A problem that has arisen many times in my campaigns has been the use of Charisma based skills against players, and charismatic players using THEIR charisma rather than their player's one.
The first one involves skills like Diplomacy or Bluff. If a NPC is trying to convince the PC's to do something, I have to convince the players (not the characters) to do so. How am I supposed to tell the players "He convinces you" only because the NPC beated the DC trying to influence them with a Diplomacy check. And how am I supposed to bluff the players, trying to trick them to believe something, if they suspect exactly the contrary. Even if I beat them in a Bluff vs Sense Motive check, they will do only what they think is right, ignoring the check completely.
And the second one involves the same skills. If a player is trying to convince a NPC to do something, he would talk and try to do it with his/her own words. But, if he/she establishes good arguments and they sound logic, how am I supposed to tell him/her that the NPC simply rejects his/her offer, or idea, or whatever, just because he/she didn't rolled high enough to influence that NPC. And they will be confused and sometimes mad if they create a well elaborated plan to fool someone and he discovers the attempt only because he beated the PC's Bluff check with a Sense Motive check.
A problem that has arisen many times in my campaigns has been the use of Charisma based skills against players, and charismatic players using THEIR charisma rather than their player's one.
The first one involves skills like Diplomacy or Bluff. If a NPC is trying to convince the PC's to do something, I have to convince the players (not the characters) to do so. How am I supposed to tell the players "He convinces you" only because the NPC beated the DC trying to influence them with a Diplomacy check. And how am I supposed to bluff the players, trying to trick them to believe something, if they suspect exactly the contrary. Even if I beat them in a Bluff vs Sense Motive check, they will do only what they think is right, ignoring the check completely.
And the second one involves the same skills. If a player is trying to convince a NPC to do something, he would talk and try to do it with his/her own words. But, if he/she establishes good arguments and they sound logic, how am I supposed to tell him/her that the NPC simply rejects his/her offer, or idea, or whatever, just because he/she didn't rolled high enough to influence that NPC. And they will be confused and sometimes mad if they create a well elaborated plan to fool someone and he discovers the attempt only because he beated the PC's Bluff check with a Sense Motive check.
OOO that's a VERY good one Mephisto. One we have struggled with for awhile. But then again the rolls are there to introduce an element of chance (imho). Why else would a bigger abd stronger fighter (of higher level) sometimes miss his opponent with a bad roll? Even if the argument is well thought out, there's a chance (with a good roll) the NPC sees through it. My group has finally come to terms with this after endless hours of debate vis a vis this issue.
I'm very curious to see what others have as answers.
I'm very curious to see what others have as answers.
Yeah, me too. Specially because I'm sure that most of them have faced this problem, at least once.
Well situation dictates response. But we had a really good DM, say your were negotiating the price on an object (magic or other wise) he would give you a price you would roll (just the people there not everyone in the party) and he would say "You think thats a great deal," or "Thats doesn't seem quite right," etc. to guide you response. It is part of your job (IMO) as a player to incorporate that guidance based on opposed checks into your characters action, if you argue, "MY character knows everything and would do that," you are a munchkin (sorry wrong thread).
Other checks, intimidate for example were handled in a similar fashion - you think this guy might be beyond you in a fight.
Ultimately though I think your abiltiy to roleplay checks like this depends on the strength of your players.
Another alternative might be to explain the results and state explicitly, "Okay yu missed your check by 5 think a second and figure out how your uber barbarian backs down," or whatever.
I never allow NPC's to use those effects on players beyond a simple "he stands and faces you. He is huge and the wicked smile crossing his lips suggests a cruel skill in warfare" In the end I let the players make the final call but I let them know what their "gut" is telling them.
That is where rollplaying comes into play and I have to trust them. I don't let diplomacy change a players action but I can allow it to influence their attitude. Something like "you can't put your finger on it but you can't find anything dissagreabe with the shoddy little urching asking you to buy his charms". In my campain the players know that playing along will earn them Xp awards and it is just as well because I have a healthy balance in my world of truth and tretchery. That urchin is just as likely to part with some helpful knowledge to a kind stranger or a pickpocket trying to hone in on an easy mark.
A problem that has arisen many times in my campaigns has been the use of Charisma based skills against players, and charismatic players using THEIR charisma rather than their player's one. And they will be confused and sometimes mad if they create a well elaborated plan to fool someone and he discovers the attempt only because he beated the PC's Bluff check with a Sense Motive check.
Actually, I used to have the *OPPOSITE* problem. My players would come up with some half-baked plan or sorry excuse for a negotiation and rely on Skill Focus, buffing spells, and superior skill modifiers to see them through. In either case, the DM's favored weapon is the circumstance modifier. If you have a well-thought-out idea that the PCs are trying to sell, but they're about as charasmatic as a warthog, give them a +2 circumstance bonus. If they're trying to pass off an inferior product, give a similar bonus to the opponent's Sense Motive check. In any case, make sure that these elaborate ideas are'nt coming from the PC with 8 INT (if you frown on meta-gaming, that is). Just my $0.02.
Bluff actually has steeper penalties for unlikely subjects.
