

This second approach obviously won't work very well if there isn't that shared sense of genre/tolerance at the table. And it is focused less on exploration of a pre-established gameworld and more on shared participation in generating a story about hijinks.

The second approach is the way I personally prefer to GM my game. (Actual play report of a session using this sort of approach for a social encounter, and a search of a library, here.)


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> experience in my game is rewarded on two fronts: danger, and story.



Interesting. Core Rolemaster has an XP system that comes close to awarding XP based on danger faced (in the past, I've described it as "XP for hard field training!").

I agree that that sort of experience system seems to fit with a general distiction being drawn between the stakes of physical and social conflict.


----------



## Janx (Jun 29, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I agree about the width of the information gap.
> 
> I think there are (at least) two ways to approach this sort of situation as a GM. One is to design the situation (castle, king, guards, diplomat etc) in detail but, as you say, to build in some holes. I would call this approach one that focuses on _exploration_ as a priority. It rewards players who engage with the nitty-gritty descriptive detail of the gameworld. It also works best when players and GM are on the same page as to what is feasible, and what not, when it comes to running a bluff.




With this approach, I don't think the guard would have been identified as a vulnerable access point.  It would have been more likely to be posing as a caterer during the day, when tons of people were hauling in stuff for the banquet through the gate and only geting cursory checks.




pemerton said:


> With this approach, the GM has only a general idea of the situation, and is ready for the players to try hijinks that the GM has not foreseen, and is prepared to roll with those hijinks based on a combination of (i) using mechanical means to determine whether or not PC actions succeed or fail in their goal, (ii) using the players' descriptions of what their PCs are doing to determine the actual consequences of successes and failures, and (iii) using understandings of genre/table verisimilitude tolerance that are shared between the players and the GM to work out what sorts of hijinks are entitled to a roll, and what sorts of hijinks are excluded on absurdity grounds.
> 
> This second approach obviously won't work very well if there isn't that shared




In this approach, still using jameson's example setup, would the guard let the PC in or escalate?  Is making the real Diplomat get there before them part of the hijinks (as a complication to what the PCs were trying to do)?  Or would that have been left out?


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 29, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> My players tend to play smart most of them are Shadowrun players as well and they are to paranoid to do something like bluff the guards to get into the castle without checking things out first.




Yeah, shadowrun has that effect on people. Probably because all the adventures are structured so that they suggest a legwork phase to the DM, so he asks the players "what legwork do you do?".

That said, I often found that shadowrun legwork and planning would tend to drag way out beyond what was necessary. It's hard to hit that nice medium between shadowrun and traditional D&D "kick in the door and see what the monster lotto gives us".


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2011)

Janx said:


> In this approach, still using jameson's example setup, would the guard let the PC in or escalate?  Is making the real Diplomat get there before them part of the hijinks (as a complication to what the PCs were trying to do)?  Or would that have been left out?



I think it will depend on what the shared understanding at the table is as to genre/tolerance, and also how much complication the GM is wanting to introduce into the situation prior to the players engaging it via their PCs.

So the real diplomat could be introduced from the get go, to raise the stakes and ratchet up the tension, _or_ it could be introduced as a response to a failed Bluff check ("Although you speak very sweetly and plausibly, it turns out that . . .").

But I think, on this approach, _provided that it is genre credible that the PCs can get in,_ then the GM has to ultimately permit success.

When playing in this fashion, I find that one of the big challenges for a GM is deciding how much to introduce as complication/stakes from the get-go, and how much to leave as a response to players failing rolls. And there are at least two considerations in play here: if you introduce too many complications into the starting scenario, you run the risk of having no good material left when it comes to actually adjudicating the action resolution mechanics; and if your judgement of the complications that will work is out of synch with your players', then you can create anticlimaxes ("That was easier than we thought it would be!") or bogging down ("Can't we just get to the king already!") where you didn't intended to.

Personally, I would normally rather risk anticlimax than bogging down, and so would only introduce the diplomat as an _initial_ complication if the players already knew that their was a diplomat in the offing, and were thinking about how to handle the issue, and hence already had some personal investment in a situation involving the diplomat.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 29, 2011)

Saeviomagy said:


> Yeah, shadowrun has that effect on people. Probably because all the adventures are structured so that they suggest a legwork phase to the DM, so he asks the players "what legwork do you do?".
> 
> That said, I often found that shadowrun legwork and planning would tend to drag way out beyond what was necessary. It's hard to hit that nice medium between shadowrun and traditional D&D "kick in the door and see what the monster lotto gives us".




It can bog down any game if goes on to long even a Shadowrun game. 

But I have found that usually it can make the game more fun if you are not the type that really enjoys kicking the door down and killing monsters. 

My players prefer a more role playing style game even killing monsters needs to have a good ingame character reason other then hey look a monster kill it. 

Part of the fun for them is using other skills like gather info, disguise , bluff and coming up with a plan. Now sometimes I will admit that they can take it to far and really bog the game down when trying to cover every contingency.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 29, 2011)

Janx said:


> Me too.  I believe the GM should hide all rolls for which failure may not be inherently obvious to the player.  Finding traps, appraising for example are all things that you may think you got right, but didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I understand what he is saying and I agree that most of the time you can bluff your way in with the right bluff to be honest I don't think it has every come up in my game that you couldn't with the right con get in someplace.

But we were also talking other skills like intimidate and diplomacy. And those are the two skills I have run into problems with. 

I don't buy that you can intimidate everyone with a high enough roll and diplomacy may not always work.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 29, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> It can bog down any game if goes on to long even a Shadowrun game.



Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. I like the shadowrun legwork phase, I think it would make a nice addition to games of D&D, but I'd also like some sort of way to regulate it to avoid it going on too long. One way of making sure that only the necessary legwork is done is to allow reasonable backdating of actions: it lets you have that legwork phase without people being paranoid that they've forgotten something which might be obvious to their characters.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 29, 2011)

pemerton said:


> With this approach, the GM has only a general idea of the situation, and is ready for the players to try hijinks that the GM has not foreseen, and is prepared to roll with those hijinks based on a combination of (i) using mechanical means to determine whether or not PC actions succeed or fail in their goal, (ii) using the players' descriptions of what their PCs are doing to determine the actual consequences of successes and failures, and (iii) using understandings of genre/table verisimilitude tolerance that are shared between the players and the GM to work out what sorts of hijinks are entitled to a roll, and what sorts of hijinks are excluded on absurdity grounds.




I was running a Shadow of Yesterday game - actually the Solar System - recently, and that's what I was trying to do.  It's been a while since I've played a game like that, though, and it was hard for me to switch from my D&D style to the TSOY style.

Though it worked well once I got into it.

As far as bogging down vs. too much being resolved, I'm with you that bogging down is worse.  The PCs tend to mix things up so much that you get new material to work with after everything that they do.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 29, 2011)

Saeviomagy said:


> Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. I like the shadowrun legwork phase, I think it would make a nice addition to games of D&D, but I'd also like some sort of way to regulate it to avoid it going on too long. One way of making sure that only the necessary legwork is done is to allow reasonable backdating of actions: it lets you have that legwork phase without people being paranoid that they've forgotten something which might be obvious to their characters.




Exactly. I don't penalize players on something their characters would have done just because they forgot. So I am pretty reasonable about things like that.

I was once in a game and we were ninth level characters now we had been playing for two years almost every Sunday the DM just did slow progression. But our PCs had been adventuring for three years. We had overcome a lot of odds and experienced a lot so we knew what to bring on a quest. We got stuck because according to the DM no one said we brought a grappling hook. We the players for got but I couldn't see our characters forgetting.

If I had been DM I would have hand waved it away because it makes sense that seasoned adventures know what to pack.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I was running a Shadow of Yesterday game - actually the Solar System - recently, and that's what I was trying to do.  It's been a while since I've played a game like that, though, and it was hard for me to switch from my D&D style to the TSOY style.



This is interesting - that you self-consciously make the switch, and also that you find it takes work.

I'm in a different situation as a GM, because I tend to GM only the one long-running campaign for the same established group of players. So my GMing experience has been a gradual transition to self-realisation - reading Lewis Pulsipher and Gygax and Dragon Magazine as a kid made me think that exploration-heavy play _was_ good roleplaying, and so this is what I tried to do, although I wasn't that good at it and it tended to make for boring games. For me the change came (oddly enough, given its simulationist leanings) with AD&D's Oriental Adventures - the change in flavour and context, the suggestions on family relationship charts and political rivalries, etc, all helped me run a game that was a lot more free-flowing and responsive to the players in the framing and resolution of ingame situations.

Since then, it's mostly been an ongoing effort to dial down the simulationist mechanics that get in the way of what I want (The Forge has helped me a lot in thinking clearly about this), while still running a pretty traditional fantasy RPG that has the sort of mechanical crunch that I and my players enjoy. Which is why, I think, 4e suits me so well. (I think that Burning Wheel probably would suit my group too, and perhaps The Riddle of Steel, although both perhaps lack that gonzo element that D&D, Rolemaster etc are so good at!)

EDIT TO ADD: I sometimes read posts on these forums that suggest that exploration-heavy play, and/or play in which the GM exercise very strong control over theme and story, should be the starting default for RPGing, and that more free-flowing play, in which the GM responds to the players as much as vice versa in shaping gameworld situations, is "trickier" or for more advanced/sophisticated players. The most reductionist version of this thesis (and one which WotC seems to endorse, given some of its introductory scenarios) is that new players should begin with "kick-in-the-door-and-kill-and-loot-the-monsters" play, before graduating to "real" roleplaying.

Because I have a very long-running core play group, I haven't introduced all that many players to the hobby, but where I have (either as GM or as a more experienced player helping out a new player) I haven't myself seen much evidence in favour of this notion. At least in my experience, new players can be very keen to get involved in shaping the fiction of the campaign world and the unfolding ingame situation, and to the extent that they hold back it is because they feel resistance from GMs who want to assert sole authority over backstory (shutting down the new player's PC background), and/or authority not only over framing situations but over the resolution of them (ie plot authority, in Forge jargon).

I think that this relates, in part at least, to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s remarks upthread about trusting the players. For me, it also makes Tomb of Horrors suspect as the apotheosis of the game - that's one way to do it, sure, but by no means the only way.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 29, 2011)

Janx said:


> /snip
> 
> 
> Just guessing at Hussar's reasoning, but I think it's really a conflict between what players want to try to do, and the GM's assumption of what's plausible and how that impacts his decision.
> ...




Janx got it right off, but, I cannot xp you for this.  Basically my point is the players are trying something that is plausible in their view (since they probably wouldn't try otherwise) and the DM is ruling that no, it isn't plausible based solely on the DM's judgement.  

If I say something is X, and you say it's Y and I refuse to be swayed by your views, aren't I, in effect, showing that I do not trust your judgement?

Maybe it's the trust word that's causing problems here.  I dunno.  To me, if the DM has decided that X will not work, regardless of the views of the players, that shows a lack of trust in the players.



JamesonCourage said:


> This, again, is judgment, not trust. I answered this.
> 
> You didn't answer me. Do you think I don't trust my players? Because the answer determines whether or not we can have a civil discussion.
> 
> /snip




I disagree, obviously.  I think it does come down to trust.

Do you trust your players?  I honestly have no idea.  I don't know you or your players.  But, your arguments here have stated that you will not allow the player's views to change your ruling.  If you find X implausible, the player's views on the matter will not change your position.

To me, that shows a lack of trust in the judgement of your players.  So, I'll ask again, how does over ruling the judgement of your players show trust in their judgement?


----------



## S'mon (Jun 29, 2011)

One last time to Hussar.

"Maybe it's the trust word that's causing problems here. I dunno. To me, if the DM has decided that X will not work, regardless of the views of the players, that *shows a lack of trust in* the players.2

And if the player decides it should work, regardless of the view of the DM, that *shows a lack of trust in *the DM?

In reality, player & DM can trust each other just fine, and still disagree.  *However* the player has a vested interest in the question whether the Bluff will work, they are not a neutral arbiter, because a success contributes to their own success at the game.  Whereas the DM should have no investment in whether it works or not, and should be able to be a neutral arbiter, which the player can never be.

And this is one reason why you are completely wrong.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 29, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Because I have a very long-running core play group, I haven't introduced all that many players to the hobby, but where I have (either as GM or as a more experienced player helping out a new player) I haven't myself seen much evidence in favour of this notion. At least in my experience, new players can be very keen to get involved in shaping the fiction of the campaign world and the unfolding ingame situation, and to the extent that they hold back it is because they feel resistance from GMs who want to assert sole authority over backstory (shutting down the new player's PC background), and/or authority not only over framing situations but over the resolution of them (ie plot authority, in Forge jargon).




I have introduced a lot of players to roleplaying games, and my experience supports your skepticism on this point.  Almost universally, the new players are not interested in the tactical, operational, or stategic concerns involved in kicking doors or killing monsters.  A significant minority show strong interest out of the gate in the exploration of the world, often prompted by tropes from popular fictions.  And while certainly a lot of them ultimately want to confront the monster and emerge victorious, they want to feel that it was a close run thing.  Note, "feel" instead of "know".  But mainly they want to go into something like Moria because it is creepy/exciting/evocative/etc.

This is over 150 people.  Probably closer to 250.  Although, most of these were before video games became ubiquitious.  So I'm not sure how a generation of kicking down the door and slaying the monsters in video games might have changed things, if at all.  It hasn't for the handful of younger people that I've introduced to gaming recently, but they might be atypical.

Interestingly, I catered to this instinct very early, because of something Gygax wrote about introducing new players.  I forget if it was in a book or Dragon.  But the thing that stuck with me was his injunction to be very careful and selective about mixing experienced players with beginners, because if the experienced players were jaded, this would tend to ruin the sense of wonder too fast for the beginners. You want people to get jaded at their own speed. 

I didn't let this stop me from including experienced players, of course.  There are some advantages to bringing out wall flowers if you have help.  But I did make sure the experienced players in that situation knew that their job was to prompt and help, not direct.


----------



## Krensky (Jun 29, 2011)

Hussar said:


> See, I look at JamesonCourage's example of the Diplomat Impersonation upthread and think, "Well, the PC succeeded at his bluff, the guard actually believes that the PC is the real diplomat.  While he certainly could start the endless chain resulting in a zero chance of the PC's to succeed, it's also perfectly valid that he could decide that this is way above his pay grade and just let the diplomat through."
> 
> After all, he's just a gate guard.  It's not like he actually knows anything really.  He's just a side player.  Why negate the player's success?




Because that's how guards act when presented with weird things or stuff above their pay grade.

If the guard believes that the PCs are the real diplomats, then the real diplomats inside must be infiltrators. So he calls his boss to raise the alarm. If he believes the PCs are actual diplomats come to see his boss, then he has call the senschal or whatever.

Just like the real world, above my pay grade should almost always equal: Let my boss deal with it.

Guards, at least those that aren't incompetent, do not just let people in. Even in the Nevada Gaming Commission example. Forged badge and ID, good like of bull, successful Bluff check. Final Result:

"Good day Agent Ocean. Please have a seat while I contact the Casino Manager." Or whoever Ocean says he's there to see.

This isn't negating anything. The PC succeeded, the guard believes their story. Just because the player's expectations were ridiculous does not mean his character failed.

The trick to getting past the guard isn't just to lie to them, it's to have supporting documentation, leverage points, etc and to pick a lie that will actually get you past him, not leave him confused or think there is something hinky. All of the examples being given have one thing in common. They are unusual events. Unusual events make guards cautious and prone to asking for their superior to make the decision. 

Turnip delivery, for instance. Preferably using the normal guy's cart and at the normal time and place.

"Who are you? Where's Bob?"
"I'm his cousin. He's sick, some sort of fever. His wife asked me to make his delivery so as not to disappoint his lordship."
"Ok, the kitchen's that way."


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 29, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I disagree, obviously.  I think it does come down to trust.
> 
> Do you trust your players?  I honestly have no idea.  I don't know you or your players.  But, your arguments here have stated that you will not allow the player's views to change your ruling.  If you find X implausible, the player's views on the matter will not change your position.
> 
> To me, that shows a lack of trust in the judgement of your players.  So, I'll ask again, how does over ruling the judgement of your players show trust in their judgement?




Very well. Simply, you're wrong. I have never stated, nor do my statements imply, that if I find something implausible, I will not change my mind on it with a sufficiently good argument.

I do get the final say. And I won't change my mind on that, as that part of the agreed upon and preferred social contract for the group. The fact that you dislike the latter does not mean I disregard judgment of my players.

I've stated that I'm fallible as a GM. I did touch on this once before with you. If you're looking to argue, rather than discuss, than this will be my last post on the matter. If you want to discuss merits of different methods, or want to ask me questions in a civil or non-confrontational manner, I'll be happy to continue that discussion. I have absolutely no interest in your assumptions, insults, or judgment against me or my group's play style, however, and I won't participate in an argument over it.

I don't think you play incorrectly, Hussar. The fact that you think your method is objectively better for every group and makes for a "better game" grates on me, as it's judgmental of people's preferences, and obviously wrong when the measuring stick of the game is Fun, as Fun is always subjective.

But, I don't think you or your group should change how you play unless you want to. Because, as always, play what you like 



Hussar said:


> Janx got it right off, but, I cannot xp you for this.  Basically my point is the players are trying something that is plausible in their view (since they probably wouldn't try otherwise) and the DM is ruling that no, it isn't plausible based solely on the DM's judgement.




_And his knowledge that they don't have_. As a GM, I know that the diplomat arrived 20 minutes earlier. Or I know that the other diplomat is late. Or I know that the trip got cancelled, and word hasn't reached the castle yet. Or I know that the trip got cancelled, and word has reached the castle already.

Players make decisions based on views _without factoring in all of the knowledge in a setting_. The fact that the GM _does_ factor in those things seems basic to me, and the gap we're having in this conversation is still baffling.



> If I say something is X, and you say it's Y and I refuse to be swayed by your views, aren't I, in effect, showing that I do not trust your judgement?




No. It means I don't agree with you. I can still trust your judgment. I may think you're wrong on this matter, but it does not mean that, as a whole, I do not trust your judgment.



> Maybe it's the trust word that's causing problems here.  I dunno.  To me, if the DM has decided that X will not work, regardless of the views of the players, that shows a lack of trust in the players.




That is indeed horrible wording, in my honest opinion. 



			
				Trust said:
			
		

> trust  (trst)
> n.
> 1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
> 2. Custody; care.
> ...




Choose your definition. If you think that because I disagree with a player, that I no longer feel any of the above towards them, then, as I said, we cannot have a civil discussion about this.

Play what you like.



Krensky said:


> Because that's how guards act when presented with weird things or stuff above their pay grade. [SNIP]




I totally agree with this post. Maybe it's because I have a different view of your standard NPC from most people, but I think NPCs in my setting are more competent than most settings (based on a few threads I've participated in, I think that's true). My average hit die is around 4, and people are very competent in their field. This might color it differently from most people's "level 1 commoner for 90% of people" that I also don't adhere to in the slightest.

Anyways, I have _no_ idea if you agree with what I said or not, but I completely agree with your post. I couldn't XP you, or I would.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Krensky (Jun 29, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I totally agree with this post. Maybe it's because I have a different view of your standard NPC from most people, but I think NPCs in my setting are more competent than most settings (based on a few threads I've participated in, I think that's true). My average hit die is around 4, and people are very competent in their field. This might color it differently from most people's "level 1 commoner for 90% of people" that I also don't adhere to in the slightest.
> 
> Anyways, I have _no_ idea if you agree with what I said or not, but I completely agree with your post. I couldn't XP you, or I would.




Well, not exactly. Said guard, without context or anything, would likely be a Standard NPC Man-at-Arms out of the Rouge's Gallery. At 36 XP, at group of them equal to the party's size is a minor threat. He doesn't have much in the way of skills or abilities to resist social skills out of the book. I'd likely modify the NPC to grant that to maintain a challenge if there was a very strong social oriented PC in the party, but that's more a gamist consideration.

NPCs don't have levels per-say, their numbers scale to the level of the party with some modifiers to let the GM make certain adventures and NPCs tougher then normal.

My NPCs though are actual characters who respond to the PCs as though they and the PCs are real people. Infiltrating a secure area is tricky. It takes more then a half-assed plan and glib tongue. Well, sometimes that works, but it's like rushing past a security guard while flashing your wallet and saying you're a policeman. It may get you past the guard while he tries to react, but you have seconds, maybe a minute at best to do anything once you're in.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 29, 2011)

Krensky said:


> My NPCs though are actual characters who respond to the PCs as though they and the PCs are real people. Infiltrating a secure area is tricky. It takes more then a half-assed plan and glib tongue. Well, sometimes that works, but it's like rushing past a security guard while flashing your wallet and saying you're a policeman. It may get you past the guard while he tries to react, but you have seconds, maybe a minute at best to do anything once you're in.




This is similar to how I run things, too. I'm sure we have differences, of course, but it's approaching it from sort of the same angle.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 30, 2011)

Krensky said:


> If the guard believes that the PCs are the real diplomats, then the real diplomats inside must be infiltrators. So he calls his boss to raise the alarm. If he believes the PCs are actual diplomats come to see his boss, then he has call the senschal or whatever.
> 
> Just like the real world, above my pay grade should almost always equal: Let my boss deal with it.



My response to this is still that, in a typical D&D game, the players should be having their PCs persuade the guard that _they_ are the bosses in the salient sense.

(Depending on level and ability, I guess - but for name level/paragon PCs, I would expect this to be pretty easy. Like Gandalf in Edoras and Minas Tirith.)


----------



## Krensky (Jun 30, 2011)

pemerton said:


> My response to this is still that, in a typical D&D game, the players should be having their PCs persuade the guard that _they_ are the bosses in the salient sense.
> 
> (Depending on level and ability, I guess - but for name level/paragon PCs, I would expect this to be pretty easy. Like Gandalf in Edoras and Minas Tirith.)




First, that's not infiltration.

Second, Gandalf's not a PC. He's an ersatz angel stuck in the party as a plot device and GM mouthpiece.

Third, not all games use artificial tier concepts like name level or paragon or whatever. Not all d20 fantasy games do. Heck, not all versions of D&D do. In my preferred ruleset that NPC guard's bonus to his roll to see through the lie or have his Disposition changed scales with the PC's level. Leveling's more about breadth and depth of power then about greater and greater numerical advantage between them and the NPCs.

Lastly, if the PCs wanted to make the guard do X by being impressive and cool or Intimidating and scary, well, they should have said that rather then coming up with a lie.

Unless of course you meant that they should be trying to convince the guard they're officers, in which case they'll need uniforms and (depending on setting) papers, and without some research and prep, there's a chance the guard knows the officer they're impersonating, or where he really is.

Heck, if it's a really important infiltration of the castle or whatever, I can adapt the Infiltration Dramatic Conflict from an earlier edition of the game.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 1, 2011)

S'mon said:


> One last time to Hussar.
> 
> "Maybe it's the trust word that's causing problems here. I dunno. To me, if the DM has decided that X will not work, regardless of the views of the players, that *shows a lack of trust in* the players.2
> 
> ...




But, isn't it funny how "plausible" only resides in the hands of the DM?  If both sides trusted each other, shouldn't the results fall to either side, at least some of the time?

If you rule against the players every single time, based solely on your views of what is plausible, how does that show trust in your player's judgement.

And, if the DM is the "neutral" arbiter, how come every single "plausible" result goes against the PC's?  Shouldn't a "neutral" arbiter rule for and against the PC's?



			
				Krensky said:
			
		

> Because that's how guards act when presented with weird things or stuff above their pay grade.




No, this is how guards _in your view_ act when presented with weird stuff.  Again, if every single ruling goes against the PC's, how is that being neutral or fair?

----- added edit-----

Thinking about this a bit more, isn't it interesting that DM after DM here has stepped up and told how they would take the PC's success and block it.  Oh, sure, it's dressed up in all sorts of in-game reasons, but, again, if the DM truly was neutral, how come those reasons only ever flow in one direction?



			
				Krensky said:
			
		

> Heck, if it's a really important infiltration of the castle or whatever, I can adapt the Infiltration Dramatic Conflict from an earlier edition of the game.




Here's a question for you then Krensky.  If you do adapt that Conflict and use it, will the PC's be able to enter the castle if they succeed?

Because that, for me, has always been the issue here.  The PC's succeeded.  They made their rolls and they won.  The DM is then manipulating the situation so that even if they do succeed, they still fail - either the diplomat has arrived early and they have no chance of success or they arrive early, in which case the King comes to meet them and they fail.  Either way, they fail.

So, Krensky, which is it?  If you engage the mechanics and the PC's succeed, do they get to enter the castle?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 1, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, isn't it funny how "plausible" only resides in the hands of the DM?  If both sides trusted each other, shouldn't the results fall to either side, at least some of the time?
> 
> If you rule against the players every single time, based solely on your views of what is plausible, how does that show trust in your player's judgement.
> 
> ...




Where are you getting this, out of curiosity? Who in this thread has said that they rule against the players sense of plausibility every time it comes up? That players are never able to do anything they consider plausible?

This is either a huge miscommunication, or you are grossly misconstruing the play styles that have been presented to you, because I do not think that anyone in this thread has implied that they rule against the players sense of plausibility every single time, much less endorsed it as a preferred play style.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 1, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Where are you getting this, out of curiosity? Who in this thread has said that they rule against the players sense of plausibility every time it comes up? That players are never able to do anything they consider plausible?
> 
> This is either a huge miscommunication, or you are grossly misconstruing the play styles that have been presented to you, because I do not think that anyone in this thread has implied that they rule against the players sense of plausibility every single time, much less endorsed it as a preferred play style.




I was wondering this myself. In my game it has come up once and that's is it. Everything else has been purely hypothetical.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 1, 2011)

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], if you want to check out some recaps of play where this sort of authority distribution occurred, have a look at my http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...-4th-edition-hack-fiction-first-playtest.html thread.

While some situations happened about a year ago I have a decent memory and can talk about them.

The closest our last game got to a social conflict was when the city watch - a guild known as the Silver Hand - approached the PCs after an open conflict in the streets.  The PCs got into the fight after thieves attempted to pick-pocket them.  The response of the Silver Hand was that the thieves had the legal right to attempt pick-pocketing, as long as they were part of the Thieves Guild, but that the PCs had the legal right to self-defence.  They knew magic had been thrown about, and told the PCs that the wizard guilds would hear about that - since only guild wizards can cast spells.

Anyway, the only roll made was a Reaction Roll, which determined that the Silver Hand was "Uncertain, cautious, and wary."  (The most common result barring high Cha modifiers.)

I guess that's an instance of what's plausible - in the setting, determined by the DM, but not plausible to the players! - working for the PCs instead of against them.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 1, 2011)

Hussar said:


> if the DM is the "neutral" arbiter, how come every single "plausible" result goes against the PC's?  Shouldn't a "neutral" arbiter rule for and against the PC's?



I think the answer to this is yes.

In the sort of playstyle LostSoul is talking about, I think the big issue is communication - that is, overcoming the information asymmetry that Janx referred to upthread. It's not enough that the GM know what is plausible, but a serious effort has to be made to communicate that to the players.

One way that I *think* LostSoul does this is to very expressly permit metagaming, so that information about the setting and its parameters is steadily built up among the player body out of the ongoing trials and errors of a variety of PCs. I think that at least some classic "Gygaxian" play worked like this - ie the second time you went into the Tomb of Horrors you didn't make the same mistakes as the first time, even though there's no way ingame that your new PC could have that information!



Hussar said:


> isn't it interesting that DM after DM here has stepped up and told how they would take the PC's success and block it.



I'm a DM, and I've explained how I think the PCs should respond to, and hence overcome, the GM's "real diplomat" complication!

My personal feeling is not so much that the discussion shows an express anti-player bias, but that it shows a pro-gritty, anti-gonzo bias, which in the end tends to work against the PCs because they have the most to gain from gonzo (being the protagonists!) whereas gritty costs the GM nothing (s/he always has more NPCs, copper pieces and gruel where those other ones came from).

In a gritty game, bribing guards is hard. In a gonzo game, it's all about convincing them the world will come to an end - or at least the king - unless they let the PCs through RIGHT NOW! Personally, I prefer gonzo - it's why I play fantasy RPGs rather than something else. (And for clarity - "gonzo" here doesn't have to mean "wacky" or "light-hearted" - there can be gonzo melodrama and pathos - see LotR, the X-Men, John Boorman's Excalibur, etc.)


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 1, 2011)

pemerton said:


> My personal feeling is not so much that the discussion shows an express anti-player bias, but that it shows a pro-gritty, anti-gonzo bias




Sorry for the [snip], but my experience point was supposed to be agreeing with this as my personal preference (and some in my group, though not all).



Hussar said:


> ----- added edit-----
> 
> Thinking about this a bit more, isn't it interesting that DM after DM here has stepped up and told how they would take the PC's success and block it.  Oh, sure, it's dressed up in all sorts of in-game reasons, but, again, if the DM truly was neutral, how come those reasons only ever flow in one direction?




They don't. Why you assume they do is beyond me. Is it because that's all that's been discussed in a topic that stemmed from the original post? Let's look at it:



			
				NewJeffCT said:
			
		

> Sorry but, IMHO, the loyal guard who has strict orders not to let anybody into the castle (under penalty of death) isn't going to suddenly forget his job because a PC rolls a good Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate check and defeats his Will defense or he fails his Will save or whatnot. I mean, if the king finds out, the guard may end up being beheaded and his family also executed. I would think that would put any sort of bluff/intimidate out of reach without magical persuasion.




This entire topic has stemmed from an example of how someone might fail. If you want examples of how things might _benefit_ the players in the game, we can go into that.

Just yesterday, we had another session (with me running the game). The players faced off against a dozen bandits, and though it was difficult, they killed 8, captured 1, and three got away. One of the bandits (Lini) who got away had stolen 100 silver from the players (the equivalent of 100 gold in my game), as well as his primary weapon (a rapier).

After turning in the bandit's equipment and collecting a bounty, they started looking for more work. They decided to look into a slave ring in a neighboring nation. Along the way, they stopped through the players' hometown, and the player who lost the rapier stopped by a moneylender to pay off his debt (which he had taken as a flaw at character creation).

After paying off his debt, the player who had the 100 silver stolen from him asked if the moneylender knew anything about the slave ring, as the player was pretty sure that the NPC was involved in illegal activity. It took 7 gold (70 silver), but he mentioned the name of a human that was hiding underground in the neighboring nation: a man named Lini. He gave his location, and also the location of the slave ring (same city).

So, the players headed to the location, tricked Lini into meeting them (paid a child to bring him a note saying to meet them, signed as "Telet" [another bandit they had encountered from the same group]), and effectively captured him. He gave up the 100 silver, told them where the rapier was (the slavers had taken it from him), and is now basically being strong-armed into working with the party, or they'll turn him over to the government.

Did I need to give his name with the moneylender? Nope, not at all. Why did I? Because the neighboring nation is made up of troglodytes and another lizard race, and the moneylender assumed they wanted a human contact (and Lini had stopped by the town on his way to the neighboring nation). And because the moneylender knew that Lini had ties to the slave ring (as the players also knew).

Did the players question the plausibility of this at all? This was extremely convenient for them, as he was someone they wanted to bring to justice, and a bandit that had stolen from two of them personally. The answer is no, of course the players did not question the plausibility of the situation. It all makes sense to them.

But, they didn't know that asking the moneylender would provide this result to them. They didn't say, "you know, it'd make sense that all of this would work together, maybe he knows where Lini is."

This is basically the complete inverse of "the diplomat arrived 20 minutes ago" that you seem so against. The thing is, the players might be upset about that example (well, my group wouldn't be), because they don't know what's going on, _and it's negative_. 

The players don't know the reason why the moneylender thought to offer Lini (because they're all human, and Lini is a human in troglodyte lands), or how he knew him (criminal background, and have worked together to shake down some people that owe the moneylender payments). Yet my players don't go "wow, this is way too convenient to be plausible." Just like they don't say "this is way too inconvenient to be plausible" with the diplomat arriving early.

They know it goes both ways. Why you specifically think it doesn't -and insist that we're saying that even after we've claimed that's not how it is- is still somewhat baffling to me.

But, as always, play what you like


----------



## S'mon (Jul 1, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, isn't it funny how "plausible" only resides in the hands of the DM?  If both sides trusted each other, shouldn't the results fall to either side, at least some of the time?
> 
> If you rule against the players every single time, based solely on your views of what is plausible, how does that show trust in your player's judgement.
> 
> And, if the DM is the "neutral" arbiter, how come every single "plausible" result goes against the PC's?  Shouldn't a "neutral" arbiter rule for and against the PC's?




Eh?  Of course a good DM does rule in favour of the PCs some of the time.  Most of the time, if the players are any good - most of the time the good players & good DM will agree on what is plausible.  

If I'm DMing, and the players try to Bluff their way into the castle, and they have a good spiel, reasonable Bluff skill, and reasonable luck, or good luck, reasonable spiel & reasonable Bluff skill, or good Bluff skill, reasonable spiel and reasonable luck, they'll normally succeed.  (They probably won't be left unattended in the king's personal chambers, though).

I can't recall a situation where players ever objected to my DMing adjudication on social interaction skills; as a player I can't recall ever objecting to a DM's adjudication either.  In all cases decision-making authority remained vested in the DM, and everyone was happy.  

As a player, I want the DM to be making the decision on what is plausible.  I don't want the DM vesting decision-making authority in me.  That would be abnegating his responsibility to run the world and provide a challenging game.  If I don't trust the DM I would drop the game and look for a different DM, rather than taking over the decision-making authority from the DM - because the latter would destroy the game-as-game.

Edit: The one time I can recall a plausibility conflict, it was the exact opposite of your assumption.  I had a paranoid player who assumed nothing was possible, that the NPCs were all super-competent and personally out to get him.  He tended to lock down the game and prevent player action. Often his approach resulted in failure when bold action would likely have succeeded.


----------



## GSHamster (Jul 1, 2011)

I'm in agreement with Hussar on this. If the PCs make an amazing Diplomacy check, then maybe the guard isn't loyal after all. Maybe he's corrupt and that's why the check succeeds.

To be honest, save in modern countries with a Protestant tradition, corruption is more common than loyalty. Corruption is endemic in history and the third world. The Praetorian Guard even sold the Roman Empire to the highest bidder once.

The DM expecting palace guards to be loyal and above bribery is an example of the DM imposing her own _unreasonable_ expectation on the world, solely to prevent the players from carrying out a specific strategy. The player's point of view, that the guard can be bribed, is _more_ plausible and realistic than the DM's point of view, not less.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 1, 2011)

GSHamster said:


> I'm in agreement with Hussar on this. If the PCs make an amazing Diplomacy check, then maybe the guard isn't loyal after all. Maybe he's corrupt and that's why the check succeeds.




This is much too narrative for me to want to play a fantasy setting in it. It's not wrong, at all, but it's not my style, and probably not the preferred play style of other people on these boards (or even in this thread).

I'd prefer a different approach to the game. One that isn't dictated by "what would be cool for the story now?" While those games are fine (and I enjoy them with other genres), it's just not for me in a fantasy setting. It's never felt right. I much prefer a reactive, referee-like style for a GM. I prefer the PCs act within an evolving setting, though, too.

This is a play style issue. Your way isn't wrong. But, it's not leading to a "better game" for everyone, like Hussar thinks his way would provide.



> To be honest, save in modern countries with a Protestant tradition, corruption is more common than loyalty. Corruption is endemic in history and the third world. The Praetorian Guard even sold the Roman Empire to the highest bidder once.




Yeah, corruption is present. There's no reason not to expect it. But, I think things change when the ruler can kill a dozen or more men at once or can injure or obliterate a cavalry line with a spell. And has people loyal to him who can do so.

But, I do agree corruption should be present, taken into account, and able to be used by the players if they go about it intelligently.



