So, my PF group rotates GMs for 2-3 separate games. One of our players has a nasty habit of pumping his diplomacy/bluff with the reasoning of "this way I can talk to NPCs." In practice, this turns into frequent attempts to substitute these skills for brainwashing "the sky is green" type spells.
Example, a couple of months ago, he had attempted to convince a group of Gnomish soldiers that a Large category dragon was a cat. no specifics, just said "it's not a dragon, that's a...cat." he rolled an 18 or so on the die and ended up in the mid-twenties. After it was pointed out that he'd take a -20 for an impossible lie, he tried to argue it, until the GM called the game early in what I can only describe as a rage quit.
Now, I understand that as a GM I have literally all of the powers of creation at my hands and rule zero to deal with this. So I'm asking the messageboards here this question; How can I discourage this sort of derailing behavior when it comes to be my turn? Any tips/examples would be appreciated.
Other than simply pumping up sense motive or just having the characters still circumvent the bluff ("...ok, I am starting to see that dragon as a cat...and that is why I should lay off this wine. Call someone else to take my place so I can take a nap and hopefully see straight")...not much it seems. This seems more like a player problem since he is trying to break the system like that.
Diplomacy might be a bit easier to get around though. It needs "1 minute of continuous interaction", so have the characters be too busy to talk should keep important NPCs out of his grasp at least. Admittedly, he could use an entirely different diplomacy check to beg for that 1 minute (under the rules for making a request, which only takes a round)...but would he think of that? Although, this also has an obvious downside since it is hard to have good NPCs when you literally have to hide them from the party face.
If you are feeling vengeful, you could always turn it back on the player. Selkies, for example, are CR 5 monsters (decent enough level that they could be used for quite a while, especially if you give them levels) with a decent bluff check and an ability that makes their lies one step more believable.
I didn't know about the "1 minute of continuous interaction" bit. That should do a number on his ability to mess with things. But is there a page I can reference so I don't look like I'm pulling this out from my butt?
How can I discourage this sort of derailing behavior when it comes to be my turn? Any tips/examples would be appreciated.
Have you tried explaining that social skills aren't mind control?
How can I discourage this sort of derailing behavior when it comes to be my turn? Any tips/examples would be appreciated.Have you tried explaining that social skills aren't mind control?
I have in fact. But as another player, my words don't hold much water.
The problem is only partially the character. I'll give examples:
One: I want to throw the ogre's javelin back at him, even though he's in combat with my ally in that cloud of smoke.
It's BAB + Dex, - 2 for wrong size, -4 for melee, -4 for cover, 20% chance for the smoke.
It's totally fine to adjudicate, BECAUSE WE HAVE RULES FOR IT.
Two: I convince him a dragon is a cat
And...it's not as clear cut. Which leads to the player insisting "I can do this", and the GM left wondering how to adjudicate it. Maybe there should be a modifier for difficulty, but what?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
I recommend Rich Burlew's Diplomacy rules, (Order of the stick guy) and you can find them at Giant in the Playground.
I have in fact. But as another player, my words don't hold much water.How can I discourage this sort of derailing behavior when it comes to be my turn? Any tips/examples would be appreciated.Have you tried explaining that social skills aren't mind control?
Ahh, I was confused. Well best to chat with the GM about it. If they want to run a game where those are mind control get to it, but actions against other players are rarely taken well. It might be that everyone at the table is having fun, or it might be that the GM thinks its a pain he just lets slide and doesn't want to deal with unless he has a good reason to. Lots of variables with human behavior and hard to say much without actually being there.
|
"That's would take you a minute of conversation to earn a roll for, which you are fully allowed to do - just keep track of the rounds that pass during combat, and keep in mind that your ability to speak is being dedicated to the effort so you can't be casting spells with verbal components or doing your bardic performance in the mean while," for the player to realize that I was not kidding when I said "diplomacy doesn't do what you think it does."
+1
The GM should exert more authority, and re-read the Diplomacy skill, which has several "loopholes" that reinforces the primary principle that the GM can do whatever he wants. For instance, the skill description says "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion." All the GM has to say is "that request is against this NPC's nature."
Players should never really argue with GMs. As a player, succinctly state your objection, let the GM engage you in debate if he wants to, but as soon as the GM rules you move on.
For bluff I'd explain that you could totally convince someone that you actually think its something absurd, like the dragon is a cat. If the player rolls low, the npc knows its not a cat and realizes that the player is fooling him, at least attempting to. If he rolls high, the npc may think that the player believes it to actually be a cat but doesn't believe it himself, thus declaring the pc to be some sort of nuts, maybe drunk, drugged, feytouched or just crazy. If he rolls really high and gave reason, maybe the npc is drunk or drugged, he might 'MIGHT' rethink what he's seeing, maybe attempt to disbelieve what he's seeing with a will save or perception check if its still visible (he'll believe a dragon he can see more than a rough shape in the fog). For the most part this will likely lead to the player being declared insane if its as bad as you say, which could cause its own problems.
