If NPC A tells NPC B not to believe anything that PC says, as he is an accomplished liar, and PC later beats NPC B's Sense Motive check with his Bluff check during their encounter, does NPC B believe PC? Or is it automatically defeated since NPC B is actively ignoring/disbelieving anything and everything that PC says?
Unless NPC B actively runs away or throws his hands over his ears and starts shouting "LALALALA", I think it can be assumed that he's paying at least some attention to you.
Effectively this should be covered by the NPC attitudes system. The GM should determine what NPC B's starting attitude toward the PC was. The GM would then roll the appropriate skill for NPC A (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, whatever) with a DC of NPC B's attitude toward NPC A, and determine how well NPC A influenced NPC B's attitude toward the PC.
Then when the PC comes along, he'd make his roll and see how far he shifts NPC B's attitude; if he successfully shifts NPC B's attitude enough then he'd have overcome the work that NPC A did.
[edit]
Note that if NPC B's starting attitude was shifted to Hostile toward the PC by NPC A's words, then it's actually quite possible that NPC B would just refuse to even listen to the PC. If the PC could force NPC B into a position where he had to listen, then he'd have a chance to potentially undo the 'damage' done by NPC A.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, Bluff and Diplomacy aren't omnipotent mind-control machines. Roleplay > rolls.
It'd depend heavily on circumstance. If NPC B provided a valid reason not to trust PC, like him being wanted for forgery, fraud, and perjury, then you'd be hard pressed to have NPC A be convinced by anything PC said, especially if A already has a reason to trust B more than A.
Example scenario:
Let NPC B be the captain of the guard.
Let NPC A be a guardsman.
Let PC be known not to be a guardsman.
NPC B: Don't trust anything PC says. Absolutely nothing. Especially don't let him through the door you're guarding.
NPC A: Yessir.
PC: Hey A, let me thr-- (attempted Bluff check)
NPC A: No.
PC: But- (attempted Bluff check)
NPC A: Not happening.
In this particular scenario, I don't care what PC says or does, nothing will convince A to trust him over his boss, B, since he already knows PC has no legitimate authority and is a liar. EDIT: With Bluff, specifically. Intimidate works fine.
Another example:
NPC B is some guy A knows. Indifferent attitude.
NPC A is some guy in a bar.
PC is another guy in a bar.
NPC B: Don't trust a word PC says. He's a liar!
NPC A: Uhh, okay?
PC: Hi A. Have you seen B around? He owes me 50 gold. (Attempted Bluff check)
NPC A: Nope, I haven't. I don't believe a word you say.
PC: Who told you I was a liar? Was it B? He's saying I'm a liar BECAUSE he owes me money! (successful Bluff check)
NPC A: Oh, that makes sense. He's right over there.
If PC had failed his Bluff check, A still wouldn't believe him as per the usual rules. Since PC succeeded, A believes him normally.
<--- (Breathes a sigh of relief) I thought for a moment the title was referring to me....was wondering what it was I had said. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Will the other man tell me that your path leads to freedom?"
If that one npc believes you are not telling the truth, you'd receive the penalty for telling an unbelievable lie, nothing else. Regardless of the reason why its unbelievable.
The attitude of the npc would only matter as to determine the original dc, then apply the penalty (and possible mitigations, some people have a knack for making people believe fairy tails)
"I am lying to you right now."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Obviously impossible" is a +20 modifier to sense motive. That doesn't even come close to solving the problem. The listener clearly believes the bard... But that's ridiculous.
Level 20 martial characters can kill dinosaurs with their bare hands. Level 20 casters can do practically anything. A level 20 Bard who's focused on bluff should be able to achieve the ridiculous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So imagine the bard says "You are currently on fire." with intent to deceive the listener.What now? "Obviously impossible" is a +20 modifier to sense motive. That doesn't even come close to solving the problem. The listener clearly believes the bard... But that's ridiculous.
Its not, not really, I mean in the real world, a priest with at most +1 bluff was able to convince massive amounts of people that they should kill for the god that demands "thou shall not kill" with the penalty of eternal damnation......
The guy believes he's on fire.