> The DM expecting palace guards to be loyal and above bribery is an example of the DM imposing her own _unreasonable_ expectation on the world, solely to prevent the players from carrying out a specific strategy. The player's point of view, that the guard can be bribed, is _more_ plausible and realistic than the DM's point of view, not less.




For some guards this will be the case. Not for others. Especially not so if there's a particularly powerful and/or brutal ruler.

This is just a play style preference. It's like anything, really. In 3.X, I don't like TBo9S because I'd rather bring magic down than scale melee up. Does that mean I think TBo9S is bad? Not at all. If you like it, use it. But it's not right for me.

The same basically goes with what we're talking about. If your players have a lot of say over the setting, that's awesome. I'm honestly really glad you can enjoy yourselves playing in a way I couldn't, really. I think it shows just how dynamic the hobby is. But, it's not for everyone. Letting other people play with their preferred style, by the terms of their social contract, without Hussar telling them how to play a "better game" (because they aren't playing by his preferences) is probably much more productive.

On a side note, the idea that guards being loyal is unreasonable to you amuses me slightly. Especially since loyal guards in a game are there "solely to prevent the players from carrying out a specific strategy." I have a feeling we play very different games 

As always, though, play what you like


----------



## S'mon (Jul 1, 2011)

GSHamster said:


> I'm in agreement with Hussar on this. If the PCs make an amazing Diplomacy check, then maybe the guard isn't loyal after all. Maybe he's corrupt and that's why the check succeeds.
> 
> To be honest, save in modern countries with a Protestant tradition, corruption is more common than loyalty. Corruption is endemic in history and the third world. The Praetorian Guard even sold the Roman Empire to the highest bidder once.




Well, yeah, but - the Roman Emperors employed those proto-Protestant German bodyguards, later the Eastern Roman/Byzantine emperors employed the similar Norse Varangians, precisely to get around this corruptibility problem.  The Emperors' German bodyguards reputedly could not be bribed to betray him, no matter what.

I'm not going to retcon the guard's honesty in order to fit with a high roll.  OTOH IMCs a good spiel + very high Bluff* check probably could get you past the honest, fanatically loyal guard.  But it wouldn't be by bribing him, it would be by understanding his psychology and exploiting it.  In his case, by convincing him that the loyal thing to do was to let the PCs in.  

*Bluff would be a lot easier to use successfully than Diplomacy, if the PCs are being honest.  Given that the game splits these skills, which arguably is not very realistic, Diplomacy would make the guard like you, but can't be used for direct deception.  Ideally the PC would be able to use both skills, the combination of the two would be much more likely to succeed.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 1, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Yeah, corruption is present. There's no reason not to expect it. But, I think things change when the ruler can kill a dozen or more men at once or can injure or obliterate a cavalry line with a spell. And has people loyal to him who can do so.




I don't really think the personal killing power of the ruler is relevant; although "ruler is powerful" vs "ruler is weak" may make a difference to the guard's psychology.  I can see "ruler/ruler's magist may be reading my mind at any moment!" could make a difference, though.


----------



## Janx (Jul 1, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> This entire topic has stemmed from an example of how someone might fail. If you want examples of how things might _benefit_ the players in the game, we can go into that.





this is a good point.  The example by itself is an incomplete picture.

If this was the ONLY way the party could get in, and the GM decided to block the only dice roll involved (conning the guard), then that is probably crap GMing.

But the reality is, attempting to get in right at lock down, rather than any other time, any other social vector was a lousy strategy.

My point then, the example COULD be bad GMing by negating a valid roll, or it COULD be just bad tactics.  If I didn't know the actual outcome, but the possibility that (after 10PM they go on lockdown, nobody in or out), as a player, I think I'd be trying to get in before lockdown.  Which makes it the player's fault for failure in that example.

To JC's other quote "This is much too narrative for me to want to play a fantasy setting in it. It's not wrong, at all, but it's not my style, and probably not the preferred play style of other people on these boards (or even in this thread)."

I actually see the opposite.  the example had too much narrative, in that the GM knew a lot about what was actually happening (the real diplomat, etc).  

Making it hinge on a die roll means as a GM, I don't KNOW what it will be until the roll happens.  If it fails, I have to come up with a reason, like "it turns out the real diplomat got here 25 minutes ago."  If it succeeds, he didn't, and these are taken to be the real diplomat.  If it barely succeeds (or barely fails), I might add a complication, that in 25 minutes, tthe real diplomat will arrive.

I'm just making up an example, but the idea is that the dice trigger the DM to adapt, rather than work from a straight narrative.

It's possible, this concept is what Hussar is talking about (now that we're all hopefully done using the N word, the R word, the T word and any other words with letters in them).


----------



## Hussar (Jul 1, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Where are you getting this, out of curiosity? Who in this thread has said that they rule against the players sense of plausibility every time it comes up? That players are never able to do anything they consider plausible?
> 
> This is either a huge miscommunication, or you are grossly misconstruing the play styles that have been presented to you, because I do not think that anyone in this thread has implied that they rule against the players sense of plausibility every single time, much less endorsed it as a preferred play style.




Well, how about everyone telling me that the default ruling is always in the hands of the DM?  That the players cannot be neutral advocates?  That it's the "DM's game" and the players should not be put in a position where they get to determine what's plausible?

Did I imagine all that?

Cos, if you're saying that sometimes it goes the way of the DM and sometimes it goes the way of the player, then, well, I have no argument anymore.  That was always my point - that the DM should not always be the sole determiner of what is plausible.

If it's give and take, then good gaming all the way around.  That's what I've been saying from the very beginning.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 1, 2011)

S'mon said:


> /snip
> I'm not going to retcon the guard's honesty in order to fit with a high roll.  OTOH IMCs a good spiel + very high Bluff* check probably could get you past the honest, fanatically loyal guard.  But it wouldn't be by bribing him, it would be by understanding his psychology and exploiting it.  In his case, by convincing him that the loyal thing to do was to let the PCs in.
> 
> *Bluff would be a lot easier to use successfully than Diplomacy, if the PCs are being honest.  Given that the game splits these skills, which arguably is not very realistic, Diplomacy would make the guard like you, but can't be used for direct deception.  Ideally the PC would be able to use both skills, the combination of the two would be much more likely to succeed.




At what point did you decide that the guard was unbluffable?  At what point did you decide that the guard was competent, completely paying attention and lazer beam focused on his job?  

This goes with JC's comment:



			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> I'd prefer a different approach to the game. One that isn't dictated by "what would be cool for the story now?" While those games are fine (and I enjoy them with other genres), it's just not for me in a fantasy setting. It's never felt right. I much prefer a reactive, referee-like style for a GM. I prefer the PCs act within an evolving setting, though, too.




Again, when did you decide that the guard was unbluffable?  When did you decide that the diplomat was going to arrive 20 minutes before the PC's?  Did you have that time fixed beforehand and that's just the timing that occurred in the game?

Because, if it didn't, then you're just as narrative as I am.  

Same with S'mon.  If the guard being unbluffable is only as a result of the players trying to bluff the guard, rather than an intrinsic characteristic of this guard, then your game is every bit as narrative as mine is.  Just from the other side of the coin.

Whether you change the in-game reality to satisfy the DM's views of plausibility or the player's it doesn't really matter - you're still changing the in-game reality to suit someone's tastes.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 1, 2011)

Hussar said:


> At what point did you decide that the guard was unbluffable?  At what point did you decide that the guard was competent, completely paying attention and lazer beam focused on his job?




I didn't. 

Edit: Are you asking me at what point in a hypothetical scenario I would determine the competency & diligence of a castle guard?  Well, if this castle were important to the campaign I'd probably have a brief description of what the typical guards were like to refer to, and a typical stat block, and either this guard would be typical, or I might roll a d6 to see if he was more or less competent, diligent etc than the norm.  This would all be before any Bluff rolls are made.

I know for instance that in the City State of the Invincible Overlord the Knights who guard the Cryptic Citadel are high level and fanatically loyal, whereas the Constables who patrol the streets are famously corrupt and incompetent.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 1, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Cos, if you're saying that sometimes it goes the way of the DM and sometimes it goes the way of the player, then, well, I have no argument anymore.




*The DM is not the enemy of the player*.  This seems to be the heart of your misapprehension.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 1, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Same with S'mon.  If the guard being unbluffable is only as a result of the players trying to bluff the guard, rather than an intrinsic characteristic of this guard, then your game is every bit as narrative as mine is.  Just from the other side of the coin.




I'd almost never create an unbluffable guard, certainly not a mortal guard.  That doesn't sound like much fun.

But you need to use a reasonable bluff.  As noted way upthread, a 'routine' bluff - "Turnip delivery!" is usually much better than an 'exceptional' bluff - "We're the real ambassadors, those other guys who just arrived are dopplegangers!".  Either might succeed given a sufficiently high check, but the former is likely to be more effective in getting you inside with minimal supervision.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 1, 2011)

Hussar said:


> At what point did you decide that the guard was unbluffable?  At what point did you decide that the guard was competent, completely paying attention and lazer beam focused on his job?
> 
> This goes with JC's comment:
> 
> ...




If this was happening in my game I would know if the guards were unbluffable before it ever came to it. It would be in my notes and write up for the castle.

I still don't get this changing in game reality thing you are talking about. If I am the DM and I make the world and I know that the guards are followers of a certain blood cult and fiercely loyal to the king that is the reality of the world.

Which the players could find out if they investigated. Which should tell them that they need a good plan to get in.

There are other ways to get in then just bluffing the guard that you should be let in because you are expected without proof to back it up. Now if you have disguised yourselves, have forged papers then you have a better chance.  

Killing, bribing, or simply finding away to take out the usual turnip deliveryman would probably be better.

Finding the secret entrance in from the sewers might work as well.

The thing is this not every plan a party comes up with works. Now if there is no way in at all and the players need to get in then yeah that is crappy DMing.


----------



## Krensky (Jul 1, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, isn't it funny how "plausible" only resides in the hands of the DM?  If both sides trusted each other, shouldn't the results fall to either side, at least some of the time?




You're the only one saying they don't.



Hussar said:


> If you rule against the players every single time, based solely on your views of what is plausible, how does that show trust in your player's judgement.




Again, you assume I or anyone else in the discussion always rules against the players. Obviously you had a lot of traumatic experiences with bad GMs, but you shouldn't use that to assume all GMs are jerks if they don't let the Players run the game.



Hussar said:


> And, if the DM is the "neutral" arbiter, how come every single "plausible" result goes against the PC's?  Shouldn't a "neutral" arbiter rule for and against the PC's?




Again, no one else is saying the DM should always rule against players. Heck, I typically rule for the players.




Hussar said:


> No, this is how guards _in your view_ act when presented with weird stuff.  Again, if every single ruling goes against the PC's, how is that being neutral or fair?




No. It's how guards, especially military ones, act in my experience. I've don a lot of work in security facilities. Corporate, government, military, etc. While there is a lot of truth to the old chestnut about a clipboard and confidence, getting through checkpoints or past guards is harder.

Also, frankly, it's how almost everyone acts. When something weird comes up at work that's outside of the norm and you know if you decide wrong you're fired, do you just make a guess, or do you go ask your boss?



Hussar said:


> Thinking about this a bit more, isn't it interesting that DM after DM here has stepped up and told how they would take the PC's success and block it.  Oh, sure, it's dressed up in all sorts of in-game reasons, but, again, if the DM truly was neutral, how come those reasons only ever flow in one direction?




What's interesting is that you keep reading that when that's not what we're writing.



Hussar said:


> Here's a question for you then Krensky.  If you do adapt that Conflict and use it, will the PC's be able to enter the castle if they succeed?




Yes.



Hussar said:


> Because that, for me, has always been the issue here.  The PC's succeeded.  They made their rolls and they won.  The DM is then manipulating the situation so that even if they do succeed, they still fail - either the diplomat has arrived early and they have no chance of success or they arrive early, in which case the King comes to meet them and they fail.  Either way, they fail.




Yes, they made their Bluff check. The guard believes their story. What happens then depends on the guard, the lie, and the circumstances.



Hussar said:


> So, Krensky, which is it?  If you engage the mechanics and the PC's succeed, do they get to enter the castle?




Yes, I honstly don't know why you think I'm saying anything else. The problem, which I've repeatedly stated and you keep ignoring is that a Bluff check will likely not be enough for several of the examples.

Making the Bluff check means you have lied convincingly enough for the target to believe you. What happens then depends. What are the guards orders? What kind of day is he having? What exactly was the lie? Are the PCs impersonating someone the guard knows? Whether or not I have answers to these written down before hand depends on the context of the encounter. I may know this because I created the world. I may know it because the module tells me. I may not know it and pick something that's reasonable. I may not know it and make a roll on the Mythic Fate Chart.

To use one of the earlier examples about the spy, if the Talker PC makes his Bluff check, the guard believes that the PC is one of the Baron's spies. Now, this is a bit weird since he's never seen or spoken with one and it's strange for them to try and walk in the gate, so he's going to send a runner to the Baron's spymaster, because he may get in trouble for delaying the report, but he and his family will get killed if he's wrong.

Now, if the PCs want to stop that reaction and browbeat the guard into letting them in quietly because they're running late or the that the guard will get in trouble for making them wait, well, that's an Intimidate (Coerce) or a Impress (Persuade) check depending on what the do and say.

I've been completely consistent on this the whole time.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 1, 2011)

Janx said:


> this is a good point.  The example by itself is an incomplete picture.
> 
> If this was the ONLY way the party could get in, and the GM decided to block the only dice roll involved (conning the guard), then that is probably crap GMing.
> 
> But the reality is, attempting to get in right at lock down, rather than any other time, any other social vector was a lousy strategy.




That's basically the point. Nobody in this thread (I think) is a proponent of "there's ONLY one way in, and I as a GM will stop it by fiat if I want to."



> My point then, the example COULD be bad GMing by negating a valid roll, or it COULD be just bad tactics.  If I didn't know the actual outcome, but the possibility that (after 10PM they go on lockdown, nobody in or out), as a player, I think I'd be trying to get in before lockdown.  Which makes it the player's fault for failure in that example.




That's basically my point of view, I think.



> To JC's other quote "This is much too narrative for me to want to play a fantasy setting in it. It's not wrong, at all, but it's not my style, and probably not the preferred play style of other people on these boards (or even in this thread)."
> 
> I actually see the opposite.  the example had too much narrative, in that the GM knew a lot about what was actually happening (the real diplomat, etc).
> 
> Making it hinge on a die roll means as a GM, I don't KNOW what it will be until the roll happens.  If it fails, I have to come up with a reason, like "it turns out the real diplomat got here 25 minutes ago."  If it succeeds, he didn't, and these are taken to be the real diplomat.  If it barely succeeds (or barely fails), I might add a complication, that in 25 minutes, tthe real diplomat will arrive.




Well, not to me at all. If you're deciding what past events happened based on a die roll in the present, it's too narrative for me in a fantasy game. Again, it's not wrong to play that way, but it's not something I enjoy doing. If any roll in the game session really dictates something like "well, it turns out that this guard was the perfect person to bluff, based on the roll!" then it's too narrative for me, personally.

So, again, it comes down to having a die roll determine past events based on current future plans to succeed. If the players can roll at something, and have the dice determine that they were successful because of _X_ retcon, then it bugs me when I know about it. The nice thing is, as a player, it'd be hard for me to spot. I just cannot GM that way and make an engaging game at the same time for my group, and I strongly dislike that style.



Hussar said:


> Well, how about everyone telling me that the default ruling is always in the hands of the DM?  That the players cannot be neutral advocates?  That it's the "DM's game" and the players should not be put in a position where they get to determine what's plausible?




How did you make the jump from these statements to the following statements: 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If both sides trusted each other, shouldn't the results fall to either side, at least some of the time?... If you rule against the players every single time... how come every single "plausible" result goes against the PC's?... if every single ruling goes against the PC's...




How did you get from "the GM has the final call on plausibility in our games" to "and he always rules against the players?" That leap is where I'm confused.



> Did I imagine all that?




Not the statements you've relayed, no. 



> Cos, if you're saying that sometimes it goes the way of the DM and sometimes it goes the way of the player, then, well, I have no argument anymore.




Then we're all good 

People in this thread have actively stated that they _don't_ always rule against the player.



> That was always my point - that the DM should not always be the sole determiner of what is plausible.




Well, I think we're going to disagree again, but let's find out.

The GM and the players both have every right to determine what is plausible. I think we're okay so far.

(In my group) The GM gets to say what's plausible in the case of a dispute. I doubt you're okay with that.

However, it does not mean that the player's always lose. They can present their case, and the GM will make the judgment based on his views and theirs.



> If it's give and take, then good gaming all the way around.  That's what I've been saying from the very beginning.




It is give and take, to me. But it's just not as "Hussar's preferred method" as Hussar's table is.

At any rate, play what you like 



Hussar said:


> This goes with JC's comment:
> 
> Again, when did you decide that the guard was unbluffable?  When did you decide that the diplomat was going to arrive 20 minutes before the PC's?  Did you have that time fixed beforehand and that's just the timing that occurred in the game?




I already talked about all of this:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Janx said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




All of this information is stuff that is set in the setting before the players interact with it.

And, for the record, I've _never, ever stated the guard is unbluffable_. I've stated he is bluffable. I've just stated that bluffing him may not let you in.

So, really, I've answered these before. I hope this clears it up for you.



> Because, if it didn't, then you're just as narrative as I am.




Looks like that's not the case 



> Same with S'mon.  If the guard being unbluffable is only as a result of the players trying to bluff the guard, rather than an intrinsic characteristic of this guard, then your game is every bit as narrative as mine is.  Just from the other side of the coin.




And it looks like it's not the case.



> Whether you change the in-game reality to satisfy the DM's views of plausibility or the player's it doesn't really matter - you're still changing the in-game reality to suit someone's tastes.




If you're saying that me making the world is inherently narrative in style unless it fits nobody's tastes, then fine, I'm narrative in style.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Jul 3, 2011)

Let's try this one last time.

In the Diplomat Impersonation example, why did the PC's fail?

Did they fail because they rolled poorly? - no.
Did they fail because their idea was completely implausible? - no.
Did they fail because they role played poorly?  - no.

They failed because the DM predefined the scenario to the point where they had zero chance of success.  If they arrived early, the king would be called and they would be caught.  If they arrived late, the guard would automatically recognize the deception and they would be caught.

In other words, the PC's failed because they had no chance of success

***Warning Warning Warning - Pure Opinion Ahead - Do Not Take As Anything Other Than One Person's Opinion***

In my mind, this becomes illusion of choice.  No matter what the PC's do, the end result is the same.  It's all very easy to airmchair quarterback and say, "well, you should have done _this_" but, in the middle of the game, ideas usually take on a life of their own.  The players chose this line of approach because they believed it would work.

But, they were wrong.  Not because of anything they did, but because the DM had engineered the situation so that they could not succeed.

I really dislike this approach to DMing.  Obviously.  I find it intrusive and very heavy handed.  It limits the number of results that can come from the scenario.  By making the situation impossible, there are any number of results that cannot occur - there is no chance of the "sneaking through the castle" scenario or "how long can we keep this bluff up" scenario.  Both of which are exciting  and interesting.  No, the only result is "Well, our plan failed, let's react to whatever the DM throws at us next."

Again, IMO, the only truly neutral arbiter here is the dice.  The dice said the PC's succeeded.  Manipulating the results so that success actually means failure is very poor DMing.  If they succeeded, LET THEM SUCCEED.  Don't Monkey's Paw their successes.  It leads to frustration at the table, loss of immersion and frequently railroading or, at the very least, something that's a very close cousin of railroading - illusion of choice.

I hope that makes my position clear.

***End Opinion - Actual facts may be forthcoming later  ***


----------



## Krensky (Jul 3, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Let's try this one last time.




I doubt it will matter since you appear to keep ignoring people's replies, but sure.



Hussar said:


> In the Diplomat Impersonation example, why did the PC's fail?




THEY DIDN'T FAIL!

The guard believed them. The guard reacted based on that. That he didn't react the way the PCs wanted is the nature of the game.



Hussar said:


> Did they fail because they rolled poorly? - no.
> Did they fail because their idea was completely implausible? - no.
> Did they fail because they role played poorly?  - no.




Did they fail at all? - no.
Did something unexpected happen? - yes.
Did the PCs potentially screw up by not preparing properly and choosing the wrong lie or tactic? - yes.
Will the players have fun dancing and trying to fix the situation? - They do at my table. Then again, they actually want a GM. Under your argument, the GM is superflous because the players get to define what a success or failure is.



Hussar said:


> They failed because the DM predefined the scenario to the point where they had zero chance of success.  If they arrived early, the king would be called and they would be caught.  If they arrived late, the guard would automatically recognize the deception and they would be caught.




Who said they would be caught? They made their Bluff check. The guard believes their lie. They do not get to dictate how the guard reacts. I don't tell them what their characters do, they don't get to tell me what my NPCs do. Heck, they don't even get full control over their NPCs.



Hussar said:


> In other words, the PC's failed because they had no chance of success




Again, they didn't fail. The guard believed them. That the guard did not react the way they wanted to his belief is not a failure.



Hussar said:


> ***Warning Warning Warning - Pure Opinion Ahead - Do Not Take As Anything Other Than One Person's Opinion***
> 
> In my mind, this becomes illusion of choice.  No matter what the PC's do, the end result is the same.  It's all very easy to airmchair quarterback and say, "well, you should have done _this_" but, in the middle of the game, ideas usually take on a life of their own.  The players chose this line of approach because they believed it would work.




Then that's their failing. If they believe that, at first level, they can walk into an ancient dragon's lair, call him names, moon him, and then kick his ass, is it the GMs fault when they're slaughtered?



Hussar said:


> But, they were wrong.  Not because of anything they did, but because the DM had engineered the situation so that they could not succeed.




Again, they didn't fail. They made their Bluff check. The guard believed their story.



Hussar said:


> I really dislike this approach to DMing.  Obviously.  I find it intrusive and very heavy handed.  It limits the number of results that can come from the scenario.  By making the situation impossible, there are any number of results that cannot occur - there is no chance of the "sneaking through the castle" scenario or "how long can we keep this bluff up" scenario.  Both of which are exciting  and interesting.  No, the only result is "Well, our plan failed, let's react to whatever the DM throws at us next."




All of those things can and do happen. Honestly, are you actually reading our replies? They succeeded at their Bluff. The guard believes them. What happens then is not under their control.



Hussar said:


> Again, IMO, the only truly neutral arbiter here is the dice.  The dice said the PC's succeeded.  Manipulating the results so that success actually means failure is very poor DMing.  If they succeeded, LET THEM SUCCEED.  Don't Monkey's Paw their successes.  It leads to frustration at the table, loss of immersion and frequently railroading or, at the very least, something that's a very close cousin of railroading - illusion of choice.




You're the only one describing it as a failure. They succeeded. There's no Monkey's Paw. There's manipulating the results. There's no railroading. They tried to lie to the guard. They succeeded. There is no evil bad wrong GM here. The players are not in control of the world. NPCs not reacting how the players want is not a railroad.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 3, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Let's try this one last time.




I'm willing to discuss this at length, if you'd like. I just don't want to argue.



> In the Diplomat Impersonation example, why did the PC's fail?




Let's take a look at it.



> Did they fail because they rolled poorly? - no.




Well, they did make skill checks:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> They do some homework, make some discreet Gather Information checks, roll some Knowledge rolls, consult some sages, etc. They find out that a diplomat is on his way to see the king at the moment. They do not know that the king knows the diplomat personally. With this information, they make their way to the gate, with the Party Face disguised as the diplomat, and the other party members disguised as an escort from the appropriate nation. They forge papers showing they are indeed who they claim to be.




They rolled high enough on their Gather Information to know that a diplomat is coming, and who he is. They didn't roll high enough to know about the personal tie to the king. They are disguised as the diplomat, though, so it's possible that the disguise will hold up on a successful check (though the king get's a bonus to see through it, as usual).

If they rolled higher, then they'd know about the personal connection. As we can see, they rolled high on the Bluff, but not high enough on their investigation checks (Gather Information, Knowledges, talking to sages, etc.).

So, no, they didn't roll high enough here.



> Did they fail because their idea was completely implausible? - no.




From their perspective, no. Completely implausible from my perspective? No, but hard to pull off. If they had rolled better on the investigation checks, they would agree, and change their initial plans accordingly.

I know game knowledge that they don't, and I implement that knowledge into how plausible something is, which is why I'm a proponent of the GM being the final arbiter for my group. I'm not telling you which way is better, and especially not which way makes for an objectively "better game".



> Did they fail because they role played poorly?  - no.




I agree.



> They failed because the DM predefined the scenario to the point where they had zero chance of success.




Unfortunately, that's false, as I've indicated throughout the thread, and thoroughly above.



> If they arrived early, the king would be called and they would be caught.




Had their Disguise check failed, yes (which it likely would have when the chancellor saw them, but he wasn't at the gates, as I mentioned earlier). But it's possible for them to play it off with a good roll, and a bad roll from the king.

Additionally, had they known of the connection, they would have changed their plans. Just because they are acting on partial information doesn't mean that an action just as plausible as an action with complete information. Gather Information, by description, gives better information based on a scaling DC, much like Knowledge checks.


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Check
> An evening’s time, a few gold pieces for buying drinks and making friends, and a DC 10 Gather Information check get you a general idea of a city’s major news items, assuming there are no obvious reasons why the information would be withheld. The higher your check result, the better the information.
> 
> If you want to find out about a specific rumor, or a specific item, or obtain a map, or do something else along those lines, the DC for the check is 15 to 25, or even higher.





			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Check
> Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).



These checks provided them with their information prior to making their plan. They knew the risk of trusting such information before rolling the check, as they know how the skills work.



> If they arrived late, the guard would automatically recognize the deception and they would be caught.




No, as I've pointed out, they can convince the guard they are a diplomat:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> If, however, the Party Face blows the Sense Motive check out of the water, then the guard will think the Party Face is telling the truth, as he knows it. He still won't let the diplomat in, but he might think there is some sort of mix up, and that the nation sent two diplomats instead of one.



The Bluff check is not a "get into the castle" check by the rules, as I've pointed out pages ago. It's simply a check to convince someone whether or not you're telling the truth. They can succeed at that, and convince the guard, but now that he's seen two diplomats, and has orders from the king already, he's going to pass the buck up.



> In other words, the PC's failed because they had no chance of success




I hope I've made clear to you why this isn't the case. I'm really not being inconsistent on this, nor am I breaking the rules.



> ***Warning Warning Warning - Pure Opinion Ahead - Do Not Take As Anything Other Than One Person's Opinion***




Got it 



> In my mind, this becomes illusion of choice.  No matter what the PC's do, the end result is the same.




I'm not telling you not to think that. I am trying to convince you not to, as I think you're misunderstanding the reality of the checks involved.



> It's all very easy to airmchair quarterback and say, "well, you should have done _this_" but, in the middle of the game, ideas usually take on a life of their own.  The players chose this line of approach because they believed it would work.




This part is usually true, in my mind.



> But, they were wrong.  Not because of anything they did, but because the DM had engineered the situation so that they could not succeed.




Again, I'll disagree, for the reasons outlined above.



> I really dislike this approach to DMing.




That's why I don't use it 



> Obviously.  I find it intrusive and very heavy handed.




Me too!



> It limits the number of results that can come from the scenario.  By making the situation impossible, there are any number of results that cannot occur - there is no chance of the "sneaking through the castle" scenario or "how long can we keep this bluff up" scenario.  Both of which are exciting  and interesting.  No, the only result is "Well, our plan failed, let's react to whatever the DM throws at us next."




That is a bummer when someone GMs that way.



> Again, IMO, the only truly neutral arbiter here is the dice.  The dice said the PC's succeeded.




By the rules, he succeeded in the lie. The guard believes him. Not in any sort of narrative control, though. There is no "get into the castle" check in the rules.



> Manipulating the results so that success actually means failure is very poor DMing.




Well, that's not really civil, so let's not go into that.



> If they succeeded, LET THEM SUCCEED.




I described a situation in which they did succeed. The lie they told was believed by the guard. If they succeed on the Disguise check, the king will believe them, too. If they had succeeded on the investigation checks, they would know about the personal connection between the diplomat and the king, too. And when the diplomat had arrived. The dice determine the degree of success, and I use that by the rules of the game.



> Don't Monkey's Paw their successes.  It leads to frustration at the table, loss of immersion and frequently railroading or, at the very least, something that's a very close cousin of railroading - illusion of choice.




If that's your reaction, and your players' reactions, then by all means, run things how you like. That's what I've been advocating all along. I've just been saying that your method is by no means objectively better.



> I hope that makes my position clear.
> 
> ***End Opinion - Actual facts may be forthcoming later  ***




It does. And I'm really, really cool with it. I just don't like that there seems to be such misinterpretation of people who play with my method, and that people in this thread have characterized myself or others as railroading, or attributed actions to us that we have never stated we use:


			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If both sides trusted each other, shouldn't the results fall to either side, at least some of the time?... If you rule against the players every single time... how come every single "plausible" result goes against the PC's?... if every single ruling goes against the PC's...



... or that there's a better way for me to play:


			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I'd argue that if you have good players and a good DM, allowing the players to take actions and then letting the dice determine success or failure, rather than the DM, makes for a better game.
> 
> Honestly JamesonCourage, on this point I do think it makes for a better game, period. Just because I think X is better doesn't mean that I think Y is bad. Y could be good, but, X is still better.




These are things I dislike seeing in the thread, for the reasons I've gone into at length. I hope I've made my position clearer, as well.

As always, though, play what you like


----------



## Janx (Jul 3, 2011)

It might be that the word narrative doesnt' mean the same thing to us.  Half of what JC says he does sou ds narrative to me, rather than gamist.

I also think different implementation of the social skills causes some of this disagreement.

I think JC's bluff is watered down. Not his fault. But because of it, how it gets used affects his view point.

I think the OR in the bluff rule is the player's choice. And that success forces the DM to allow them in, and failure means i explain what caused it to fail. I suspect hussar is in this camp.

If i wanted a more dedicated guard, he'd have some sort of bonus to his sense motive.  Thus a really skilled PC could get the effect.

What complicates the matter further, is in practical terms, good guards call their supervisor. So success or not, there's a logical complication to the request that might not have been obvious to player or dm.

What counters that, is since the dm controls the nature and severity of all reactions,the dm does have influence on plausibility in ways that avariety of responses are viable. Just like inreal life, some people get away with murder.  The dm does NOT have to throw the book at the PC.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 3, 2011)

Janx said:


> It might be that the word narrative doesnt' mean the same thing to us.  Half of what JC says he does sou ds narrative to me, rather than gamist.




Disagreements are so often built on a difference in definition, in my experience.



> I also think different implementation of the social skills causes some of this disagreement.
> 
> I think JC's bluff is watered down. Not his fault. But because of it, how it gets used affects his view point.




That's probably true. My Bluff skill is probably watered down compared to how you (and many, many others) probably implement it. But, I've tried to use it this way based on my interpretation of the rules.



> I think the OR in the bluff rule is the player's choice. And that success forces the DM to allow them in, and failure means i explain what caused it to fail. I suspect hussar is in this camp.




Well, even if the OR part is the player's choice, it wouldn't work that way, as written, as far as I can tell. I won't rehash it again unless you want to talk about that, though, as your game at your table is the right way for you to play, if that's what you and your group likes. It kind of makes RAW (and RAI) moot.



> If i wanted a more dedicated guard, he'd have some sort of bonus to his sense motive.  Thus a really skilled PC could get the effect.
> 
> What complicates the matter further, is in practical terms, good guards call their supervisor. So success or not, there's a logical complication to the request that might not have been obvious to player or dm.




I agree.



> What counters that, is since the dm controls the nature and severity of all reactions,the dm does have influence on plausibility in ways that avariety of responses are viable. Just like inreal life, some people get away with murder.  The dm does NOT have to throw the book at the PC.




And that's when I say that the style is too narrative for me, personally. But, it's not the wrong way to play, by any means.

I really like this post, though. Thanks for contributing to the conversation, Janx. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Jul 3, 2011)

Koryk said:
			
		

> Again, they didn't fail. The guard believed them. That the guard did not react the way they wanted to his belief is not a failure.




Potatoes, potahtoes.

The point is, they had a plan and their plan had no chance of success because the DM engineered things so that the plan could not succeed, not because of any failing on their end.

Thus, my whole schpiel on "Don't Monkey's Paw" the players.  If they succeed, don't turn their success into a failure.  If they go into the Dragon's lair, insult, moon and then proceed to kick its ass, don't turn around and change the rules or the in game reality so that they fail.

"Oh, they succeeded, but, in success, they got captured and hung for impersonating a diplomat" is not generally how most groups measure success.

At least IME.

Obviously, for some here, their mileage varies.


----------



## Krensky (Jul 3, 2011)

Hussar, are you actually reading the replies?

They had a plan for which they did not prepare. The GM engineered NOTHING. The players screwed up. Their failing was not doing proper prep and assuming Bluff works like Dominate.

There is no Monkey's Paw here. Frankly, it doesn't make much sense anyway, since the Monkey's Paw is about the dangers of greed and messing with dark powers.

No one turned their success into a failure. Complications and surprises are not failure. You keep assuming that anything other then "Go right in." is a failure and the GM being a railroading jerk because he doesn't let the players dictate NPC actions.

"Ok, you succeeded in your Bluff check. You walk past the guard, hunt around palace without incident, find the secret documents and leave." is not generally the way groups want to play.

At least IME.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 4, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Potatoes, potahtoes.
> 
> The point is, they had a plan and their plan had no chance of success because the DM engineered things so that the plan could not succeed, not because of any failing on their end.




Can you explain to me, based on the information I've given you, how their chance had no chance of success, _especially considering I said that it could succeed?_


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Considering I said that they had initially "failed" some investigation checks (by not hitting DCs high enough to get all the relevant information), and that they could still pull things off (though it would be difficult), I have no idea where you're getting this from. It's like you missed part of my post.



> Thus, my whole schpiel on "Don't Monkey's Paw" the players.  If they succeed, don't turn their success into a failure.  If they go into the Dragon's lair, insult, moon and then proceed to kick its ass, don't turn around and change the rules or the in game reality so that they fail.




I don't. I didn't change anything. I think maybe that's what hasn't been adequately communicated to you. I haven't negated any roll, I've followed the rules. I haven't improvised who will be where on the fly, as that was decided before hand (and indeed, the players tried to capitalize on it). This isn't "turning their success into a failure" by any stretch of the imagination.



> "Oh, they succeeded, but, in success, they got captured and hung for impersonating a diplomat" is not generally how most groups measure success.




Again, where did you get this part? 



> At least IME.
> 
> Obviously, for some here, their mileage varies.




We're having different mileage in communication. I feel like you aren't factoring in my replies.

Play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2011)

Krensky said:


> Hussar, are you actually reading the replies?
> 
> They had a plan for which they did not prepare. The GM engineered NOTHING. The players screwed up. Their failing was not doing proper prep and assuming Bluff works like Dominate.
> 
> ...




Wait a second though.  My only point was that they should get past the guard.  The rest of it would obviously require further checks.  In fact, if you swim upthread a ways, I talked exactly about this.  I'd deal with this whole thing by making it a skill challenge.  Failure with the gate guard still lets you enter the castle, but, subsequent checks would be more difficult.

I think that in this case, the players really had no chance of success.  They want to get past the gate guard.  They come up with a plausible way to do that - bluff the gate guard that they are someone important.  It's not an unreasonable plan.  They actually SUCCEED at that plan - their checks were high enough.  You even admit that.  The guard believes them.

But, then the DM twists the results so that instead of actually succeeding in their attempt, they fail.  Thus the Monkey's Paw comment.  It's like the old school way of dealing with the Wish spell - yeah, sure you can ask for whatever you want, but, regardless of the source of the wish, the DM is going to screw you over any way he can.