Sense motive mod
target wants to believe you -5
bluff is believable and does not affect the target much 0
bluff is a little hard to believe/puts target at some risk +5
bluff is hard to believe/puts the target at significant risk +10
bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to believe +20
I hope players are not confusing bluff and dimplomacy. Diplomacy involves improving reaction to as high as helpful. Helpful allows you to be treated as a close friend, but I would not change my beliefs or jeopardize the lives of others for my best friend. He would not expect that of me. Bluff is misdirection, diplomacy is improving how others like you.
I recall a rule in the 3E books, which may or may not have made 3.5E, stating that charisma based skills specifically could not be used on PCs, either by NPCs or by other PCs. Of course, as the DM, you have an edge over the players in that you know more or less what is going on with all the characters, while they know only what you tell them about the NPCs. If the party runs across a hobgoblin guard with a hgh diplomacy mod (for whatever reason) just start the encounter by describing the guard as "different from the others, not bigger or better equipped, but nicer, and possibly brighter. He seems to want to talk rather than fight." Meta-gamers and munchkins might be tempted to ignore this set-up, but there is an easy way to fix that tendency: Early on in the party's career, put the PCs in a situation where it seems like they are being, for example, intimidated by a barman. when they predictably start throwing their weight around anyway, have the retired adventure put down the towel and mug in his hands and treats the party to a free clinic in grappling. They'll be backing down from scullery maids well into epic levels.
It sounds like you have a group that likes a lot of roleplaying. That's great, but makes it tough like you pointed out above to go with the die rolls with social encounters. A suggestion here to remove your dilemma might be to simply settle the encounter in a non-roleplaying way.
Simply set up the situation through roleplaying, but when it becomes clear what the goal of the rp encounter is going to be, stop the encounter, settle the opposed rolls, and cut to the result --> "OK. Boffo, the town guard, was quite impressed with your knowledge of engineering, warfare, and your kind words at the orderly way he is leading his patrol. However, it didn't allay his suspicions of the large hooded figure you seem to be trying to sneak past him."
Hope that helps.
Thank you all of you. Your posts have been of great aid.
Steve Greer said it well but I think there is a certain danger in amputating a player's desire to role-play. That being said, it's not acceptable, IMO, to allow players to bluff, use diplomacy or whatever an NPC and then disallow the NPC to do the same. Role-playing is great and usually preferable to roll-playing but your players need to recognize the dangers of metagaming. They need to be reminded that their characters are not necessarily equal to themselves (as players and real people) and that dice rolling/game mechanics exist for a very important reason. If players resisted Charisma checks against them or acted with levels of intelligence or charm that their characters couldn't possibly possess, I'd simply not award them any experience points for those encounters. It's unfortunate when the DM has to be a hard ass but maintaining game balance is important and the behavior you're describing is not good game play (on the players' parts).
While there's nothing wrong with using charisma based skills 'against' PCs (be it an NPC or another player), it's not okay to dictate the actions of that PC. In the end, the player is responsible for making the judgement calls for their character.
In the scenario where the PC fails the opposed Bluff vs Sense Motive, instead of "He convinces you" go with something more like "You can't detect any sign of trickery or insincerity." or "His offer seems on the up and up." Even then, the player is free to decide against going along with whatever it is.
But that's okay. You're not the sole author of the story. As DM, you're the master mind of the world and the PCs are the random elements in the unfolding events. And as DM, you have MUCH more powerful tools in your arsenal than heavy handedly assuming control of a PC's actions:
Control of Information: As DM, you control what information falls into the hands of players. All they can do is react to said information, or proactively try to get more out of you through their actions. If a piece of information is too valuable, it may come with much difficulty or not at all. In any case, the scope of their options are dictated by how much info they have.
Control of Continuity: More than the mere ability to keep the world together, you have the power to make events unfold as you desire. One should be careful with this method, however. Let's say a PC consistently causes problems with his stubborn mistrust of NPCs. It's an easy matter to flip things around so that /mistrust/ is the very thing that sets events in motion, rather than relying on trust to do the deed.
Control of the World: As DM, you control everything in the world EXCEPT the PCs. If your gamers decide to turn their backs on an adventure, have it come back to bite them in the backside. Maybe that BBEG, without the intervention of the players, now causes some disaster. To make matters worse, someone survives to tell the WORLD how the PCs turned their back on people in need. To top it all off, that survivor now becomes a hateful enemy of the party.
Now, these very tools also work in your favor in the other areas.
Got a player who's a smooth operator, but his character has a Charisma penalty? First, make them /really/ work for any circumstance bonuses on Charisma based checks, and even then give them a pittance compared to folks with a bonus or even just lacking a penalty. They may be able to use cold logic, sound wisdom, or even physical intimidation to get what they want, but they simply lack the charisma to appeal to emotion. Maybe those other methods will work in their favor, but only with the right NPCs (a strictly business merchant, maybe).
Certainly take into account the situational modifiers for the various Cha-based checks. And in the end, the NPCs of the world can be just as stubborn and narrow minded as any PC, and unable to be swayed by anything short of powerful magics. That too, is okay.
|
I recall a rule in the 3E books, which may or may not have made 3.5E, stating that charisma based skills specifically could not be used on PCs, either by NPCs or by other PCs.
I seem to remember something similar from the DMG, but I think it had to do with Diplomacy and not necessarily all charisma based checks. If my memory serves me correctly I think you can only adjust the attitude of NPCs with it because PCs will determine their own attitudes.
The way we seem to play, and it works for us, is that bluff and sense motive are rolled as opposed checks when one PC attempts to lie to another.