I've never understood what type of lies actually call for a bluff check. If a PC lies and gives a bartender a false name or tells a mundane lie like the PC never knew his mother or something, would that require a bluff check? The bartender has no reason to believe otherwise. Would the PC only be required to roll the check if the bartender decided a sense motive was in order?
So imagine the bard says "You are currently on fire." with intent to deceive the listener.What now? "Obviously impossible" is a +20 modifier to sense motive. That doesn't even come close to solving the problem. The listener clearly believes the bard... But that's ridiculous.
Its not, not really, I mean in the real world, a priest with at most +1 bluff was able to convince massive amounts of people that they should kill for the god that demands "thou shall not kill" with the penalty of eternal damnation......
The guy believes he's on fire.
Maybe for a second. But as soon as he looks down and realizes he is not, in fact, on fire, that's the end of that.
"You are currently on fire" would be a way to momentarily distract a guard while you hide, palm something that was otherwise in his field of vision, etc. Of course the distraction wouldn't last very long. Sorta like "Ha, made ya look."
I've never understood what type of lies actually call for a bluff check. If a PC lies and gives a bartender a false name or tells a mundane lie like the PC never knew his mother or something, would that require a bluff check? The bartender has no reason to believe otherwise. Would the PC only be required to roll the check if the bartender decided a sense motive was in order?
Much like how a diplomacy check can be waved because of roleplaying, a bluff check can be as well. If your players don't appear to have to think about a fake name, then you can wave it. if they come up with a name that sounds fake (like their own RL names) a sense motive would be called for.
In any other situation, you simulate the (lack off) roleplaying ability of the player by using a roll. Not everyone in the world has the ability to lie, not convincingly anyway, however that player might want to play that kind of character, thus we roll.
A roll using bluff means that your character lies, no matter how small the lie is. A low roll indicates that you character not only thought up the name on the spot, but chose a poor false name as well. The higher the roll, the more believable the lie is. The sense motive in this case is the barkeep wondering if your telling the truth. again, to simulate the fact that he\s at least paying attention to what you say.
|
When you make a fantastic bluff check, your character is probably not doing anything quite so bland as saying with a deadpan voice "you're on fire". As a player you might tell the GM that you're going to bluff the guard that he's on fire, but your character probably does a bit more dramatic delivery than that.
He might first sniff as if smelling something odd - "do you smell smoke?" - then go tense and look at the guard in horror "your cloak is on fire!".
Probably even better than that, but I hope you get my point.
|
How often do people really listen to advice? IME, not that much, really. Advice from a trusted source would probably grant a circumstance bonus on Sense Motive, but that's about it.
I mean, I've warned and been warned that people were liars in real life, and the success rate on such warnings was seriously hit-or-miss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate all need to be completely reworked in my opinion.
As they sit now don't allow them at my table. Bluff has been replaced with Feint only, and Intimidate replaced with Demoralize only.
The closest thing I have seen to a good fix for Diplomacy is something like this or this. As it is I just really hate the rules that these three skills use, mechanically they suck. I wish somebody could rework all three of these skills with better rules. I don't mind having skill ranks apply to simulate making a character good at something, but the mechanics of the systems are so poor that I end up at GM fiat every time so I did the only thing that seemed sensible and removed the skills rather than let players waste skill points when I tell them something simply wont work (because it would otherwise ruin the game).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate all need to be completely reworked in my opinion.
As they sit now don't allow them at my table. Bluff has been replaced with Feint only, and Intimidate replaced with Demoralize only.
The closest thing I have seen to a good fix for Diplomacy is something like this or this. As it is I just really hate the rules that these three skills use, mechanically they suck. I wish somebody could rework all three of these skills with better rules. I don't mind having skill ranks apply to simulate making a character good at something, but the mechanics of the systems are so poor that I end up at GM fiat every time so I did the only thing that seemed sensible and removed the skills rather than let players waste skill points when I tell them something simply wont work (because it would otherwise ruin the game).
So basically, anybody who can't play act well at your table is totally screwed in "face" encounters. *slow clap*
So basically, anybody who can't play act well at your table is totally screwed in "face" encounters. *slow clap*Bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate all need to be completely reworked in my opinion.
As they sit now don't allow them at my table. Bluff has been replaced with Feint only, and Intimidate replaced with Demoralize only.