Yes, you are right, your gate guard reaction is reasonable.  I totally get that.  But, so is letting the PC's past.  Both responses are believable.  So, why is the DM picking the result that screws the PC's?  The PC's succeeded.  If they had failed, then fair enough, that's no problem.  They tried, they didn't succeed, the gate guard calls the boss and hijinks ensue.

But, and I cannot stress this enough, they didn't fail.  They succeeded.  IMO, you should never take away a success from the players.  If they succeeded, roll with it.  See where it takes you.  Don't take their success and then manipulate the results so that it's a failure.

I read in a module once, and I cannot for the life of me remember which one, that had advice that has stuck with me.  The advice ran something like this:  If the PC's come up with a plan that is at least halfway workable, roll with it.  It is not your job to nitpick their plans.  Let them be in the driver's seat.

Ok, I'm paraphrasing, but, that was the gist.  And it's something I've incorporated into my GMing style ever since.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 4, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Wait a second though.  My only point was that they should get past the guard.  The rest of it would obviously require further checks.  In fact, if you swim upthread a ways, I talked exactly about this.  I'd deal with this whole thing by making it a skill challenge.  Failure with the gate guard still lets you enter the castle, but, subsequent checks would be more difficult.




I know you didn't direct this at me, but I'd like to deal with this, unless you think I'm beating a dead horse. I just haven't had a response to my input, so I'll take what I can get.

There is no check in 3.5 to do what you're advocating, which is what I commented on four pages ago. There is no check to "get into the castle" or anything similar.


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> But, since I'm mainly acquainted with 3.5 (out of D&D), let's look at the d20SRD:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> I believe the DM decides. But, I was pointing out that it doesn't say. I think the player can have an incredibly good grip on how it will manifest, though.
> 
> The first bluff ("the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time [usually 1 round or less]") is obviously used for short term bluffs, in my mind. Getting the shopkeep to look down at his "untied" shoes. Getting someone to glance away briefly because you said there's somebody stealing someone's money pouch. These are obviously short term goals of lying, and fall under the first umbrella to me.
> 
> The second use of bluff ("believes something that you want it to believe") is obviously used for long term bluffs, in my mind. Getting the guard to believe you're the diplomat that is due to show up, or getting the shopkeep to think you're actually the crown prince. These are obviously long term goals of lying, and fall under the second umbrella to me.



This seems straightforward to me. I'm interested on your interpretation of how a Bluff check, by 3.5 rules, would indicate that the guard lets the PCs into the castle. Maybe if we start there, then we can sort this out quickly.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Krensky (Jul 4, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Wait a second though.  My only point was that they should get past the guard.  The rest of it would obviously require further checks.  In fact, if you swim upthread a ways, I talked exactly about this.  I'd deal with this whole thing by making it a skill challenge.  Failure with the gate guard still lets you enter the castle, but, subsequent checks would be more difficult.




It was an exaggeration, but no more then your position that the guard not letting them in on a single Bluff check. Like I said, they succeeded at the Bluff check. The guard believes them. What happens then depends on the circumstances and the lie. Failure means that plan is blown and it's time for a new one or to improvise. Your 'well they failed, so they get in but their other checks will be harder' is way more railroady then anything I've been advocating.



Hussar said:


> I think that in this case, the players really had no chance of success.  They want to get past the gate guard.  They come up with a plausible way to do that - bluff the gate guard that they are someone important.  It's not an unreasonable plan.  They actually SUCCEED at that plan - their checks were high enough.  You even admit that.  The guard believes them.




Yes, that's what their success indicates. The guard believed them. What happens then depends on way too many things to go into. Just because the guard believes them does not necessarily mean he lets them in or that he doesn't pass the buck, or summon the Senschal to escort them to the King or whatever. What happens then is up to me as GM.



Hussar said:


> But, then the DM twists the results so that instead of actually succeeding in their attempt, they fail.  Thus the Monkey's Paw comment.  It's like the old school way of dealing with the Wish spell - yeah, sure you can ask for whatever you want, but, regardless of the source of the wish, the DM is going to screw you over any way he can.




Succeeding at their Bluff check means the guard believes their lie. Depending on the lie and the circumstances, he may let them in, he may call his boss, he may call for someone to escort them to the meeting room, he may call for a security lock-down because he thinks the people that showed up earlier are spies or assassins. It depends on what's going on at the time. 

Ideally, the players did some prep work. They have forged (or maybe the real ones) documents saying who they are. They've dressed the part, perhaps even are wearing disguises. They've ensured the people they're replacing are delayed or indisposed. When they get sent to the meeting, someone, likely posing as a servant, or maybe the "diplomat's" boss's idiot nephew has to go use the jakes and slips away to steal the documents while the con artist/courtier/whatever keeps the Powers That Be busy.



Hussar said:


> Yes, you are right, your gate guard reaction is reasonable.  I totally get that.  But, so is letting the PC's past.  Both responses are believable.  So, why is the DM picking the result that screws the PC's?  The PC's succeeded.  If they had failed, then fair enough, that's no problem.  They tried, they didn't succeed, the gate guard calls the boss and hijinks ensue.




They succeeded, the guard believes them. Him letting them pass may or not be reasonable.



Hussar said:


> But, and I cannot stress this enough, they didn't fail.  They succeeded.  IMO, you should never take away a success from the players.  If they succeeded, roll with it.  See where it takes you.  Don't take their success and then manipulate the results so that it's a failure.




That never happened though. They succeeded and the guard believes them. What happens after that has nothing to do with them. It depends upon the situation, the guard, etc. This is why, to me, your position is like what I said about boiling the whole thing to one Bluff check. In the case of the spy and the guard calling his boss it's time for them to convince him otherwise using Intimidate or Impress (read Diplomacy for D&D/PF). For the Diplomats, barring something like their plan not accounting for the real diplomats or whatever, he lets them in and calls for someone to escort them to the Senschal or whatever.



Hussar said:


> I read in a module once, and I cannot for the life of me remember which one, that had advice that has stuck with me.  The advice ran something like this:  If the PC's come up with a plan that is at least halfway workable, roll with it.  It is not your job to nitpick their plans.  Let them be in the driver's seat.
> 
> Ok, I'm paraphrasing, but, that was the gist.  And it's something I've incorporated into my GMing style ever since.




First, a single Bluff check is not a plan. It's a step in a plan.

Second, the most important GM advice ever:

"The players aren’t your enemies. They’re your entertainment."

If you want to run this sort of thing, you want to emulate a caper movie, or better yet, more specifically Leverage (which feels like a RPG in the first place). Complications and their plans going awry are entertaining. Their tap dancing and improvising is entertaining.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> This seems straightforward to me. I'm interested on your interpretation of how a Bluff check, by 3.5 rules, would indicate that the guard lets the PCs into the castle. Maybe if we start there, then we can sort this out quickly.
> 
> As always, play what you like




Player:  I try to bluff the guard that I am a member of the Diplomat's entourage and I was unavoidably detained.  *Rolls*
DM:  You succeed.  The guard believes you.  

Now, how do we go from "The guard believes that you are a member of the diplomat's entourage" to "Well, he believes you, but, he calls his superiors and refuses to let you in, despite the fact that he believes your story."?

I'd also point out that the example has changed quite a lot throughout this thread.  It started out simply as "The guard, because his family is threatened, will never allow anyone entrance to the castle" to "Long winded example where there are fifteen different things going on, all colluding to result in the worst possible outcome for the PC's".

Anyway, I've pretty clearly shown, at least to any reasonable degree that there are any number of bluffs that would allow the PC's to enter the castle past the guard.  I'm sure that I'll be told, no, these are all unreasonable interpretations and we should continue to cock block our PC's at every turn.  Because, as Krensky says, "Their tap dancing and improvising is entertaining." 

No thanks.  Been there, done that.  Having every plan frustrated, every attempt fail, just so the DM can make me "earn" my successes is something I've long grown out of.  As JC says, play what you like, but, for my money, I do not like this.


----------



## Krensky (Jul 4, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Player:  I try to bluff the guard that I am a member of the Diplomat's entourage and I was unavoidably detained.  *Rolls*
> DM:  You succeed.  The guard believes you.
> 
> Now, how do we go from "The guard believes that you are a member of the diplomat's entourage" to "Well, he believes you, but, he calls his superiors and refuses to let you in, despite the fact that he believes your story."?




Beats me, you're the one saying that. I'd have the guard call someone to escort you to the meeting room or whatever.



Hussar said:


> I'd also point out that the example has changed quite a lot throughout this thread.  It started out simply as "The guard, because his family is threatened, will never allow anyone entrance to the castle" to "Long winded example where there are fifteen different things going on, all colluding to result in the worst possible outcome for the PC's".




You're the one calling "and then..." screwing over the players. In the first, there's likely no reason to consider the guard's reactions, because the Impress or Intimidate check will be incrediby damn hard. If they make the check with a sufficient margin, then he'll let them in. There may be some hemming and hawing and perhaps some more checks if they don't generate enough of a success to shift the guard's Disposition enough. Which is fair because they beat the guard's resistance check, but he still likes or fears them less then he fears the baron. It's also how my rules say those skill checks work.



Hussar said:


> Anyway, I've pretty clearly shown, at least to any reasonable degree that there are any number of bluffs that would allow the PC's to enter the castle past the guard.  I'm sure that I'll be told, no, these are all unreasonable interpretations and we should continue to cock block our PC's at every turn.  Because, as Krensky says, "Their tap dancing and improvising is entertaining."




Trust me, it is. They never tell stories about the easy victories the next month. It's when it all goes in the crapper and they get out by the skin of their teeth with fast, effective, entertaining improvisation that they talk about it years later.

Like I said, look at Leverage or The Sting or any caper movie.

Nothing goes to plan and the team has to improvise. If it went perfectly, the story would be boring. While games are different and have different narrative needs and structures then film, television, or literature a lot of the techniques and principles are usable. Hamlet's Hitpoints explained that nicely. 

It's like John Wick's Die Hard effect. The players want to be beaten, battered, bruised, and bloody at the end. They also want to win. Part of my job as a GM is to push them as hard and far as I can with plot twists, conflicts, reveals, etc while still positioning them for a triumphant victory.



Hussar said:


> No thanks.  Been there, done that.  Having every plan frustrated, every attempt fail, just so the DM can make me "earn" my successes is something I've long grown out of.  As JC says, play what you like, but, for my money, I do not like this.




Are you sure you're not just seeing those bad experiences in anyone who doesn't just let the PCs succeed at everything they want and to dictate the world to the GM? You're the only one saying all plans fail, all attempts fail so we can go on a power trip. Bad plans fail because they're bad plans or improperly prepared plans. Nothing more or less. I can understand you being leery of anything that implies the GM actually has power at the table if you've been constantly screwed over by bad ones, but nothing anyone's said here is bad GMing, despite your claims.

Frankly, it's insulting how you keep implying that me, JC, etc are somehow jerks and horrible, evil abusive GMs just because we don't agree with you on how far player agency extends after making a successful skill check.

Now, some GMs are jerks, but in my case, and I'm willing to bet the other GMs responding to you aren't either based on what they've said. If I was the jerk, abusive GM you seem to think I am, I wouldn't have full tables.

By all means though, if you like never having your plans go wrong, the GM rewarding any idea rather then good ones, and the players controlling the NPCs and world instead of the GM, no one's forcing you to play at my or anyone else's table.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 4, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Player:  I try to bluff the guard that I am a member of the Diplomat's entourage and I was unavoidably detained.  *Rolls*
> DM:  You succeed.  The guard believes you.




Awesome.



> Now, how do we go from "The guard believes that you are a member of the diplomat's entourage" to "Well, he believes you, but, he calls his superiors and refuses to let you in, despite the fact that he believes your story."?




When Lost Soul asked me for clarification on degrees of success. I'll show you:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Lost Soul said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is how we ended up from "the guard believes you" to "if you want to see degrees of success, here's an example of it."

Hope that clears that bit up for you.



> I'd also point out that the example has changed quite a lot throughout this thread.  It started out simply as "The guard, because his family is threatened, will never allow anyone entrance to the castle" to "Long winded example where there are fifteen different things going on, all colluding to result in the worst possible outcome for the PC's".




To answer Lost Soul's inquiry, a new, in-depth example was necessary. He seemed thankful (he XP'd me). The fact that you aren't pleased doesn't bug me, but as that has been the example we've been using, I'll continue to use it unless you want to change the base.



> Anyway, I've pretty clearly shown, at least to any reasonable degree that there are any number of bluffs that would allow the PC's to enter the castle past the guard.  I'm sure that I'll be told, no, these are all unreasonable interpretations and we should continue to cock block our PC's at every turn.  Because, as Krensky says, "Their tap dancing and improvising is entertaining."




You can make reasonable Bluffs, and in the right conditions you can accomplish what you seek out to do. What you don't do by the rules, ever, is make any check that says whether or not you get into the castle.



> No thanks.  Been there, done that.  Having every plan frustrated, every attempt fail, just so the DM can make me "earn" my successes is something I've long grown out of.  As JC says, play what you like, but, for my money, I do not like this.




I still hold to "play what you like." I've said repeatedly, I'm not advocating you changing your ways. And I think I've been clear on what I object to in your statements (attributing play styles to me that I don't adhere to, misrepresenting my play style, claiming that your preferred method makes for an objectively "better game" for everyone, etc.).

As always, though, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2011)

Krensky said:
			
		

> You're the one calling "and then..." screwing over the players. In the first, there's likely no reason to consider the guard's reactions, because the Impress or Intimidate check will be incrediby damn hard. If they make the check with a sufficient margin, then he'll let them in. There may be some hemming and hawing and perhaps some more checks if they don't generate enough of a success to shift the guard's Disposition enough. Which is fair because they beat the guard's resistance check, but he still likes or fears them less then he fears the baron. It's also how my rules say those skill checks work.




Then... why are you arguing with me?  What happened to the whole "call the superiors" bit?  I've been saying exactly what you've been saying all the way along.  At no point did I say it should be easy - although I do think that the OP was making things a bit too hard, or that success should be automatic.

What I've been saying, and it appears that you agree with me, is that if they succeed, then they get in the door.  Not, succeed and the guard calls the next guy up in line so you have to do the next set of checks.  Not, succeed and the guard calls the king so that you have to do the next set of checks.  Not, succeed but automatically fail because the DM has manipulated the timing of events so that you cannot succeed at all.

If you succeed, then you get in the door.  What happens after that is a whole 'nother ballgame.



			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> You can make reasonable Bluffs, and in the right conditions you can accomplish what you seek out to do. What you don't do by the rules, ever, is make any check that says whether or not you get into the castle.




This seems a bit contradictory.  If what I want to do is get into the castle, then shouldn't the right conditions and reasonable bluffs allow me to do that?

See, I think this is where the fundamental disconnect is coming from.  I don't look at "bluffing the guard" and "getting in the door" as distinct elements.  I'm bluffing the guard to get in the door.  If I bluff the guard successfully, then I get in the door.  End of story AFAIC.

What you seem to be saying is that I can bluff the guard until I'm blue in the face, but, since there is no check I can make to get in the door, it's completely up to the DM's decision as to whether I get in the door or not.  I could quite possibly not bluff the guard at all and the DM could still let me in the door.  Or, I could be Sun Tsu reincarnated and not get in the door.  Again, my entrance has zero to do with me and everything to do with the DM and whatever story he wants to tell.

Why bother having checks at all if my success is entirely dependent on DM fiat?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 4, 2011)

Hussar said:


> This seems a bit contradictory.  If what I want to do is get into the castle, then shouldn't the right conditions and reasonable bluffs allow me to do that?




Yes. But it's still not a check to get into the castle. It's a Bluff check. With the right conditions, a Bluff check can get a guard to act in such a way that it gets you into a castle. But, again, there's no such thing as a "get into the castle check" as that's not what any skill allows you to do.



> See, I think this is where the fundamental disconnect is coming from.  I don't look at "bluffing the guard" and "getting in the door" as distinct elements.  I'm bluffing the guard to get in the door.  If I bluff the guard successfully, then I get in the door.  End of story AFAIC.




Not according to the rules. I can go over this a third time if you'd like.

Listen, it's not wrong to play the game the way you do. Many, many other people prefer your method of using Bluff. And that's really, honestly cool with me. But, it's not how the skill works, by the rules. So when I hear that I'm using GM fiat when someone thinks a Bluff check entitles you to get in, I really have to disagree.



> What you seem to be saying is that I can bluff the guard until I'm blue in the face, but, since there is no check I can make to get in the door, it's completely up to the DM's decision as to whether I get in the door or not.




Indeed. Though the rules dictate that the guard believes your bluff.



> I could quite possibly not bluff the guard at all and the DM could still let me in the door.  Or, I could be Sun Tsu reincarnated and not get in the door.  Again, my entrance has zero to do with me and everything to do with the DM and whatever story he wants to tell.




Wrong. If the GM is being a neutral arbiter, and isn't being biased, and is playing the referee, etc., then he'll play the guard like a guard, and have him act on new information. The guard that falls for a Bluff check should act in the same way a guard does when you walk up to him: he takes in new information, processes it, and acts based on the new information.

So, if the GM is playing by the rules, then your Bluff check influences the guard. It does not dictate the outcome of that influence outside of how he perceives your bluff.



> Why bother having checks at all if my success is entirely dependent on DM fiat?




Your success on your bluff is dependent on your roll. I've shown this a few times. I can point this out in the SRD again if you'd like.

The GM is the arbiter in the game. He runs things. It's his job to process player actions and announce the outcome, whether that's "your Bluff succeeds, so you get let in, here's what's inside" to "your Bluff succeeds, so the guard believes you, so here's how he reacts" and anything in between. The GM is fulfilling that role either way, but the way I've shown is how the rules operate. It is not GM fiat to play that way anymore than your method -which is, to say, not really at all.

If you want me to attempt to show you how Bluff works according to the SRD again, I will. As always, play what you like


----------



## Krensky (Jul 4, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Then... why are you arguing with me?  What happened to the whole "call the superiors" bit?  I've been saying exactly what you've been saying all the way along.  At no point did I say it should be easy - although I do think that the OP was making things a bit too hard, or that success should be automatic.




That came up with the earlier example of "I'm a spy for the baron, let me in!". Since this is a weird event, and the baron kills guard who screw up and then kills their families, even if he believes the players he's quite likely to ask someone else to make the decision. The PCs are more then welcome to try to use Impress or Intimidate to change that course of action.



Hussar said:


> What I've been saying, and it appears that you agree with me, is that if they succeed, then they get in the door.  Not, succeed and the guard calls the next guy up in line so you have to do the next set of checks.  Not, succeed and the guard calls the king so that you have to do the next set of checks.  Not, succeed but automatically fail because the DM has manipulated the timing of events so that you cannot succeed at all.
> 
> If you succeed, then you get in the door.  What happens after that is a whole 'nother ballgame.




OK. let me try this again.

The players make a Bluff check. They succeed on the check. The guard believes their lie. That is all they have succeeded at. What that means in terms of infiltrating the castle is dependent upon the context. What the lie was, the nature of the guard's bosses, etc.



Hussar said:


> This seems a bit contradictory.  If what I want to do is get into the castle, then shouldn't the right conditions and reasonable bluffs allow me to do that?
> 
> See, I think this is where the fundamental disconnect is coming from.  I don't look at "bluffing the guard" and "getting in the door" as distinct elements.  I'm bluffing the guard to get in the door.  If I bluff the guard successfully, then I get in the door.  End of story AFAIC.




Bluff is used to lie convincingly. Impress and Intimidate are used to convince someone to do something. Now, this gets slightly blurry as often lying convincingly will result in someone reacting in a predictable manner. "Dude, someone just crashed into your car!" could reasonably be expected to make someone rush to check on their car. Similarly, "We're diplomats here for the summit." can reasonably be expected to cause the guard to have the players escorted to the proper place in the castle.

Why does the GM get to decide this? Because he's the GM. It's his job to decide it. He doesn't get to, as a rule, dictate the actions, feelings or thoughts of the PCs. Similarly, as a rule, the players don't get to dictate any of that for the NPCs or the world at large.

They also don't get to decide what's reasonable because they know less then the GM about what's going on. Perhaps the guard is somewhat important to the scenario so the GM knew ahead of time that he knows the person they're pretending to be. Maybe he's a meat puppet who follos orders exactly regardless of anything else. Whatever. The GM is in possession of all of the facts of the world. He's the source of almost all of them too. 



Hussar said:


> What you seem to be saying is that I can bluff the guard until I'm blue in the face, but, since there is no check I can make to get in the door, it's completely up to the DM's decision as to whether I get in the door or not.  I could quite possibly not bluff the guard at all and the DM could still let me in the door.  Or, I could be Sun Tsu reincarnated and not get in the door.  Again, my entrance has zero to do with me and everything to do with the DM and whatever story he wants to tell.
> 
> Why bother having checks at all if my success is entirely dependent on DM fiat?




And now we're back to being evil-bad-wrong abusive GMs. What we've been saying is that a successful Bluff makes the guard believe your lie. The consequences of that belief are dictated by the GM. Why? Because he's the GM.

No one is saying what you claim we are. All we're saying is that Bluff lets you lie convincingly. It does not, directly, let you enter the castle. That can be one of the consequences of succeeding at the check. It might also summon the guard's superior. It might do any of one-hundred and forty-six things that I can't think of without far more information then we need to get into here.

We're not saying the result is dictated by GM whim or fiat. We're saying that your "a successful Bluff lets me in because that was what you wanted to do" is not how we run things, and the rules support our interpretation as strongly as it supports yours. In my specific case it's explicit in the write up for Bluff in my game of choice.

If the players choose the right lie and properly support it the Bluff check will get them into the castle with no entanglements. If they choose the wrong lie, then even if they succeed they might not get what they were looking for.

Let's flip this around a little.

The PCs need to infiltrate castle. They're new in the area and overhear talk at the tavern between some guards about how Baron von Evil invited the Merry Prankster to show up for dinner. They immediately latch onto this and show up at the castle and Bluff the guard so he believes the one of them is the Merry Prankster. Now, the problem is that the guards were joking. The Merry Prankster is a wanted criminal with a huge price on his head for doing pranks and Robin Hood like things and that 'an invitation to dinner' was an euphemism. So the guard panics, screams for help and it all goes pear-shaped. Fast. Now they're on the run, captured, or dead.

Now, admittedly, the PCs are very gullible and naive there, and it's a little contrived, but it's a one paragraph hypothetical example. It's also 0300, so cut me some slack.

From what you're saying, I should let them in without any consequences because the players thought it would be reasonable and it fits their definition of success.

I find that completely counter intuitive for any traditional RPG. Maybe so weird Forge games work that way, but I don't play them nor do I wish to play them.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 4, 2011)

Hussar, quick question: if the players can decide what the right course of action is, where does the game's challenge come from?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> Hussar, quick question: if the players can decide what the right course of action is, where does the game's challenge come from?




Well, just because they have the right course of action doesn't mean that they automatically succeed.  They could still fail the check of course.  So, the game's challenge is a combination of coming up with a plan that is believable to the people at the table (or at least reasonably plausible - none of us are professional con artists I think, so, let's not set the bar too high) and then playing through that plan.

If the rolls fail (and the rolls and DC's most certainly can and should be modified by the context of the situation) then the plan fails.  They don't get in the door.

If the rolls succeed, then, I believe, that they should be given the success they were expecting.  Maybe not exactly the way they were expecting it, but, something that's actually a success.

OTOH, "Sorry, yes I believe you are a member of the diplomatic group, but, you still may not enter" is just the DM taking a success and spinning it into a failure.  Where's the challenge in that?

Actually, let me turn the question around.  Where is the challenge in a situation where you can never succeed?  In JamesonCourage's example, he flat out states that the rolls won't let them succeed.  At best, they only fail a little bit or a lot.  Under no circumstance will they actually be allowed to succeed.

Apparently because there is no "Open the Gate" skill.  

And DM's wonder why players slowly stop attempting anything other than killing everything they meet.  Why players stop trying new things after playing for a while.  Why would players keep trying new things when new things cannot succeed?  Kill everything works.  It works almost all the time.  Spinning success into failure just leads to players stopping trying.

Let me ask this then.  Why is the supposedly "neutral arbiter" DM choosing the results that most disadvantage the PC's?  How is the decision arrived at that despite the PC's not actually failing in anything they've done, they still fail being a neutral arbiter?

You guys are absolutely right.  D&D does entitle the DM to do what you are saying.  You certainly could choose the most disadvantageous result every time.  Personally, I don't play that way anymore.  It's too antagonistic for one.  For another it's needlessly frustrating to the players and discourages any creativity in the future.



			
				Krensky said:
			
		

> The PCs need to infiltrate castle. They're new in the area and overhear talk at the tavern between some guards about how Baron von Evil invited the Merry Prankster to show up for dinner. They immediately latch onto this and show up at the castle and Bluff the guard so he believes the one of them is the Merry Prankster. Now, the problem is that the guards were joking. The Merry Prankster is a wanted criminal with a huge price on his head for doing pranks and Robin Hood like things and that 'an invitation to dinner' was an euphemism. So the guard panics, screams for help and it all goes pear-shaped. Fast. Now they're on the run, captured, or dead.




First off, this would be funny.   

But, allowing their success to actually count as a success isn't all that difficult.

PC:  HI, I'm the Merry Prankster.
Guard:  ((After a successful bluff)) Oh, please don't kill me sir!  I'm just a poor guard.  
PC:  What?  Huh?  No... wait.
Guard:  I'll do anything you want, just don't kill me sir!
PC:  Yes!  Yes!  I'll carve you up if you don't open the gate!
Guard:  Right away sir.  Anything you say sir.

There, now the bluff succeeded, they got into the gate and they know that their disguise is a really, really bad idea.  And, you have the added bonus of just what are they going to do with Mr. Guard now, particularly if your group is a good aligned one.

Isn't that a heck of a lot more fun than:

PC:  I'm the Merry Prankster.
DM:  Don't even bother rolling.  He starts screaming his head off for the guards.  They start shooting at you from the walls.  
PC:  Uh, what?  What just happened?
DM:  You don't know, they're just shooting at you.  Roll for initiative.

Although, to be fair, that second one might be fun.  I think the first one would be better, but the second one isn't bad.

But, typically, the next time something like this comes around, you can bet dollars to donuts, they scale the wall and don't bother talking to anyone.  One Mass Invisibility and Levitate spell later and they enter the castle without any role play at all.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 4, 2011)

Hussar said:


> You certainly could choose the most disadvantageous result every time.




No one here has advocated that.

It's like you're arguing with the Evil Phantom DM in your head.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 4, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Well, just because they have the right course of action doesn't mean that they automatically succeed.  They could still fail the check of course.  So, the game's challenge is a combination of coming up with a plan that is believable to the people at the table (or at least reasonably plausible - none of us are professional con artists I think, so, let's not set the bar too high) and then playing through that plan.




The problem I have with this approach is that the game is now asking me, as a player, to judge the validity of my actions as well as advocate for my character.  Those are conflicting goals!  If I want my PC to get what I've decided he wants, I am going to feel a pull to judge my actions as valid.  If the validity of my actions is of primary or equal concern, I am less concerned with my PC getting what I've decided he wants - and I've left the arena of the challenge-based game.

Not every game of D&D must be challenge-based, of course.  I've been trying to point out what I think are flaws in one technique for challenge-based play.



Hussar said:


> OTOH, "Sorry, yes I believe you are a member of the diplomatic group, but, you still may not enter" is just the DM taking a success and spinning it into a failure.  Where's the challenge in that?




The challenge is one of lateral thinking.  You came up with a good plan later on in the post:



Hussar said:


> But, typically, the next time something like this comes around, you can bet dollars to donuts, *they scale the wall and don't bother talking to anyone.  One Mass Invisibility and Levitate spell later and they enter the castle without any role play at all.*




I would still characterize that as role-play, though not character interaction.



Hussar said:


> Actually, let me turn the question around.  Where is the challenge in a situation where you can never succeed?




You just showed that success is still possible!  Maybe not through the front gate, but that's fine.  In the case I outlined the guard is a trap - talking to him is only going to get you in more danger.  Players who are smart will be able to discover this: assuming that they know the diplomat is coming and matches their PC's description, they should be able to ask someone if the diplomat has arrived yet - someone who works in the castle, perhaps a member of the kitchen staff.

With that information they might be able to get into the castle through the front gate.  They could pose as agents of the diplomat, with important news that the diplomat must see.  "Highly sensitive stuff, we can't bring it into the castle.  For the diplomat's eyes only.  Those are our orders."  When the diplomat comes, assuming he falls for their bluff, the players deal with the unfolding situation.



Hussar said:


> Let me ask this then.  Why is the supposedly "neutral arbiter" DM choosing the results that most disadvantage the PC's?  How is the decision arrived at that despite the PC's not actually failing in anything they've done, they still fail being a neutral arbiter?




Assuming their goal is to get into the castle, they haven't yet failed.  Anyway.  The DM is setting up a situation and letting the players deal with it.  He's not trying to stop them, he's just playing the Duke as a paranoid tyrant.

Once he stops doing that, either advocating for the PCs or against them, the DM is no longer a neutral arbiter and the challenge-based game falls apart.


----------



## GSHamster (Jul 4, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> The problem I have with this approach is that the game is now asking me, as a player, to judge the validity of my actions as well as advocate for my character.  Those are conflicting goals!  If I want my PC to get what I've decided he wants, I am going to feel a pull to judge my actions as valid.  If the validity of my actions is of primary or equal concern, I am less concerned with my PC getting what I've decided he wants - and I've left the arena of the challenge-based game.




The DM judges the validity of the action by setting the DC.  If the DM thinks that it will be very difficult to convince the guard using this approach, she should set the DC correspondingly high, give the guard bonuses for extra factors.

Once the DC is set, the dice determine the success or failure of the gambit.  A failure is a failure, and a success is a success.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 4, 2011)

Hussar, man, I really hope you read this one.



Hussar said:


> Well, just because they have the right course of action doesn't mean that they automatically succeed.  They could still fail the check of course.  So, the game's challenge is a combination of coming up with a plan that is believable to the people at the table (or at least reasonably plausible - none of us are professional con artists I think, so, let's not set the bar too high) and then playing through that plan.




We agree here.



> If the rolls fail (and the rolls and DC's most certainly can and should be modified by the context of the situation) then the plan fails.  They don't get in the door.




And in my version, all it takes are rolls and plausibility.



> If the rolls succeed, then, I believe, that they should be given the success they were expecting.  Maybe not exactly the way they were expecting it, but, something that's actually a success.




And this is where I said I have multiple problems: it doesn't follow RAW, so the players lose a certain amount of ability to rely on the rules, and it's much too narrative for my style.

It's not wrong to play that way, but the fact that you think I railroad, use GM fiat, and consistently try to screw my friends over is baffling.



> OTOH, "Sorry, yes I believe you are a member of the diplomatic group, but, you still may not enter" is just the DM taking a success and spinning it into a failure.  Where's the challenge in that?




No, it's not. They only get to roll on one thing: whether or not the lie is believed. If the Bluff check succeeds, then they've succeeds, and I'll play it that way._ But, that's the only thing they get to roll on_. As they never, ever get to make a check to "get into the castle" or the like, I cannot, by the rules, take that success away by making their Bluff check fail. There may be a time, in fact, where failing your Bluff check is more advantageous than succeeding one is. I'll touch on this later in the post.



> Actually, let me turn the question around.  Where is the challenge in a situation where you can never succeed?




There's not much of one. But, then again, nobody is advocating this.



> In JamesonCourage's example, he flat out states that the rolls won't let them succeed.




Incorrect. Again. I state that they will not just be let in _on the first Bluff check_. I state that they can indeed succeed. I'll get the quotes for you:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Considering I said that they had initially "failed" some investigation checks (by not hitting DCs high enough to get all the relevant information), *and that they could still pull things off (though it would be difficult)*, I have no idea where you're getting this from. It's like you missed part of my post.





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hussar, these are all from the _last page_. I did not have to go digging for these. I've said repeatedly _you can succeed in your goal, not just the Bluff check_. I've made clear that success is a possibility. Where you keep getting statements like "In JamesonCourage's example, he flat out states that the rolls won't let them succeed" I really have no idea. It just doesn't add up to me.



> At best, they only fail a little bit or a lot.  Under no circumstance will they actually be allowed to succeed.




If you want, I can link more quotes where I said how they can succeed, but even in the above quotes I talk a little about them being able to succeed better on their investigation checks, as well as them still being able to pull something off with a successful Disguise check to impersonate the diplomat. Really, man.



> Apparently because there is no "Open the Gate" skill.




_There isn't._ In 3.5, there is no skill challenge rule, where successes indicate that something happens, and then you narrate how it happened. That's a fine rule. I spent about a day looking into how I could apply something similar in my game (with no real success), because I really like how it could speed up play, and it reminded me of the extended rolls from WoD.

However, in 3.5, if you follow RAW, or even RAI, in my opinion, then there's just no way to reconcile your interpretation of the rules. "Success as according to Hussar" is much more arbitrary to me than "success in what the skill says you'll succeed in" and that's why I don't prefer it.

However, you are not alone in how you like to play things, and you are not wrong to play that way. Nor is anyone else, really, as long as they're having fun with it. But it's not right for me, it's not right for my group, it's not as fun for us, it's not as immersive for us, it does not make for an objectively "better game" for every group, and it's not RAW (or even RAI as far as I'm concerned). I don't feel bad about playing the way I do, and neither do my players.

Play what you like, though 



> And DM's wonder why players slowly stop attempting anything other than killing everything they meet.  Why players stop trying new things after playing for a while.  Why would players keep trying new things when new things cannot succeed?  Kill everything works.  It works almost all the time.  Spinning success into failure just leads to players stopping trying.




I'm sure you've heard me mention it before, but in case you don't recall (as you have no real reason to), but my players _might_ get into one combat encounter every 10 hours of real time. The rest of the time, it's "other solutions" and the like.

My players know that their success or their failure is based on how they roll, and how plausible their actions were. They know exactly how we play. We like exactly how we play. We are not a worse group for it. I am not using GM fiat, I am not railroading, I am not consistently ruling against my players, I am not setting them up for an encounter for which they have no chance of success.



> Let me ask this then.  Why is the supposedly "neutral arbiter" DM choosing the results that most disadvantage the PC's?  How is the decision arrived at that despite the PC's not actually failing in anything they've done, they still fail being a neutral arbiter?




First of all, _I don't arbitrarily choose results that are most disadvantageous to the PCs_. Where you get the idea that I do, I have no idea. I could make this situation much, much worse. Selowrap, the illusionist with which they have a beef with, could frame them moments before they arrive. Or, the chancellor was at the wall as well to greet them (and he has a much higher Sense Motive). Or, the diplomat arrived 5 minutes _after_ the party, and now the castle is on high alert, with them stuck inside, rather than on the outside. I could go on and on, and I'm just using plausible outcomes, now. I could start using things like "the king has a fever, and in his delusions, he has ordered all soldiers to shoot down anyone who approaches the castle."

Secondly, they could have done much better on their investigation checks. I've touched on this a few times. I can link even more quotes, if you'd like.



> You guys are absolutely right.  D&D does entitle the DM to do what you are saying.  You certainly could choose the most disadvantageous result every time.  Personally, I don't play that way anymore.  It's too antagonistic for one.  For another it's needlessly frustrating to the players and discourages any creativity in the future.




Not only am I not playing as you're describing, but my players are _incredibly_ inventive, and do not seek to use combat first as an option unless their story really calls for it.



> First off, this would be funny.
> 
> But, allowing their success to actually count as a success isn't all that difficult.
> 
> ...




There's nothing really wrong with this method, but the guard's reactions hinge on a few factors. How afraid of the king he is, how afraid of the Merry Prankster he is, if his family is on the line, how loyal he is, etc. All of these should factor into his reasoning for any action. If that means that he ends up letting the PCs in, I see no problem with it. But, I think it should be determined by the GM, not by the dice, when playing with my group. The dice dictate whether or not the guard believes you; the GM, who can factor for things the dice can't, decides how he acts. The rules agree with me.