The way that we play, Charisma is the least used ability score. In the interest of good roleplay, if a pc is attempting to persuade an npc into doing something, the Player playing that Pc better be able to convince ME the Dm in character that what they want is in the NPC's best interest. We play 2Ed and I believe that one of the weakest additons to 3.5 is the whole Diplomacy or Bluff check. Roll you dice and people are nice to you or listen to what you are saying? No. That doesn't work with me. And as far as using these skills against another PC, I would treat it like they were trying to charm the Pc, and allow the Pc to respond to it how ever they like (even if it means killing the offending PC). Checks like this are some of the things that I feel stiffle good roleplaying. As for your player who is playing a character with a low charisma but wants to be carismatic? One, talk to the player about it. Two, call them on it when it happenes in game play. Three, remind that other players that a low charisma means an unattractive, or unappealing person, so remind them of the characer that they are dealing with is not the glib player, but the awackward character they are playing.
As for your player who is playing a character with a low charisma but wants to be carismatic? One, talk to the player about it. Two, call them on it when it happenes in game play. Three, remind that other players that a low charisma means an unattractive, or unappealing person, so remind them of the characer that they are dealing with is not the glib player, but the awackward character they are playing.
From another thread I just started:
The question is how should a DM who does not award ad hoc XP bonuses/penalties deal with such a PC without stomping around saying 'you would listen to player X and trust them more than player Y'?If anyone has any more suggestions for how to deal with players who tend to dominate the session with lower CHA characters maybe post on the other thread?
Well, that gives me some ideas and negates the question I started in the separate thread. Thanks for the advice.
I have a player that is very vocal and dominating in social situations, and has, once or twice, played low charisma. He accepts this. He'll try social interactions sometimes if it's just a minor thing, but he incorporates the fact that he has low charisma, and it makes for good role-playing. In the end, the dice decide.
Alternately, when there's an important interaction, he, the PLAYER, helps work up a plan for the conversation or argument with the charismatic CHARACTER'S PLAYER, and that person then has their CHARACTER role play out the conversation, following whatever suggestions the other PLAYER made.
It's not just, "Ya, I say what he says," however. The conversation is stilled played out, and if the CHARACTER/PLAYER makes a change to the plan, that's what really happens. This helps make a charismatic character with a less-than celebrity-looks/personality actually act in accordance with what they should. If the rolls come up bad, even after a superb plan, you get something more or less like this: "He's just in a pissy mood and doesn't pay any heed," or, "Your argument is good, but accidentally stepping on his foot wasn't."
The dice are ALL random factors, not just what you said. Maybe a bird crapped on the guy's head while you were talking to him, and he no longer has an interest in what you are saying.
IMC our DM often has NPCs misread what someone with a low charisma is saying or read something into what they are saying. It is not to punish the players but this does happen in real life. Take a look at a business. People are predisposed to take the words of the boss in a positive manner(usually the boss is the boss because they are good at dealing with people i.e. charismatic). Suggestions from the janitor (a job where social interaction is not a neccesity) is poorly received.
|
In general, I agree that Diplomacy should never be used vs. PCs (nor the make friendly use of Intimidate) to actually change their behavior.
Now, if the DM has an NPC (esp. an important one) who he has labored to put ranks into Diplomacy & Intimidate, it may not be out of order to work some system of using these skills against the PC in a combat-oriented manner.. somehow.
To conclude my rambling, I think some social rolls must be dictated by the dice- esp. Bluff vs. Sense Motive- and a good player will be honest and follow this course, despite their personal misgivings. If a player isn't willing to be duped, than a GM is forced to rely on combats as the only fair judicator in the game, and any soacial interactions soon fade away as failures. After all, we all got tired of Cops & Robbers when it devolved into "I shot you!' "No you didn't, it missed me!" "Not uh!" etc.
My 2c
|
|
what about giving a player who makes a convincing argument a bonus to her/his bluff or diplomacy skill check, but still doing the die roll to see if it is successful?
I sort of made a post in the other charisma oriented thread about this issue, but I don't think that the character should receive any bonuses based on the skills of the player. This would be unfair to a player who is not good at roleplaying. He/she would not be able to get bonuses, while a player who is great at thinking on his feet would consistently be able to augment his abilities. I don't think that the player should ever be able to boost his character based on his own abilities. Should a player that can correctly enact the use of a halberd be able to get a bonus to hit with that weapon?
what about giving a player who makes a convincing argument a bonus to her/his bluff or diplomacy skill check, but still doing the die roll to see if it is successful?I sort of made a post in the other charisma oriented thread about this issue, but I don't think that the character should receive any bonuses based on the skills of the player. This would be unfair to a player who is not good at roleplaying. He/she would not be able to get bonuses, while a player who is great at thinking on his feet would consistently be able to augment his abilities. I don't think that the player should ever be able to boost his character based on his own abilities. Should a player that can correctly enact the use of a halberd be able to get a bonus to hit with that weapon?
I disagree. I think a player who roleplays right should get a bonus... a +2 or a +5. If his character has only 5 ranks in diplomacy, the bonus should be almost irrelevant, but should incite other player to do the same. A player in one of my games was playing a bard once and actually wrote a song and sang it when their characters were in a tavern. I gave him a +5 for good role playing (he already had 12 ranks in perform) so he ended up with a total roll of 26. Needless to say, the crowd went wild and even the party's arch nemesis, who was in the crowd, was distracted long enough for the group's rogue to lift an item from him.