The closest thing I have seen to a good fix for Diplomacy is something like this or this. As it is I just really hate the rules that these three skills use, mechanically they suck. I wish somebody could rework all three of these skills with better rules. I don't mind having skill ranks apply to simulate making a character good at something, but the mechanics of the systems are so poor that I end up at GM fiat every time so I did the only thing that seemed sensible and removed the skills rather than let players waste skill points when I tell them something simply wont work (because it would otherwise ruin the game).
No, I just make them talk it out. 90% of the time they succeed. If it's particularly relevant to the plot I might not give them the info and wait to reveal it at a pertinent time.
I just really hate the lack of roleplay couple with the expectation of autosuccess in doing certain things. You may not care for it and that's fine. I was never suggesting to anyone that they need to do what I do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically, anybody who can't play act well at your table is totally screwed in "face" encounters. *slow clap*
No, I just make them talk it out. 90% of the time they succeed. If it's particularly relevant to the plot I might not give them the info and wait to reveal it at a pertinent time.
I just really hate the lack of roleplay couple with the expectation of autosuccess in doing certain things.
And in order to force open a door, you make the player do chin-ups? In order to walk across a gorge, you have set up a plank over some bricks, right and if the player fall off so does the PC?
Look, it's called a ROLEplaying game. Thus players who arent strong should be able to play Thog the Mighty, clumsy players should be able to play Fineous Fingers, and the guy in a wheelchair huffing on his inhaler must be able to play Halfdan the unkillable.
Some PLAYERS are naturally more glib and silver tongued than others. if they have dumped CHA down to 5 and have no ranks in social skills, why should they be able to out-talk Senofen Silvertounge who has a +50 in diplomacy?
I'd hate to see combat at your table, I can see it now "OH, there's some bandits. (Dumps pile of swords & axes on the table)- OK, Bobby you play the bandits, Dave....
So basically, anybody who can't play act well at your table is totally screwed in "face" encounters. *slow clap*
No, I just make them talk it out. 90% of the time they succeed. If it's particularly relevant to the plot I might not give them the info and wait to reveal it at a pertinent time.
I just really hate the lack of roleplay couple with the expectation of autosuccess in doing certain things.
And in order to force open a door, you make the player do chin-ups? In order to walk across a gorge, you have set up a plank over some bricks, right and if the player fall off so does the PC?
Look, it's called a ROLEplaying game. Thus players who arent strong should be able to play Thog the Mighty, clumsy players should be able to play Fineous Fingers, and the guy in a wheelchair huffing on his inhaler must be able to play Halfdan the unkillable.
Some PLAYERS are naturally more glib and silver tongued than others. if they have dumped CHA down to 5 and have no ranks in social skills, why should they be able to out-talk Senofen Silvertounge who has a +50 in diplomacy?
I'd hate to see combat at your table, I can see it now "OH, there's some bandits. (Dumps pile of swords & axes on the table)- OK, Bobby you play the bandits, Dave....
OKay, is this really necessary or productive? I'm not telling anyone to use my system. I'm just saying I hate the system as written, and rather than let my players make investments into these things and fiat that it doesn't work under certain circumstances (and there are simply circumstances where I wont let it work) that I'd rather just talk through most of it and let roleplaying (even bad roleplaying) succeed. It's just different, there no reason to be so derogatory towards me or treat me like I'm an idiot. I have the rule written down for my set of house rules so players know in advance and can plan accordingly.
Also, the part about combat is completely a false equivalency as I make no such sweeping changes to combat rules, as the combat rules are generally better and more robust and given far more attention than the rules for social interactions.
But seriously, there is no need to be so insulting.
If NPC A tells NPC B not to believe anything that PC says, as he is an accomplished liar, and PC later beats NPC B's Sense Motive check with his Bluff check during their encounter, does NPC B believe PC? Or is it automatically defeated since NPC B is actively ignoring/disbelieving anything and everything that PC says?
The entire point of the bluff skill is that it is there to bypass the NPC's common sense.
If all you have to do is tell someone 'don't believe X' to void the bluff skill then the entire skill would be irrelevant as any suspicion on the bluff targets part would be mistrust, which a successful use of the bluff skill BYPASSES. It is the entire point of the skill.