> Isn't that a heck of a lot more fun than:




Super subjective.



> PC:  I'm the Merry Prankster.
> DM:  Don't even bother rolling.  He starts screaming his head off for the guards.  They start shooting at you from the walls.
> PC:  Uh, what?  What just happened?
> DM:  You don't know, they're just shooting at you.  Roll for initiative.




I'd still make them roll. The rules show that you need to roll here (making a Bluff check).



> Although, to be fair, that second one might be fun.  I think the first one would be better, but the second one isn't bad.




And man is that subjective.



> But, typically, the next time something like this comes around, you can bet dollars to donuts, they scale the wall and don't bother talking to anyone.  One Mass Invisibility and Levitate spell later and they enter the castle without any role play at all.




This is an example of where failing a Bluff check would be advantageous for the party.

PC: I'm the Merry Prankster [fails Bluff check].
Guard: Funny guy. Either tell me your business, or get out of here.

Much better than success on the roll might get you. And, it follows RAW, so the players know what to expect. And, it's less narrative, so it fits our style more.

Secondly, not all groups respond with "more killin'." Mine sure don't. Extrapolating your varied and in-depth experiences to every group and making a statement of what makes for an objectively "better game" doesn't sit well with me when you're using Fun as the measuring stick.

I really don't understand how we're not seeing eye to eye on this. Please read all of the quotes I linked. Maybe that will clear things up.

At any rate, play what you like


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 4, 2011)

GSHamster said:


> The DM judges the validity of the action by setting the DC.  If the DM thinks that it will be very difficult to convince the guard using this approach, she should set the DC correspondingly high, give the guard bonuses for extra factors.
> 
> Once the DC is set, the dice determine the success or failure of the gambit.  A failure is a failure, and a success is a success.




Take a look at this quote and tell me what you think, if you would. I'm curious what your interpretation is.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/5610655-post236.html


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 5, 2011)

GSHamster said:


> The DM judges the validity of the action by setting the DC.  If the DM thinks that it will be very difficult to convince the guard using this approach, she should set the DC correspondingly high, give the guard bonuses for extra factors.
> 
> Once the DC is set, the dice determine the success or failure of the gambit.  A failure is a failure, and a success is a success.




Yeah, that's one way to do it!  Using this method and the example of the "paranoid duke" I posted, the Bluff checks might have really high DCs.  If the players are the ones who assign the DCs - because they are determining the validity of the approach - you can get issues with challenge-based play.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2011)

S'mon said:


> No one here has advocated that.
> 
> It's like you're arguing with the Evil Phantom DM in your head.




And yet, every interpretation here has the PC's failing to enter, despite succeeding on their skill checks.

JamesonCourage, that wall of text is beyond my time right now, but, I'll get back to it.  On the quick skim through, I think that where the problem lies is that you have broken down "get into the gate" into multiple parts, each of which must be overcome before you gain entrance.

I have no problem with that.  So long as, if they overcome those parts, and those parts are actually possible to overcome, they get through the gate.  Turning the "Get into the Gate" bit into a de facto skill challenge (even if you don't bother with the rigid 4e structure) is perfectly fine.

My problem is, as you've presented it, no matter what the PC's do, they fail.  Successfully bluff the guard and the king is called = fail.  Fail to bluff the guard = do not enter = fail.


----------



## Krensky (Jul 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And yet, every interpretation here has the PC's failing to enter, despite succeeding on their skill checks.




Hussar, seriously?

Are you willfully ignoring what we've written in favor of what you want us to have said?

You almost have to be, because we're not saying that. Everytime you bring it up, we keep telling you that that isn't what we're saying.

Once again:

The PCs made their Bluff check. 
The guard believes them.
They succeeded in the check, regardless of what happens then.
Why? Because they rolled to tell a lie. That''s all the check covers. It doesn't mean they get to exert some metagame narrative control over the game. I just means they told a lie successfully.

Read that again. We'll wait.

Now, making the guard believe them does not give them any control or agency over the guard's actions or the world. If they want to directly influence the NPC's actions and convince him to do something specifically, there are skills for that. Bluff is not one of them. It's like saying I'm going to roll a Crafting to jump over a ditch.

Some lies might get them in. Some lies might get them attacked. Some lies might simply complicate things. Determining what the guard (an NPC) does with the information is not up to the players or their view on what is reasonable. 

Oh, your counter example? Boring. My players would laugh at me. I can draw months of gaming out of the guard calling for reinforcements and the PCs running and hiding. The PC in question's face appears on wanted posters. The real Merry Prankster shows up, maybe he's amused, maybe he's angry, maybe he just wants to thank the PC for his stupidity and taking the heat off him.

Tons of additional threads and beats.

Yours would result in the guard being knocked out, tied up and the players forgetting about it before the session was over.

I set up my games and scenarios so the PCs have to screw up by the numbers and then make things even worse for them to 'fail'. Why? Because I want them to succeed. I don't necessarily want them to know it while in the thick of it though. I want them convinced I'm out to kill their characters and use their sheets as fire-starters. I revel in joking about my (non-existent) viking hat, laughing like a bad pulp villain, and randomly rolling dice behind my wall of fear and ignorance. It's an act. Hell, my players know me well enough to know it's an act. When they're thinking about it, that is.

You know what though? My players still win. Their characters are bruised. They're battered. They've sacrificed and bled and fought their utmost. They almost died repeatedly. They pulled through in the end, saved the damsel (or boytoy or whatever), spiked the villain's head down the temple steps, and have piles of silver and valuables to spend on ale and whores (or rare books, or whatever).

That is what makes a memorable, exciting campaign.

At least for me and my players.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And yet, every interpretation here has the PC's failing to enter, despite succeeding on their skill checks.
> 
> JamesonCourage, that wall of text is beyond my time right now, but, I'll get back to it.  On the quick skim through, I think that where the problem lies is that you have broken down "get into the gate" into multiple parts, each of which must be overcome before you gain entrance.
> 
> ...




Hussar, when you do get more time, go and read my quotes from last page, where I specifically say multiple times that they can succeed, and then tell me what you think.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2011)

So, what's the point of bluffing then?

If all a bluff does is make someone believe something, but, has zero influence over what they actually do about that belief, then what's the point?  Great!  I succeeded in my bluff.  He believes me.  Now, I can actually make the next roll that might actually matter.  Oh, wait... that roll didn't matter either since diplomacy doesn't actually make anyone do anything, it only influences reaction... I guess I'll do Intimidate.  But, that doesn't make any sense in the context of the game.  Well, at least it gets the results that I want.  Granted it undoes all the groundwork I previously did with diplomacy and bluff, but, hey, it's the only way I get to actually drive the campaign and not be led around by the nose by the DM.

If your players prefer your way, then, hey, more power to you.  To me, and to most of the players I've played with, when they succeed, they actually want to succeed.  They don't want the DM turning their successes into failures so that they can "earn" their successes.

Do you do the same thing in combat?  When the character hits the target, do you then rule that he actually missed because, well, your opponent is just to fast to be hit by such a slow weapon as a maul?  I doubt it.  So, why are you interpreting successes out of combat in such a way that they fail?





			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's one way to do it! Using this method and the example of the "paranoid duke" I posted, the Bluff checks might have really high DCs. If the players are the ones who assign the DCs - because they are determining the validity of the approach - you can get issues with challenge-based play.




Umm, where did this come from?  I never said that the players determine DC's.  I don't think anyone else did either.  The only thing that I said is that once you, the DM, have set the DC and I, the player, have beaten that DC, don't take that success and spin it into a failure.

It might even be that a given choice of action really is impossible.  That's fine.  At that point, we actually agree LostSoul - don't roll the dice.  Or, at least tell the players what's going on.  Don't just say, "Hey, I know you just got a really high number on that roll and you know (because you're not a new player) that you succeeded, but, for some reason you fail."

And then sit back and expect the players to start pixel bitching their way into reading your mind as to why they failed.

But, no, at no point do the players get to determine DC's.  Although, typically, the DC's will at least be ballparkable by the players if they have any experience with the system.

The bottom line is, if the players actually succeed, LET THEM SUCCEED.  Blocking success is frustrating to the players, breaks all immersion and leads to your players giving up on trying things that are not so basic simple that the DM cannot block the success.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by JamesonCourage
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Lost Soul
> Quote:
> ...




How does this show that the PC's can succeed.  If they fail the roll, they fail.  If they succeed, the King is called and they fail.  There is NO SUCCESS here.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, what's the point of bluffing then?




To get an NPC to believe what you're telling him.



> If all a bluff does is make someone believe something, but, has zero influence over what they actually do about that belief, then what's the point?




Bluff should affect how somebody acts. It does not dictate how they act. They should process the new information they've received, and act on it as they should reasonably be expected to act.



> Great!  I succeeded in my bluff.  He believes me.  Now, I can actually make the next roll that might actually matter.




There is no "get into the castle" check.



> Oh, wait... that roll didn't matter either since diplomacy doesn't actually make anyone do anything, it only influences reaction... I guess I'll do Intimidate.  But, that doesn't make any sense in the context of the game.




Actually, by the rules, even Intimidate doesn't dictate how NPCs actually act, it just modifies their behavior towards you (just like Diplomacy does).



> Well, at least it gets the results that I want.  Granted it undoes all the groundwork I previously did with diplomacy and bluff, but, hey, it's the only way I get to actually drive the campaign and not be led around by the nose by the DM.




Again, I don't know where you're getting this. If you could point how I'm advocating leading players around by the nose, I'll address that statement.



> If your players prefer your way, then, hey, more power to you.  To me, and to most of the players I've played with, when they succeed, they actually want to succeed.  They don't want the DM turning their successes into failures so that they can "earn" their successes.




Success on the Bluff check _only indicates whether or not the bluff is believed_. That's all. Bluff checks are not "get into the castle" checks, and no such checks exist in 3.5, to my knowledge.



> Do you do the same thing in combat?  When the character hits the target, do you then rule that he actually missed because, well, your opponent is just to fast to be hit by such a slow weapon as a maul?  I doubt it.




I do not act that way, you're correct. Just like with the social skills, I play by the rules. This is a pretty straightforward concept.



> So, why are you interpreting successes out of combat in such a way that they fail?




They've succeeded in exactly what they've rolled on. Just like a hit in combat would indicate that they probably get a damage roll (unless something wonky is going on, like some sort of class ability that negates damage rolls).

I'm not using GM fiat when I play by the rules in both of these scenarios. Technically, you are when you say a Bluff check equates to PCs being entitled a specific action being taken. But, as always, play what you like 

Let me ask you this: as far as I can tell, you're saying that if a player Bluffs, he succeeds, and should be let in. When a player attacks an enemy with the intent to kill it, and he rolls a hit, does he automatically kill it? Because that seems like the equivalent to me, and I doubt you play that way.



> And then sit back and expect the players to start pixel bitching their way into reading your mind as to why they failed.




It's not pixel bitching, and I'd once again ask you to cease with the inflammatory terms (ie, pixel bitching, railroading, etc.).



> The bottom line is, if the players actually succeed, LET THEM SUCCEED.  Blocking success is frustrating to the players, breaks all immersion and leads to your players giving up on trying things that are not so basic simple that the DM cannot block the success.




Again, blanket statements on how all players feel or react are probably unwise.

If the players succeed at what the rules dictate (ie, a Bluff), then I let it succeed. I do not pile unwarranted success on it arbitrarily. The fact that you seem to think that I'm using massive amounts of GM fiat when I follow the rules, once again, baffling. If you want me to go over the 3.5 rules on Bluff again, I can try to explain my point again. I don't think you've given me your interpretation on the Bluff rules yet, other than how you think they should be used. I stated my case here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/5610655-post236.html

As always, though, play what you like 



Hussar said:


> How does this show that the PC's can succeed.  If they fail the roll, they fail.  If they succeed, the King is called and they fail.  There is NO SUCCESS here.




First of all, this was an example to show various levels of success or failure to Lost Soul.

Secondly, if you did read my post on the last page where I pointed out that they can succeed, I indicated that a successful Disguise can fool the king as well. I can grab that quote again if you'd like. 

Hope that clears this up.

Play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2011)

JamesonCourage

Yeah, so, basically, it's all up to DM fiat since, as you say, strictly going 100% literal on the rules, there is no skill that actually lets the players achieve what they want.  There is no "Open the Gate" skill, no skill that actually makes an NPC do anything.  So, you feel completely comfortable with taking any success and manipulating it in such a way that your feelings of "realistic" are satisfied and you get to negate any player successes at the same time.

All the while secure in the knowledge that any complaints by the players can simply be met with the rulebook.

Yeah, no thanks.  

At this point, we're simply not going to agree here.  You are, if you take a 100% literal interpretation of the rules, correct.  After all, believing the PC's, being outright helpful to the PC's, none of that actually achieves any of the players goals.  They get led around by the nose into your next "objective" interpretation that unsuprisingly results in yet again, the PC's failing.



> Secondly, if you did read my post on the last page where I pointed out that they can succeed, I indicated that a successful Disguise can fool the king as well. I can grab that quote again if you'd like.




So, basically, any other choice, except for the one single one you've chosen beforehand will fail, regardless of any rolls to the contrary.  How exactly is that not a railroad?


----------



## Janx (Jul 5, 2011)

I can see what hussar is digging in on.  I grilled JC on the example as well.

And yes, parts of the example wouldn't be run the same way if i was gming.  But we also got to cut JC some respect that he's not a crap dm.

The diplomat arriving before the pcs was a complucation because the party wasted time.

The party not knowing enough about the diplomat to invalidate him as a candidate was likely a botched gather info check. Though i think close friend of king would have been more widely known than other details about him.

Perhaps a counter example from JC? How COULD the party have socialed their way in (rather than brute force, spells, or climb and stealth rolls)

Since it was his example based on some fragments from a real game,what was a viable social approach?

I think folks have offered alternatives.  Can the argument be ended if JC validates that the party chose the wrong point (guard after lockdown posing as known person), and there still was other viable social attack points that could have worked with the right story and die rolls.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2011)

Janx said:
			
		

> I think folks have offered alternatives. Can the argument be ended if JC validates that the party chose the wrong point (guard after lockdown posing as known person), and there still was other viable social attack points that could have worked with the right story and die rolls.




That's not really my issue though to be honest.  It's not that there wasn't any other approach possible, it's that an approach that is mostly reasonable is successfully completed - the relevant skill checks are succeeded - but the results are massaged in such a way that success still results in failure.

The justification for this is that success cannot result in anything but whatever the DM deems the appropriate response.  There is no "open the gate" check after all.  So, the DM takes the success and incorporates it into a response that results in failure for the PC's.

That's my whole problem in a nutshell right there.  

It's not that success should equal complete and unqualified success.  The combat example where the player wants to kill the baddie is obviously not going to happen.  However, I would not negate the PC's successful attack by saying that a "hit" doesn't actually mean you do any damage".  Because, strictly by the SRD:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Attack Rolls
> 
> An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent.
> 
> Your attack roll is 1d20 + your attack bonus with the weapon you’re using. If the result is at least as high as the target’s AC, you hit and deal damage.




it specifically states the effects of hitting an opponent, unlike a skill check which is truthfully, left up to the DM's interpretation.

My beef here is that the idea that the DM's interpretation should be used to negate a success.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> JamesonCourage
> 
> Yeah, so, basically, it's all up to DM fiat since, as you say, strictly going 100% literal on the rules, there is no skill that actually lets the players achieve what they want.  There is no "Open the Gate" skill, no skill that actually makes an NPC do anything.  So, you feel completely comfortable with taking any success and manipulating it in such a way that your feelings of "realistic" are satisfied and you get to negate any player successes at the same time.




That's not really what's happening here. Your "if they roll, and I tell them how they succeed" _is just as much fiat_ as me saying that a guard believes you when you bluff successfully. Mine is supported by the rules, though, and the players know exactly what to expect. A success with Hussar is more arbitrarily defined than "if the Bluff succeeds, the NPC believes you" is by a long shot.

If you want consistent rules for players to follow, sticking to RAW has that added benefit. I don't think you disagree with me here, but maybe you do.



> All the while secure in the knowledge that any complaints by the players can simply be met with the rulebook.
> 
> Yeah, no thanks.




I don't see how following the rules and not allowing players to narrate is somehow unfair. If you want, I can ask one or more of my players to voice their opinion here. We can see if they think it's railroading, GM fiat, or unreasonable.



> At this point, we're simply not going to agree here.  You are, if you take a 100% literal interpretation of the rules, correct.  After all, believing the PC's, being outright helpful to the PC's, none of that actually achieves any of the players goals.  They get led around by the nose into your next "objective" interpretation that unsuprisingly results in yet again, the PC's failing.




I still don't know where you're getting "let around" to the next objective.



> So, basically, any other choice, except for the one single one you've chosen beforehand will fail, regardless of any rolls to the contrary.  How exactly is that not a railroad?




That's slightly amusing, Hussar. Their plan was to impersonate the diplomat in the example we've been using. I say that if they succeed on their Bluff and Disguise checks, they can pull it off. Yes, this reeks of railroading 

As always, play what you like 




Janx said:


> I can see what hussar is digging in on.  I grilled JC on the example as well.




I didn't feel grilled, so thanks for handling it with such civility. I do appreciate it.



> And yes, parts of the example wouldn't be run the same way if i was gming.  But we also got to cut JC some respect that he's not a crap dm.




Thanks, and I don't think you, Hussar, or Lost Soul are bad GMs either, even though we all probably play differently.



> The diplomat arriving before the pcs was a complucation because the party wasted time.




Yep, went into that.



> The party not knowing enough about the diplomat to invalidate him as a candidate was likely a botched gather info check. Though i think close friend of king would have been more widely known than other details about him.




A friend of 50 years ago. It wasn't hidden knowledge, though it wasn't widespread. So, probably not a hard check, but not one they made.



> Perhaps a counter example from JC? How COULD the party have socialed their way in (rather than brute force, spells, or climb and stealth rolls)




Even in the example I gave, I said that successful Bluff checks and Disguise checks might get them in.

Let's stick with the same example (pretending to be a diplomat). The guard knows that the diplomat arrived earlier, the king greeted him, and he has orders to let nobody inside. The party shows up and succeeds in a Bluff check ("I'm the diplomat, and these friends are my escort"). The guard has the guard captain fetched, who gets the chancellor, who talks to the king and the diplomat about it. They all get some guards and make it to the gate and talk to the PCs. The PCs make another Bluff check "we're from the nation, we were sent after the diplomat with new knowledge that needs to be discussed immediately and privately." If their Bluff and maybe Disguise checks hold up, they'll probably be let in by the king.

And this is one of the worst case scenarios for the PCs (the example _was_ originally given to show Lost Soul degrees of success and failure).

If the party had beaten the diplomat, as I said, the king would have greeted them, and his Sense Motive is much lower than the chancellor's Sense Motive skill (who wasn't at the gate to meet them). On top of that, they'd have to roll a successful Disguise check, but if that passes, the king will let them in.

This is not taking into account normal circumstances. This entire thread started from the original post, where the OP proposed a situation in which it would be harder. If they go to a castle that isn't ruled by an intimidating king, where guards aren't threatened with their family's death for failure, where there are no threats present, then we have an entirely different picture. The turnip farmer becomes feasible. Pretending to be a servant. Pretending to be a guard. Saying you have a message for someone. These are all reasonable.



> Since it was his example based on some fragments from a real game,what was a viable social approach?




Hopefully I cleared it up some, but if you want more, let me know.



> I think folks have offered alternatives.  Can the argument be ended if JC validates that the party chose the wrong point (guard after lockdown posing as known person), and there still was other viable social attack points that could have worked with the right story and die rolls.




I've said this already. I've directly said that a successful Disguise check could save their botched plan. Other plans may have worked, such as claiming to be a runner with an urgent message (rather than being the diplomat). There are so many different ways that this could be salvaged or succeed with better conditions.

The fact that by following the rules I'm running a GM fiat, railroady, inferior game where I arbitrarily make things disadvantageous to the players and always rule against them and don't trust them is something that bugs me. These statements are incorrect, uncivil, and inflammatory. I have no idea why Hussar cannot accept the difference in play style and discuss it without using such phrases.

As always, though, play what you like 



Hussar said:


> That's not really my issue though to be honest.  It's not that there wasn't any other approach possible, it's that an approach that is mostly reasonable is successfully completed - the relevant skill checks are succeeded - but the results are massaged in such a way that success still results in failure.




I think you have a fundamentally different take on what the checks represent than what the rules portray them as.



> The justification for this is that success cannot result in anything but whatever the DM deems the appropriate response.  There is no "open the gate" check after all.  So, the DM takes the success and incorporates it into a response that results in failure for the PC's.




Only if failure is reasonable. 



> That's my whole problem in a nutshell right there.




I don't think I can help you with that.



> It's not that success should equal complete and unqualified success.  The combat example where the player wants to kill the baddie is obviously not going to happen.  However, I would not negate the PC's successful attack by saying that a "hit" doesn't actually mean you do any damage".  Because, strictly by the SRD:
> 
> it specifically states the effects of hitting an opponent, unlike a skill check which is truthfully, left up to the DM's interpretation.




Both Bluff and attack rolls state exactly what happens when you make a successful check. You can change the rules if you'd like, but you're still using the same amount of GM adjudication that I am when you narrate how that success plays out.



> My beef here is that the idea that the DM's interpretation should be used to negate a success.




It's not negating any success, as I've shown time and again.


----------



## GSHamster (Jul 5, 2011)

I still have to formulate responses to some of the posts and the more serious points within.

But tangentially, it occurs to me that reversing the order of arrivals might actually be a more interesting choice. If the PCs arrive first, and convince the guard that they are the ambassadors, at that point they are on a time limit. They have to accomplish their objectives and get out before the "real" ambassadors arrive.

In fact, if I recall correctly, this is the usual method used by spy shows like _Alias_. The copied person always shows up after, to cause maximum confusion.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 5, 2011)

GSHamster said:


> I still have to formulate responses to some of the posts and the more serious points within.
> 
> But tangentially, it occurs to me that reversing the order of arrivals might actually be a more interesting choice. If the PCs arrive first, and convince the guard that they are the ambassadors, at that point they are on a time limit. They have to accomplish their objectives and get out before the "real" ambassadors arrive.
> 
> In fact, if I recall correctly, this is the usual method used by spy shows like _Alias_. The copied person always shows up after, to cause maximum confusion.




I agree. I mentioned that if they did beat the diplomat to the castle, failing a Bluff check outside the castle might be good for them, as it prevents them from being locked in once the real diplomat arrives.

But, even if it did work that way, I do agree that it'd be interesting.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2011)

JamesonCourage - again, by literal interpretation of RAW, you are exactly right.  A successful social check only makes the target believe you or changes their attitude.  That's true.

So a helpful guard that believes I'm the diplomat still summons the king whereupon I have to make yet more skill checks.  So, I succeed and the king believes me.  What next?  Does the King then let me get on with whatever I was trying to get into the castle for in the first place?  Or does the king then lead me to the royal meeting room, where I meet the real Diplomat, necessitating another round of checks and the chamberlain (still more checks) and the King's nephew (yet more checks) until such time as I fail?

My problem here is that your "realistic response" is not objective.  It's taking their success, which we both agree that they succeeded, and taking the worst possible interpretation for that success.

I'm not saying that the PC's should get the best possible interpretation every time, but, sheesh, let them actually succeed.  All they wanted to do was get past the gate guard.  But, in getting past the gate guard, they get sucked into more and more skill checks, that's not a success at all.

I'm not interpreting anything rules wise.  The PC's succeeded.  The Guard believes their lie.  We both agree here.

The guard lets them past because he believes the lie.  - Not an unreasonable response that actually validates that success.

The guard calls down the king that leads to an endless succession of yet more skill checks.  - A not unreasonable response that negates that success.

My point isn't that it's unreasonable for the guard to call in his superiors.  It is reasonable.  But, it's not the only reasonable response.  Given the choice between two reasonable responses, why not go with the one that actually allows the players choices rather than forces them down a single path?


----------



## Krensky (Jul 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, what's the point of bluffing then?




To lie. Well, and to be Distracting in combat. Or any other action that the GM wants to ask for a Bluff check on. But the defined uses are lying and the Distract action.



Hussar said:


> If all a bluff does is make someone believe something, but, has zero influence over what they actually do about that belief, then what's the point?  Great!  I succeeded in my bluff.  He believes me.  Now, I can actually make the next roll that might actually matter.  Oh, wait... that roll didn't matter either since diplomacy doesn't actually make anyone do anything, it only influences reaction... I guess I'll do Intimidate.  But, that doesn't make any sense in the context of the game.  Well, at least it gets the results that I want.  Granted it undoes all the groundwork I previously did with diplomacy and bluff, but, hey, it's the only way I get to actually drive the campaign and not be led around by the nose by the DM.




Now you're back to arguing with the evil GM who traumatized you in your youth. Both Intimidate's Coerce check and Impress's Persuade check are used to convince a character to do something. Lie can provide a synergy bonus to either. A successful Bluff check might also reduce the penalties or provide a Discretionary bonus if it's a really appropriate lie.

For example:
You make your bluff. The guard believes your lie. So he calls for someone to escort you where you need to go in the castle. You're in, but you need to shake the escort in a way that seems natural and accidental.

-or-

You made your Bluff. The guard believes your lie. So he lets you and the turnip cart containing the rest of the party in and points you towards the kitchens.



Hussar said:


> If your players prefer your way, then, hey, more power to you.  To me, and to most of the players I've played with, when they succeed, they actually want to succeed.  They don't want the DM turning their successes into failures so that they can "earn" their successes.
> 
> They did succeed. The problem is you want the Bluff skill to do more then it does.
> 
> ...


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> JamesonCourage - again, by literal interpretation of RAW, you are exactly right.  A successful social check only makes the target believe you or changes their attitude.  That's true.




Yep, glad we agree.



> So a helpful guard that believes I'm the diplomat still summons the king whereupon I have to make yet more skill checks.  So, I succeed and the king believes me.  What next?  Does the King then let me get on with whatever I was trying to get into the castle for in the first place?  Or does the king then lead me to the royal meeting room, where I meet the real Diplomat, necessitating another round of checks and the chamberlain (still more checks) and the King's nephew (yet more checks) until such time as I fail?




Only if that's reasonable, Hussar. In the example I gave, if they arrive after the diplomat (and succeed in convincing the guard that they're the diplomat, even though he's already shown up), the the king, chancellor, and real diplomat (who are all together discussing business) will get a contingent of guards and meet the party at the gates, to sort this whole thing out.

That's reasonable. If they succeed in some Bluff checks with quick thinking, then the NPCs will believe their bluffs. If their bluffs are reasonable enough that they can complete their goal, then I have no problem with that being the case.

You're looking at one of the worst case scenarios for the PCs, because I specifically gave one to Lost Soul at his request to demonstrate how I use degrees of success and failure in my game. So, things start out bad for them. I am in no way out to get my players.



> My problem here is that your "realistic response" is not objective.  It's taking their success, which we both agree that they succeeded, and taking the worst possible interpretation for that success.




I think we differ on what they succeeded on. I say they succeeded on the lie (and you and the rules seem to agree with me), but you also seem to think that means they succeeded at manipulating their way into the castle (the goal of their lie). So, while we both agree that they succeeded, we're talking about different things when we say "success".

Additionally, these factors were determined before the PCs acted on it. The date the NPC was to arrive, his background with the king, etc. All of this was not manipulated on the fly to screw over the players.



> I'm not saying that the PC's should get the best possible interpretation every time, but, sheesh, let them actually succeed.  All they wanted to do was get past the gate guard.  But, in getting past the gate guard, they get sucked into more and more skill checks, that's not a success at all.




Well, they can succeed at getting past the gate guard, as I've pointed out over and over and over. If you still don't think I'll let that happen, all I can do is shrug and tell you that my experience at my table trumps yours.



> I'm not interpreting anything rules wise.  The PC's succeeded.  The Guard believes their lie.  We both agree here.




Yeah, looks like we do 



> The guard lets them past because he believes the lie.  - Not an unreasonable response that actually validates that success.




The player dictating that is against the rules, and considering the example we're using (the one I provided for Lost Soul), it's unreasonable. If we use the example NewJeffCT used in his original post, it's also likely unreasonable that he just lets you in without some sort of justification. Maybe the bluff is adequate, maybe it isn't. Other factors will really decide this.



> The guard calls down the king that leads to an endless succession of yet more skill checks.  - A not unreasonable response that negates that success.




Again, you're talking about something that isn't happening, and have referenced it multiple times throughout this thread. There is no "endless succession of yet more skill checks" in any example I've given. In fact, in the example I've given in this very post, it's trying to Bluff the king, diplomat, and chancellor (1 check, opposed by 3 others).

Where you get some of these assumptions is beyond me, especially after I've addressed them time and again.



> My point isn't that it's unreasonable for the guard to call in his superiors.  It is reasonable.  But, it's not the only reasonable response.  Given the choice between two reasonable responses, why not go with the one that actually allows the players choices rather than forces them down a single path?




I go with the most reasonable response. The players know to rely on that. To favor the players is akin to fudging rolls, which I don't do (I roll out in the open, and have never owned a DM screen). I don't pull punches. I don't favor them in-game (even if I root for them as a friend). I don't favor their opponents in-game. If a PC dies, I tell the player I'm sorry, and he tells me "it's okay" and we move on. I don't like doing it, but I don't pull punches.

To do what you suggest is fine, but it's too narrative for me. Our style is different. And that's fine. My group is not alone in how we play, and even if we were, _it'd be fine_.

I've answered these questions many, many times. I've attributed it to play style difference pages ago.

As always, play what you like


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Umm, where did this come from?  I never said that the players determine DC's.  I don't think anyone else did either.  The only thing that I said is that once you, the DM, have set the DC and I, the player, have beaten that DC, don't take that success and spin it into a failure.




I didn't mean to put words into your mouth, or suggest you were saying that!  Sorry if it came out that way.

To me, having players set the DC is the logical end of the players being able to determine the validity of their character's actions.  I guess you don't agree.  That's cool.

Anyway.  Hussar, if I said that you wanted the roll to resolve the character's _goal_ instead of their specific _action,_ would you agree?


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 5, 2011)

To me, the debate comes down to Bluff as a "lie" skill vs bluff as a "persuade" skill.

Take the following hypothetical. The BBEG goes to the guard and says "Don't let anyone other than me go through this door!"

One of the PCs goes to the guard with a massive outrageous bluff skill.

PC: "I am the second in command, let me through!"

Guard: "Um...you don't look or sound like the second in command, buzz off!"

PC: "I am currently experimenting with the power to change my form, do not question me minion!" (rolls a very high bluff check and succeeds)

Guard: "Oh...I greatly apologize sir! However, the chief said I cannot let anyone else through, not even you"

PC: "I know what he said, but he has sent me down here on important business. I don't have time to waste, so let me through!"

Guard: "Sir, why wouldn't he have told me you were coming?"

PC: "Because the BBEG does not waste time with the likes of you when more important things are going on. He sent me, end of story" (passes another bluff check).


Now....at this point is where I think the road divides for a lot of groups. For some, the bluff checks have answered all of the guards concerns with lies. Therefore, the guard is convinced enough to let the PC through.

The other camp says, the guard believes the lies, but has not been persuaded of anything. That would require a diplomacy check to actually convince the guard to let him through.


Note that a key part here is that the guard does need convincing...specifically because of the BBEGs orders. If the second in command would normally have been allowed in, the bluff checks would have been sufficient (the goal is to convince the guard you are the guy, once that's done, you already have permission).


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 5, 2011)

Stalker0 said:


> To me, the debate comes down to Bluff as a "lie" skill vs bluff as a "persuade" skill.
> 
> [SNIP full of good stuff]
> 
> Note that a key part here is that the guard does need convincing...specifically because of the BBEGs orders. If the second in command would normally have been allowed in, the bluff checks would have been sufficient (the goal is to convince the guard you are the guy, once that's done, you already have permission).




I pretty much agree with this. Thank you for contributing, and I hope that clarifies things. It's just a play style difference, as far as I can tell.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2011)

The problem is Stalker0 - and I totally agree with how you have posted things - is that apparently, bluffing the guard isn't enough, nor is diplomacy.

After all, there is no open the gate skill.

According to JamesonCourage, no skill can get that gate to open.  The only thing that gets that gate to open is if I press the correct series of buttons in the DM's head and he lets me get in the gate.  If I fail to press any of the buttons, then I cannot enter.  If I do not press ALL of the buttons, I still cannot enter.  In fact, pressing the buttons doesn't actually do anything because it all comes down to the DM making an adjudication that I have apparently convinced him that I should be let in.

At no point does any of my successes actually let me in the gate.  It's all up to DM Fiat.

I would say that the basic difference here is, how do you award success.  After all, we all agree that the PC's succeeded.  They bluffed the guard.  The guard believes their lie.  Maybe the DM requires a further diplomacy check, that's fine.  But, in the example, even if I do that, the guard still calls down the king and I'm screwed.

Now, if any of the following is the result:



			
				JC said:
			
		

> For example:
> You make your bluff. The guard believes your lie. So he calls for someone to escort you where you need to go in the castle. You're in, but you need to shake the escort in a way that seems natural and accidental.
> 
> -or-
> ...




Then the PC's success ACTUALLY is a success.  They get in the door and they are not subject to an endless string of subsequent challenges until they fail.  See, both of these examples actually reward success instead of punishing it.

It all comes down to how do you reward success.



			
				Lost Soul said:
			
		

> Anyway. Hussar, if I said that you wanted the roll to resolve the character's goal instead of their specific action, would you agree?




Not really.  My point, and the thing that everyone seems to agree on, is that the PC's have already succeeded.  They bluffed the guard, they jumped through the hoops, they got their 12 successes before 3 failures, whatever floats your boat.  They succeeded.  But, that success is then turned into a failure because the DM decides that their success just isn't quite good enough.

That's where I part company.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The problem is Stalker0 - and I totally agree with how you have posted things - is that apparently, bluffing the guard isn't enough, nor is diplomacy.




Correct.



> After all, there is no open the gate skill.




Again, correct.



> According to JamesonCourage, no skill can get that gate to open.  The only thing that gets that gate to open is if I press the correct series of buttons in the DM's head and he lets me get in the gate.  If I fail to press any of the buttons, then I cannot enter.  If I do not press ALL of the buttons, I still cannot enter.  In fact, pressing the buttons doesn't actually do anything because it all comes down to the DM making an adjudication that I have apparently convinced him that I should be let in.




This is no more true than rolling a Survival check to determine north, rolling a Knowledge (geography) check to determine where a city is in relation to yourself, and then telling the GM that you're heading there.

The checks mechanically represent success in a limited area, and GM adjudication resolves the rest. This is true in nearly every aspect of the game. That you prefer an exception to social skills, or just Bluff, or anything else is fine. But it is not arbitrary GM fiat to follow that just like the rest of the game.



> At no point does any of my successes actually let me in the gate.  It's all up to DM Fiat.




Again, no more than "you rolled a success on your Bluff, so you get in. Here's how it went down" is. _Your method is just as much GM fiat as mine is_.



> I would say that the basic difference here is, how do you award success.  After all, we all agree that the PC's succeeded.  They bluffed the guard.  The guard believes their lie.  Maybe the DM requires a further diplomacy check, that's fine.  But, in the example, even if I do that, the guard still calls down the king and I'm screwed.




_You're not necessarily screwed_.

_This is not a universal situation, it's a specific situation that I gave Lost Soul to demonstrate differing levels of success and failure_.

_You can still succeed in your social checks_.

_You could have succeeded in your investigation checks better than you did_.

_Circumstances can favor you, rather than be against you_.

I'm not sure how many times it needs to be said, but maybe eventually you'll see what I'm trying to say.



