Social skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive) are "iffy" in this regard.
By the Rules as Written, no matter what the dice say, the Players are free to ignore it.. they can believe the liar even if their Sense Motive says something isn't right with his story.. they can disbelieve the one telling them truths they don't want to hear... PCs CANNOT have their attitude forcibly changed by Diplomacy rolls.. PCs CANNOT be forced to be "Helpful" by Intimidate (they can only be demoralized, as mentioned).
When it comes to deceiving someone, that's not what Diplomacy "is for". That's the province of the Bluff skill.. so someone who has poor Bluff is not persuasive enough to fool anyone.
You may want to look at Verbal Duels in Ultimate Intrigue for "persuasion by argument" uses of Diplomacy. However, I believe even there that PCs who don't want to be persuaded can't be forced to act like they have been.
It is perfectly fine as a house rule for the players and GM to agree that the skills should be played as working on PCs. It is just not the published rules. And it would be bad form for the GM to suddenly spring that on the PCs well into the game, because a favorite creature or encounter depends on it. Better to have that discussion at the beginning of the campaign, BEFORE it becomes relevant to any specific encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tailor how I present the NPC or creature to represent its social skills, as in describing it in a way to give the players (yes the players, not the characters) the impression that a being with those skills would convey. So high intimidate, I give a more imposing description, high bluff I make its statements more believeable and reasonable, etc etc..
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In life, we usually ignore flaws of our friends and overlook discrepancies. So, I usually make the rolls privately, and when I set the scene, I'll literally tell them that the LE Vampire Anti-Paladin that standing in the center of this dark temple who spits at your righteousness is "a venerable man with sadness in his eyes wearing dusty hand-me-down armor greets you warmly."
Now, obviously when introduced to a new person, you tend to see how your friends react as well to that person. So I make all the rolls, naturally some would be influenced more than others and vice versa, so I do majority rules. Your friends demeanor swayed your prejudice and altered your outlook on this person.
My players fight me every time they lose control of their characters. So, this is the only way I can have the rules work sometimes. Tell them what their characters see based on how their character's mindset is and how it's seen.
I tailor how I present the NPC or creature to represent its social skills, as in describing it in a way to give the players (yes the players, not the characters) the impression that a being with those skills would convey. So high intimidate, I give a more imposing description, high bluff I make its statements more believeable and reasonable, etc etc..
I like it. Plus, it gives a GM with some acting ability a chance to challenge his or herself by trying to make the performance match the modifier or check. Its easy to over-RP certain NPC traits, and a bit harder to accurately portray the complexities.
There are generally two common uses (out of combat) for things like bluff, diplomacy, etc. First it's to convince someone of the sincerity of your intentions, this is an appropriate thing to do versus PCs because they needn't be able to tell if a talented liar is lying. The second common use is to "convince someone to do something they wouldn't otherwise do" and I feel like this is generally an inappropriate thing to do to your PCs.
If you want to convince your PCs to do something, it's better to do it by roleplaying and rhetoric (i.e. the NPC explains why it's important, or in their best interest to do whatever) than by opposed rolls. Die rolls are used to determine if the players can figure out things like "they mean it" or "they're hiding something".
If you really want to get into "die rolls influence player actions" you'll want something more involved like the social combat rules in Ultimate Intrigue, not just a straight diplomacy roll to take away player agency.
Within combat, intimidate to apply debuffs is just a combat tactic that's as available to the monsters as it is to the players. Just be mindful not to pick on psychic casters, because those effects are pretty easy to land and they hurt psychic casters a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what I do:
I use Paizo's Plot Twist Flashback cards to reward non-optimal, role-playing rich choices by players.
I let the NPC roll diplomacy normally (i.e. he can offer the PC a deal, he can try to persuade the PC of something he believes to be true); if the NPC succeeds at the roll, I offer the player a choice:
1) continue to believe whatever you want and act normally
2) embrace the role-playing opportunity to have your character persuaded or accept the deal; I then reward them with a Plot Twist Flashback card.
If the player chooses 2) they have to be committed to the role-playing choice; they can't backslide or forget about it, or I take the card back.