Basically its easier to convince someone that you're crazy than to convince someone they are and its all in the delivery and situation. A short comment like "its not a dragon its a cat" may be met with any of "No, just, no.", "What was in your liquor?", "What was in my liquor?" or "Have you been talking to that crazy old witch out in the woods?"
If they really want be sticklers for RAW remind them of this line, "Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion)." For the case of your dragon, its easier to convince someone of something if it shares qualities (size, shape, color), just like disguise rolls its harder if they're very different.
|
This isn't RAW, but I suggest that if a character does this you propose a DC1-11 sense motive check. If he gets above an 11, he thinks the character isn't lying per se, but exaggerating the truth. If he gets below an 11, he thinks the character is either drunk, crazy, tired, hallucinating, or all of the above. If he gets below a 1, then the GM should save that die for when its needed to keep players alive, and should have the NPC think that it is a murderous fire-breathing reptilian cat of pure death that must be slain. Of course, this is something you should tell the GMs and not the player, but still, its what I would do. And it isn't RAW, but after the PC gets a reputation as an insane alcoholic who can't be trusted and whom nobody should take seriously, he will stop trying to do dumb things like propose dragons are cats.
The problem is only partially the character. I'll give examples:
One: I want to throw the ogre's javelin back at him, even though he's in combat with my ally in that cloud of smoke.
It's BAB + Dex, - 2 for wrong size, -4 for melee, -4 for cover, 20% chance for the smoke.
It's totally fine to adjudicate, BECAUSE WE HAVE RULES FOR IT.
Two: I convince him a dragon is a cat
And...it's not as clear cut. Which leads to the player insisting "I can do this", and the GM left wondering how to adjudicate it. Maybe there should be a modifier for difficulty, but what?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
I recommend Rich Burlew's Diplomacy rules, (Order of the stick guy) and you can find them at Giant in the Playground.
Hmmm, I can't say I'm much of a fan of OotS, but his ideas here seem pretty solid. I'll see about instituting them here.
To everybody else, I do think I'll end up having to be "that guy" to his "that guy" and be the one who puts his foot down.
maybe i'm missing something but...
Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).
that's perfectly clear-cut RAW, you cannot convince people of something contrary to what they can clearly observe.
diplomacy can be a little trickier (i know cause i made a diplomancer once)... there is a set DC for making hostile creatures indifferent or sometimes even friendly, and for getting favors from them afterwards, but remember what others have said: it takes a full minute of conversation, and a shared language and minimum 3 Int just to earn a roll, and remember:
Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.
that should solve most of the problems...
I didn't know about the "1 minute of continuous interaction" bit. That should do a number on his ability to mess with things. But is there a page I can reference so I don't look like I'm pulling this out from my butt?
Question: did he try to really justify why the dragon was a cat, or did he just blurt the line out with such compelling conviction that everyone was meant to believe him?
This comes up due to the fact that you can have the NPC's come up with their own explanations if none are given. You see, people want to make sense of the world, and they try to create narratives to explain why the world is like it is. So for your example, the easiest answer would be "Ok, did some wizard cast a spell on that cat? And what kind of spell is it? If it is an illusion, sure, then everything is ok....but if it is actually transformed into a dragon...then what is the freakin' difference? I am not going out there to get eaten."
This way, you either get to keep control of the game's flow, or they have to create actual elaborate lies in order to get the bluff to work the way they intend to. And that would be at least funny to watch compared to "I roll to convince them the sky is purple".
Side note: I think my explanation actually would upgrade the bluff to "far fetched" and a -10 penalty. Admittedly, it would still be impossible to convince them that the creature wasn't a large beast that wanted to eat them. I mean, if it was harmless, they would demand you prove it...and we know that wouldn't happen. You might get lucky and convince one of them to poke it with a stick though.
The book also says some lies are impossible as in no bluff check will ever help. That is different than impossible = -20
If you read the description of Diplomacy and Bluff it's entirely reasonable for the GM to mediate exactly the results of the skills.
Bluff: Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).
Diplomacy: Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.
Both skills have specific statements mentioning that it's GM discretion that controls the power level of the social skills.
I'm very much a "yes" type of GM, and I greatly enjoy when a character gets creative with diplomacy or bluff, but something like the 'dragon-is-a-cat' situation you described seems fairly unreasonable without the character adding more fluff to the story ("a powerful witch turned a cat into a dragon, and now it's following us around because we fed it fish one time").
eh... i'm with lemeres. all a good bluff check does is convince people that you believe what you're saying. if you don't include why you believe what you're saying, they'll come up with their own reasons ranging from "*gasp* magic!" to "well this guy's lost it."