> Now, if any of the following is the result:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Where did I say there's an endless stream of challenges? In fact, did I give a number of challenges that they'll need to make? If so, what number?



> It all comes down to how do you reward success.
> 
> Not really.  My point, and the thing that everyone seems to agree on, is that the PC's have already succeeded.  They bluffed the guard, they jumped through the hoops, they got their 12 successes before 3 failures, whatever floats your boat.  They succeeded.  But, that success is then turned into a failure because the DM decides that their success just isn't quite good enough.
> 
> That's where I part company.




That's not what happened. You can only succeed mechanically at lying with the Bluff skill. In this case, that means a success is measured by whether or not someone believes your bluff, but not by whether or not or achieve your goal.

Please, explain to me where it did, using the definition of success that I am familiar with:


			
				Success said:
			
		

> suc·cess
> 1. The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted




They were indeed successful at lying. Nothing beyond that. You can play it that way, and that's cool, and I know you have fun, and it's not wrong.

But saying "you succeeded on your Bluff, so the guard reacts this way, so you get let in" is actually a little more GM fiat than "you succeeded on your Bluff, so the guard believes you, and here's how he reacts" _because your method doesn't follow the rules_.

Bluffing the guard is jumping through one hoop. Hitting a dragon is jumping through one hoop. If you use the GitP Diplomacy rules (and adjust Intimidate appropriately), then all of a sudden Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate seem much less binary than people make them out to be. There's a back and forth, there are multiple checks, there is a lot less "I made the check, so I win" going on. I don't use the rules from GitP directly as written, but I definitely modified my old Diplomacy skill to reflect it as a base.

Hussar, I really don't understand your issue. I mean, I understand it, but it's an issue with a play style with people who aren't in this thread. And, if your point is "I don't like it when people use X play style" then I understand. But attributing it to me, Krensky, or anyone else is simply false, especially when we tell you that is simply isn't the case.

As always, play what you like


----------



## GSHamster (Jul 5, 2011)

I think it's an issue with the word "success". To me, if the players are successful at a check, they should end up in a better place than they started. Maybe not all the way to the finish line, but certainly closer than they were before the check.

In this example, they succeed with their Bluff check, and end up in a worse position than they started. That is what strikes me as unfair on the DM's part.

Personally, I think the mistake was allowing the check. If the DM was determined to forestall that route, then she should have shut it down in conversation with the guard before the check, "Eh? the ambassador has already come through here. The king himself welcomed him into the hall before dinner."

In my view, once you proceed to the dice, the DM has an obligation to move the PCs closer to the goal if the check is successful. Moving them backwards after a successful check is just not cricket.


----------



## Krensky (Jul 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> At no point does any of my successes actually let me in the gate.  It's all up to DM Fiat.




Your position is as much GM fiat as JC's, Hussar.



Hussar said:


> Now, if any of the following is the result:
> Originally Posted by JC
> For example:
> You make your bluff. The guard believes your lie. So he calls for someone to escort you where you need to go in the castle. You're in, but you need to shake the escort in a way that seems natural and accidental.
> ...




Those are my examples. Let me give you some others.

You made your Bluff. The guard believes your lie. So he follows his standing orders regarding refugees from the Orclands and sics the dogs on you.

-or-

You made your Bluff. The guard believes your lie. He knows the king hates mimes so he tells you to get lost.

Those are success at the test too.

The thing is though, the challenge isn't to bluff their way past the guard. It's to enter the castle. Any way of doing that gets the PCs the XP for that objective. The Bluff check isn't a challenge, it's a tactic.

They chose the wrong lie. That's it.

Now, in both of those cases, when the players are cooking up the scheme, I'll make some Knowledge checks or suggest a player use a free hint ability, or give me an action die for a hint. So I can inform them that it's a bad plan and why. Same might have happened in the Merry Prankster example, but I may have let them step in it there since their being really dumb, the result will be hilarious, and it'll give me months of material. 



Hussar said:


> Not really.  My point, and the thing that everyone seems to agree on, is that the PC's have already succeeded.  They bluffed the guard, they jumped through the hoops, they got their 12 successes before 3 failures, whatever floats your boat.  They succeeded.  But, that success is then turned into a failure because the DM decides that their success just isn't quite good enough.




See, this is the issue.

You keep repeating this. It's not true.

The PCs succeeded at their Bluff. The guard believes them. We all agree here.

Now, you say that unless the guard lets them in, regardless of the circumstances in the castle, his orders, his temperament, the nature of the lie, etc, the GM is being a jerk and abusing his players by turning their 'success' into a 'failure'. That the GM should change to world so the player's succeeding at telling a lie to a guard grants them access to the castle no matter what. That succeeding at a check grants the player broad agency to define the world and NPCs actions.

I, and others disagree. That's not what I or the people I play with want out of a traditional RPG. For me, part of it is that the players get to dictate their character's actions. They don't get to dictate mine as well. Part of it is my view that the only thing the Bluff vs Sense Motive check does is determine if the guard believes you. How the guard responds depends on the guard, his orders, the lie, the conditions in the castle, etc. In fact this is explicitly RAW and RAI in my ruleset.

Now I need to go back to rereading Wick's Play Dirty. I have a game tomorrow night.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The only thing that gets that gate to open is if I press the correct series of buttons in the DM's head and he lets me get in the gate.




At its core, bypassing all challenges in roleplaying game requires you to "press the correct series of buttons". However, the trick to being a good DM is the following:

1) Making sure the players have some clue as to which buttons to press.
2) Show some flexibility when the situation calls for it, especially for good ideas.

In the example I mentioned, if the guard had simply said "I can't let you in"....then that's just frustrating.

But when the guard says "The BBEG said to let no one but himself in"....then that gives the player a clue...something to work with.

Perhaps he could come back disguised as the BBEG, or forge orders from him allowing you to let him in....or perhaps intimidating the guard. All of these might be paths that work....but that doesn't mean all of them should work in all cases.


However, the problem that sometimes arrises with skills like bluff....which I would say is the origin of this whole thread....is when that skill becomes the "master key" that unlocks any challenge.

When your bluff is so good you can bypass even very hard DCS (doable in 4e, actually very easy in 3e), then the tendency is to let a player talk his way through any situation (the master button). At that point, the context of the situation becomes meaningless. It doesn't matter what the guard's orders are, or what his loyalty is, or the penalty for letting someone in....if he can be hammered down with bluff it simply doesn't matter. That is the legitimate danger of giving social skills too much power...and I think its something to be aware of when determining how social skills will work in a particular game.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 5, 2011)

GSHamster said:


> I think it's an issue with the word "success". To me, if the players are successful at a check, they should end up in a better place than they started. Maybe not all the way to the finish line, but certainly closer than they were before the check.




And I think success should be defined by how the rules define them, rather than based on PC goals.

If the PCs are fighting a lich, and they kill him and destroy his phylactery (they got a tip off as to what it is from an anonymous source), then they think they've succeeded in their goal. However, I know that the lich orchestrated the information, gave them false information on his phylactery, and prepared a fake phylactery because he knew the party would go after him (they were past friends, and he had become Evil). Then, they take his stuff (it is D&D, after all), and he pops up 1d10 days later at his phylactery (which they have), and ambushes and kills one of the PCs (before taking his stuff back). This cannot happen with your preferred method, as far as I can tell, as killing the lich and destroying his phylactery seems reasonable, and "negating" that outcome would be wrong. But please, correct me if I'm wrong, as I might very well be.

But, had the PCs looked into things (they did literally no research, and took the source at his word), they may have found out that this wasn't the case. Sometimes things aren't always successful, even if you roll high (like kicking some lich butt).

It's a play style difference. Your style isn't wrong. And I'm not playing a game where it's run by "... GM fiat, railroady, inferior game where I arbitrarily make things disadvantageous to the players and always rule against them and don't trust them". That's just not the case, and the fact that Hussar has repeatedly attributed those things to me, as well as other things (endless checks that they players can't succeed, taking away player success or twisting player success into failure, etc.) is something I find a little baffling.



> In this example, they succeed with their Bluff check, and end up in a worse position than they started. That is what strikes me as unfair on the DM's part.




It's following the rules of the game. If the GM is to be a neutral arbiter, I'd rather him follow the rules as they were intended.



> Personally, I think the mistake was allowing the check. If the DM was determined to forestall that route, then she should have shut it down in conversation with the guard before the check, "Eh? the ambassador has already come through here. The king himself welcomed him into the hall before dinner."




There's nothing wrong with that style of play, but using the rules isn't wrong, either.



> In my view, once you proceed to the dice, the DM has an obligation to move the PCs closer to the goal if the check is successful. Moving them backwards after a successful check is just not cricket.




If that's the way you and your players like, I have no beef with that 

As always, play what you like


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 5, 2011)

Stalker0 said:


> At its core, bypassing all challenges in roleplaying game requires you to "press the correct series of buttons".




Yep.



> However, the trick to being a good DM is the following:
> 
> 1) Making sure the players have some clue as to which buttons to press.
> 2) Show some flexibility when the situation calls for it, especially for good ideas.




I agree with both of these 



> In the example I mentioned, if the guard had simply said "I can't let you in"....then that's just frustrating.
> 
> But when the guard says "The BBEG said to let no one but himself in"....then that gives the player a clue...something to work with.
> 
> Perhaps he could come back disguised as the BBEG, or forge orders from him allowing you to let him in....or perhaps intimidating the guard. All of these might be paths that work....but that doesn't mean all of them should work in all cases.




Yep, all of this sounds reasonable. I mean, you'd have to be more intimidating than the BBEG, but if you can do it, and the Risk vs. Reward is tilted in your favor, then you can convince him. No issues with this at all.



> However, the problem that sometimes arrises with skills like bluff....which I would say is the origin of this whole thread....is when that skill becomes the "master key" that unlocks any challenge.




Yeah, I'd like to touch on this again too, as you bring us back to the original topic. This was the original objection by NewJeffCT, and I agree that social skills can be abused in 3.5.



> When your bluff is so good you can bypass even very hard DCS (doable in 4e, actually very easy in 3e), then the tendency is to let a player talk his way through any situation (the master button). At that point, the context of the situation becomes meaningless. It doesn't matter what the guard's orders are, or what his loyalty is, or the penalty for letting someone in....if he can be hammered down with bluff it simply doesn't matter. That is the legitimate danger of giving social skills too much power...and I think its something to be aware of when determining how social skills will work in a particular game.




I totally agree. Thanks for contributing more towards the point of the original post. I feel my discussion has been attached to it, but bringing us back there might make things a lot more productive.

As always, play what you like


----------



## S'mon (Jul 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And yet, every interpretation here has the PC's failing to enter, despite succeeding on their skill checks.




I thought they were just hypothesising one theoretical example where success on a Bluff check would not equal success in getting into a castle; just to make the point that that is possible in particular circumstances. Not that PC failure is inevitable in every character-interaction situation, which is how you seem to be interpreting it.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, so, basically, it's all up to DM fiat




Fiat = judgement.  You obviously don't trust DM judgement.  IMO without DM judgement there's no RPG.


----------



## GSHamster (Jul 5, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> If the PCs are fighting a lich, and they kill him and destroy his phylactery (they got a tip off as to what it is from an anonymous source), then they think they've succeeded in their goal. However, I know that the lich orchestrated the information, gave them false information on his phylactery, and prepared a fake phylactery because he knew the party would go after him (they were past friends, and he had become Evil). Then, they take his stuff (it is D&D, after all), and he pops up 1d10 days later at his phylactery (which they have), and ambushes and kills one of the PCs (before taking his stuff back). This cannot happen with your preferred method, as far as I can tell, as killing the lich and destroying his phylactery seems reasonable, and "negating" that outcome would be wrong. But please, correct me if I'm wrong, as I might very well be.




Well, in this example, there's no ability check involved after the fight. The PCs killed the lich in combat, and thus end up better than they started. The rest is normal plot.

But on the other hand, if the following sequence happened after the lich died:

1. The PCs ask if they can identify the phylactery through a skill like Knowledge: Arcane.
2. The DM agrees and sets a DC.
3. The PCs succeed on the check.
4. The DM has them destroy the fake phylactery.
5. Events proceed as above.

I would see that as unfair.

Admittedly, this example is a little more complicated because knowing your character failed the check tells the player enough information to be successful. Player knowledge and character knowledge differ now, and that always makes life complicated.

I would probably be okay with having a low-ish DC to be "fooled" by lich's deception, and a high (secret) DC to see through the deception to the truth.

But if the PCs "truly" succeed on the check, if they beat the secret DC, they should be able to identify the phylactery as a fake through the use of their skill.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 5, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I thought they were just hypothesising one theoretical example where success on a Bluff check would not equal success in getting into a castle; just to make the point that that is possible in particular circumstances. Not that PC failure is inevitable in every character-interaction situation, which is how you seem to be interpreting it.




Haha, exactly 



GSHamster said:


> Well, in this example, there's no ability check involved after the fight. The PCs killed the lich in combat, and thus end up better than they started. The rest is normal plot.




They end up worse. Had they not attacked, they would not have been ambushed, and their friend (the lich) would not have gone after them.



> But on the other hand, if the following sequence happened after the lich died:
> 
> 1. The PCs ask if they can identify the phylactery through a skill like Knowledge: Arcane.
> 2. The DM agrees and sets a DC.
> ...




Even if the phylactery was forged, and their didn't oppose it with a Forgery? What if they tried to identify it with Knowledge (arcana), and the check told them "yes, a phylactery could look exactly like this"? Now, that check has them believing that this is indeed the phylactery, even though it's been forged.



> Admittedly, this example is a little more complicated because knowing your character failed the check tells the player enough information to be successful. Player knowledge and character knowledge differ now, and that always makes life complicated.




Well, now that they've succeeded on the Knowledge (arcana) check (and never rolled the Forgery check to recognize the fake phylactery), let me know what you think about it.



> I would probably be okay with having a low-ish DC to be "fooled" by lich's deception, and a high (secret) DC to see through the deception to the truth.




I can see that 



> But if the PCs "truly" succeed on the check, if they beat the secret DC, they should be able to identify the phylactery as a fake through the use of their skill.




I can buy that, too. But, this means that a check can "succeed" at something, and still bring bad consequences on the player. They can "succeed" at Gather Information, but only gather enough to get themselves in some trouble (my ongoing example).

Now, I'm okay with this, and if you are too, then awesome! I just thought you were expressing something against this, and saying it was unfair to run things that way.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 5, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Well, now that they've succeeded on the Knowledge (arcana) check (and never rolled the Forgery check to recognize the fake phylactery), let me know what you think about it.




Just to reemphasize my argument from above.

In this context, the DM can set up which "button" allows the players to determine the pylactery is fake, but its important to be upfront about it with players.

For example, lets say the DM does not believe knowledge arcana (no matter how high) can tell the phylatctery is fake (same argument as saying a bluff check can't convince a guard to let you in). In this context the DM is free to say so...but he should tell the players that when they ask for the check. He could then say "however, a forgery check could tell".

That way the party could try a forgery check....or perhaps find an npc with forgery to help them.

The players have pressed the required button....but still did it in a reasonable, roleplaying context....which in the long run leads to a good gaming experience.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 5, 2011)

Stalker0 said:


> Just to reemphasize my argument from above.
> 
> In this context, the DM can set up which "button" allows the players to determine the pylactery is fake, but its important to be upfront about it with players.
> 
> ...




Well, in my (unstated) example, the players wanted to know "could this be the phylactery?" The Knowledge (arcana) check would indicate that "yes, this could be the phylactery."

Separately, they could see if it's fake. And yes, I have no problem giving clues to players, if it's reasonable. And on top of that, I'll give them information, if it's something their character would know. And if it's iffy, I'll allow an appropriate roll.

But you make some good points. If they said "is this the real phylactery" and I said "roll a Knowledge (arcana) check," and they "succeeded" then I would say "this could be it, it does fit the description of what a phylactery might look like."

If, from there, they inquired about it further... "is there a way to see if it's real?" or "do I know for sure that this is it?" or "is there any way to check if the phylactery is connected to the lich, and not just some other phylactery?" then I'd help them, as appropriate, such as by mentioning Forgery, known experts on the matter, ways of testing it (if they know ways of testing it, such as on a skill check), etc.

I probably won't give out that information unprovoked, though. If they don't ask any of those questions, I won't bring it up unless I suspect that their characters would know information that would make them question it. Or, if I think that they should have thought of it, I'll often give a Wisdom check on it.

At any rate, though, this is all personal play style, and I don't want to tangent away from things now that we've gotten back towards the OP.

As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Jul 5, 2011)

Stalker0 said:


> At its core, bypassing all challenges in roleplaying game requires you to "press the correct series of buttons".



There's a sense in which this is not true of D&D combat - the players roll their attack dice, and their damage dice, and when the enemy reaches zero hp the PCs have won the fight. The GM's interpretations and adjudications can alter the difficulty of the attack numbers (who is flanking, who has the higher ground, etc etc) and even the outcome of the damage numbers (who has DR, who has regen, etc). But it can't change the fact that rolling high attack rolls and higher damage rolls is taking the players towards the goal, of victory by their PCs in the combat. (Whether a monster like the nilbog is a refutation of my claim here, or rather just a very badly designed monster, I'll leave for someone else to work out!)



JamesonCourage said:


> In 3.5, there is no skill challenge rule, where successes indicate that something happens, and then you narrate how it happened. That's a fine rule. I spent about a day looking into how I could apply something similar in my game (with no real success), because I really like how it could speed up play, and it reminded me of the extended rolls from WoD.
> 
> However, in 3.5, if you follow RAW, or even RAI, in my opinion, then there's just no way to reconcile your interpretation of the rules.



I think Hussar's point is that, to the extent that this is true of 3.5, it's a flaw in 3.5's design.

For what it's worth, if I was GMing 3E I would treat Bluff as a persuasion skill. So you'd have three persuasion skills, as in 4e - one for persuasion by deception and fast-talking, one for persuasion by being scary, one for persuasion by being reasonable.



Elf Witch said:


> If this was happening in my game I would know if the guards were unbluffable before it ever came to it. It would be in my notes and write up for the castle.





Krensky said:


> Making the Bluff check means you have lied convincingly enough for the target to believe you. What happens then depends. What are the guards orders? What kind of day is he having? What exactly was the lie? Are the PCs impersonating someone the guard knows? Whether or not I have answers to these written down before hand depends on the context of the encounter. I may know this because I created the world. I may know it because the module tells me. I may not know it and pick something that's reasonable. I may not know it and make a roll on the Mythic Fate Chart.





Janx said:


> What complicates the matter further, is in practical terms, good guards call their supervisor. So success or not, there's a logical complication to the request that might not have been obvious to player or dm.
> 
> What counters that, is since the dm controls the nature and severity of all reactions,the dm does have influence on plausibility in ways that avariety of responses are viable. Just like inreal life, some people get away with murder.  The dm does NOT have to throw the book at the PC.





GSHamster said:


> I'm in agreement with Hussar on this. If the PCs make an amazing Diplomacy check, then maybe the guard isn't loyal after all. Maybe he's corrupt and that's why the check succeeds.





GSHamster said:


> it occurs to me that reversing the order of arrivals might actually be a more interesting choice.



I think these five quotes capture the main issue here.

Janx makes clearly what I also take to be Hussar's key point - that the GM, in setting up the backstory and determining complications, is having a big influence on the scope of PC action, and in a different sort of way from giving a monster DR or regeneration - it's not just tweaking a dial in some otherwise transparent action resolution mechanic.

Krensky mentions resolving the factual question by rolling on the Mythic Fate table. But GSHamster's response to that makes sense to me - the player, by investing PC build resources in the Bluff skill, has declared that s/he want to play a game in which his/her PC wins by (among other things) bluffinf. So instead of rolling on the Mythic Fate chart, why not let the PC's high bluff check settle the issue?

[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s concern - that this is, in effect, the player setting the challenge for his/her PC - I think is obviated if the DC is still set by the GM, _and_ any complications that attend the success are also set by the GM. This also answers [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION]'s concern about social skills being too strong.

(On this approach, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s idea that the whole table's sense of reasonableness is relevant would come into play only as a threshold test for a Bluff check being permissible at all, rather than as an element in the resolution of the check once it is agreed that the check can be made.)

GSHamster also flags the GM being flexible with the timing of events in order to produce an interesting story, rather than the GM holding the events constant and making the players work around that conception of the gameworld. Ron Edwards discusses this sort of case as one relevant piece of data for distinguishing narrativist from simulationist (ie exploration-heavy) play.

Which means that JamesonCourage's concern about making the game too narrativist _would_ apply to both of GSHamster's suggestions. The game would no longer be strictly exploration, because significant elements of the gameworld would be settled as part of the actual adjudication of the situation, by a combination of GM decisions in order to introduce complications, and GM decisions as part of the adjudication of player skill checks.

I think this is a very deep difference in playstyles.



Krensky said:


> The players want to be beaten, battered, bruised, and bloody at the end. They also want to win. Part of my job as a GM is to push them as hard and far as I can with plot twists, conflicts, reveals, etc while still positioning them for a triumphant victory.



This is true, but how is it to be achieved? And what are the points at which the beating will take place? In particular, who has primary say over what will be the nature of the key challenging situations - the players, or the GM?

Different answers to this experience produce very different play experiences, in my view.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2011)

First off, I think I should just become GSHamster's sock puppet from now on because he's explaining my points much better than I am.



			
				JC said:
			
		

> It's following the rules of the game. If the GM is to be a neutral arbiter, I'd rather him follow the rules as they were intended.




But, that intention is entirely your own interpretation.  As you said, the ONLY thing the bluff skill does is cause someone to believe you.  Ok, fair enough.  The DM then proceeds to have the NPC act on that belief in a manner that the DM feels is consistent.

Ok, I'm still on board.

The DM has a fair number of possible actions he could choose to take, all of which are consistent (or at least reasonably consistent).

Again, I'm still on board.

The DM chooses the course of actions that is the most disadvantageous to the PC's, not because it's obviously the only sane course of action, but because ... well, I honestly don't understand why.  It's not like it's the only plausible course of action. 

 And, this is where I get bogged down.

Because I see it time and time again.  The DM chooses the most disadvantageous result every single time in the assumption that it's more interesting to constantly throw roadblocks in front of the PC's.

THAT'S what I don't like.  Granted, doing it from time to time is perfectly fine.  All things in moderation.  But, don't pretend that this is something that it's not.  You're choosing this interpretation specifically to throw more challenges at the party, not because it's somehow more believable.  Because, as this thread has shown, there are any number of other courses you could take that are equally as believable.

This is the thing that I really dislike.  As GSHamster so rightly points out, if the players succeed at a challenge, then they should be in a better position than they started from.  

And, looking at the phylactery example above, that's what I mean by pixel bitching.  "You successfully KN Arcana'd the pretty rock.  Yup, it could function as a phylactery" and then jumping out with the "AHA GOTCHA!" later on because they didn't go down the list of skills, trying each and every one to make sure that they got all the information.

I mean, after all the points you've raised JC about following the rules, you pretty much abandoned the rules for Forgery.  They don't allow you to detect forged objects.  Forgery only allows you to produce documents, not objects and detect forged documents, again, not objects.

Since we're being absolutist with RAW and all that.


----------



## Janx (Jul 5, 2011)

In the Lich example (a case of NPC deception): the creator of it mentioned the PCs doing a Knowledge check to identify the phylactery.

JS goes on about how that skill wouldn't reveal the answer.

In all of these discussions, is each of us NOT taking the time to verify the intent of the writer, and instead sticking to an interpretation of what they said?

The author could have meant "made appropriate checks to find the phylactery".  But because he said a skill name, JC seems to have taken him literally.  Which then shapes his response.

the premise that each success should move me forward should still be valid.  Each hit on an enemy reduces his HP, making him closer to dead (my apparent goal).  Obviously, when my goal is misguided (wrong person to be killing), I've got a different problem.  But in the microcosm of 'killing this NPC", the sucess is still valid.  That I've got the wrong man is a different problem, which will reveal itself an encounter or two down the road.

What the phylactery and gate house pose is, how does a GM fairly hide the information and fairly reveal the information.  Note, I have no specific meaning on "fair" in terms of GMing.  I suppose it means that there is a way of truly succeeding that is discernable via reasonable methods in game.

Since the social skills tend to be about PCs manipulating and decieving NPCs, and the phylactery example are about an NPC manipulating and decieving PCs, they are relevant in arbitration similarities.

With the gatehouse, the PCs make some gather info checks to inform them of the security conditions, opportunities and vulnerabilities.  Apparently they rolled low.  they also dickered around, so the GM made the situation more complicated.  The net effect was, they never should have gone for the guard.

With the phylactery, the lich made a fake.  That's a forgery.  Phylactery's are known to be a hidden item because of their vulnerability.  So the PCs are going to be inspecting EVERY item they find.  So once the correct skills/spellss to use are identified, they roll.  Their might find no phylactery, find the fake and fall for it or not, find the real one.

JC's counter to the scenario seemed to imply they find the fake, and don't realize they are carrying the real one.  It assumes a certain search order through the loot and that they STOP when they misidentify the fake.  And that they don't do further tests (because the example didn't say).

Do you make your party roll these skill checks per item, or for the entire pile?

If you make them roll for the entire pile (as in searching the entire pile for the 1 expected phylactery), then failure means they find NO phylactery, or they fall for the fake phylactery.  Success means they identify the fake as fake, and MIGHT find the real one (if the roll is high enough).

Its possible, just using 1 die roll can arbitrate the whole mess.  Or the GM could make the party roll per item (despite that for 10 items, 8 rolls are meaningless).

Another way to look at the gatehouse, was that if it was combat, and combats take an average of 6 rounds per.  There would be a whole lot of dice rolling to kill your way into the castle.  It takes a few checks for Climb to go over the wall.  A few checks for stealth to sneak in.

I suspect then, that requiring a few checks to social your way in would count as fair play.  Though it is fair to assume the Gather Info and Disguise checks to assist in this con count towards that # of die rolls required expectation.


----------



## Krensky (Jul 5, 2011)

pemerton said:


> There's a sense in which this is not true of D&D combat - the players roll their attack dice, and their damage dice, and when the enemy reaches zero hp the PCs have won the fight. The GM's interpretations and adjudications can alter the difficulty of the attack numbers (who is flanking, who has the higher ground, etc etc) and even the outcome of the damage numbers (who has DR, who has regen, etc). But it can't change the fact that rolling high attack rolls and higher damage rolls is taking the players towards the goal, of victory by their PCs in the combat. (Whether a monster like the nilbog is a refutation of my claim here, or rather just a very badly designed monster, I'll leave for someone else to work out!)




No. It doesn't push them further to victory. It pushes them further towards killing their opponent with is not a necessary requirment of victory. If fact it can often be a detriment to achieving said victory. What if their opponent knows where the McGuffin is? What is he's the Dark Lord's kid brother, the whole reason the Dark Lord hasn't just said F-it and destroyed creation? What if killing this person lands them in jail and after a trial on the block for  murder? Etc.

The whole argument Hussar, and to some degree, you are making is that succeeding at a test inexorably leads the players closer to victory.

I say that's poppycock.

Succeeding at a test means you succeeded at whatever that test was determining. You Bluff the guard, he believes the lie. You Investigate or Appraise the phylactery, you learn it's a fake. You Attack the NPC with your sword, it takes damage.

Achieving goals (ie, victory) often requires succeeding in the correct tests, sometimes even in the correct order in the correct timing. This isn't pixel bitching. There's no magic dot to click on. It's a bit of common sense, knowing when to ask for GM hints, and the GM not being a douche and actually planing instead of getting liquored up and going down to the local dungeon to stomp some lowly NPCs.



pemerton said:


> I think Hussar's point is that, to the extent that this is true of 3.5, it's a flaw in 3.5's design.
> 
> For what it's worth, if I was GMing 3E I would treat Bluff as a persuasion skill. So you'd have three persuasion skills, as in 4e - one for persuasion by deception and fast-talking, one for persuasion by being scary, one for persuasion by being reasonable.




Which makes it much more powerful.



pemerton said:


> Krensky mentions resolving the factual question by rolling on the Mythic Fate table. But GSHamster's response to that makes sense to me - the player, by investing PC build resources in the Bluff skill, has declared that s/he want to play a game in which his/her PC wins by (among other things) bluffinf. So instead of rolling on the Mythic Fate chart, why not let the PC's high bluff check settle the issue?




No, I didn't. Go reread that quote.

The factual question, did they lie convincingly, was settled by the Bluff versus Sense Motive opposed check and the associated modifiers.

What I was using the Fate Chart for was to decide the guard's response if I was drawing a blank. Normally this wouldn't occur, but it might if the players did something really odd. Why use the chart instead of just letting them in? Because it give me options and guidance when the well runs dry. It helps generate beats and threads while answering my question.

By taking ranks in Bluff, the player says he want's his character to be able to lie successfully. The more things he piles onto that, the more often he wants it to happen and the more often it should happen. Bluff doesn't let you control the thoughts and actions of the target though. It let's you lie convincingly.  Impress and Intimidate don't let you control the actions of other, just adjust their Disposition, making them more likely to do what they ask. Heck, in my game the only thing Charm Person does is raise the target's Disposition towards you. (Which is all it should do in 3e, if the developers hadn't been afraid of changing the text. The spell says it makes someone like you, not makes them your loyal henchslave.)



pemerton said:


> I think this is a very deep difference in playstyles.




Other then you bringing up Forge wankery, I agree.



pemerton said:


> This is true, but how is it to be achieved? And what are the points at which the beating will take place? In particular, who has primary say over what will be the nature of the key challenging situations - the players, or the GM?This is true, but how is it to be achieved? And what are the points at which the beating will take place? In particular, who has primary say over what will be the nature of the key challenging situations - the players, or the GM?




Both. The players define how they wish to overcome challenges by how the build and play their characters. The players influence the challenges they encounter by choosing what hooks they bite, which ones they ignore, which the run from, and what Sub-Plots they engage in. The GM influences the challenges encountered by what hooks he presents and how he responds to the player's choices and actions. He also influences it by setting up and maintaining the world.

Final responsibility is the GMs though. If he misreads the players and ignores the signs (which should include them outright telling him they want less talky-talky and more smashy-smashy, or whatever), then it's his fault that people aren't having fun at the table.

Sometimes the solution to that is more smashy-smashy. Sometimes its "I'm sorry Bob, but we all agreed to play a game of political maneuvering and conspiracy. I told you guys there would be very little combat. Do you want to make a new character who isn't so focused on something that the game isn't focused on?" Sometimes it's a middle-ground.

It's still the GMs job to determine the challenges, arbiter the results, make sure everyone is having fun, and move the game along.

Why?

Because that's what the GM does.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 5, 2011)

pemerton said:


> LostSoul's concern - that this is, in effect, the player setting the challenge for his/her PC - I think is obviated if the DC is still set by the GM, _and_ any complications that attend the success are also set by the GM.




That could be true.  A big question is _how_ does the DM determine what the DC is?  Another question is what is the nature of the challenge - that is, how do players overcome it?


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jul 5, 2011)

RE: The bushwhacking lich plot

When I am running a game I make a conscious effort to remember that the characters will be doing things "off camera" that the players don't specifically say they are doing.

One of those things would be the whole "Examining the phylactery with magic" thing.

In the proposed scenario I would assume that even if the players simply gathered up all the loot in a big bag and never mentioned looking at it at all, at some point in their downtime they would eventually go back through everything inspecting it at greater length.

I would then make a secret D20 Arcana check for all the players who have that skill and give them the "fake" information for the lower DC (Yes, its a phylactery and arcane fingerprints seem to connect it to Steve the lich) and the "real" information for the higher DC (Yes, its a phylactery and arcane fingerprints seem to connect it to Steve the lich, but something about it seems off to you, etc)

I would never in a million years expect or require my players to ask if they can "Make a forgery roll" on a phylactery.

DS


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jul 5, 2011)

Stalker0 said:


> When your bluff is so good you can bypass even very hard DCS (doable in 4e, actually very easy in 3e), then the tendency is to let a player talk his way through any situation (the master button). At that point, the context of the situation becomes meaningless. It doesn't matter what the guard's orders are, or what his loyalty is, or the penalty for letting someone in....if he can be hammered down with bluff it simply doesn't matter. That is the legitimate danger of giving social skills too much power...and I think its something to be aware of when determining how social skills will work in a particular game.




That was my original point 200+ posts ago, but you said it much more eloquently than me.  A lot of times, bluffing your way past the guard is far easier than using a charm person spell or similar, where at least the guard would have a saving throw or a will defense.  Plus, a lot of people think using Diplomacy or Bluff is essentially like a dominate person or charm person effect.


----------



## Janx (Jul 5, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> That was my original point 200+ posts ago, but you said it much more eloquently than me.  A lot of times, bluffing your way past the guard is far easier than using a charm person spell or similar, where at least the guard would have a saving throw or a will defense.  Plus, a lot of people think using Diplomacy or Bluff is essentially like a dominate person or charm person effect.




In the case of the gatehouse guard, the PCs chose the wrong time and target.  Posing as diplomats had too many catches, higher DC and probably get you passed up the chain.

Posing as turnip delivery = lower DC and probably get you into the kitchen and ignored during the hustle and bustle.

In real life, it REALLY is that easy to get past the right guard with the right simple story.

I assume most folks don't want the rules to allow a ridiculous lie told to the wrong NPC to be allowed to work because the PC went all munchkin on his social skills.

There's a castle with 2 locked doors.  One leads into the quiet kitchen, where nobody's at because supper is over.  The other leads to the guard house before rest of the castle, which is chock full of guards.  The kitchen lock is of poor quality and easy to pick.

If the PC goes for the kitchen door, it's easy to get in (roll a succes).
If the PC goes for the guard house door, it's a harder lock and IF he picks it, he just walked into a room full of guards.

Assuming the PC is a master lockpicker, one door leads to success, one door leads to more trouble (failure).  Who's at fault?  The GM or the PC?

This example is intened to be a parallel to the social attempt to Bluff the guard.  If the PC goes to the harder door, I think the player has some culpability.  If the GM negated any means of gaining intel (refusing any attempts and making both doors of equal nature), then it's the GM's fault.

As to should the Bluff not engender belief, but also action, it probably depends on the nature of the presented truth.  Certainly, that's what the liar intends to happen.  When I bluff in poker, I am trying to get you to react as though you KNOW I have the cards I am PRETENDING to have.  When I lie to my parents, I am trying to NOT get punished for doing what i did.

A case could be argued, that if the guard's reaction to somebody showing up at the gate is to call his supervisor regardless, then he is in effect, unbluffable.  If his reaction is identical to whether he believes or not, then the roll was a waste of time.  If the difference is that when the boss shows up and he BELIEVES the lie, then how he presents them to his boss might affect the bluff to the supervisor.  If I show up at the gate and my underling says "these guys CLAIM to be the diplomats" versus, "these diplomats showed up, their papers appear to be in order".  That subtle difference acts as an influence on the supervisor who makes the final call.

and this is where more DM fiat comes in, the supervisor might believe the bluff, but be stuck with the 'no entry after 10pm" rule.  He might say, "hey, I'm sorry but we're not permitting entry after 10PM.  I know, it's late, you guys are tired.  Here's a note to the innkeeper at the Weary Arms.  He'll put you guys up for the night, and if you come back tomorrow and ask for me, I'll make sure your not hassled again."

Here's what happened:
I just denied immediate access to the castle, as that wouldn't make sense
I left an open for them to get in tomorrow with minimal fuss
I did not escalate this further up the chain to cause more skill checks (which one will inevitably fail).

The ball is still in the PCs court. the skill checks suceeded, so no alarms have been raised.  The party has a chance to back out or move forward.  If the party has an urgent need to get in TONIGHT, once they leave the gate, they are free to pursue a new strategy.

On the topic of DM Fiat, which gets thrown around like a swear word, I think its important for all GMs to realize that they are making this stuff up.  every bit of it.  Whether you wrote it down before the game, or made it up on the spot, it is made up.  And while the consequences for any PC action might seem logical, and in a way they are, for each action, there are a multitude of logical and varying responses.