I believe that characters should not AUTOMATICALLY succeed when role playing well, just given a little boost. If the bard from the example above would of rolled a natural 1, the crowd would of started to throw tomatoes at the character, regardless of the player having written a song.
Ultradan
I don't think that the player should ever be able to boost his character based on his own abilities. Should a player that can correctly enact the use of a halberd be able to get a bonus to hit with that weapon?
I am in agreement with PhysChic, although I see where you guys are coming from. Combat and social interactions are slightly different in a roleplaying vs rollplaying environment. If the flavour of the campaign is for roleplaying then the mental/social abilities more closely mimic the players, and perhaps the players should be roleplaying characters that are not too divergent from themselves. In a rollplaying environment it is the roll that matters and to hell with whatever the player does.
So if you are involved in a rollplaying environment then there should not be any kind of bonus to your roll based on your performance. Otherwise, as PhysChic points out, a player that brings in a halbert and spins it around enacting their move should receive the same kind of bonus as a player that thinks quickly on thier feet.
That being said a roleplaying environment could degenerate into enactment if players bring in lyres, wine, swords, horses and start using them as props to get bonuses during roleplaying. IMO bringing in a guitar to accompany the song you wrote is the same as bringing in a real rapier and demonstarting a reposte.
:) hope this is stimulating some debate brain cells
The end result is this: If the DM wants to roleplay the encounter out totally, the dice don't have to ever be rolled. If the DM wants to gloss it over, just use the check. If the DM has a player who's not very good at roleplaying/not too charismatic, but wants to try, let him and use the dice to decide what really happened, even if the person had all the graces of a sloth. It can even work for the DM. Running a game with a player who can think faster than you and knows it, and is trying to pull things on you all the time? Use the rolls so that he doesn't get away with it. The Charisma-based skill system is great because of its versatility in its usefullness.
I agree with some posts above. You should let the players do what they want, but present a situation based on the charisma skill roll. For example, it's not the same to tell the players: "She acts kindly and friendly (not mentioning she is beautiful)" that saying: "She acts grumpy and impolitely". And it's not the same to tell the players: "He really seems to be telling the truth", that: "He act suspicious and you have the feeling that he's lying".
This kind of expressions would influence the players attitudes, but leting them decide what to do. Of course, as written in some posts above, the players should take their roles, acting according to the situation.
I sort of made a post in the other charisma oriented thread about this issue, but I don't think that the character should receive any bonuses based on the skills of the player. This would be unfair to a player who is not good at roleplaying. He/she would not be able to get bonuses, while a player who is great at thinking on his feet would consistently be able to augment his abilities. I don't think that the player should ever be able to boost his character based on his own abilities. Should a player that can correctly enact the use of a halberd be able to get a bonus to hit with that weapon?
I think your argument is accurate but probably not really all that relivent. Since this is really a DM style issue. The DM has to decide just how much role playing is going to effect the results. If one is an old school DM then its everything and simply shifting to a system were the dice decide everything is going to seem pretty anethma.
You might try seeing if you can sit down with your DM and see where s/he stands on the issues and why but my suspicion is that this will only give you insight into the DMs point of view without really effecting anything.
I doubt there are many DMs who frequent these boards who don't have a strong opinion on the whole Role Playing Vs. Roll Playing issue and while they might loot good ideas or mechanics from each other they are very unlikely to reverse their positions on this debate anytime soon - and thats ultimatly, I think, what your coming up against. Your seems to DM feel that in a role playing game the players ability to role play their charater should be the deciding feature of how an encounter plays out. Thats a pretty common POV and I doubt you can change it.
That said I'd argue for a compromise - your Charisma should be taken into account and maybe you should argue that more people (other players) should be able to help you and you should get more time then in real life to craft responses if you have higher charisma - even old school DMs might buy into that sort of an argument. Thats still roleplaying after all - it just gives advantages for having a high charisma.
An important factor weighing in the use of charisma based skills is that they are skills. PCs and NPCs alike must sacrifice points in skills with more obvious combat application, such as concentration, in order to buff their diplomacy, and in general a high charisma score means a lower stat somewhere else. Remember that prior to 3E, charisma was the ability that almost universally took the hit when players had a low score in their rolls.
Some characters now recieve concrete game benifits from high charisma (bards, paladins and sorcerers), and these character types make great party spokes-people or key NPCs, and their knack for interaction is part the package in the same way that evasion and opening locks is not.
A big issue when characters are on the recieving end of charisma checks has to do with player knowledge of the mechanics behind the game, and the best way to fix this problem is to reduce player knowledge. For example, if any out there remembers the Paranoia game, you'll recall there were tables that the GM had to "translate" the players rolls, so that a natural 20 might be great, or horrible, or average. This is a great way to let players make checks to sense motive against a bluffing NPC without knowing how well they did based on the die roll. (this works great for stelth checks, too...and saving throws against disease). Of course, if a character's sense motive is maxed out, then it will be hard to pull one over on her whatever she rolls, but then, thats why she maxed out sense motive. Also, an NPC with a high diplomacy is alot different from an NPC with a high bluff. A diplomatic NPC isn't /lying/ to the characters, just being polite. Intimidate, on the other hand, can work like a diplomacy check, but it can also be used in a fight. NPCs with the capability should /absolutely/ use intimidate to demoralize PCs in a fight.