That said, a previous warning from a trusted source may be grounds for a circumstance bonus to the bluff targets sense motive value but automatic voiding of any use of the skill seems a bit over the top.
After all the target may know the person is a consummate liar but the successful skill use still would change their mind. That is the whole point of the skill.
The trick at that point would be to turn the bluff on its head. Think "Wabbit Season vs. Duck Season".
The new bluff would be convincing B that you were never supposed to have been outside to begin with.
PC: "Hey, B! Do me a solid, and don't let anyone know I'm slipping out for a little while!" *bluff*
NPC B: *fails sense motive* "No way, man! Get your ass back inside, or I'm sounding the alarm!"
PC: *feigns disappointment* "Dude... seriously, not cool." *walks in through the front door*
OKay, is this really necessary or productive?
So basically, anybody who can't play act well at your table is totally screwed in "face" encounters. *slow clap*
No, I just make them talk it out. 90% of the time they succeed. If it's particularly relevant to the plot I might not give them the info and wait to reveal it at a pertinent time.
I just really hate the lack of roleplay couple with the expectation of autosuccess in doing certain things.
And in order to force open a door, you make the player do chin-ups? In order to walk across a gorge, you have set up a plank over some bricks, right and if the player fall off so does the PC?
Look, it's called a ROLEplaying game. Thus players who arent strong should be able to play Thog the Mighty, clumsy players should be able to play Fineous Fingers, and the guy in a wheelchair huffing on his inhaler must be able to play Halfdan the unkillable.
Some PLAYERS are naturally more glib and silver tongued than others. if they have dumped CHA down to 5 and have no ranks in social skills, why should they be able to out-talk Senofen Silvertounge who has a +50 in diplomacy?
I'd hate to see combat at your table, I can see it now "OH, there's some bandits. (Dumps pile of swords & axes on the table)- OK, Bobby you play the bandits, Dave....
As necessary & productive as you bringing in your houserules were in the first place.
As necessary & productive as you bringing in your houserules were in the first place.
We were talking about problems with the bluff (and by extension other social skills) so yeah, I think it is. And while I don't necessarily need anyone to agree with me, it's disheartening to know that people I respect and generally agree with on many issues, such as yourself Dr. Deth, think it's necessary to insult and malign me when I espouse a different viewpoint from the collective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't take it personally, Claxon - he's just trying to be funny while making his point.
You can do the same thing in the other direction (the pro- and anti- Diplomacy roll factions both have valid playstyles with advantages and disadvantages).
"So, Dr Deth, you think dice rolls should replace players deciding what their characters should say and do? So in your games, you don't have your players make decisions in combat - you roll dice and add your Profession: Tactics skill and they do something useful or stupid depending on how high they roll?"
You can do the same thing in the other direction (the pro- and anti- Diplomacy roll factions both have valid playstyles with advantages and disadvantages).
Thank you and I agree. There are drawbacks and benefits to both styles.
I personally prefer one over the other and am comfortable with drawbacks that it has as well as the benefits it provides.
|
Definitely an interesting point, I think rules wise I'd apply the suggested house rule -5 penalty for target being suspicious (the opposite of 'target wants to believe the lie') to almost any competent guards, if NPC B had recently been warned about the exact situation and recognised the PC as someone he had been told to ignore then it would be adding the -10 or -20 for far-fetched or impossible probably. The penalty to bluff a guard to let you into say the armory is naturally going to be higher than the penalty to bluff someone they dropped something on the floor and make them look away for a moment, for instance.
We have had somewhat related issues come up in our Skull & Shackles game, I'm playing a Dip./Bluff focused Bard who is an outrageous liar and fresh pirate in truth, yet despite the penalties thanks to some really good rolls and a Bluff skill in the 20s I've convinced many people I'm actually a long lost pirate captain who knows all the waters and can sail the backside off Besmara... until they see me make a terrible Profession: Sailor roll for example, then we're back to "Who *IS* that idiot? I must have been drunk to believe him..." Unless I can spin a new lie to explain it and succeed at the check, "Well, you see this ghost Captain *cursed* me to never be able to tie a rope properly back when..." etc etc.