Personally, I believe responses that make things harder or more complicated should be used when the PCs make a mistake or choose poorly.  it usually beats outright killing them, as well.  I also use them as a plot device, when what I've designed was deliberately 'simple' and the complication is what makes it level appropriate.  I'm a bit wary of making situations complicated for the sake of being complicated, as I find making it too hard is too easy.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> First off, I think I should just become GSHamster's sock puppet from now on because he's explaining my points much better than I am.
> 
> But, that intention is entirely your own interpretation.  As you said, the ONLY thing the bluff skill does is cause someone to believe you.  Ok, fair enough.  The DM then proceeds to have the NPC act on that belief in a manner that the DM feels is consistent.
> 
> Ok, I'm still on board.




Cool 



> The DM has a fair number of possible actions he could choose to take, all of which are consistent (or at least reasonably consistent).
> 
> Again, I'm still on board.




Again, cool 



> The DM chooses the course of actions that is the most disadvantageous to the PC's, not because it's obviously the only sane course of action, but because ... well, I honestly don't understand why.  It's not like it's the only plausible course of action.
> 
> And, this is where I get bogged down.




But, where did I say I always make things the most disadvantageous to NPCs? Please, point it out to me.



> Because I see it time and time again.  The DM chooses the most disadvantageous result every single time in the assumption that it's more interesting to constantly throw roadblocks in front of the PC's.
> 
> THAT'S what I don't like.  Granted, doing it from time to time is perfectly fine.  All things in moderation.  But, don't pretend that this is something that it's not.  You're choosing this interpretation specifically to throw more challenges at the party, not because it's somehow more believable.  Because, as this thread has shown, there are any number of other courses you could take that are equally as believable.




I really don't agree. I'm pretty sure that passing the buck up is the most reasonable things the guard can do here, unless he's a little different from your standard castle guard, which wouldn't happen very easily, as the guard captain and chancellor pick their guards very carefully.

And again, where did I say I make things the most disadvantageous to the players they can be?



> This is the thing that I really dislike.  As GSHamster so rightly points out, if the players succeed at a challenge, then they should be in a better position than they started from.




That is a play style, but it's not supported by the rules. It's not wrong, but it's not universally right for every group.



> And, looking at the phylactery example above, that's what I mean by pixel bitching.  "You successfully KN Arcana'd the pretty rock.  Yup, it could function as a phylactery" and then jumping out with the "AHA GOTCHA!" later on because they didn't go down the list of skills, trying each and every one to make sure that they got all the information.




No, the players were not careful. Period. Very literally, some random guy walked up to them from the street and said, "your friend Gateon is a lich now. If you want to deal with this, his phylactery is inside a box that he carries around on his person." The players asked who he was, he said he was a follower of Vecna and that Gateon had fallen out of favor, and they decided to destroy the lich before he got out of control.

They showed up, killed him, found the box, opened it, asked me if the papers could be the phylactery, destroyed the papers, and took his stuff, then went back to normal activity. There was some talking, trying to get him to repent by letting them kill him and resurrect him, etc., but that's pretty much the extent of how it went down.

They weren't careful, and a lich set them up. One of them died. It's only a "gotcha" insofar as an intelligent, Evil NPC set them up and won.



> I mean, after all the points you've raised JC about following the rules, you pretty much abandoned the rules for Forgery.  They don't allow you to detect forged objects.  Forgery only allows you to produce documents, not objects and detect forged documents, again, not objects.
> 
> Since we're being absolutist with RAW and all that.




  

Let me quote you something about liches:


			
				3.5 Monster Manual said:
			
		

> The most common phylactery is a sealed metal box *containing strips of parchment on which magical phrases have been transcribed*. Other forms of phylacteries can exist, such as rings, amulets, or similar items.




The base type of phylactery is *paper*. That'd be opposed by Forgery. I mean, they recognized that it could be a phylactery with Knowledge (arcana), but it's definitely opposed by Forgery.

Since we're being absolutist with RAW and all that 

As always, play what you like


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 5, 2011)

Sabathius42 said:


> RE: The bushwhacking lich plot
> 
> When I am running a game I make a conscious effort to remember that the characters will be doing things "off camera" that the players don't specifically say they are doing.




And I do that as well, as long as they mention it to me that it's their standard. If they have a history of performing an action, or declare that "from now on, we're doing this" then I'll take that as the new standard.



> One of those things would be the whole "Examining the phylactery with magic" thing.
> 
> In the proposed scenario I would assume that even if the players simply gathered up all the loot in a big bag and never mentioned looking at it at all, at some point in their downtime they would eventually go back through everything inspecting it at greater length.
> 
> ...




That's a perfectly valid play style. Nothing wrong with it. Again, it does not make for a universally "better game" like Hussar has implied his previous method does. I really can't find fault for you playing a style you enjoy, or in myself for doing the same.

Because, as always, play what you like 



pemerton said:


> I think Hussar's point is that, to the extent that this is true of 3.5, it's a flaw in 3.5's design.
> 
> For what it's worth, if I was GMing 3E I would treat Bluff as a persuasion skill. So you'd have three persuasion skills, as in 4e - one for persuasion by deception and fast-talking, one for persuasion by being scary, one for persuasion by being reasonable.




And that's fine to use. It's not RAW, and I'd argue it's not RAI, and it's much more powerful than if you use it by RAW. But, there are many, _many_ people who play Bluff that way (and thus NewJeffCT made this thread). And I'm completely cool with that.

However, Hussar can think it's a flaw, and voice that opinion, but making the claims he has (ie, Hussar's Greatest Hits), like I always make things the most disadvantageous to the players possible, or that there's going to be an endless number of skill checks that they eventually won't win, or that I twist PC success into failure, or that I am playing an inferior game, or that I don't trust my players, or that I railroad, or that I run the game exclusively by GM fiat, etc., really hurt his argument, in my view.

These are not reasoned out arguments, they are assumptions and attacks on me. And while I feel I've been very patient, I find responding to Hussar more and more baffling. It's like my posts go ignored or twisted into something I never said. The things I do say are disregarded. I believe S'mon and Krensky have thought the same thing, this thread.



> I think these five quotes capture the main issue here.
> 
> Janx makes clearly what I also take to be Hussar's key point - that the GM, in setting up the backstory and determining complications, is having a big influence on the scope of PC action, and in a different sort of way from giving a monster DR or regeneration - it's not just tweaking a dial in some otherwise transparent action resolution mechanic.




That's true.



> Krensky mentions resolving the factual question by rolling on the Mythic Fate table. But GSHamster's response to that makes sense to me - the player, by investing PC build resources in the Bluff skill, has declared that s/he want to play a game in which his/her PC wins by (among other things) bluffinf. So instead of rolling on the Mythic Fate chart, why not let the PC's high bluff check settle the issue?




I would let Bluff settle what the guard thinks of the lie, but nothing beyond that. I'd let it affect how he reacted. This is following the rules. It's not railroading. It's not GM fiat. It's a different play style.



> [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s concern - that this is, in effect, the player setting the challenge for his/her PC - I think is obviated if the DC is still set by the GM, _and_ any complications that attend the success are also set by the GM. This also answers [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION]'s concern about social skills being too strong.
> 
> (On this approach, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s idea that the whole table's sense of reasonableness is relevant would come into play only as a threshold test for a Bluff check being permissible at all, rather than as an element in the resolution of the check once it is agreed that the check can be made.)




And, as I pointed out pages ago, he says that like all the players will agree out of game. I have two players who regularly agree with me, two who will advocate strongly for their PCs and disagree, and one who can be persuaded either way.

On top of that, let's take two scenarios, one favoring the PCs, and one against them.

*Good for PCs:* The PCs asked a moneylender about a slave ring in a neighboring nation, he directs them to a man they just happen to be hunting, and gives his location. Nobody questions how plausible this is, even though it's incredibly convenient for them.

I know why the moneylender gave them that man's name. He was a human in a nation of troglodytes, and the party is human. The moneylender naturally assumed they'd be more comfortable with a human contact. The players have no idea on my reasoning for this, and thus I'd argue that it makes more sense for the GM to decide plausibility in a dispute (for my group). 

*Bad for PCs:* The PCs try to get into a castle by pretending to be diplomats, but it turns out the diplomat arrived 20 minutes earlier. Nobody in my group questioned how plausible this is, though it's getting questioned here.

I know when the diplomat showed up, why the king personally greeted him at the door, that the chancellor wasn't there, how they'd all react in finding out that there are new diplomats at the door, the orders given to the guard, the standard treatment of the guard, how loyal the guard is, how well trained the guard is, etc. With all of that information, I'd also argue that it makes more sense for the GM to decide plausibility in a dispute (for my group).

I have no problem with the players voicing what they think is plausible, and why. They might change my mind, they might not. But, for the reasons outlined above, it makes the most sense to me (and my players) for the GM to make the final call.



> GSHamster also flags the GM being flexible with the timing of events in order to produce an interesting story, rather than the GM holding the events constant and making the players work around that conception of the gameworld. Ron Edwards discusses this sort of case as one relevant piece of data for distinguishing narrativist from simulationist (ie exploration-heavy) play.
> 
> Which means that JamesonCourage's concern about making the game too narrativist _would_ apply to both of GSHamster's suggestions. The game would no longer be strictly exploration, because significant elements of the gameworld would be settled as part of the actual adjudication of the situation, by a combination of GM decisions in order to introduce complications, and GM decisions as part of the adjudication of player skill checks.
> 
> I think this is a very deep difference in playstyles.




Thank you, I've been saying this since just about the time I came into the thread.



> This is true, but how is it to be achieved? And what are the points at which the beating will take place? In particular, who has primary say over what will be the nature of the key challenging situations - the players, or the GM?
> 
> Different answers to this experience produce very different play experiences, in my view.




Yep. Neither way is wrong, and hearing that my style makes me play the time of game Hussar thinks it is just baffles me.

As always, play what you like


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 5, 2011)

Janx said:


> In the Lich example (a case of NPC deception): the creator of it mentioned the PCs doing a Knowledge check to identify the phylactery.
> 
> JS goes on about how that skill wouldn't reveal the answer.
> 
> ...




I don't like the term "author" for obvious reasons 

At any rate, if the PCs say "I want to make sure it's real" then I'll give them all tests they'd reasonably think of, and some they wouldn't (if PC skill knowledge eclipses player knowledge). If they just ask "could this be the phylactery?" then that's what I'll give them.

They want to if this could be it. I tell them which lets them know if the object could be the phylactery. That's all. I let them run their character. If they ask if there's a way to test it, or say "I'm going to test it any way I know how" or some such, then I apply a broad brush, but not before that.



> the premise that each success should move me forward should still be valid.  Each hit on an enemy reduces his HP, making him closer to dead (my apparent goal).  Obviously, when my goal is misguided (wrong person to be killing), I've got a different problem.  But in the microcosm of 'killing this NPC", the sucess is still valid.  That I've got the wrong man is a different problem, which will reveal itself an encounter or two down the road.




I agree here. Just like the Bluff check is whether or not somebody will believe you (the apparent goal). That you have the wrong bluff is a different problem. 

Listen, I know what you're getting at, but that's a distinct play style. It's not wrong, but neither is following the rules, and playing by them, _especially if the players and GM prefer it_.



> What the phylactery and gate house pose is, how does a GM fairly hide the information and fairly reveal the information.  Note, I have no specific meaning on "fair" in terms of GMing.  I suppose it means that there is a way of truly succeeding that is discernable via reasonable methods in game.
> 
> Since the social skills tend to be about PCs manipulating and decieving NPCs, and the phylactery example are about an NPC manipulating and decieving PCs, they are relevant in arbitration similarities.
> 
> With the gatehouse, the PCs make some gather info checks to inform them of the security conditions, opportunities and vulnerabilities.  Apparently they rolled low.  they also dickered around, so the GM made the situation more complicated.  The net effect was, they never should have gone for the guard.




Well, they could still go for the guard, but being the diplomat was the wrong tactic. Saying they're runners with important information, or the like, would be much more acceptable than "we're the diplomat that's already here." 



> With the phylactery, the lich made a fake.  That's a forgery.  Phylactery's are known to be a hidden item because of their vulnerability.  So the PCs are going to be inspecting EVERY item they find.  So once the correct skills/spellss to use are identified, they roll.  Their might find no phylactery, find the fake and fall for it or not, find the real one.
> 
> JC's counter to the scenario seemed to imply they find the fake, and don't realize they are carrying the real one.  It assumes a certain search order through the loot and that they STOP when they misidentify the fake.  And that they don't do further tests (because the example didn't say).




Player: "Do we see a box on him?"
Me: "Yes, he dropped it when the last attack took him down."
Player: "I'm going to pry it open. Does it look like it could be a phylactery?"
Me: "Roll your Knowledge check."
Player: "31."
Me: "It fits the description of what a phylactery could look like, yes."
Player: "I'm going to destroy the papers, and then the box."
Me: "Done."

And that was that. No inspecting his gear. No looking for traps. No Detect Magic or Detect Evil. That's all it was. Just "we gather his stuff, and move back to camp with Teleport."

As I said, they weren't careful. It cost them. If they had said "we look for the phylactery" then that's another matter. They singled out the box, because the NPC tipped them off to it (a lackey of the lich, turns out).



> Do you make your party roll these skill checks per item, or for the entire pile?
> 
> If you make them roll for the entire pile (as in searching the entire pile for the 1 expected phylactery), then failure means they find NO phylactery, or they fall for the fake phylactery.  Success means they identify the fake as fake, and MIGHT find the real one (if the roll is high enough).
> 
> Its possible, just using 1 die roll can arbitrate the whole mess.  Or the GM could make the party roll per item (despite that for 10 items, 8 rolls are meaningless).




I'd probably have them inspect everything separately. A blanket search would be made, but Knowledge checks and the like would all be made separately.



> Another way to look at the gatehouse, was that if it was combat, and combats take an average of 6 rounds per.  There would be a whole lot of dice rolling to kill your way into the castle.  It takes a few checks for Climb to go over the wall.  A few checks for stealth to sneak in.
> 
> I suspect then, that requiring a few checks to social your way in would count as fair play.  Though it is fair to assume the Gather Info and Disguise checks to assist in this con count towards that # of die rolls required expectation.




Except that there are no rules on this. There is no expected number of successes to succeed in combat, much less in any other situation. 4e implemented the skill challenge system, but it's not in 3.5.



Janx said:


> In the case of the gatehouse guard, the PCs chose the wrong time and target.  Posing as diplomats had too many catches, higher DC and probably get you passed up the chain.
> 
> Posing as turnip delivery = lower DC and probably get you into the kitchen and ignored during the hustle and bustle.
> 
> In real life, it REALLY is that easy to get past the right guard with the right simple story.




A better lie (such as someone besides the diplomat) would have gone over better, in all likelihood.



> I assume most folks don't want the rules to allow a ridiculous lie told to the wrong NPC to be allowed to work because the PC went all munchkin on his social skills.




I'd assume that as well, but I don't know. I just know what my group thinks, and what I can try to piece together from these boards.



> There's a castle with 2 locked doors.  One leads into the quiet kitchen, where nobody's at because supper is over.  The other leads to the guard house before rest of the castle, which is chock full of guards.  The kitchen lock is of poor quality and easy to pick.
> 
> If the PC goes for the kitchen door, it's easy to get in (roll a succes).
> If the PC goes for the guard house door, it's a harder lock and IF he picks it, he just walked into a room full of guards.
> ...




I'd say the PC, in this example, for trying to go into a room full of guards.



> This example is intened to be a parallel to the social attempt to Bluff the guard.  If the PC goes to the harder door, I think the player has some culpability.  If the GM negated any means of gaining intel (refusing any attempts and making both doors of equal nature), then it's the GM's fault.




Only if the intel can be gathered. If he arbitrarily stopped it from getting leaked, I agree.



> As to should the Bluff not engender belief, but also action, it probably depends on the nature of the presented truth.  Certainly, that's what the liar intends to happen.  When I bluff in poker, I am trying to get you to react as though you KNOW I have the cards I am PRETENDING to have.  When I lie to my parents, I am trying to NOT get punished for doing what i did.




By the rules, that's not how it works, really. Only the short term bluff can cause an NPC to act a specific way, and it's limited in use. I can link it again if you'd like.



> A case could be argued, that if the guard's reaction to somebody showing up at the gate is to call his supervisor regardless, then he is in effect, unbluffable.  If his reaction is identical to whether he believes or not, then the roll was a waste of time.  If the difference is that when the boss shows up and he BELIEVES the lie, then how he presents them to his boss might affect the bluff to the supervisor.  If I show up at the gate and my underling says "these guys CLAIM to be the diplomats" versus, "these diplomats showed up, their papers appear to be in order".  That subtle difference acts as an influence on the supervisor who makes the final call.
> 
> and this is where more DM fiat comes in, the supervisor might believe the bluff, but be stuck with the 'no entry after 10pm" rule.  He might say, "hey, I'm sorry but we're not permitting entry after 10PM.  I know, it's late, you guys are tired.  Here's a note to the innkeeper at the Weary Arms.  He'll put you guys up for the night, and if you come back tomorrow and ask for me, I'll make sure your not hassled again."




Depending on the circumstances, this is all very reasonable to me.



> Here's what happened:
> I just denied immediate access to the castle, as that wouldn't make sense
> I left an open for them to get in tomorrow with minimal fuss
> I did not escalate this further up the chain to cause more skill checks (which one will inevitably fail).
> ...




I have no problem with this. I have a problem with fudging in PC favor, but if this is the reasonable response, then it's all good.

Also, I see you included Hussar's "more skill check chain which the PCs will inevitably fail!" argument, which has never been advocated.



> On the topic of DM Fiat, which gets thrown around like a swear word, I think its important for all GMs to realize that they are making this stuff up.  every bit of it.  Whether you wrote it down before the game, or made it up on the spot, it is made up.  And while the consequences for any PC action might seem logical, and in a way they are, for each action, there are a multitude of logical and varying responses.




Yep. Like I told Hussar, it's really no different than him dictating how the PCs succeed.



> Personally, I believe responses that make things harder or more complicated should be used when the PCs make a mistake or choose poorly.  it usually beats outright killing them, as well.  I also use them as a plot device, when what I've designed was deliberately 'simple' and the complication is what makes it level appropriate.  I'm a bit wary of making situations complicated for the sake of being complicated, as I find making it too hard is too easy.




To me, the PCs made a mistake by impersonating the diplomat, which they did based on failed investigation checks. Had they had that information, then they would have changed their plans. I think that speaks to the plausibility of the action in the player's eyes.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Janx (Jul 6, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I don't like the term "author" for obvious reasons




By author, I meant the person who posted the example here, which at the time I couldn't remember.  Now I see it is you on page 19.



JamesonCourage said:


> At any rate, if the PCs say "I want to make sure it's real" then I'll give them all tests they'd reasonably think of, and some they wouldn't (if PC skill knowledge eclipses player knowledge). If they just ask "could this be the phylactery?" then that's what I'll give them.




As long as there are some trigger words the players can say that get the DM to expound upon the objects and clue in that more checks are possible.  If the players have to play "guess the secret skill check" with no clues, that's probably not fair.  If the players express any indication that they examine the objects and the GM asks open questions like "what all do you examine, or what are you looking for"  Then I think the players can get the chance they need without resorting to game speak and having to say the exact skill needed.
[/quote]




JamesonCourage said:


> I agree here. Just like the Bluff check is whether or not somebody will believe you (the apparent goal). That you have the wrong bluff is a different problem.
> 
> Listen, I know what you're getting at, but that's a distinct play style. It's not wrong, but neither is following the rules, and playing by them, _especially if the players and GM prefer it_.




I think the challenge here is that JC's examples show his players making mistakes and getting problems for it.  Which somehow makes it look fishy.

I don't think JC should give examples anymore 

I kid, he can do whatever he wants.  But I think the conversation has been:
 "social skills are too powerful"
"no they're not, look how my players failed"
"you just screwed your players"
"no I didn't, they're idiots!"

I suspect they right answers is, JC screwed his players because they screwed up.



JamesonCourage said:


> Also, I see you included Hussar's "more skill check chain which the PCs will inevitably fail!" argument, which has never been advocated.




Supposedly, I see two sides to the problem.  Hussar's not on crack that the more skill checks you make him make, eventually he will fail.  It's actually a trick I employ in Dread, the jenga RPG game.  If I make you make more skill checks, the odds are better that one of them will fail.

So I'm throwing him a bone, to indicate that the bluff's success could be handled that the PC didn't fail, but in fact avoided deeper trouble.  He's not wrong that making somebody do more skill checks increases their risk of failure.

I think the angle that JC specifically did so to block the party may be a bit much. It's not nice, and it assumes the worst about JC, rather than that other extenuating circumstances (that his players weren't careful, and I mean that in the nicest way possible).

It sounds like JC gave them some rope to hang themselves with. They could have avoided the trouble.

So, moving on, are social skills too easy?

for JC, apparently not.

for those who let a single skill check bypass an encounter, quite possibly, given how easy it is to pump those skills.

I also suspect that the skills were not intended for un-roleplayed use.  You can't say "I Bluff the guard, got a 19!" and make the GM figure out the result (because in that style game, he is stuck figuring out what you could have done to "win").

Conversly, when I have to declare what my bluff is "I'm the diplomat".  the GM only resolves what my success means.  It then means, I might still make a tactical mistake in the social engineering (by choosing the wrong person).

I like roleplaying, so i prefer everybody say what they're going to do, rather than hammer at the GM with skill checks.  it also puts in a tactical layer to the social aspect.  Who you impersonate, and what you say are your weapons and moves in the social skills game.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 6, 2011)

Janx said:


> By author, I meant the person who posted the example here, which at the time I couldn't remember.  Now I see it is you on page 19.




Alrighty then 



> As long as there are some trigger words the players can say that get the DM to expound upon the objects and clue in that more checks are possible.  If the players have to play "guess the secret skill check" with no clues, that's probably not fair.  If the players express any indication that they examine the objects and the GM asks open questions like "what all do you examine, or what are you looking for"  Then I think the players can get the chance they need without resorting to game speak and having to say the exact skill needed.




They players can say "I want to make sure it's not fake" and I'll give them every check that's reasonable and applicable. If they don't say they want to check it, however, then I don't give it to them for free.



> I think the challenge here is that JC's examples show his players making mistakes and getting problems for it.  Which somehow makes it look fishy.




You do know I'm JC, right? 



> I don't think JC should give examples anymore




Haha, maybe you're right 



> I kid, he can do whatever he wants.  But I think the conversation has been:
> "social skills are too powerful"
> "no they're not, look how my players failed"
> "you just screwed your players"
> ...




Indeed. If the players make a tactical mistake, I don't negate it with simply high rolls. This includes both combat and social encounters.



> Supposedly, I see two sides to the problem.  Hussar's not on crack that the more skill checks you make him make, eventually he will fail.  It's actually a trick I employ in Dread, the jenga RPG game.  If I make you make more skill checks, the odds are better that one of them will fail.
> 
> So I'm throwing him a bone, to indicate that the bluff's success could be handled that the PC didn't fail, but in fact avoided deeper trouble.  He's not wrong that making somebody do more skill checks increases their risk of failure.




No, he's not wrong. However, he's said that if the guard passes the buck up, then the PCs therefore engage in a chain of skill checks that only ends once the PCs fail. That's false, and I don't know where he got it.



> I think the angle that JC specifically did so to block the party may be a bit much. It's not nice, and it assumes the worst about JC, rather than that other extenuating circumstances (that his players weren't careful, and I mean that in the nicest way possible).
> 
> It sounds like JC gave them some rope to hang themselves with. They could have avoided the trouble.




Maybe you don't know I'm JC 

The players have a very real chance of messing up tactically and socially. I had a level 8 party attack a group of about 20 level 2 fighters once. The party was on the ground, at the base of a mountain. The level 2 fighters were on a steep incline, waiting to ambush them. They had barrels of slick grease, crossbows, and the like, and they used that tactical advantage to devastating effect against the party (the party had to retreat, and 3 out of 5 PCs were bleeding out, but were healed in time).

Just like in combat, players can make bad social decisions. Impersonating the diplomat turned out to be such a decision. And I don't know why I have to say it again, but many other tactics could have worked there. The PCs screwed up, and it got them into some trouble, just like with the level 2 fighters on the mountainside.



> So, moving on, are social skills too easy?
> 
> for JC, apparently not.




Well, in 3.5, I think they are. I changed them in my game. That is, I changed Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. They're all different, because I saw problems with all of them. But, I also completely gutted Craft, etc., so I'm pretty picky.



> for those who let a single skill check bypass an encounter, quite possibly, given how easy it is to pump those skills.




Which is why I think playing by RAW is the counter balance. But, that's my personal opinion, and by no means do I think it should extend to every table.



> I also suspect that the skills were not intended for un-roleplayed use.  You can't say "I Bluff the guard, got a 19!" and make the GM figure out the result (because in that style game, he is stuck figuring out what you could have done to "win").




Exactly.



> Conversly, when I have to declare what my bluff is "I'm the diplomat".  the GM only resolves what my success means.  It then means, I might still make a tactical mistake in the social engineering (by choosing the wrong person).




Exactly 



> I like roleplaying, so i prefer everybody say what they're going to do, rather than hammer at the GM with skill checks.  it also puts in a tactical layer to the social aspect.  Who you impersonate, and what you say are your weapons and moves in the social skills game.




I agree with this, really. Social skills, like Bluff, are only tools in seeing how successful you are, but player decision and tactics, be they in combat or social encounters, makes a huge difference.

As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Jul 6, 2011)

Janx said:


> the premise that each success should move me forward should still be valid.  Each hit on an enemy reduces his HP, making him closer to dead (my apparent goal).  Obviously, when my goal is misguided (wrong person to be killing), I've got a different problem.  But in the microcosm of 'killing this NPC", the sucess is still valid.  That I've got the wrong man is a different problem, which will reveal itself an encounter or two down the road.





Krensky said:


> It doesn't push them further to victory. It pushes them further towards killing their opponent with is not a necessary requirment of victory.



I said "towards the goal, of victory by their PCs in the combat" - in Janx's terms, this is success within the microcosm of the immediate conflict, ie the combat.

In the bluff guard, what's the relevant microcosm? Making the guard believe the untruth? Or having the guard act a certain way in respect of it? In my experience, normally the latter.



Krensky said:


> What I was using the Fate Chart for was to decide the guard's response if I was drawing a blank.



I know. My point was, Why not use the player's successful Bluff check instead? Ie why not treat that check as having a metagame as well as an ingame significance?

The only answer given to this, so far, in this thread, has been from JamesonCourage, who has said it's too narrativist an approach.



Janx said:


> In the case of the gatehouse guard, the PCs chose the wrong time and target.  Posing as diplomats had too many catches, higher DC and probably get you passed up the chain.
> 
> Posing as turnip delivery = lower DC and probably get you into the kitchen and ignored during the hustle and bustle.



This gives rise to another playstyle issue (related to the one I flagged quite a way upthread, of "gritty" vs "gonzo").

What's more fun - to pretend to be a turnip deliverer, or a diplomat? And which of these is more viable, overall for a first level knigh? a 9th level wizard? a 12th level thief? Does the castle have aura reading or detect magic? If it does, a high level PC would do better posing as a diplomat than a farmer.

There are a lot of variables here. Even if the turnip farmer is the most realistic in some realworld situations, it may not be the best way to push in game, for a range of reasons. (Including consequences - discovery and a resulting showdown in the throne room might be more exciting than discovery and a resulting showdown in the kitchen.)



Krensky said:


> Which makes it much more powerful.



Well, yes, but is this a flip of the switch from "good" to "overpowered", or from "mostly useless" to "good"? In my personal play experience with social skills, I think it's the latter.



Janx said:


> So, moving on, are social skills too easy?
> 
> for JC, apparently not.
> 
> ...



I agree about the need for some description - if the GM doesn't know what the PC is doing, s/he can't adjudicate the outcome.

As to "bypassing" encounters - whether or not that is a problem depends heavily on the preferences of those at the table. After all, one way of railroading can be to prevent the players' bypassing encounters. And for some players, bluffing the guard isn't bypassing an encounter but engaging with it and succeeding at it.



Krensky said:


> It's still the GMs job to determine the challenges, arbiter the results, make sure everyone is having fun, and move the game along.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because that's what the GM does.



But this only gives rise to the question, what is the GM's role in relation to moving the game along? Different posters in this thread clearly have different views on that.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 6, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> That could be true.  A big question is _how_ does the DM determine what the DC is?  Another question is what is the nature of the challenge - that is, how do players overcome it?



Could you elaborate on what you've got in mind with these questions?

As for setting the DC - I tend to use the 4e tables, with a level determined by the monster in question, or considerations of adventure or XP pacing (ie a lower level will make it easier, a higher level more significant and challenging).

As for means of overcoming - provided it looks tenable within the parameters of gonzo fantasy, and provided that it doesn' tread on the mechanical toes of an ability that someone has paid points for (eg using page 42 to try and get something better than another PC's daily power, without any commensurate trade off), I tend to be pretty relaxed about it.

Here are a couple of actual play examples (although the social challenge is against a bear rather than a person). You can see me get hauled over the coals by those with more simulationist sensibilities, and with a more robust sense of verisimilitude!


----------



## Krensky (Jul 6, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I said "towards the goal, of victory by their PCs in the combat" - in Janx's terms, this is success within the microcosm of the immediate conflict, ie the combat.
> 
> In the bluff guard, what's the relevant microcosm? Making the guard believe the untruth? Or having the guard act a certain way in respect of it? In my experience, normally the latter.




To me it's obvious they wanted the former. Why? Because they chose a skill that does that. If they wanted to influence the guard's actions, they should have chosen a skill that, I don't know, influences the guard's actions. Like... wow... Impress or Influence! Hey, I'd even give them synergy for their Bluff skill and let other party members use Bluff or any other relevant skill to help the Talker (yes, Talker's a role in my game) out.



pemerton said:


> I know. My point was, Why not use the player's successful Bluff check instead? Ie why not treat that check as having a metagame as well as an ingame significance?




In that way lies Forge inspired madness. The rules say Bluff is for lying. They also say Intimidate and Impress are for influencing others actions and opinions of you. I tend to play by the rules unless they are completely egregious. The Lie check with the Bluff skill letting you lie convincingly and the Coerce and Persuade checks under Intimidate and Impress letting you influence the actions of others. The question isn't why I play this way, but why you and Hussar keep implying I'm wrong and for doing so and (in Hussar's case) an abusive jerk to boot.



pemerton said:


> The only answer given to this, so far, in this thread, has been from JamesonCourage, who has said it's too narrativist an approach.




I refuse to use those terms with students of Forge theory because they assume I'm using Edwards pretentious, counter-intuitive redefinitions of the words, rather then the ones that were in use for a decade before he began his pseudo-intellectual wankery.

I can give you another one. Outside of certainly carefully delimited circumstances I don't get to control their actions. My NPC's Bluff result beating the PC's Sense Motive is not one of them. (See the magic bean example). I will tell them they believe the NPC. That he's a likeable or scary fellow. That a little voice says that they may want to listen to the reasonable request or maybe do what the Wookie says to avoid angering the walking rug. I don't tell them they give the con artist their money or run away in fear or whatever without a specific rule dictating so.

I apply the same rules in the other direction. The players don't get to dictate my characters actions outside of those same circumstances (although, admittedly, they don't have access to a few of them without home brewed character options).



pemerton said:


> This gives rise to another playstyle issue (related to the one I flagged quite a way upthread, of "gritty" vs "gonzo").
> 
> What's more fun - to pretend to be a turnip deliverer, or a diplomat? And which of these is more viable, overall for a first level knigh? a 9th level wizard? a 12th level thief? Does the castle have aura reading or detect magic? If it does, a high level PC would do better posing as a diplomat than a farmer.




Only if magic is a necessary requirement of high level play in your game. It's not in mine. No magic item provides more power to the characters then their origin and class abilities or their feats and skills.



pemerton said:


> There are a lot of variables here. Even if the turnip farmer is the most realistic in some realworld situations, it may not be the best way to push in game, for a range of reasons. (Including consequences - discovery and a resulting showdown in the throne room might be more exciting than discovery and a resulting showdown in the kitchen.)




I pushed nothing. If they ask for a Hint, say "What's the easiest way to get into the castle?". I'd likely tell them that it seems like the guards only pay cursory attention to the supply deliveries. What they do then is their choice.



pemerton said:


> Well, yes, but is this a flip of the switch from "good" to "overpowered", or from "mostly useless" to "good"? In my personal play experience with social skills, I think it's the latter.[/qupte]
> 
> The former. A thousand times the former. Then again, you have said almost all your play experience has been in Rolemastrer and 4e... I kid though. Bad jokes aside, that's a play style issue. It's also, to a degree a rule issue. For my game it breaks down like this:
> 
> ...


----------



## pemerton (Jul 6, 2011)

Krensky said:


> In that way lies Forge inspired madness.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



You're also welcome to your view, but maybe could dial back a bit on calling others' approaches "mad" and "wank-ish".


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 6, 2011)

pemerton said:


> You're also welcome to your view, but maybe could dial back a bit on calling others' approaches "mad" and "wank-ish".




I agree, but I do understand his frustration when Hussar has gone on and on about our playing style (I don't trust my players; I always rule against them; I run my game arbitrarily; I twist player success into failure; I'm not playing by his objective "better game"; I railroad; I run my game based on GM fiat; I don't listen to my players when they give me input on what's plausible; I always make things as disadvantageous as possible for the PCs; my players cannot succeed unless they satisfy my whims; I submit PCs to a chain of skill checks that only ends when they finally fail; I make my players "pixel bitch"; etc.).

I'd prefer both sides keep it civil (as I've asked for a few times). The discussion is much more interesting than any argument is.


----------



## Krensky (Jul 6, 2011)

pemerton said:


> You're also welcome to your view, but maybe could dial back a bit on calling others' approaches "mad" and "wank-ish".




Which is shocking to hear considering all the comments about abusive GMs always tormenting their players and such, that the only course for a good GM would be to let the players in no matter what once they rolled a success. Etc.

The madness comment was a intended as a rather mild joke, but I'm sorry I offended you.

The criticism of Edwards and his theories. Sorry, but no. If you don't like to see his pseudo-intellectual crap called pseudo-intellectual crap, don't try and use it in a discussion. If you are Mr. Edwards, well then, still no.

Interesting that you didn't actually reply to the actual content of my response though.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I agree, but I do understand his frustration when Hussar has gone on and on about our playing style (I don't trust my players; I always rule against them; I run my game arbitrarily; I twist player success into failure; I'm not playing by his objective "better game"; I railroad; I run my game based on GM fiat; I don't listen to my players when they give me input on what's plausible; I always make things as disadvantageous as possible for the PCs; my players cannot succeed unless they satisfy my whims; I submit PCs to a chain of skill checks that only ends when they finally fail; I make my players "pixel bitch"; etc.).
> 
> I'd prefer both sides keep it civil (as I've asked for a few times). The discussion is much more interesting than any argument is.




Well, you've pretty much hit the list of complaints I've had.  So, let's go through them shall we?


I don't trust my players - That one's actually a bit on you.  I never said you didn't trust your players.  I asked how over ruling your players show that you trust them.  In other words, other than you simply saying that you trust your players, what do you do that actually shows trust in them?

I always rule against them - Well, every example you and everyone else here as given has always been agains the players.  Even when counter examples were brought up that weren't against the players that were equally plausible, the counter examples were brushed off as not being "by the RAW".  As if there actually was a RAW to be by when there isn't actually a mechanic in place to determine the reaction of the NPC.  If allowing the PC's through isn't by the RAW, how is preventing them by the RAW either?