This has made role-play in our group a lot more lively, and rewards players for making non-optimal role-playing choices, because the Plot Twist Flashback cards can be a powerful resource if used creatively.
|
PCs are NPCs. I would encourage PCs to use social skills on eachother, and NPCs to use skills on them. Part of good role playing is accepting that your character may have better or worse social skills that you, the player, actually possess.
Maybe not RAW, but I've found that if PCs do not feel equality in rules between them and the NPCs, it makes the setting harder to accept.
And no skill grants the ability to mind control other players or NPCs, it just makes social encounters seem more or less reasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the rules never. As for why NPCs have ranks in diplomacy, a lot of them have flavor as justifications for skill ranks and feats.
Also a PC is not NPC. NPC=nonpayment charater= a character not intended to be run as a player.
PC=player character = a character intended to be under the player's control.
|
|
By the rules never. As for why NPCs have ranks in diplomacy, a lot of them have flavor as justifications for skill ranks and feats.
Also a PC is not NPC. NPC=nonpayment charater= a character not intended to be run as a player.
PC=player character = a character intended to be under the player's control.
I'm aware, I said my point was not RAW.
As GM, I'd still allow and encourage social skill checks on PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also a PC is not NPC. NPC=nonpayment charater= a character not intended to be run as a player.
Nonpayment. Great typo! :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also a PC is not NPC. NPC=nonpayment charater= a character not intended to be run as a player.
Wait... Does that mean GMs are supposed to pay their players?
I... Uh... I might have to move my gaming group to China...
Set up 3 party encounters.
Indiana Jones is with the Nazi when he meets the Templar guard. Both factions use social skills to influence the Templar.
I tailor how I present the NPC or creature to represent its social skills, as in describing it in a way to give the players (yes the players, not the characters) the impression that a being with those skills would convey. So high intimidate, I give a more imposing description, high bluff I make its statements more believeable and reasonable, etc etc..
I certainly do that with bluff checks in the games I run. Whenever their sense motive check fails to beat the bluff, I just tell them things like "He seems quite sincere.", "If he's lying, he isn't giving you any tells or showing it in any way," or "He seems to believe what he's saying."
I've never done too much with diplomacy against the PCs, but now I'm getting some good ideas for doing so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diplomacy is specifically called out as being only for NPCs. A good diplomacy score might change how you present the encounter, but you need magic to force the PCs to act a certain way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also a PC is not NPC. NPC=nonpayment charater= a character not intended to be run as a player.Nonpayment. Great typo! :)
LOL
Autocorrect wins again. That is what happens when I break my rule of not posting from phone.
You may want to look at Verbal Duels in Ultimate Intrigue for "persuasion by argument" uses of Diplomacy. However, I believe even there that PCs who don't want to be persuaded can't be forced to act like they have been.
Precisely what I was thinking. In fact, whether you use the verbal duel system or not (it really is extremely complex) the situation they represent does give a viable use of the Diplomacy skill for NPCs: influencing a crowd, a court, a king or other third party.
In this sort of situation, both the PCs and this high-diplomacy NPC are competing for the same thing, to influence a given individual (King, high priest, merchant, ship captain...) or collective (crowd, courtroom, city council...) agent. They can both use their high diplomacy skills to "win" against their opponent.
FWIW, there exist several alternate diplomacy rulesets that I've seen which have useful options. Just remember that diplomacy isn't always the players directly influencing their adversaries. There should be many other actors or agents in a social setting whose opinions and attitudes can have a bearing on any given situation.
Yes, this is a roleplaying game. You should have your character act accordingly when bluff'd, diplomacied to change attitude, charmed, etc. even when it will absolutely be detrimental to the party. Embrace it and have fun with it.
edit: obviously, opinion only here if there is a rule against it working on players.
I don't see such a statement in the PRD though, can anyone share? Nm, I see it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And how would you change how you present the encounter?
Diplomacy check 10: Please! Help my villiage! these hobgoblins are burning it down!
Diplomacy check zero: My villiages is on fire! You. with the holy symbol. Call upon your demon wench and make with the water already!
Diplomacy 20: "Brave adventurers, please. We are in dire need of heroes such as yourself.
If someone has an absurd diplomacy, you could best play that by knowing what the individual characters/players respond to as an argument and have the NPC use that to make their case.