In our games generally bluff is only going to work until the target sees proof otherwise or is ordered/told the truth by someone higher up or whom they respect more than the PC.
In regards to whether the skills are useful or not, myself and our other GMs tend to add on the spot (houserule) bonuses for good roleplay. You can just say what you want to happen and roll and you get your full skill, allowing those who are less able to bs to play characters who can, but if you do roleplay and spin a fun yarn that entertains the players and GM you get a bonus depending on how good it is, this encourages people to roleplay more instead of penalising them for not doing so. I've seen players who initially wouldn't say a word and just be "I bluff the guard, I got a 23 on my check." change over months of exposure to others getting roleplay bonuses to people who tell funny stories to reinforce their in game rolls, or make up false names and imperiously demand to be let past, etc and have way more fun doing so, positive reinforcement rocks.
Don't take it personally, Claxon - he's just trying to be funny while making his point.
You can do the same thing in the other direction (the pro- and anti- Diplomacy roll factions both have valid playstyles with advantages and disadvantages).
"So, Dr Deth, you think dice rolls should replace players deciding what their characters should say and do? So in your games, you don't have your players make decisions in combat - you roll dice and add your Profession: Tactics skill and they do something useful or stupid depending on how high they roll?"
Yes, Claxon, I was trying (badly) to use humor to illustrate a point.
No, I allow the player to state out loud his bluff, then add or subtract a Circumstance bonus to the roll. Same with Disable device, etc. This allows Player acting to have some effect on die rolls and skill ranks.
It's hard to enforce tactical skills, thru RP stats, since there's no actual game method. There are systems for Bluff, etc. But yes, if a Player comes up with some crazy tactical idea for a shot, I will add or subtract a Circumstance bonus to the roll as seems reasonable.
Circumstance bonuses are the DM's friend.
But since I don't give back stat points for dumping, I never have to say "Your character is too stupid to think of that."
The point is- making players act out their Bluff skill unfairly penalizes the meek wallflower Introvert who wants to play a outgoing bard type. I would no more penalize him as I would ask the 98# weakling programmer to actually climb a rope to make his climb check.
Can't you see that this takes away the ability of players who may want to play a character completely the opposite of who he is in real life?
And, THAT's the whole point of FANTASY Role-playing games.
In my opinion the meek wallflower shouldn't be playing the glib bard any more than the unorganized scatterbrain should be playing the summoning based wizard. I'm all for helping either person go through and play the role they chose and get better at it...but if someone at my table was expecting to go through an entire campaign saying "oh, uh, well, I suppose I lie to the guard." or thereabout for every social interaction they come across, I would politely suggest they play a new character...just like if I had someone show up game after game saying "I cast summon monster whatever again, wanna tell me the list of options again? Nah, I don't need the bestiary, you can just tell me the stats when I need them." I would politely suggest they play something else.
The point is- making players act out their Bluff skill unfairly penalizes the meek wallflower Introvert who wants to play a outgoing bard type. I would no more penalize him as I would ask the 98# weakling programmer to actually climb a rope to make his climb check.
Can't you see that this takes away the ability of players who may want to play a character completely the opposite of who he is in real life?
And, THAT's the whole point of FANTASY Role-playing games.
See I view this in a very different light, it gives the person a chance to try to develop the skills through roleplay that they lack. And the thing is, I generally want players to succeed. So, if they're trying I'm going to have them succeed. But, there are certain things that I'm not going to let a player succeed at in game. It wont matter what their roll or skill points are, or how high their charisma is. At some social interactions there would be no chance of success. There will be other ways to accomplish your goal, but sometimes social skills just wont do it.
And for me, I'd rather not penalize a player who builds toward it by saying that sometimes when it really matters I'm not going to let your skill points funciton. I'd rather tell them hey, in my game lets just talk through it. No skill points, no rolls. You'll succeed most of the time, sometimes you wont because it will be important to the plot.
Also, keep in mind that when D&D was first created there weren't rules for social interaction. Well there were, but there was a more important rule. All rules were optional. The whole thing started by a few people sitting around a table and telling a story together with one another. No rules, no dice. You just talked out your actions. Now the game has evolved a lot, but I have never cared for turning the role playing portion (and I do find it funny that you think it's better roleplaying to roll dice for social interaction) into a dice roll. Maybe it's just me.