I run my game arbitrarily - Well, you decided that the diplomat conveniently arrives 20 minutes before the PC's show up.  How is that not arbitrary?   Your interpretation of the results is based solely on your own feelings of what is "plausible".  How is that not arbitrary?

 I twist player success into failure - Now this one I truly do stand behind.  The players succeeded, but that success doesn't actually mean anything.  They don't get passed into the castle, the superiors get called.  Heck the superiors could just as easily get called on a failure as well.  The players discover a phylactery, use the most appropriate skill available on it, but because they didn't say the magic words, they don't get to learn that it's a fake.  How would they even think to ask?  Kn Arcana should have told them that or at least told them there was a chance that it was a fake.  But, no.  They didn't say the magic words, so tough.

 I'm not playing by his objective "better game" - I'm sorry this one offends you so much.  If I didn't honestly think there was a better way of doing things, I would have dropped out of this long ago.  I think that the advice that you are giving to other DM's leads to very poor games where player's simply stop trying to engage in the setting because every time they try, they get screwed over.  And then other DM's come to En World and tell all and sundry how their players suck because they won't engage in the game world and send them angry emails.

 I run my game based on GM fiat - Since you've already stated that the skills won't allow them to succeed  (there being no "open the gate skill" after all), any success or failure must therefore be entirely up to DM fiat.  

I don't listen to my players when they give me input on what's plausible - That's not quite what I meant.  What I asked, as I mentioned earlier, is how does over ruling their input show trust in their input?  

 I always make things as disadvantageous as possible for the PCs - Well, so far, every example you've given shows that you have taken the most disadvantageous interpretation you could.  I'm just calling it like I see it.  Perhaps you could give a few examples where the players succeed at skills and actually end up ahead of where they started.

my players cannot succeed unless they satisfy my whims - You stated that unless the players actually ASK if the phylactery could be a fake, you would never tell them of the possibility.  The skills of the characters apparently don't come into things at all.  If the player doesn't say the magic words, he doesn't get the chance to win the cookie.

 I submit PCs to a chain of skill checks that only ends when they finally fail - The players defeat the lich and take the phylactery.  Kn Arcana, despite being the skill that determines information about magical stuff, isn't good enough.  No, they have to specifically engage the Forgery skill.  Because, apparently, knowing all about magical writing and stuff from Kn Arcana isn't good enough to be able to tell the real from the fake, nor is it good enough to be even told of the chance of the fake.  Never mind that Forgery is Language Dependent and the odds that the PC could read the language that a LICH would write its phylactery in are pretty slim.

I make my players "pixel bitch" - How is the Lich example not textbook pixel bitching?  That, right there, forcing the players to say the magic words before they can discover the failure, is about as definitive of pixel bitching as you could possibly get.  Glossing over other, quite easily as applicable skills, in favour of your one solitary interpretation of success is exactly what pixel-bitching is.  

So, honestly JC, no, I don't think "play what you like" is all that helpful.  Play what you like leads to stagnant games and disaffected players and frustrated DM's.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2011)

Krensky said:


> Which is shocking to hear considering all the comments about abusive GMs always tormenting their players and such, that the only course for a good GM would be to let the players in no matter what once they rolled a success. Etc./snip




With all the complaints about people not reading Krensky, I'm a little surprised to see you do the same thing.  No one is saying that the players should have unqualified successes.  What we're saying is that when the players do succeed, they should be in a better position than when they started.

And, no, being led straight to the king plus his umpteen guards and whatnot, is not in a better position than when I started.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 6, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Well, you've pretty much hit the list of complaints I've had.  So, let's go through them shall we?




Alright, then. Get ready for the longest post on EN World (kidding) 




> I don't trust my players - That one's actually a bit on you.  I never said you didn't trust your players.  I asked how over ruling your players show that you trust them.  In other words, other than you simply saying that you trust your players, what do you do that actually shows trust in them?



You said (and definitely implied) a little more than that. Here we go:


Hussar said:


> I think this approach of the DM determining plausiblity makes for bad games for two reasons:  (and mind you, these are just my beliefs)
> 
> 2.  *It shows too much distrust for the players.* ...  *I believe that if you trust that your players will bring a good game to the table, then they will.  I do not believe that the DM has to be Nanny and make sure that the players are "playing the game right".*





Hussar said:


> How is ruling by fiat, simply because you're the DM, what is plausible, *showing trust in their judgement* of what is plausible?
> 
> *If you actually trusted their judgement, wouldn't you rule X?  If you always rule Y, then how does that show any trust in their judgement?*





Hussar said:


> If I say something is X, and you say it's Y and I refuse to be swayed by your views, aren't I, in effect,* showing that I do not trust your judgement*?
> 
> *To me, if the DM has decided that X will not work, regardless of the views of the players, that shows a lack of trust in the players*.
> 
> *To me, that shows a lack of trust in the judgement of your players.*





Hussar said:


> *If both sides trusted each other,* shouldn't the results fall to either side, at least some of the time?







> I always rule against them - Well, every example you and everyone else here as given has always been agains the players.  Even when counter examples were brought up that weren't against the players that were equally plausible, the counter examples were brushed off as not being "by the RAW".  As if there actually was a RAW to be by when there isn't actually a mechanic in place to determine the reaction of the NPC.  If allowing the PC's through isn't by the RAW, how is preventing them by the RAW either?



No, that is also untrue, not every ruling has been against the players in the examples. I'll kick off with some examples where you say I always rule against the players, fill in the middle with quotes saying where they succeed, and end with a quote where I go in-depth on how sometimes things work out to their favor. Here:


Hussar said:


> If both sides trusted each other, *shouldn't the results fall to either side, at least some of the time*?
> 
> *If you rule against the players every single time*, based solely on your views of what is plausible, how does that show trust in your player's judgement.
> 
> ...





Hussar said:


> *Having every plan frustrated, every attempt fail, just so the DM can make me "earn" my successes is something I've long grown out of.*





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> You can still succeed in your social checks.
> 
> You could have succeeded in your investigation checks better than you did.
> 
> Circumstances can favor you, rather than be against you.





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Well, now that they've succeeded on the Knowledge (arcana) check





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> They've succeeded in exactly what they've rolled on.





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> If the players succeed at what the rules dictate (ie, a Bluff), then I let it succeed.





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Secondly, if you did read my post on the last page where I pointed out that they can succeed, I indicated that a successful Disguise can fool the king as well.





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Even in the example I gave, I said that successful Bluff checks and Disguise checks might get them in.





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> If the party had beaten the diplomat, as I said, the king would have greeted them, and his Sense Motive is much lower than the chancellor's Sense Motive skill (who wasn't at the gate to meet them). On top of that, they'd have to roll a successful Disguise check, but if that passes, the king will let them in.





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> I've directly said that a successful Disguise check could save their botched plan. Other plans may have worked, such as claiming to be a runner with an urgent message (rather than being the diplomat). There are so many different ways that this could be salvaged or succeed with better conditions.





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> If they succeed in some Bluff checks with quick thinking, then the NPCs will believe their bluffs. If their bluffs are reasonable enough that they can complete their goal, then I have no problem with that being the case.





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Well, they can succeed at getting past the gate guard, as I've pointed out over and over and over.





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> This entire topic has stemmed from an example of how someone might fail. If you want examples of how things might benefit the players in the game, we can go into that.
> 
> Just yesterday, we had another session (with me running the game). The players faced off against a dozen bandits, and though it was difficult, they killed 8, captured 1, and three got away. One of the bandits (Lini) who got away had stolen 100 silver from the players (the equivalent of 100 gold in my game), as well as his primary weapon (a rapier).
> 
> ...







> I run my game arbitrarily - Well, you decided that the diplomat conveniently arrives 20 minutes before the PC's show up.  How is that not arbitrary?   Your interpretation of the results is based solely on your own feelings of what is "plausible".  How is that not arbitrary?



I didn't "conveniently" decide that. I said when he would show up, based on a timeline. The PCs arrived the same evening. If that's "arbitrary" than so is all of GMing, and I don't understand the complaint. I'm GMing, and that's bad? I don't get it. Additionally, my own sense of plausibility is not the only factor, as I'll point out, again, below.


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> If they had done things quicker, they could have beaten him there. When I decide that the diplomat leaves on the morning of the 4th, and he'll arrive on the evening of the 12th, that means they'll have to arrive before the evening of the 12th. Arriving in the evening of the 12th means there's a chance they'll beat him by a small margin, or fall behind by a small margin. The specifics of when the diplomat arrives exactly on the evening of the 12th don't come into play what until it needs to (such as when the party cuts it close). Then, I go with the time I envisioned in the evening (or perhaps consult the map again).







> I twist player success into failure - Now this one I truly do stand behind.  The players succeeded, but that success doesn't actually mean anything.  They don't get passed into the castle, the superiors get called.  Heck the superiors could just as easily get called on a failure as well.  The players discover a phylactery, use the most appropriate skill available on it, but because they didn't say the magic words, they don't get to learn that it's a fake.  How would they even think to ask?  Kn Arcana should have told them that or at least told them there was a chance that it was a fake.  But, no.  They didn't say the magic words, so tough.



If you want, I can once again go into what a "success" is. You can run it your way, and there's nothing wrong with that. But, according to the rules, this is not how it works. From the very beginning of the SRD:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> The Core Mechanic
> *Whenever you attempt an action that has some chance of failure, you roll a twenty-sided die (d20). To determine if your character succeeds at a task you do this*:
> 
> Roll a d20.
> ...



It is specifically that action, and that action alone, that is decided upon by the roll. That's all. That I am somehow twisting PC success into failure means I'm breaking with The Core Mechanic, and that simply isn't true, as I'm demonstrated, and you've agreed with. How you still come to the conclusion that I twist success into failure is, as far as I can tell, based solely on your house rules, which are fine to play by. But judging others by them and saying that they're screwing over their friends because of it is just, well, wrong.




> I'm not playing by his objective "better game" - I'm sorry this one offends you so much.  If I didn't honestly think there was a better way of doing things, I would have dropped out of this long ago.  I think that the advice that you are giving to other DM's leads to very poor games where player's simply stop trying to engage in the setting because every time they try, they get screwed over.  And then other DM's come to En World and tell all and sundry how their players suck because they won't engage in the game world and send them angry emails.



How do you get that every time they try something, they're screwed over? Go up and read my responses to you saying that I always rule against my players. Go up and read the last response, where I go in-depth on how something social directly benefited the players and PCs. Then, explain to me how my play style "leads to very poor games where player's simply stop trying to engage in the setting because every time they try, they get screwed over." I'm really curious how you'll back that statement up, now.




> I run my game based on GM fiat - Since you've already stated that the skills won't allow them to succeed  (there being no "open the gate skill" after all), any success or failure must therefore be entirely up to DM fiat.



I can grab a ton of quotes where you say I run my game based on GM fiat if you want. Additionally, I've stated many, _many_ times that players can succeed at what they attempt. Go up, again, and read my quotes when you said I always rule against my players. If you're saying that my saying "the guard believes you and reacts this way" is running a game by GM fiat, then so is "you guys want to head to the next town? Alright, after five days of travel, you arrive." _It's just as much GM fiat_. As far as I can tell, you're telling me that by having a guard even do so much as _greet_ them when they walk up without rolling for it, I'm using GM fiat, and that's something I can't really find offensive. I find it kind of baffling and amusing. If you're accusing me of running my game, then I'm guilty.


You also skipped me railroading, for some reason. Here:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That one amuses me.




> I don't listen to my players when they give me input on what's plausible - That's not quite what I meant.  What I asked, as I mentioned earlier, is how does over ruling their input show trust in their input?



You seemed to imply quite a bit more. Again:


Hussar said:


> Basically my point is the players are trying something that is plausible in their view (since they probably wouldn't try otherwise) and *he DM is ruling that no, it isn't plausible based solely on the DM's judgement*.
> 
> If I say something is X, and you say it's Y *and I refuse to be swayed by your views*, aren't I, in effect, showing that I do not trust your judgement?
> 
> ...



I do change my position based on player input. I can bring one or more players into this conversation if you'd like, and you can ask them directly.




> I always make things as disadvantageous as possible for the PCs - Well, so far, every example you've given shows that you have taken the most disadvantageous interpretation you could.  I'm just calling it like I see it.  Perhaps you could give a few examples where the players succeed at skills and actually end up ahead of where they started.



Again, go up and read where you said I always rule against my players. Read the last example. This is demonstrably not the case. I've also pointed out that if they succeed on their Bluff and Disguise skill checks, even in a situation that is disadvantageous to them, like being confronted by the king, chancellor, and diplomat, they can still pull it off. So, again, not sure where you're getting this from.




> my players cannot succeed unless they satisfy my whims - You stated that unless the players actually ASK if the phylactery could be a fake, you would never tell them of the possibility.  The skills of the characters apparently don't come into things at all.  If the player doesn't say the magic words, he doesn't get the chance to win the cookie.



No, untrue:


> Well, in my (unstated) example, the players wanted to know "could this be the phylactery?" The Knowledge (arcana) check would indicate that "yes, this could be the phylactery."
> 
> Separately, they could see if it's fake. And yes, I have no problem giving clues to players, if it's reasonable. *And on top of that, I'll give them information, if it's something their character would know. And if it's iffy, I'll allow an appropriate roll.*



If their character might or would know something, they don't have to ask. If that isn't the case, and they ask if it's fake, then I'll give them every reasonable and appropriate check to determine if that's the case.

If the players say, "I guess we'll head south to Woltok, then," I'll remind them that Woltok is actually north, because their characters know that. If they say "I put the scroll case into my backpack" then I won't mention what's inside of it until they give me some indication that they want to know.




> I submit PCs to a chain of skill checks that only ends when they finally fail - The players defeat the lich and take the phylactery.  Kn Arcana, despite being the skill that determines information about magical stuff, isn't good enough.  No, they have to specifically engage the Forgery skill.  Because, apparently, knowing all about magical writing and stuff from Kn Arcana isn't good enough to be able to tell the real from the fake, nor is it good enough to be even told of the chance of the fake.  Never mind that Forgery is Language Dependent and the odds that the PC could read the language that a LICH would write its phylactery in are pretty slim.



Yes, that's how skills work. You must engage with the appropriate skill in order to achieve success. This is outlined in The Core Mechanic, above. Knowing all about magical writing doesn't let you know if it's fake magical writing, just like knowing all about a language doesn't let you know about fake writing. That's the point of the Forgery skill. Just like with any papers the PCs look at, they can assume it's real or fake, and I'm not going to tell them which unless they inquire about it, or their characters might know / do know.

Additionally, I find it amusing that you think the "LICH" would write in a language that a simple low level spell wouldn't bypass. Honestly. They just took out a lich. The Comprehend Languages spell is a first level Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard spell. If they have a spellcaster (and they had two!), I think they can pretty easily look into it if they want to.




> I make my players "pixel bitch" - How is the Lich example not textbook pixel bitching?  That, right there, forcing the players to say the magic words before they can discover the failure, is about as definitive of pixel bitching as you could possibly get.  Glossing over other, quite easily as applicable skills, in favour of your one solitary interpretation of success is exactly what pixel-bitching is.



The entire lich scenario would have been bypassed even easier if they had just not engaged the lich. He still saw them as past comrades, and only sent the fake tip off to test their loyalty now that he was a lich. They don't start fight, then they don't fight him at all.

Or, they could have investigated the "LICH"'s belongings. They didn't. They didn't even say they wanted to. No looking for poisons, no looking for traps, no checking if anything is diseased, no checking if his stuff is cursed, just "push his stuff into a bag, shoulder it, and back to base camp." They did this to a guy who had mentally bested the party once before, albeit not on fatal terms.

They could have used Detect Magic or Detect Evil to look into things. They could have Identified his belongings. They could have used divination magic, like Commune, to ask questions. They could have thrown his stuff into a lake, dropped it into a volcano, sold it, or destroyed it. There are so many different ways things could have gone down, but they didn't. The players were reckless, and it cost them. That isn't pixel bitching.

If they wanted to know whether or not it was fake, they did have to indicate that they were investigating it to some degree, yep. That's true. I don't consider that any more pixel bitching than me waiting for them to tell me where they're going. If where they're going is off, I'll give them information they know, or allow checks for stuff they might know. I would have done the same in this case, if they indicated they were suspicious of his belongings.

I don't play their characters. I don't want to tell them "you do this" without them indicating that they want that action done. 




> So, honestly JC, no, I don't think "play what you like" is all that helpful.  Play what you like leads to stagnant games and disaffected players and frustrated DM's.



I find this exceptionally amusing. It almost made me laugh. Oh man. Playing a style of game you enjoy "leads to stagnant games and disaffected players and frustrated DM's." I'll have to remember that the next time I'm having fun 

As always, play what you like


----------



## Krensky (Jul 7, 2011)

Hussar said:


> No one is saying that the players should have unqualified successes.




But anything other the that is derided by you as an abusive arbitrary railroad pixelbitch. Unless the PCs are allowed imediatwe and unfettered access, the GM's jerking them around is what I get from your arguments. Why? Because you've rejected any other outcome as badwrongevil GMing.



Hussar said:


> What we're saying is that when the players do succeed, they should be in a better position than when they started.




They are. The guard believes their line of bull. What happens then is a separate concern. You may houserule skill to work anyway you like, but playing by the rules is not evilbandwrong.



Hussar said:


> And, no, being led straight to the king plus his umpteen guards and whatnot, is not in a better position than when I started.




Yes it is. You're inside the castle, aren't you?


Hussar, to be brutally honest, I don't care what sort of game you play. I care less about your opinion of me or my game. I do care about the people who sit on the other side of the screen's opinion. Considering that I have six players in one game (with more waiting to come in once the current arc ends and they can be worked in) and five in my other game and they're not complaining or leaving, I feel I'm doing pretty good.

Consider this:

I've been GMing for the better part of, oh, twenty... twenty-five years. In that time you are the only person to call me an abusive, evil jerk of a GM. I've been called a bastard at times, but never in anger. I've had people not enjoy games and leave them, but that's always been a matter of them not liking the focus or system or wanting to play in some other game they enjoy more. How do I know? I've asked them. So obviously I look at your insistence that I'm doing it wrong and that I'm encouraging others to do it wrong and indirectly destroying the hobby in the process... well... somewhat askance.

Doubly so because, as far as I know, you've never sat at my table let alone played in my games.

If my principles of: "The Bluff skill lets you lie and you need to use Intimidate or Impress to directly influence peoples actions." and "I don't dictate the PC's actions, they don't dictate the NPC's actions." offend you, then I'm sorry. You don't have to play at my table.

If you want to continue the discussion, respond to my comments about control of PCs/NPCs, that the rules saying Bluff only covers lies and other skills cover influencing the guard to do X, or some other meaning ful point of discussion, rather then insulting me.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 7, 2011)

Krensky said:


> Which is shocking to hear considering all the comments about abusive GMs always tormenting their players and such, that the only course for a good GM would be to let the players in no matter what once they rolled a success. Etc.





JamesonCourage said:


> I agree, but I do understand his frustration when Hussar has gone on and on about our playing style
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'd prefer both sides keep it civil (as I've asked for a few times). The discussion is much more interesting than any argument is.



I agree that civility is preferable.



Krensky said:


> The criticism of Edwards and his theories. Sorry, but no. If you don't like to see his pseudo-intellectual crap called pseudo-intellectual crap, don't try and use it in a discussion. If you are Mr. Edwards, well then, still no.



I'm not Ron Edwards. I do find the GMing advice that comes out of The Forge and some of the games it has influenced, or that are influential there (eg The Burning Wheel, HeroQuest) to be the best GMing advice I've read.



Krensky said:


> Interesting that you didn't actually reply to the actual content of my response though.



The content of your post appeared to be a reiteration of earlier comments you've made - that your game is low magic even at high levels, that Bluff is not an influence skill, and that allowing Bluff to be used as an influence skill will overpower the skill.

I'm not sure what game you're playing (if you mentioned it in this thread, I missed it, sorry). I think most high level D&D play does involve magic, which is the context in which I made my remarks about that.

And as I've already said, I don't see the risk of overpowering if Bluff is allowed to act as an influence skill. As the social skills are set up in 4e - Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate - there are three sort of PC possible: tricky/smooth, pleasant/earnest, and scary. This works for me.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 7, 2011)

Krensky said:
			
		

> They are. The guard believes their line of bull. What happens then is a separate concern. You may houserule skill to work anyway you like, but playing by the rules is not evilbandwrong.




But, huh?  We've already agreed that the players succeeded in improving the guard's reactions as well.  It's not that they succeeded in this one check and get the pass, it's that they succeeded the challenge.  However checks that might have required is not really relavent.  The players bluffed.  The players diplomatized.  The player did dancing jigs....


Yeah, we're just talking past each other now.  I'm missing points and you guys are missing points.  This isn't going to go anywhere and I'm simply turning what is a rather good thread into a mess.  I'll be stepping out now.

But, just because I can't resist, I'll leave with this thought.

In the original example that started all this, Elf Witch complained that her player didn't engage in the setting when she interpreted the results of a success in a manner which the player didn't agree with.

Lots of people then piped up to say what a jerk player this player was.

And, they might very well be right.  The player might be wrong.  However, I don't automatically assume that.  If your playstyle results in players being so frustrated that they are sending you angry emails, it might not be the player.  It very well might be.  But, I'm certainly not going to assume that.

-------

Edit to add.  Those interested in the style of game that I'm really criticising here should take a look at This thread about He's Beyond My Healing Ability for numerous examples of the DM chucking the rules out the window in order to produce a pre-scripted result.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 7, 2011)

Hussar said:


> In the original example that started all this, Elf Witch complained that her player didn't engage in the setting when she interpreted the results of a success in a manner which the player didn't agree with.
> 
> Lots of people then piped up to say what a jerk player this player was.
> 
> ...





You are talking about DMs who turn a success into a failure. In my example that did not happen.  

The temple of Pelor training ground got hit by a fireball killing several students. The clerics of St Cuthbert who handle all investigations they are the law in my land came to investigate. 

Tempers flared and swords were drawn between several clerics of Pelor and St Cuthbert. 

The player decided he would try and stop the blood shed using diplomacy. He gave a speech about how enough blood had been spilled today. He rolled a natural 20. 

He succeed both sides laid down their weapons. The head cleric Pelor was very friendly towards him. The cleric of St Cuthbert was short and surly even though he did what the PC wanted. The PC succeeded on his roll which was to stop the blood shed from happening.

The player noting that the roll should have made the cleric of ST Cuthbert become friendly towards him. He didn't understand why the cleric was surly.

I knew that the clerics of St Cuthbert had discovered a massive plot of the spellscales which is the race the PC was to support Tiamat and kill the the good gods including St Cuthbert. 

I tried to explain to the player that the reaction from the cleric didn't seem right to him. Instead of trying to find out why this was you know pick up on a damn plot hook. He choose to rant about the rules and how I made his roll a total failure.

The rest of the players at the table all told me that they thought he was overreacting and when I finally told the player the entire reason basically gave him plot information out of game he admitted that he had overreacted was being a jerk and thought my plot hook was awesome.

I have been reading this thread and I think the big disconnect here is that basically everyone is arguing about the results of a hypothetical encounter.

I think everyone is a little right and a little wrong.

I certainly don't think every encounter should be so tough that you can't bluff your way past the guard into the castle. 

I also don't think that it is wrong to make it more of a challenge that requires not only bluff but maybe forgery, diplomacy, intimidate, gather info.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 7, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Could you elaborate on what you've got in mind with these questions?




The technique I had in mind was 4E's general "DC is set by party level".  I think this means that the players overcome the challenge by building a party that has all the skills covered; when to expend resources in the form of Utility powers also plays a role.

It's a pretty big topic, though.  There's a lot of design space there.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 7, 2011)

I'm enjoying the good discussion but lets tone down the personal attacks on playstyles.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 7, 2011)

Arrggh.  I know I said I was going to bow out.  But, I can't xp Elf Witch, so, I'll go with this:



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I think everyone is a little right and a little wrong.
> 
> I certainly don't think every encounter should be so tough that you can't bluff your way past the guard into the castle.
> 
> I also don't think that it is wrong to make it more of a challenge that requires not only bluff but maybe forgery, diplomacy, intimidate, gather info.




100% agree.


----------



## Jimlock (Jul 7, 2011)

Forgive me, for I have not read the ENTIRE thread, but how can those skills be a problem... when in the same game you have spellcasters who can turn reality upside down?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 7, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> Forgive me, for I have not read the ENTIRE thread, but how can those skills be a problem... when in the same game you have spellcasters who can turn reality upside down?




In part of the thread I pointed out that magic is special and the use of it can change things.

But skills alone should not be able to break suspension of disbelief. By that the I mean some social skills are not going to work the same way on every NPC. The example I used was intimidate.

You are trying to scare a cult member into telling you where the secret ceremony is going down depending on who the cultist is it might work or it might not.  

Say the cultist is in for the group sex and is basically a coward. Like the one character in the movie the Mummy who joins Impothep to save his slimy life. Then in my game intimidate will work just as the RAW says. Make you roll if it is enough he will tell you.

But say your prisoner is a devout follower of the cult really believes in its goals. Is willing to die for those goals. It is going to be almost impossible to use intimidate to betray the cult. Now tricking him might work.


----------



## Jimlock (Jul 7, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> But say your prisoner is a devout follower of the cult really believes in its goals. Is willing to die for those goals. It is going to be almost impossible to use intimidate to betray the cult. Now tricking him might work.




A DC for such a case should be astronomical. Still, by the time you have PCs able to make such checks with real chances of success, you'll also have casters with Charm Monster, Dominate Person etc etc...


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 7, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> A DC for such a case should be astronomical. Still, by the time you have PCs able to make such checks with real chances of success, you'll also have casters with Charm Monster, Dominate Person etc etc...




That's true, but there's a few things that you should remember about those spells, or magic in general.

First things first: according to the rules, the Bluff skill doesn't work in that manner. Secondly, Diplomacy and Intimidate affect NPC attitudes, but they do not allow you to dictate NPC actions. The Charm spells do the same thing.

The Dominate spells are powerful, but allow for clauses where the creatures do not carry out obviously harmful effects, and also get a new saving throw at a bonus to negate the spell if ordered to perform an action that goes against its nature.

However, the spells get a saving throw, where the skills do not, which I think was the original point of NewJeffCT when he made this thread. It's true that the Charm and Dominate spells will be very effective against creatures with low Will saves. There's no objection to that from me. However, any creature that maxes out something like Diplomacy can affect all creatures, regardless of level or hit die, just as easily. By RAW, and with only the PHB, I can get +23 to Diplomacy as a half-elf by level 3. No flaws, for extra feats. No splat books. Just the core PHB, +23 to Diplomacy by level 3 (and that's not counting in age bonuses or anything).

This causes a problem. People don't use the term "diplomancer" for no reason. If I can take someone from Hostile (will take risks to hurt me) to Indifferent (doesn't care much) on a natural 2 or better at level 3, no matter how high level the creature is, with no save, that becomes a balancing issue.

No, it's true that I can't dictate his actions. But I've definitely influenced his attitude towards me. Maybe I have to make the check in 1 round, rather than with a full minute. I take a -10 penalty to my Diplomacy. That means that at level 3 my half-elf bard can make that check on any creature he meets on a natural 12 or better. That's 45% of the time. 45% of the time, the level 3 half-elf bard is so good at saying something within 6 second that Asmodeus himself (or Orcus, if you prefer) goes from "will take risks to hurt you" to "doesn't care much." That's massive.

That's why I think it's able to be abused. No, you can't dictate NPC actions. You can, however, reliably make NPCs act much more civilly to you, even by level 3. An unlimited number of times per day. To any creature, regardless of power. With no save.

So, yes, Charm and Dominate spells are powerful, but Diplomacy, as written, isn't balanced with them (in my opinion), it far exceeds them.

But, hey, that's just my two cents. As always, play what you like


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 7, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> A DC for such a case should be astronomical. Still, by the time you have PCs able to make such checks with real chances of success, you'll also have casters with Charm Monster, Dominate Person etc etc...




JC summed up pretty much how I feel about this. I wanted to add that in my opinion magic should be powerful and do things better than something non magical.

Now I know that idea bugs a lot of people and I have read numerous threads about here. How it is so unfair to the non casters.

I don't agree maybe because  in the 30 years I have been playing I have never heard anyone at a table I play at or DM at complain about it or refuse to play a non magical character.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 7, 2011)

There's a -10 penalty if you make a Diplomacy check in 6 seconds instead of a minute.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 7, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> There's a -10 penalty if you make a Diplomacy check in 6 seconds instead of a minute.




Not sure if this is directed at me, but if it is, I'm not sure if you caught it in my post:


JamesonCourage said:


> Maybe I have to make the check in 1 round, rather than with a full minute. *I take a -10 penalty to my Diplomacy.* That means that at level 3 my half-elf bard can make that check on any creature he meets on a natural 12 or better. That's 45% of the time. 45% of the time, the level 3 half-elf bard is so good at saying something within 6 second that Asmodeus himself (or Orcus, if you prefer) goes from "will take risks to hurt you" to "doesn't care much." That's massive.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jul 7, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> However, the spells get a saving throw, where the skills do not, which I think was the original point of NewJeffCT when he made this thread. It's true that the Charm and Dominate spells will be very effective against creatures with low Will saves. There's no objection to that from me. However, any creature that maxes out something like Diplomacy can affect all creatures, regardless of level or hit die, just as easily. By RAW, and with only the PHB, I can get +23 to Diplomacy as a half-elf by level 3. No flaws, for extra feats. No splat books. Just the core PHB, +23 to Diplomacy by level 3 (and that's not counting in age bonuses or anything).
> 
> No, it's true that I can't dictate his actions. But I've definitely influenced his attitude towards me. Maybe I have to make the check in 1 round, rather than with a full minute. I take a -10 penalty to my Diplomacy. That means that at level 3 my half-elf bard can make that check on any creature he meets on a natural 12 or better. That's 45% of the time. 45% of the time, the level 3 half-elf bard is so good at saying something within 6 second that Asmodeus himself (or Orcus, if you prefer) goes from "will take risks to hurt you" to "doesn't care much." That's massive.
> 
> ...




Correct, that was my original point - Diplomacy gives you no saving throw in 3E/3.5E - you can succeed even if you roll a 1.  And, the 4E DCs are low enough that even the "Hard" DC is pretty easy for somebody trained in the skill.

But, when you say Orcus or Asmodeus go from taking risks to hurt you to doesn't care much, I had a quick thought cross my mind:
*DM as Orcus or Asmodeus*: "While I am torturing you, I am going to kill your family in front of you - and not just your wife and children, but your parents, cousins, nieces, nephews, aunts and uncles as well.  Only then, after the parade of death before you is done, will I give you a slow and painful death. Mwuah hah hah hah!!!"
*PC*: "I make a Diplomacy roll to try and convince him to spare my family, giving him a sad story about all the hardships I have overcome... I roll an 18, with modifiers, it's a 50"
*DM*: "sigh... nah, killing all those people would not be a challenge. I'll just kill you now and be done with it. I just don't care enough to kill all of them."


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> There's a -10 penalty if you make a Diplomacy check in 6 seconds instead of a minute.




As part of my ongoing, "did you know that in reality..." series...

Apparently studies have shown that people make up their mind about you within the first moments of meeting you.  I read about a study in a book about the Microsoft Interview process.  It talked about this phenomenon.  

Basically, part of your brain makes a snap judgement on whether you like this guy or not.  Then you spend the rest of the interview rationalizing to yourself how one candidate "can learn our business" and the other candidate "just doesn't have the skills we're looking for", despite both candidates having the same qualifications and the same gap in skills that the company is looking for.

So, it turns out that making that initial Diplomacy roll in the first 6 seconds may be realistic and that talking longer won't change that.

Now I don't condone bad rules like what JC illustrates about the ease of which the Talker can turn the cranky orc into a friend if the rules are abused.

What I do want folks to appreciate though, is where they think the rules have no basis in reality, that something like that isn't possible, is actually contradicted by what's actually been done in real life.

The short of it is, don't over-nerf some of these things, but don't let them be over-powered either.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 7, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Not sure if this is directed at me, but if it is, I'm not sure if you caught it in my post:




Whoops!  Yeah, I missed that.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 7, 2011)

Janx said:


> As part of my ongoing, "did you know that in reality..." series...
> 
> So, it turns out that making that initial Diplomacy roll in the first 6 seconds may be realistic and that talking longer won't change that.




I'll have to say, in general, I don't agree with your example. Take your job interview example. What happens if I show up, and he says, "so, James, why should we bring you on board?" and I talk for six full seconds and then stop. Just stop, and that's my whole case. I made my entire case in six seconds.

To me, I feel that doesn't mesh nearly as well with reality as having the actual interview, the back and forth dialogue. Sure, he might know whether or not he likes me within the first six seconds (I'm crushing him with my +23 to Diplomacy), but it would be entirely different if I just stopped there. And realistically, I don't think -10 is big enough there, but that's RAW.

Anyways, I do agree with you that it's not good to over-nerf anything. I tried to make the social skills balanced (obviously from my perspective), not underpowered. I think that they should be powerful if you have good skill in them.

At any rate, play what you like


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I'll have to say, in general, I don't agree with your example. Take your job interview example. What happens if I show up, and he says, "so, James, why should we bring you on board?" and I talk for six full seconds and then stop. Just stop, and that's my whole case. I made my entire case in six seconds.




well, obviously, you can deliberately screw the pooch.  But two individuals, both honestly attempting to get the job, the tests showed, the interviewers given 10 seconds of footage of the candidates, and 10 minutes, it turns out the results were statistically the same.

I don't have the full story, but the gist was, they filmed 2 people (I think in the original experiment, teachers teaching a lesson).  and folks preferrred the same teacher, regardless of how much footage they saw.  Of the 2 candidates, as I understand it, one was "better" than the other.  

Anyway, what appears to be happening, is the emotional part of the brain makes a snap judgement in those first moments, and the rational brain comes up with supporting reasons.  So, from the first moment, you've either won or lost the skill check, from there if you win, the rest of the encounter is yours to lose rather than an ongoing struggle to win them over.

Its a wierd effect, and it challenges how we believe we think, versus what shows up in tests and MRI's.

It basically can justify why a Face can get farther socially, than the curmudgeon.  They already appeal to the other party, and they tend to be deft at fitting in, and being likeable.

That still might not mean he can social a dragon's pants off.  I think there's a case that my 8 CHA orc is appealing to other orcs, and that basically the te CHA stat is ranked by a human perspective.  Thus, facial qualities and expressions the Face uses may be offensive to an orc or dragon.


----------



## Krensky (Jul 7, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I agree that civility is preferable.




NAmby pambly civilization... what need Kronk with cviility?! 




pemerton said:


> I'm not Ron Edwards. I do find the GMing advice that comes out of The Forge and some of the games it has influenced, or that are influential there (eg The Burning Wheel, HeroQuest) to be the best GMing advice I've read.




Which is funny, since I've read Burning Wheel. Well, Burning Empire. It's among the most dense, overly complicated game systems I've ever seen with pages upon pages of systems for things that really the GM and players should just make up.

Frankly, I've found the most useful GM advice in terms of running a game to came from Play Dirty, Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads, and Paranoia XP SP2, with Crafty's GM advice sections in SC2.0 and FC following close behind.



pemerton said:


> The content of your post appeared to be a reiteration of earlier comments you've made - that your game is low magic even at high levels, that Bluff is not an influence skill, and that allowing Bluff to be used as an influence skill will overpower the skill.




Actually, I said that magic items powers take second fiddle to the PCs powers. At level 14, for instance, the equivalent class to fighter can declare an attack check, a fort save, or a Strength or Constitution based skill check to be a natural 20 without. Heck, if he took a a specific selectable ability a few levels earlier too, he can then activate it as a critical hit for free. Every class has an ability on a similar scale at level 14 (or 10 for experts or 5 for master classes). They're called gamebreakers. The abilities granted by Magic items just aren't on par with the characters inherent abilities. The game is as high or low magic as you like, but it's not typically very magic item heavy.



pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what game you're playing (if you mentioned it in this thread, I missed it, sorry). I think most high level D&D play does involve magic, which is the context in which I made my remarks about that.