As already pointed out, Diplomacy is used to convince others, mainly NPCs. But the conceit of RPGs is that players are always in control of their own actions, and you can't brainwash them into doing/thinking something else. I was once in a oneshot where a PC was crazy manipulative. A party member went down and the manipulative character said that the downed character looked cute and I should make a move on him. I said my character didn't swing that way, and she rolled a Diplomacy to assure me I did (this wasn't Pathfinder, there's just a Convince skill that's used for Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate). I said to the group and GM both in-game and out of game I wasn't okay with this, but the GM allowed it. So I had my way with someone against my own will.
So yeah, NPCs can't outright influence PCs. But if they have high Diplomacy, they know how to phrase their requests so he's more likely to get a favourable outcome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like players have the excuse of "I want to play a character who is more charming than I am, so sometimes I'd prefer to roll my impressive diplomacy score instead of trying to extemporaneously deliver the argument" (or who start extemporaneously making the argument, dislike the way that this is going and then go "bah, just roll for it.")
I feel like as the GM I don't have that option. If I want an NPC to be charming, or subtle with an intricate mind, or coarse and brutish I have to represent that by how I play them, not by what kinds of modifiers I place on die rolls I make. Players are, in general, going to make choices on "do I trust this guy" based on ambient genre savviness anyway (a la "well, if I don't go along with this idea, the plot won't happen, so let's go.") Some NPCs being really smooth, slimy, glib, clever, etc. is mostly for flavor; since it's the PC's show anyway.
A key difference structurally is that the GM, in order to make the PCs like someone, dislike someone, go along with something, etc. has the ability to move around any combination of pieces in the world they care to. So a NPC promise on behalf of a different NPC is bankable in a way that a PC promising something for an NPC is not, since a GM controls all of the NPCs and each player controls one PC.
When a GM wants to threaten a party with an NPCs diplomatic acumen, they do it by not trying to persuade the party directly, but by competing for the favor of a third party that the PCs would also like to get on their side. I mean, "The King listens to the shady Vizier instead of the plucky hero testifying to the Vizier's treachery without hard proof" is practically a trope.
they can believe the liar even if their Sense Motive says something isn't right with his story.. they can disbelieve the one telling them truths they don't want to hearOne of my problems with Sense Motive is that there's no way to get a false positive. Succeed against someone who's lying? You think they're lying. Fail your check against something who's lying? You think they're telling the truth. Fail against someone who's telling the truth? You think they're telling the truth. Succeed against someone who's telling the truth? You think they're telling the truth.
In other words, while thinking they're telling the truth COULD be mistaken...you're never wrong if you think they're lying.
So this, I think, is less of an issue with Sense Motive than it is with how true and false persuasion is divided between Bluff and Diplomacy. Bluff is characterized as being "for deception only". Using it to "persuade" someone of the truth is not included... and that is rolled up under Diplomacy. I think all "persuasion" of someone to accept something as truth (whether actually true or not) should be based on one of the skills, not divided between the two.
By the way, there's no reason not to apply the same modifiers ("listener wants to believe", etc.) to a Diplomacy check trying to persuade someone of the truth as you would to a Bluff check trying to persuade someone of a lie.
o be clear, my goal is not to FORCE the PCs to act in a certain way. Like you said, an NPC can succeed in a Bluff but the PCs are still suspicious. All I'm trying to do is NOT give them clear evidence from a Sense Motive check. More along the lines of "If you think you're being deceived and investigate stuff it's because you picked up on other details, not because someone rolled high on Sense Motive and you're like 'PROOF THEY'RE LYING!'"
Now THAT seems like a matter of presentation. Over the years, it has become natural for me to be ... non-committal ... in describing what the PCs see and hear. When they check for traps, I don't say "There are no traps".. I say "You don't find any" or "You don't see any". I don't vary this because my players WILL notice if I only tell them there are no traps when there really are no traps.. so I always leave it what they FOUND, not what IS.
Likewise, when it comes to Sense Motive.. you never tell them definitively that someone IS or IS NOT lying. You tell them "you don't think he's being entirely honest" or "you think he is sincere" or "she seems sincere".
If your players are in the habit of taking a "hunch" from Sense Motive as proof.. then somewhere along the line they got the idea it is an infallible lie detector, which it is not.
To break that habit, you may need to engineer a few encounters where they can get some false positives... a nervous shopkeeper who is desperately trying to hide the birthday gift for his wife from her... exposed by the harsh glare of the PCs accusing him of lying, for example.