NPCs with the capability should /absolutely/ use intimidate to demoralize PCs in a fight.
I agree because it is a concrete action, the PC is just scared, plain and simple. A tough fighter might be able to mask it well but he is still fumbling slightly in combat, A player can't say "My character is not afraid of him" any more than he can just waive off a magical fear attack.
Other uses of charisma on the party I don't allow however. "She Seems nice" or "his tone puts your roaring anger to a smolder" PC's can do with this info what they will (they get Xp bonuses if they roleplay well) but I will never allow their actions to be controled if they resist it. I like my players to decide for themselves what they trust or don't trust and charisma checks will give them rough guidelines, but IMO if you allow NPC's to change a PC's mind simply of a role them you reduce the players own insights and thoughts to the results of a dice rolls and a modifier. As this is a role playing game I don't like that element being tampered with
Someone also said that a player making a good point in an argument or bluff should not get a bonus to his check. I disagree, giving a player a circumstance bonus for a good idea rewards them for thinking on their feet and paying attenton to the storyline.
I also agree that a player should not personally use his character to speak up all the time if he has low CHA. Although a consult works well as Searn pointed out.
A player who uses character knowledge to make a bluff seem more likely recieves the benifit of a lower modifier to the NPC's sense motive check, no further bonus to the PC's roll seems neccessary. A player using player knowledge to affect the out come of charisma skills should have his xp award modified, not his check roll.
I've used most of the ideas on this thread, and one other:
I have the player roll the check, and then role play around the outcome. For example, a player makes a disguise check to act in character as a miner, and rolls a 1, for a total of 8. The player would then start talking as a person who doesn't really know what he's talking about. "Yeah, we're working with that, um Miner's Corp Guild of Minery Things. Department."
It's really built to role play the outcome of the dice, not role play to change the outcome of the dice.
Now there was this one time my cleric convinced all the female PCs that they needed to be nude for him to cast consencrate. At first, the ladies playing the characters said "whatever!" but we all rolled the dice, and my bluff was higher than their sense motives (coupled with a knowledge religion check). They went along with it, but they made sure they got back at me by having their PCs tell one of the church leaders how much they enjoyed the ceremony, and that being nude during spell casting really did make it feel more powerful.
Funny stuff.
How do I get PC's to actually consider the bard as a good, solid playable class? Many of my players always gravitate towards the more martial (magical and mundane) classes. I have tried to create in-town scenarios where bards are useful, but the PC's still think they can do w/o one (we have 6 players!)
Also, how can I munchkin a bard or create a good, solid and memorable encounter w/ a bard as an antagonist? They don't excel in combat or magic, they're just in between and serve great as back ups but not as a one or two man show. Please help me create something meaningful and great!
Bah - I doubt you can. The class is hopeless IMO. Anyway who the heck wants MC BARD wandering the dungeon playing riffs and power cords at the orcs anyway?
I agree with Jeremy that this whole debate basically boils down to DM style (with a side of player preference) and that no amount of discussion is likely to cause either side to reverse their perspective. Many of the suggestions are this thread are very helpful (on both sides) but I would just like to remind some of the powerful maxim "Whatever the PCs can do, so can the NPCs". Those who are advocating mere "suggestions" to the free-willed PCs should accept a DM who disregards their bluff,diplomacy, intimidate, etc. rolls based on the DM's subjective opinion on how he/she *wants* the NPC to act/react. I bet *that* would start some tempers flaring at the table! Cries of foul would fill the air with players angered by "wasted" skills/feats/ability scores and dice rolls that are ultimately overpowered on what boils down to a whim. So my argument is ... why is it being called fair when the PCs do the same thing to the DM (and his/her NPCs)? The DM or adventure author also "gave up" more combat-oriented skills/feats/ability scores to invest in Charisma-based tactics and if he/she couples that with a favorable die roll why should the players be allowed to overrule all of that based on their whims? As an earlier poster stated, DMs don't allow "choices" when a character is affected by fear; how is this fundamentally different? Nobody *wants* their character to wet himself and flee the battle scene when there is actually a prime opportunity to be heroic (and even victorious) but players shrug and accept the bitter pill when they realize they failed their saving throw. Well, they can swallow it when their opposed check or whatever fails too.
But, as Jeremy said, it's all a matter of preference. Playing both sides equally is the way I prefer to play it but that doesn't mean that's the "right" way to do it or even the best.
Oh well, it *does* make for an interesting discussion!
How do I get PC's to actually consider the bard as a good, solid playable class? Many of my players always gravitate towards the more martial (magical and mundane) classes. I have tried to create in-town scenarios where bards are useful, but the PC's still think they can do w/o one (we have 6 players!)
Also, how can I munchkin a bard or create a good, solid and memorable encounter w/ a bard as an antagonist? They don't excel in combat or magic, they're just in between and serve great as back ups but not as a one or two man show. Please help me create something meaningful and great!