Fantasy Craft. Which has more magic using classes then non-magic users. The game is designed without assuming that magic, let alone magic items, is an element in a game world though. So Magic Items are desirable and very, very useful, but they're not a necessary element of play at any level.



pemerton said:


> And as I've already said, I don't see the risk of overpowering if Bluff is allowed to act as an influence skill. As the social skills are set up in 4e - Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate - there are three sort of PC possible: tricky/smooth, pleasant/earnest, and scary. This works for me.




That's cool for you. I don't see the need or desirably of giving the PCs a third way to influence NPC reactions. All of those are already covered by Impress and Intimidate. You can be all of those things with either Impress or Intimidate. Frankly, the issue is that social skills are an afterthought in pretty much every version of D&D. Which makes them an afterthought of an afterthought in certain versions.

Not every game has this problem.

Social skills should be opposed tests. In my game, the NPCs scale with the PCs. Not quite as fast so a high level PC has a better chance then a low level PC, but it's a spread of a +5 advantage over 20 levels rather then a +20 or so. Not precise, but give you a better idea. Not to say PCs can't generate big bonuses for specializing. The Talker I mentioned above could generate big bonuses to social skill rolls like Haggle, Impress, etc. She was also built to that, with a Talent (thing race) Specialty (no good analogy), and class that were focused on dominating social interactions. Typically you can't adjust an Attitude more then one grade up or down a scene, and all attitudes fade over time, drifting back to neutral. PCs and Villain (a specific type of NPC) can choose to halve all Disposition changes effecting them. I usually have a pile of Action Dice to use to boost my NPC skill roles, etc. Special characters (including PCs) can spend action dice to ignore uses of Impress or Intimidate on the, and the target's Disposition effects use of the Impress skill. So it's actually easier to make people who like you, like you more. If someone is at the bottom of the scale (-25, Adversarial, Will do anything in their power to hurt the character) you take a -25 to Impress checks against them. So if someone really hates you, Intimidate might actually be a better choice, depending on if you want them to stop hating you, or just help you out with something for right now.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 7, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> The technique I had in mind was 4E's general "DC is set by party level".  I think this means that the players overcome the challenge by building a party that has all the skills covered; when to expend resources in the form of Utility powers also plays a role.



OK, makes sense.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 8, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> However, the spells get a saving throw, where the skills do not
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



That looks to me like a flaw in the action resolution mechanics for a particular game, rather than a reason to think that social skills are too powerful per se, or uniquely prone to abuse.

One sort of solution is to make multiple checks required, comparable to combat - games like HeroQuest, The Dying Earth and 4e (via skill challenges) take this approach. Another solution is to make the DCs level-sensitive in some fashion or other - saving throws would be one way to do this (HARP takes this approach), or scaling DCs (as per 4e) would be another.



NewJeffCT said:


> And, the 4E DCs are low enough that even the "Hard" DC is pretty easy for somebody trained in the skill.



But in 4e you wouldn't sway Orcus via Diplomacy without a skill challenge. Which will require multiple rolls, and also will require the other PCs to do something to stop Orcus eating them in the meantime.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 8, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> It is going to be almost impossible to use intimidate to betray the cult. Now tricking him might work.




To me, this is the crux of why high skill checks can be "unbalancing".

In 3e terms, a +20 to the DC was for the "Practically Impossible".

Thing is, its actually quite easy to make character builds that can get intimidate and diplomacy checks so high that a -20 is not even an issue.

When a player can roll an 80 diplomacy check...there's a certain social inertia there. It can feel wrong to tell the player no, even though the rules might allow for it.


You also get to the problem of superspecialization. In other words, in order to prevent Mr. Diplomancer from making literally everyone his buddy, you need very high DCs. But that shuts down other players from using diplomacy.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 8, 2011)

pemerton said:


> That looks to me like a flaw in the action resolution mechanics for a particular game, rather than a reason to think that social skills are too powerful per se, or uniquely prone to abuse.




I'm really not sure your point here. I think you're agreeing with my post that Diplomacy is capable of abuse in 3.5, considering I never indicated that social skills are all inherently overpowered, and specifically talked about trying to make them balanced (in my opinion) in my game.



> One sort of solution is to make multiple checks required, comparable to combat - games like HeroQuest, The Dying Earth and 4e (via skill challenges) take this approach. Another solution is to make the DCs level-sensitive in some fashion or other - saving throws would be one way to do this (HARP takes this approach), or scaling DCs (as per 4e) would be another.




I built off the GitP rules (but I did modify it): Giant In the Playground Games. It has a much better base in my opinion, and it doesn't include changing someone's disposition (which I really think is what leads to abuse). 



> But in 4e you wouldn't sway Orcus via Diplomacy without a skill challenge. Which will require multiple rolls, and also will require the other PCs to do something to stop Orcus eating them in the meantime.




My knowledge of 4e is severely lacking, but if it's as easy to pass those "hard" skill checks as some people have indicated, then it's still an issue. I think inherently changing someone's overall, long term disposition towards you is what leads to a lot of abuse, and thus objections. Just my opinion, though.

As always, play what you like 




Stalker0 said:


> To me, this is the crux of why high skill checks can be "unbalancing".
> 
> In 3e terms, a +20 to the DC was for the "Practically Impossible".
> 
> ...




Yep, I totally agree with this (can't XP again yet).



> You also get to the problem of superspecialization. In other words, in order to prevent Mr. Diplomancer from making literally everyone his buddy, you need very high DCs. But that shuts down other players from using diplomacy.




Yeah, and that can cause problems, as it's metagamey, and also shuts down a mode of play that a player wishes to explore. So, I think I agree here, too. Good post.

Play what you like


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 8, 2011)

Stalker0 said:


> To me, this is the crux of why high skill checks can be "unbalancing".
> 
> In 3e terms, a +20 to the DC was for the "Practically Impossible".
> 
> ...




It is one of the flaws I see in 3E a big one. 

It requires DMs and players to be on the same page and agree that sometimes the no matter how well you roll it won't work. 

The players need to trust their DM that they are not being screwed over. That their is a good in game reason for something not working.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 8, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I'm really not sure your point here. I think you're agreeing with my post that Diplomacy is capable of abuse in 3.5, considering I never indicated that social skills are all inherently overpowered, and specifically talked about trying to make them balanced (in my opinion) in my game.



Besides agreeing with you, I also meant (and maybe failed) to bring out _what it is_ about 3E social skills that makes me agree with you - namely, not that they can/cannot affect an NPC's actions (in my view, insofar as a social skill affects attitudes, it will affect actions, given that - crudely but not too inaccurately - attitude + belief yields action). Rather, it is the failure of the maths.



JamesonCourage said:


> My knowledge of 4e is severely lacking, but if it's as easy to pass those "hard" skill checks as some people have indicated, then it's still an issue.



Not so much in the context of a skill challenge. As I said in the post you replied to, multiple rolls are required - which reduces the odds of success - and the other PCs are also going to be involved (at least in typical party play), which means that a single diplomancer isn't going to resolve the scene.



JamesonCourage said:


> I think inherently changing someone's overall, long term disposition towards you is what leads to a lot of abuse, and thus objections.



What have you got in mind?

In the abstract, turning a major villain into a friend who will expend resources to help you shouldn't be an more or less abusive than killing the same villain and stealing all his/her resources. Although it many be less exciting.

But I have a feeling this isn't what you're talking about.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jul 8, 2011)

Stalker0 said:


> To me, this is the crux of why high skill checks can be "unbalancing".
> 
> In 3e terms, a +20 to the DC was for the "Practically Impossible".
> 
> ...




I'd XP you for your post, but I need to spread it around more first.  Well said!


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 8, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Besides agreeing with you, I also meant (and maybe failed) to bring out _what it is_ about 3E social skills that makes me agree with you - namely, not that they can/cannot affect an NPC's actions (in my view, insofar as a social skill affects attitudes, it will affect actions, given that - crudely but not too inaccurately - attitude + belief yields action). Rather, it is the failure of the maths.




Okay, I see where you're coming from more clearly now. Thanks for clarifying that for me.



> Not so much in the context of a skill challenge. As I said in the post you replied to, multiple rolls are required - which reduces the odds of success - and the other PCs are also going to be involved (at least in typical party play), which means that a single diplomancer isn't going to resolve the scene.




Which is still odd to me. I mean, yes, sometimes the entire party needs to help out, because the guy they're talking to makes it his business to talk to everyone. Other times, though, the diplomat says "stay close, shut up, and follow my lead" before seeing the king. In those situations, I dislike the skill challenge requirement (if there is one... as I said, my 4e knowledge is lacking) of having everyone be forced to contribute. As a game mechanic, it would help with balance, though.



> What have you got in mind?
> 
> In the abstract, turning a major villain into a friend who will expend resources to help you shouldn't be an more or less abusive than killing the same villain and stealing all his/her resources. Although it many be less exciting.
> 
> But I have a feeling this isn't what you're talking about.




It's definitely a much bigger swing than killing him and looting him.

Let's say there are five Bad Guys. I kill one, and now there are four Bad Guys.

If we compare that to convincing him to help me, there are now four Bad Guys, and one Good Guy. That's a dramatically different situation, in my mind. My players would deal with that variable completely differently than just "four Bad Guys left."

And, the more it happens, the bigger the swing. Having "three Bad Guys left" is very different from having "three Bad Guys left, and two Good Guys on our side."

But, as far as what I'd suggest, like I implied, is getting rid of anything that affects long term disposition. The GitP link I provided is a good start, in my mind, as it completely changes the nature of Diplomacy from long term outlook on a member of the party to whether or not somebody agrees to a very specific deal. Diplomacy checks no longer affect any NPC's long term feelings about the party, and that prevents a lot of abuse.

This means that you can convince a Bad Guy not to come after you, but you'll have to overcome the higher DC. It's 15 base, plus  5, 7, or 10 higher, for his relationship with you, plus his hit die or level, plus the risk vs. reward.

So, a level 5 Bad Guy that's a basic enemy (no personal relationship with you) has a base DC of 25 to affect. That's still easy to accomplish by level 3 (as I pointed out earlier), but if the deal isn't good, then the DC goes up by 5 or 10. This at least makes it more difficult. However, if you make him a very good offer, then he'll agree to it, as it's very favorable to him.

In this scenario, if you want to get him for sure, you might have to give something up (just to make the Risk vs. Reward break even). So, if you succeed on your negotiation, you lose something, and you have four Bad Guys left (and no Good Guys on your side). If you kill him, you get his stuff, and only have four Bad Guys left, but now you're taking a risk (with combat). If you make him a good enough deal, he'll switch sides (but the Risk vs. Reward will be hard), but it's not a long term thing, inherently. If something comes up, there's nothing stopping him from changing his mind again.

This sort of short term attitude changing is what I think makes for a much better balanced set of skills. Of course, in my opinion, you still need to bring skill checks lower (I don't use skill synergies, magic items as D&D knows them, and my max ranks are 3 lower than normal, amongst other changes) to work with this change, so that things don't always become "let me make a short term deal that has no chance of failure (unless you're really high level)" past a certain point.

And, of course, I changed Intimidate to work with the new "Diplomacy" (I call it by a different name, and modified the GitP skill). It now affects how they see you on the Risk vs. Reward section, and scales the more you beat the DC by.

At any rate, I'm not sure if this is the kind of thing you're asking for. Hope it gives you some idea of my preferences. Again, though, it's not for everyone, and I'm not advocating anyone change their style or anything.

As always, play what you like


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jul 8, 2011)

I had no idea when I started this thread it would still be going strong after now 333 posts.  Thanks to everybody for the good discussion so far.  It's given me a lot to think about.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 8, 2011)

Can't XP you, NewJeffCT, but thanks for starting it. It's been very interesting.


----------



## Janx (Jul 8, 2011)

Stalker0 said:


> To me, this is the crux of why high skill checks can be "unbalancing".
> 
> ..snip...
> 
> ...




I'm not as up on the exact specifics of how to get an 80 Diplomacy check (i have not had Diplomancer issues, but find the problem interesting).

Most basic skills are capped for an 18 attribute PC to level + 7 (the 3 max ranks and the +4 attr. bonus).  At 20th level, a PC like that would only be swinging +27 on their skill checks, and would be lucky to roll a 20 to hit a 47DC.

So when you say somebody can hit an 80 DC, that smells like a broken PC.  Like something is out of whack with the rest of the skills.

If a GM had a more generous interpretation of what the social skills can achieve, and the rules let you get bigger numbers out of those skills than other skills, then that's a big design issue because certain skills get to be higher than any other skill in the game AND they have a big game impact.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jul 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> Most basic skills are capped for an 18 attribute PC to level + 7 (the 3 max ranks and the +4 attr. bonus).  At 20th level, a PC like that would only be swinging +27 on their skill checks, and would be lucky to roll a 20 to hit a 47DC.




I'm not sure how to get up to a +80, but assuming you're a "diplomancer" type in game, you start off with an 18 CHA and max ranks in Diplomacy for a +7

Then, you take three other skills that give you another +6 from skill synergies and you're at a +13 (Bluff, Sense Motive & Knowledge: Nobility).  If you're a Diplomancer, you also take the Skill Focus: Diplomacy feat for a +16 at first level.  Add in being a half-elf, and you're up to +18 at first level.

Over the course of those 20 levels, you put in another 5 points to Charisma, giving you a 23 Charisma.  However, you also have a Cloak of Charisma +4, giving you an effective CHA of 27, which is now a +8.

So, you have the original +18, plus 19 more ranks accumulated while leveling, plus another +4 for improving your CHA.  So, you're at +41.  Plus, there are probably other magic items and feats (Negotiator) you can take that can improve your Diplomacy even more than that.  So, something like a +45 is easily achievable if you focus on it.

The DC to change somebody from Hostile to Helpful is like a 45 or 50.

Similarly, you can pump up Bluff even more than Diplomacy if you use skill synergies and Skill Focus: Bluff, plus you add in a snake familiar, giving you another +3 to Bluff.

*PC Bluff-master*: "Hello Emperor, I would like to trade what is in my wagon for your entire empire."
*DM as Emperor, looking in wagon*: "It looks like a pile of dung to me"
*PC*: "It is your grace, but, it is magic dung.  If a ruler willingly gives up his throne and eats this magic dung, he will be transformed into a god"
*DM*... "well, the emperor's sense motive is pretty good, +16 in my notes.  I roll a natural 20... woo-hoo!  36 to Sense Motive."
*PC: rolls dice,* "I roll a 2, with my bonuses, it's still a 47.  I beat you by 11.  You believe me hook, line & sinker."
*DM as emperor, sighing*: "ok, the emperor hands you the keys to the empire, then proceeds to eat dung... and die"

****EDITED TO ADD - MY EXAMPLE IS FLAWED - SEE MY POST BELOW****


----------



## Janx (Jul 8, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> ..snip math...
> *PC Bluff-master*: "Hello Emperor, I would like to trade what is in my wagon for your entire empire."
> *DM as Emperor, looking in wagon*: "It looks like a pile of dung to me"
> *PC*: "It is your grace, but, it is magic dung.  If a ruler willingly gives up his throne and eats this magic dung, he will be transformed into a god"
> ...




Holy fecal mastication!  That was the rules borken example I was looking for.  If it is fair to say that most of the other skils are not as abusable as the social ones (in getting major + to it), then to answer the OT, YES, they are too easy.

I vaguely recall JC mentioning he doesn't do synergy bonuses.  I see a good reason why...

A side though occurred to me while reading the "you rolled a 3" thread.  Back in the pre-3e days, i recall rules for Encounter Reactions.  Basically the GM rolled to see how the NPCs would react to the party.  That's kind of what the diplomacy roll in 3e could be used for, but I suspect isn't used by most folks.

Conceptually, the idea went, that instead of the GM deciding how the NPCs approach the party, the dice do.  In 3e, that could mean always making a diplomacy check for that initial NPC attitude.  Thus, a low social party gets a more hostile response (thus penalizing parties who dump stat CHA).

Right now, we only make a diplomacy role if the player is trying to actively manipulate the NPC.  In many ways, thats what any of the social skills get used for.  I'd never actively consider a PC doing a bluff, diplomacy or intimidate against another PC.  Basically, I see the social skills being used to abjudicate whether the PCs can manipulate the game world (NPCs).

anyway, just some thoughts this the topic of social skills has me pondering.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jul 8, 2011)

actually, that shouldn't be entirely possible - my example above is flawed.  The emperor should get an additional +20 because the lie/bluff is so far out there as to be unbelievable.  So, the DC to beat would be a 56 instead of a 36, if the emperor rolled a natural 20... meaning, the lying PC would need to roll a 9 or higher to bluff the emperor into giving up his empire to eat a pile of poo...  and, if the emperor rolls averagely and gets a 10 or 11, he has no chance.


----------



## Janx (Jul 8, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> I'm not sure how to get up to a +80, but assuming you're a "diplomancer" type in game, you start off with an 18 CHA and max ranks in Diplomacy for a +7
> 
> Then, you take three other skills that give you another +6 from skill synergies and you're at a +13 (Bluff, Sense Motive & Knowledge: Nobility).  If you're a Diplomancer, you also take the Skill Focus: Diplomacy feat for a +16 at first level.  Add in being a half-elf, and you're up to +18 at first level.
> 
> ...





On the bluff example, how come there's not a modifier for the plausibility of the lie?  You're the turnip delivery guy?  Fairly believable since you are dressed like one, and have a cart full of turnips.  Your cart is full of magical dung that if I trade my empire I'll be rewarded?  Sounds too good to be true, u  get  -20 to your bluff roll. (note, I applied it to the bluffer, because the outrageousness of the lie applies to what he's doing, rather than any particular skill of the listener)

On the math of those skill bonuses, as a designer, like they did with the concept of max ranks, I would ensure that internally, no skill through any additive rules can go past a certain point, and to make sure that all skills (and their enhancers like items, buffs, feats, synergies) can't outpace another skill.

From there, once I know the true range of variation (from 0 to the real max), I would set the DCs and their math accordingly.

Instead, 3e said DC 20 is a good hard number.  And never looked back to see that certain skills (social) were getting out of scale with that basic metric.

I suppose one could also house rule that Diplomacy can only shift 1 rank at a time, and that time must pass between objective attempts.  Thus, it will take months or years of diplomatic efforts to turn your dread enemy into an ally (just like real life).  I would still make the DC higher, the farther away an NPC is from being a friend.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jul 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> On the bluff example, how come there's not a modifier for the plausibility of the lie?  You're the turnip delivery guy?  Fairly believable since you are dressed like one, and have a cart full of turnips.  Your cart is full of magical dung that if I trade my empire I'll be rewarded?  Sounds too good to be true, u  get  -20 to your bluff roll. (note, I applied it to the bluffer, because the outrageousness of the lie applies to what he's doing, rather than any particular skill of the listener)




You're correct - I noted that in my post a few above (see the big yellow text on the bottom), and then provided an update in another post below that one.


----------



## Janx (Jul 8, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> You're correct - I noted that in my post a few above (see the big yellow text on the bottom), and then provided an update in another post below that one.




what i find ironic, is this thread has plowed on for 330+ posts and only now to do we get to the crux that "is [social skills] too easy" and how the math rules make it so.

I suspect that if the numbers didn't scale up so high with stacking modifiers, the original DC guidelines would have matched expected outcomes, and people's interpretations of the actual rules for the skills wouldn't matter.

Basically, Hussar saying if you win the Bluff check against the gate guard, then you get IN is OK when your chances of actually winning are not so lopsided that PCs are geting away with ridiculous things.

When the rules let you easily swing a +40 at a bluff check vs a DC40, then I can see yet another reason why you'd disagree with Hussar's interpretation of what a Successful Bluff should be able to do.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 9, 2011)

pemerton said:


> In the abstract, turning a major villain into a friend who will expend resources to help you shouldn't be an more or less abusive than killing the same villain and stealing all his/her resources.




Except by killing him, you don't acquire the most powerful resource of the villain....the villain himself.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 9, 2011)

I think one of the disconnects in the game is that some players feel that a successful social skill role means they get _exactly_ what they want and sometimes that is not true.

Take the magical dung, which cracked me up, just because you win the roll does not mean the Emperor is going to just hand over the keys unless he is insane or has a wisdom of 3.

Since you convinced him that it is magical dung he is going to call his adviser the archmage to check it out. 

If you failed he would be angry and throw you in the dungeon.

Now this tactic would make a great diversion if the purpose is to actually get the archmage away from his quarters so you can steal the magical doohickey. 

Players need to think out what they hope to happen with the social skill.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 9, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> sometimes the entire party needs to help out, because the guy they're talking to makes it his business to talk to everyone. Other times, though, the diplomat says "stay close, shut up, and follow my lead" before seeing the king. In those situations, I dislike the skill challenge requirement (if there is one... as I said, my 4e knowledge is lacking) of having everyone be forced to contribute. As a game mechanic, it would help with balance, though.



I see it not as a game mechanic, but an encounter design and resolution guideline.

That is, (i) design encounters that all the players will want their PCs to engage (like the typical combat encounter) and (ii) as the encounter is resolving, maintain that pressure for full party engagement.

So if the party diplomancer is negotiating with Orcus, the other PCs don't just get to hang back in his or her shadow. Either they step up to the plate and engage; or Orcus asks them what they're doing there; or if they're hanging back like lackeys or servants, Orcus eats one of their souls to see how serious the diplomancer is about asking for favours; or whatever makes it hard for the diplomancer to get away with "stay close, shut up and follow my lead".



JamesonCourage said:


> It's definitely a much bigger swing than killing him and looting him.





Stalker0 said:


> Except by killing him, you don't acquire the most powerful resource of the villain....the villain himself.



The villain has two sorts of resources to contribute. The first is his/her assistance in the immediate conflict, as JC notes. This can be a balance issue in some approaches to play. (I don't have anything more profound than that to say about it.)

The second is the villain as an ongoing ally. Acquiring _this_ resource shouldn't, in most games, count as an unbalancing victory. Rather, it's a plot development which the GM should take account of in designing future challenges.



JamesonCourage said:


> I'm not sure if this is the kind of thing you're asking for. Hope it gives you some idea of my preferences.



Yep.



Elf Witch said:


> I think one of the disconnects in the game is that some players feel that a successful social skill role means they get _exactly_ what they want and sometimes that is not true.
> 
> Take the magical dung, which cracked me up, just because you win the roll does not mean the Emperor is going to just hand over the keys unless he is insane or has a wisdom of 3.
> 
> Since you convinced him that it is magical dung he is going to call his adviser the archmage to check it out.



I see this as less of a balance issue and more of a genre issue. Are you playing a nursery-tale style game? Then the Emperor _will_ hand over the keys to the kingdom for the magic dung (think Jack and the Beanstalk, or The Emperor's New Clothes). But winning the kingdom probably won't itself break that sort of game, because the focus of that sort of game probably isn't wealth acquisition.

If you're playing a more serious game, where the Emperor is more like Denethor of Gondor, than what Elf Witch says is true.

I think the GM has to be clear in the way s/he handles player expectations around these genre issues.

It's a bit like the PC who deliberately jumps over a 200' cliff because the player knows that 20d6 can't be fatal for that particular character - a GM who pulls "gritty realist genre" on that player after the action declaration is locked in is probably going to produce some conflict at the table. Better to sort out all these expectations as to what is possible, relative to genre, _before_ the players commit to actions and roll their dice.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 9, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I see this as less of a balance issue and more of a genre issue. Are you playing a nursery-tale style game? Then the Emperor _will_ hand over the keys to the kingdom for the magic dung (think Jack and the Beanstalk, or The Emperor's New Clothes). But winning the kingdom probably won't itself break that sort of game, because the focus of that sort of game probably isn't wealth acquisition.
> 
> If you're playing a more serious game, where the Emperor is more like Denethor of Gondor, than what Elf Witch says is true.
> 
> ...




This should go without saying. A lot depends on the genre and play styles. What works in a heavy story role playing type game may be different than a more casual beer and pretzels type game.

Which is why it is important that the lines of communication between DM and players stay open. Also both sides need to be upfront at the beginning of what they want out of the game.

As a DM I get frustrated if I say I want to run a low magic gritty style game and the players go cool lets make characters. Then later on you find out that one of the players really wants a high magic never worry about death game. They didn't tell you that because they just wanted to play and now are complaining or trying to force the game in a different direction.

As a player I hate when a DM does a bait and switch.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 9, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I see it not as a game mechanic, but an encounter design and resolution guideline.
> 
> That is, (i) design encounters that all the players will want their PCs to engage (like the typical combat encounter) and (ii) as the encounter is resolving, maintain that pressure for full party engagement.
> 
> So if the party diplomancer is negotiating with Orcus, the other PCs don't just get to hang back in his or her shadow. Either they step up to the plate and engage; or Orcus asks them what they're doing there; or if they're hanging back like lackeys or servants, Orcus eats one of their souls to see how serious the diplomancer is about asking for favours; or whatever makes it hard for the diplomancer to get away with "stay close, shut up and follow my lead".




And that, I think, is my issue. Can skill challenges cover just one character? Can you make a skill challenge where not everyone contributes? If that's not the case, then that's my problem, because now _everyone_ forces your party to engage every time you're in a diplomatic situation.

As far as I know, you can make it a skill check rather than a skill challenge, but now it's not an extended check challenge, like a skill challenge would be (again, to my knowledge).

I understand that the design is to engage the entire party, but that's my beef with it. If it truly is linear design, in this area, it's something that I probably won't end up liking. If it's more mechanically dynamic than this, I'd be interesting in hearing how it is, as I like the concept of skill challenges (or extended challenges from white wolf), but not the implementation.



> The villain has two sorts of resources to contribute. The first is his/her assistance in the immediate conflict, as JC notes. This can be a balance issue in some approaches to play. (I don't have anything more profound than that to say about it.)




It looks like we agree on this.



> The second is the villain as an ongoing ally. Acquiring _this_ resource shouldn't, in most games, count as an unbalancing victory. Rather, it's a plot development which the GM should take account of in designing future challenges.
> 
> Yep.




Only if they design challenges from a mechanic-first standpoint. And while many people do play that way, I don't, so I'd rather see the game made without that mechanic-first designing in mind.

I dislike games with the design goal of having PC challenges inherently tailored to the PCs. To me, it hurts my immersion, and no matter how much power the PCs gain, if the next challenge is crafted with the new power in mind, then you're engaging in the same difficulty challenge most of the time (please note the word "most"). But, that's personal preference, and I'm not sure that most D&D players would agree with me.

As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Jul 10, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Can skill challenges cover just one character?



Yes. Just as a combat can be between one PC and one or more NPCs/monsters.



JamesonCourage said:


> Can you make a skill challenge where not everyone contributes?



Yes. But just as, in a combat, if one PC hangs back it may often be bad for that PC and/or the other PCs, so likewise I would tend to design a skill challenge so that all the players have a reason to get their PCs involved. 



JamesonCourage said:


> As far as I know, you can make it a skill check rather than a skill challenge



Again, this is really an issue of encounter design. The game is built around the assumption that overcoming a significant conflict (like turning an enemy into a friend) won't be done with a single skill check, anymore than winning a signficant fight will happen with a single to hit roll.

But persuading a reluctant peasant to give directions might be a single check, just as cutting down that reluctant peasant for being rude would be a single attack roll (vs a minion).



JamesonCourage said:


> If it truly is linear design, in this area, it's something that I probably won't end up liking.



I don't understand how linearity comes into it. If Orcus is threatening to eat the lackeys loitering in the rear, there are any number of ways those other PCs could respond - from making their own attempt to be charming, to trying in some form or other to persuade Orcus that they're not lackeys (perhaps the party sorcerer kills a nearby Vrock with a single spell, thus demonstrating his/her prowess and contributing a success to the skill challenge). 

More generally - I don't see the connection between desigining and running an encounter so that it engages the whole party, and forcing a single path of successful resolution onto the players.

Upthread I may have linked to another thread where I gave an actual play example of "negotiating" with a dire bear. In that particular encounter, the party decided to tame the bear rather than fight it. Two PCs intimidated it - the sorcerer (wreathing himself in lighting) and the paladin (shaking his sword at it). Two other PCs befriended it - the wizard (patting it with mage hand) and the ranger (reaching out to it and scratching it under the chin).

The fighter - who had no nature or social skills - tried to grapple the bear to establish his physical superiority to it, but repeatedly failed.

The upshot of the encounter, once 6 successes had been obtained, was that the bear shied away from the sorcerer and paladin, and wanted to eat the fighter, but was persuaded not to do so by the wizard and ranger.

Had the player of the fighter not participated at all in the challenge, then the upshot for that PC would have been the same, or perhaps worse - because the bear hadn't seen that the fighter was a companion of the ranger and wizard, it may have been less inclined to listen when they tried to stop it from eating him.

Anyway, this is what I mean when I say that encouraging full party participation is a matter of design and adjudicating resolution, rather than simply of mechanics.



JamesonCourage said:


> Only if they design challenges from a mechanic-first standpoint.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I dislike games with the design goal of having PC challenges inherently tailored to the PCs.



I don't follow this.

To elaborate - I understand that you don't like scaled/tailored challenges. But why is this a reason not to let the PCs befriend an (ex-)enemy? Presumably, the PCs are allowed to do other things to change both their social/political situation in the gameworld, and to change the resources available to them to meet the challenges they face. For example, I assume that in your game the PCs can befriend merchants, hobnob with guard captains, ingratiate themselves to mayors and barons, and the like. Outside the immediate context of a combat or similar (which gives rise to the "dominate monster" balance problem you noted above), isn't turning an enemy into a friend in the same (permissible) category as these other things?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Yes. Just as a combat can be between one PC and one or more NPCs/monsters.




If skill challenges can be engaged with one character, then they seem similar to extended rolls from white wolf, which I like in concept. That's a good sign, in my opinion.



> Yes. But just as, in a combat, if one PC hangs back it may often be bad for that PC and/or the other PCs, so likewise I would tend to design a skill challenge so that all the players have a reason to get their PCs involved.




Yes, but in D&D, all classes are designed for combat. Not all classes are designed to engage things from a social standpoint. So, when the Party Face says "fall behind me, follow my lead, and shut up" because he knows the party has no social tact or knowledge of tradition, it's a very different thing than saying the same thing in a combat scenario.

As for designing a skill challenge that targets all of the PCs, I dislike that as well, for the reasons I've stated already. Maybe I can clarify below.



> Again, this is really an issue of encounter design. The game is built around the assumption that overcoming a significant conflict (like turning an enemy into a friend) won't be done with a single skill check, anymore than winning a signficant fight will happen with a single to hit roll.




I agree, I was questioning whether or not one party member could engage in a social challenge alone, without mandatory aid of his allies.



> But persuading a reluctant peasant to give directions might be a single check, just as cutting down that reluctant peasant for being rude would be a single attack roll (vs a minion).




That makes sense to me.



> I don't understand how linearity comes into it. If Orcus is threatening to eat the lackeys loitering in the rear, there are any number of ways those other PCs could respond - from making their own attempt to be charming, to trying in some form or other to persuade Orcus that they're not lackeys (perhaps the party sorcerer kills a nearby Vrock with a single spell, thus demonstrating his/her prowess and contributing a success to the skill challenge).




Again, with someone like Orcus, I can see him wanting to engage the entire party. If it's a member of royalty, they might very well engage the entire party, or they might simply ignore those who aren't supposed to be talking (based on status).

If the system dictates that all situations must be played out in a way that forces all of the PCs to contribute to every skill challenge, that is where linear design and function comes into play. And that's what I would have a problem with, if that's the case.



> More generally - I don't see the connection between desigining and running an encounter so that it engages the whole party, and forcing a single path of successful resolution onto the players.




I honestly don't know what you're getting at with this.



> Upthread I may have linked to another thread where I gave an actual play example of "negotiating" with a dire bear. In that particular encounter, the party decided to tame the bear rather than fight it. Two PCs intimidated it - the sorcerer (wreathing himself in lighting) and the paladin (shaking his sword at it). Two other PCs befriended it - the wizard (patting it with mage hand) and the ranger (reaching out to it and scratching it under the chin).
> 
> The fighter - who had no nature or social skills - tried to grapple the bear to establish his physical superiority to it, but repeatedly failed.




Yeah, I read that, and boy did it sound ridiculous to me. Two members try to scare it while two other members simultaneously try to soothe it, while one other member simultaneously runs up and grabs it. And it ends up liking two members while dismissing two, and disliking the last member.

That's utterly and completely immersion shattering to me. If I ran that past my players, they'd think so, too. It may not be to you, and that's honestly fine with me, but it just wouldn't make sense for my group.



> The upshot of the encounter, once 6 successes had been obtained, was that the bear shied away from the sorcerer and paladin, and wanted to eat the fighter, but was persuaded not to do so by the wizard and ranger.
> 
> Had the player of the fighter not participated at all in the challenge, then the upshot for that PC would have been the same, or perhaps worse - because the bear hadn't seen that the fighter was a companion of the ranger and wizard, it may have been less inclined to listen when they tried to stop it from eating him.




Yeah, I understand what happened. I just couldn't feel immersed by it.



> Anyway, this is what I mean when I say that encouraging full party participation is a matter of design and adjudicating resolution, rather than simply of mechanics.




To me, it sounds like the mechanics decided the bear wouldn't attack (by achieving the six successes). While that's not inherently bad in and of itself, the fact that the party reacted with such wildly different attempts simultaneously should've ended the challenge right then and there, in my mind. But, as the mechanics showed that the players succeeded, it is then reasoned out why that is, and what it thinks of each party member. I just can't put mechanics first like that and feel immersed.



> I don't follow this.
> 
> To elaborate - I understand that you don't like scaled/tailored challenges. But why is this a reason not to let the PCs befriend an (ex-)enemy? Presumably, the PCs are allowed to do other things to change both their social/political situation in the gameworld, and to change the resources available to them to meet the challenges they face.




The problem lies in the long term disposition or attitude change of NPCs. That is what causes the majority of skill abuse or odd situations to pop up. I have no problem with PCs using a skill to convince somebody to try to act in a certain way. I do have a problem with "you made your skill checks, and he'll treat you this way from now on" as those skill DCs are too easily bypassed, and even if they weren't, the fact that it changes their entire attitude towards you so quickly and immediately is rather problematic to how people actually are, in my view.



> For example, I assume that in your game the PCs can befriend merchants, hobnob with guard captains, ingratiate themselves to mayors and barons, and the like. Outside the immediate context of a combat or similar (which gives rise to the "dominate monster" balance problem you noted above), isn't turning an enemy into a friend in the same (permissible) category as these other things?




Not mechanically, no. There are no mechanics in my game (which I obviously prefer) that allow long term attitude changes. The PCs can indeed befriend merchants, hobnob with guard captains, ingratiate themselves to mayor and barons, and the like, _but not mechanically_. Diplomacy is based off of the GitP skill (though altered), and covers only specific deals. Intimidate has been changed to alter how they see you on the Risk vs. Reward scale when you make a Diplomacy check. Bluff is similar to how it's always been (as Bluff never let you dictate actions to NPCs, nor did it change their attitude or disposition mechanically).

I do not believe that social skills that allow for long term change in NPC attitude are a wise path for a D&D-style game (or maybe games in general, but I'm not experienced enough in other systems to make that claim). But, that's just my opinion, and I know that many people find them convenient and enjoy them. To those people, I say use them. Anything that makes the game more fun.

To my group, they're rather absurd most of the time, when used to affect long term attitudes of NPCs. It kills immersion for many of us, breaks our suspension of disbelief, and lowers our overall enjoyment. So, when designing a game with the fun of myself and my group in mind, out they go, where they are replaced with short term deals and ways to manipulate NPCs.

As always, play what you like


----------