Agree to disagree amicably?
And, THAT's the whole point of FANTASY Role-playing games.Well now that's not entirely fair, what about athletes who want to roleplay athletic characters? Or actual geniuses wanting to do the same? Or real half-dragon kobold psions multi-classed into paladins who want to do so as well?
Then again, fantasy role-playing games have many points, there's the point on the end of a spear, the one on a rapier, the several points on a morningstar....
The point is you CAN play a character utterly unlike yourself.
or not.
..just like if I had someone show up game after game saying "I cast summon monster whatever again, wanna tell me the list of options again? Nah, I don't need the bestiary, you can just tell me the stats when I need them." I would politely suggest they play something else.
No, that's not 'just like" it at all. Not being a extrovert is entirely different than not being properly prepared to play your character, and knowing the rules.
Agree to disagree amicably?
Quite frankly, after such an arrogant post, still trying to claim the moral high ground, and then even daring to use the word amicably.... undignified
Agree to disagree amicably?Quite frankly, after such an arrogant post, still trying to claim the moral high ground, and then even daring to use the word amicably.... undignified
Please explain? In what way was my post arrogant or did I try to claim the moral high ground?
I defended my decision in regards to why I feel my method is okay, but never once have I claimed its wrong to use the rules as is.
So I'm undignified for using the word amicably? I really just don't understand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DrDeth...has nothing to do with being an introvert in my opinion, and everything to do with not being able to run the character they wrote up. If someone isn't there to engage they're a problem in my opinion.
If NPC A tells NPC B not to believe anything that PC says, as he is an accomplished liar, and PC later beats NPC B's Sense Motive check with his Bluff check during their encounter, does NPC B believe PC? Or is it automatically defeated since NPC B is actively ignoring/disbelieving anything and everything that PC says?
I'd go with what others have suggested and reverse the 'wants to believe you' +5 bonus to a -5 'doesn't want to believe you' penalty.
If the person is actively hostile, this won't work at all (just like trying to Diplomacy charging orcs). But as long as the person actually hears your words, you can convince them of many things. For instance, as some have suggested, first lie to them to say that NPC A has a grudge or unfair bias. Or how, yes, you've lied in the past, but this time you really are telling the truth.
Agree to disagree amicably?Quite frankly, after such an arrogant post, still trying to claim the moral high ground, and then even daring to use the word amicably.... undignifiedPlease explain? In what way was my post arrogant or did I try to claim the moral high ground?
I defended my decision in regards to why I feel my method is okay, but never once have I claimed its wrong to use the rules as is.
So I'm undignified for using the word amicably? I really just don't understand.
It is in the fact that not only do you defend yourself with a conflicting stance, but it also completely disregards what it means for people to play these types of games, in favor of your personal opinion of it. It also has you presume the betterment of others by adhering to not your standards. That is the arrogant part.
Presuming the moral high ground by proclaiming to be on the side of people who have played the games since the old days and care about what is/was truly important about it. even if everything about that is debated right here.
The undignified part of using the word amicably, If you make such an implicative post, that completely downplays the others opinion, then claim, this is simply my opinion and still consider that a state of amicability. How could one not think of that as undignified.
If you still don't understand, I'd advise you to simply take my word for it. disassembling all of the implications and insinuations of your post would be chore to put to post.
I'd also like to add that if the discussion cannot go back on topic, It should be moved to a different section of the forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having followed the thread, I did not really find Claxon's response to be arrogant. In fact, in his original post he went out of his way to clarify that he was talking about his opinion and his house rules.
He even made a post stating flat-out that the continued discussion wasn't really constructive because he realized that they were his house rules and not RAW\RAI.
As to the word 'amicably' somehow being undignified - huh? He asked DrDeth if they could agree to disagree on friendly terms. Heck, it was so clearly a sincere attempt to agree to disagree that someone made the obligatory "Wait, you can't part ways on a friendly note on the INTERNET!" joke.
(And just to point out, DrDeth favorited that post. I'd have to take that to mean that he agreed to disagree amicably...)