This question might be better served as an original post. My short answer is to expand upon stuff that they can already do. Making a small change in the wording can go a long way toward munchkinism. For instance, you could allow a bard to use his counter-song ability to disrupt any spell within hearing range as it's being cast if it has a verbal componant. Now there's power! You might allow the bard to add to his spell lists any spell with a element designator (fireball) that can be modified to produce a sonic effect instead (a la energy substitution). Personally, I think that the spells are kind of broken (and not in the Bard's favor) and allow bards to have spell books with any Enchantment, Illusion, Compulsion, Divination (but not scry), and flashy spells that don't necessarily damage (color spray, scintilating stuff), as well as the normal bard spells that they can scribe with them - like a wizard - but with normal bard spells per day to keep them from being too powerful. Like I said lots of ways, but the list hardly stops there.
Celric
The way that we play, Charisma is the least used ability score. In the interest of good roleplay, if a pc is attempting to persuade an npc into doing something, the Player playing that Pc better be able to convince ME the Dm in character that what they want is in the NPC's best interest. We play 2Ed and I believe that one of the weakest additons to 3.5 is the whole Diplomacy or Bluff check. Roll you dice and people are nice to you or listen to what you are saying? No.
This discussion is an excellent example of a broader discussion regarding the differences between older versions of the game and 3.0/3.5. I firmly believe that the losely defined aspects of roleplaying found in previous editions led us older gamers to rely upon non die-generated methods of accomplishing goals (whatever they may be). Gamers who have little experience with or have abandoned this style of play have more difficulty with questions such as the one posted on this thread. In my experience, the role playing aspect of Charisma based encounters is much more fulfilling for the PCs if the success or failure of such an encounter is NOT based on a die role...but that's just an oldie like me. Both modes of gaming dictate differing approaches to the question at hand. If the group is comforatable disregarding Charisma based rolls against PCs in favor of a liberal version of "convince the PC/DM" or comforatable having NPCs roll Charisma based skills against them; the DM should establish the precident and remain consistent. If one doesn't work, tweak it the other way. However, I believe that this is a didactic characteristic of a campaign. It is no fun for a PC if the DM begins to waffle on how these kinds of encounters are run.
As ever,
ACE
I find myself once again deeply peeved with the whole subset of Charisma based skills and the way Charisma was handled in the game. Hence I looked this thread up again.
I'm currently working my way through the Players Handbook II and adding (or sometimes not adding) feats to the ones allowed in my homebrew.
I came upon one that I felt worked very well and another the epitomizes everything I see as a problem with the current system.
When push comes to shove the main problem I have with the current system is diplomacy and intimidate. In fact its not even these skills so much as the NPC attitude table.
Basically I think what we currently have in 3.5 amounts to the worst of both sides of the roll playing vs. role playing argument as it is applied to the charisma based skills.
The NPC attitude table basically allows a decently maxed out player to convert anyone from indifferent to helpful and event the hostile creatures can be made indifferent or friendly without having to beat to high a DC on the roll.
First problem here is none of the rules really explains what this sort of thing means and secondly what the real effects, gamewise, are. I mean if the Bard is caught by the dragon pilfering and starts talking fast then what does it mean if the Great Wyrm Red Dragon is made 'Friendly'? Is that different in some manner then if the same Bard made the Serving maid 'Friendly' with a big tip and a good roll?
At this point my feeling is that we got a mechanical system for dealing with social interaction but the mechanic itself is busted. Ultimately that is worse then not having the mechanic at all. My players want to use their Charisma but I'm stuck with trying to adjucate some kind of flawed system. I could live with a good mechanic and I could live with no mechanic but a bad mechanic just makes things difficult - ultimatly I pretty much end up either allowing a maxed out (read power gamed or munchkanized) player to run roughshod over the world or I nerf their ability. I mean presumably I'm supposed to go with some kind of middle ground but with no standard against which to compare balancing on this tight rope becomes a nightmare. At least when my players powergame their combat abilities I work within the rules to counter balance the effect but here I seem stuck with either too powerful or too weak.
Actually I dislike other aspects of this mechanic as well. I dislike any kind of mechanism that goes one way. If a charisma roll can make the NPCs friendly then it ought to do the same to the PCs. Since I dislike such a roll being used on the PCs I think that whole aspect ought to just be completely dropped. Toss the whole NPC Attitude Adjustment out the window. Its more detrimental (to the game) then it is beneficial. Without it the Evil Wizard can't be negotiated with unless the adventure specifies how – That is fine and I bet that for 85% of the DMs out there this is how its playing out anyway. If the PCs are caught by the Mummy, in its tomb, then there is going to be hell to pay. The Bards fast talk capability does not apply when you have awakened the Mummy and invoked the dreaded curse. Here fast thinking and combat brawn rule.
That is not to say that I think Charisma should be a useless ability score. I just want some better explained and implemented rules. Hence the two feats in the Players Handbook II got me thinking about the issue.
The first feat is Master Manipulator. This is a great little feat. It allows a character to distract a number of people up to his Charisma modifier. The rules explain what distracted means and it comes down to penalties to their listen and spot checks. OK I can work with something like this - if you want to sneak by the guards then some one distracts them and there is a nice mechanic for determining if this works or not. Sounds good to me. The feat also allows you to get the truth out of some one who has tried to bluff you and failed to beat your sense motive check. Again its a pretty basic mechanic and I can work with it.
The annoying feat is Wanderers Diplomacy. Its first ability annoys me a little though its not the worst effect ever. It allows a player to find magic items to buy significantly beyond what should be allowable by the settlements max GP. My big problem here is a lack of a limit. If I'm sucked into Ravenloft and end up in a hamlet I'm not sure that my characters diplomacy skills ought to make it possible for me to dig up a trusty Undead Bane great sword from among the 26 residents or find a stash of powerful devine scrolls made for killling scary undead. I mean either they had the great sword and scrolls or they didn't. My characters diplomacy ranks should not be even relevant. Second ability is more or less fine - it allows characters to communicate with others that they don't share a language with. Third ability is the worst of the lot. It allows one to use bluff to change someone’s attitude toward you for a short period of time - which just adds bluff to the list of skills that end up in the murk regarding that damn NPC Attitude table.
My feeling is that a far better system would be to start with some kind of a benefit for high charisma. Say 5% off on all mundane equipment per point of charisma adjustment. That helps the character right off the bat as his or her starting money goes further. It also penalizes the player that uses Charisma as a dump stat (presuming that such characters find themselves paying a little more). Allow something similar, but not as beneficial for magic items. Maybe 5% off for ever 2 points of adjustment. There is a benifit to rival having a good strength or Wisdom.
I'd keep that as the basic benefit of high Charisma and then go with Charisma allowing one to access a slew of Charisma based feats. Things like even better deals on buying and selling. The ability to attract interesting followers. Maybe even have Charisma be where it is at if you want the really cool companions like Imps, Devils, Unicorns and Angels. Plus have some of the better feats like Master Manipulator and its ilk available. Such feats should work in something of a progression. Currently almost every Charisma feat is accessible with a Charisma of 13 meaning that its more or less useless if you happen to have a Charisma of 20. That should be changed so that the truly cool stuff like some kind of heavenly favor are only acquirable with amazing charisma. Maybe utilize some kind of a system where those with high Charisma can get feats that actually allow them more 'Action Points' per level or even a chance to return to life etc.
In the end Charisma has to be made into an important stat – I’ve been leaning to making it partly a factor in how fate (or the Gods) treat the character. I think this is something of an extension of at least Medieval European Philosophy (and arguably its true of some Far Eastern world views as well). In Medieval Europe a hero did not need to be smart or even necessarily wise (though wise was more of an ideal then smart). The young knight had to be brave and virtuous but not smart – God was on his side and would tell him what to do. It was the villain that was usually depicted as intelligent, after all he could not lean on God for support. Something similar can be found in Chinese tradition where the bad guy is often depicted as a military genius; evil, but a genius at the art of war. However the good guy has friends in unusual places (or unusual friends in more mundane places) and luck and karma are on his side.
Anyway that’s my view of how something like the 4th edition should handle Charisma. Or better yet a brand new 3.5 suppliment or updated 3.75 core books.
Thoughts?
I believe that Monte Cook has some idea's about using diplomacy in a different way, check out his site. On the WotC website there was an article about using diplomacy and it also touched upon the subject of NPC diplomacy checks having results on the PC's. Basicly it is all about DM-PC trust, as long as you don't shaft the pc's at every turn with diplomacy it should work out fine.
I agree with Jeremy that this whole debate basically boils down to DM style (with a side of player preference) and that no amount of discussion is likely to cause either side to reverse their perspective. Many of the suggestions are this thread are very helpful (on both sides) but I would just like to remind some of the powerful maxim "Whatever the PCs can do, so can the NPCs". Those who are advocating mere "suggestions" to the free-willed PCs should accept a DM who disregards their bluff,diplomacy, intimidate, etc. rolls based on the DM's subjective opinion on how he/she *wants* the NPC to act/react. I bet *that* would start some tempers flaring at the table! Cries of foul would fill the air with players angered by "wasted" skills/feats/ability scores and dice rolls that are ultimately overpowered on what boils down to a whim. So my argument is ... why is it being called fair when the PCs do the same thing to the DM (and his/her NPCs)? The DM or adventure author also "gave up" more combat-oriented skills/feats/ability scores to invest in Charisma-based tactics and if he/she couples that with a favorable die roll why should the players be allowed to overrule all of that based on their whims? As an earlier poster stated, DMs don't allow "choices" when a character is affected by fear; how is this fundamentally different? Nobody *wants* their character to wet himself and flee the battle scene when there is actually a prime opportunity to be heroic (and even victorious) but players shrug and accept the bitter pill when they realize they failed their saving throw. Well, they can swallow it when their opposed check or whatever fails too.
But, as Jeremy said, it's all a matter of preference. Playing both sides equally is the way I prefer to play it but that doesn't mean that's the "right" way to do it or even the best.
Oh well, it *does* make for an interesting discussion!
well, whims on both sides are dangerous. High diplomacy skill points should make a difference while good arguements should too. (circumstance bonuses in my opinion or minuses to the Npc's roll, so I'm a little torn, but lets say the pluses go for the character- but I don't tell him that.)
I think I've figured out a way to ease my load as a 1st time DM, and this is an idea straight from the DMG, and it should help with charisma checks all around...instead of dming the NPC, bring in a GUEST player to play the character, if this is an important NPC it might be better to do this rather than rely simply on die rolls for two reasons- 1. The Player that you introduce adds personality and cleverness to the NPC. and 2. DM whim is thrown out...he now has another factor to factor in when making his decision in an encounter- he now becomes the MEDIATOR instead of the JUDGE. If my NPC who has a +19 on his Diplomacy rolls a damn 1. (and that's assuming I don't go with 1 automatic failure or even if I go with 1 as -10) he's still got a 20 or in the -10 case a 9, which means he beats a DC of 15-20 or 5-9 (if I give him a circumstance bonus to his good argument he beats a dc of 10, lets say a +2 circumstance bonus) That circumstance bonus should be determined by the NPC's Charisma, Intelligence and possibly their Wisdom score...not just their diplomacy score or their glibness as a player. I trust the guest player to ROLE-PLAY the character I give him, I already know his personality- for this character I'm talking about specifically with the 19+ diplomacy (from synergy and skill focus as well as high charisma)- and that he's got the personality that will match well with my NPC. He plays rogues and fighters really well, I've got a Marshal for him to play- a leader of men who leads by his example. He's a hunter and he's good at what he does. He's also got a character flaw I thought only this Guest Player could handle. If he can't make the session I've still got his input and personality in mind to help ME work out the details of playing style. The Marshal has the Leadership feat, so I expect him to be able to roleplay leading 25+ troops into battle at times. He can easily opt to not take his entire force out to play, and I assume he'll do just that- his cohort will be with him at all times, maybe and he'll play the cohort very well. the followers will be a mix of warriors, fighters and rangers as the Marshal is both a combat troop and in this NPC's case an experienced tracker and hunter. (I really gotta check what I pumped into his survival though)
For my Necromancer, I plan on recruiting my DM who tends to play wizards for the campaign...the Necromancer is a 20th level Cleric/Necromancer/True Necromancer (any thoughts on the prestige class, just let me know), he's used to playing a 15th level Archmage, he's nigh perfect for the role and should KNOW more about Wizardry and Spells than I do as a 1st time DM...so he'll be there to help me out on the spell effects, roles and personality a studious necromancer will have. So his charisma is high enough to attract two cohorts (without the stupid leadership feat). And do I even have to say that he already LIKES the character, the only thing he had problems with was his True Neutral alignment, which once I explained to him that as a nobleman he didn't actually care so much about gaining power or even keeping his posistion so much as defending himself and his men and his homestead (lets assume he had a wife, which he doesn't, then he'd be defending his family). And in the least, if he can't play the character after all or I have to incorporate the character on a timetable that isn't compatible with his (a very good chance) I already have his input. I'll play his charisma more like his personality than just what I think the character should be like.
Point is, I'm taking the charisma based checks out of my own hands and adding a human element. it's like the difference between playing with a bot in a video game and playing with a real person. They're going to act differently, they're going to make mistakes, but they're generally on your side, and if they aren't it is because the CHARACTER isn't acting in the DM's best interest.
My versatility as a character actor only stretches so far, at least I can't role play 3 major npcs (Lets say in this case my rngr/cleric that I've talked about on other threads, the Marshal AND the Necromancer) ON TOP OF 25 followers and a cohort. (who's a cleric/rngr so I'd have to pick what spells this guy casts too.)
Anyway, I just thought the guest player idea was a good answer to the NPC vs PC problem, and a great idea for inexperienced DMs, like myself. (or experienced DMs who have really worked hard on their NPCs and would like to see them in hands they might trust more than their own.)
Besides, I've already got 7 players for my table...I might have 8, and I'm still looking for someone (guest player or otherwise) to play a bard...so I really can use all the experienced DM help at the table that I can get...the NPCs charisma based skills should be the LEAST of my worries. that way I can toss out the Attitude table and not feel too guilty about ignoring rules that are probably better than what I would come up with.
Oh and so I don't ruin surprises by bringing on guest players, the guest players are required to bring DM screens to roll behind. Essentially I'm also recruiting them as Assistant DMs. They'll be there to make sure I don't trip up on something.
I might even hand one of my players (an experienced DM, 14 years of D&D experience) an NPC and ask him to handle what that NPC does for the session...and you know what, I'll trust him to play the character's part. (this time it'd be an evil cleric, and he's read and owns the Ghostwalk book I'm using as the setting, so he'll know what an EVIL cleric would do and how well he'd be intimidated or how diplomacy would work and so on. fyi, i've gotten him to play a cleric.)
A problem that has arisen many times in my campaigns has been the use of Charisma based skills against players, and charismatic players using THEIR charisma rather than their player's one.
The first one involves skills like Diplomacy or Bluff. If a NPC is trying to convince the PC's to do something, I have to convince the players (not the characters) to do so. How am I supposed to tell the players "He convinces you" only because the NPC beated the DC trying to influence them with a Diplomacy check. And how am I supposed to bluff the players, trying to trick them to believe something, if they suspect exactly the contrary. Even if I beat them in a Bluff vs Sense Motive check, they will do only what they think is right, ignoring the check completely.
And the second one involves the same skills. If a player is trying to convince a NPC to do something, he would talk and try to do it with his/her own words. But, if he/she establishes good arguments and they sound logic, how am I supposed to tell him/her that the NPC simply rejects his/her offer, or idea, or whatever, just because he/she didn't rolled high enough to influence that NPC. And they will be confused and sometimes mad if they create a well elaborated plan to fool someone and he discovers the attempt only because he beated the PC's Bluff check with a Sense Motive check.
Oh, and here's an interesting PDF for Talking DCs I've yet to fully digest it, but I'll leave it to ya'll experienced DMs to give me the gist in case I miss it, just reply to this post if you wish to comment on the content of the PDF.