If you want an NPC to lie to players, they can use Bluff versus the party's Sense Motive.
In combat an NPC can Intimidate players to leave them Shaken.
Can the Diplomacy skill be used in a direct manner at all?
The Sycophant feat allows a Diplomacy check to make the opponent's next attack deal nonlethal damage. Antagonize, after a successful Diplomacy check, adds a penalty when you don't attack the provoking creature.
In my opinion, PCs should be affected by both.
PS: As a rogue player, I consider feint the main strength of Bluff in combat.
The Sycophant feat allows a Diplomacy check to make the opponent's next attack deal nonlethal damage. Antagonize, after a successful Diplomacy check, adds a penalty when you don't attack the provoking creature.In my opinion, PCs should be affected by both.
I agree, but in both cases there are specific mechanical effects and specific results that must be achieved by the NPC rolling the diplomacy check. Contrast that with diplomacy's main effect - to improve the target's attitude toward the diplomat and ask for favors. That's something that can't really be controlled mechanically for a PC, nor should anyone try.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are setting up an NPC with those qualities to be an adversary of the party, you may want to look at rules related to Verbal Duels from Ultimate Intrigue (mentioned above) and also rules for using Nemeses (introduced I think in Ultimate Campaign?)
The threat presented by an NPC of this quality to your average adventuring party is not a direct threat, but more of an indirect one. Those high bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate scores can cause PCs to pay more and receive less when bartering with local merchants, to have them turned away at inns, threatened by city officials, investigated and/or arrested by local constables, even assaulted by other NPCs of a threat level equal to them because they have been convinced that roughing up the PCs is "the right thing to do".
|
In this specific case, I have an NPC (a creature from the bestiary) who has 20+ in Diplomacy, several Knowledges, Sense Motive, Perception, and Spellcraft. They also have 18+ in Wisdom, Charisma, and Intelligence. This ain't a 6 Charisma Troll.
Said creature is also wary of the PCs and would like to mislead the PCs a bit on some matters until it's more familiar with them (creature is good aligned and not a foe of the PCs). But it seems that despite very high mental stats, 20+ Diplomacy/Sense Motive, and being very knowledgable overall about several things...it can only Bluff at +4 if the PCs want to roll Sense Motive if they think it might be lying to or misleading them.
Am I missing anything here? Can the creature put its own Diplomatic skills to use somehow?
As Urath DM mentioned, misleading really does fall under the Bluff skill, so it the NPC doesn't have that skill they will not be very good at misleading others. You could make use of the Sense Motive skill to make sure they get the bonus for "target wants to believe you" but for the most part it is not a strength of the NPC. If you think it should be in character for the NPC, feel free to move a few skill ranks into Bluff, making it a little different from the standard example in the Bestiary.
Otherwise, you've got two general strategies as described by other posters:
1) Make the NPC as convincing as you can to the players. Describe their actions in a favourable light, and have them offer incentives that are tempting to the PCs (again, the NPC's high Sense Motive helps justify this). It could also give the party genuine information (using the Knowledge skill) which will fit with what the party knows from other sources and which will seem trustworthy to Sense Motive. Instead of misleading the party, you could have the NPC admit, if pushed, that they are not telling the PCs everything but that they honestly have the PCs interests in mind and it's protecting itself/someone else (as appropriate). If you justify this well, it passes Sense Motive, and you indicate that answers will eventually be forthcoming, the PCs will likely cooperate.
2) Use other NPCs. Since the NPC isn't meant to be antagonistic you'll want a lighter touch than some of the other suggestions on the thread. However, NPCs familiar with the diplomat may speak well of them to the PCs, or disapprove of actions the party takes that are antagonistic towards the diplomat. If the party already trusts these NPCs it may make them more likely to cooperate with the diplomat. The diplomat could also manipulate the party by proxy, either by asking a more deceptive ally to lie on their behalf or possibly by asking someone to help them set up a test of the party's character.
The best way to avert metagaming when someone sense motives an NPC is to have a honey pot: some bit of information you might ask the pcs to roll sense motive on.
Rogue on the side of the road wants to stab the level 1 pcs and is hanging out near an overturned cart
"Please brave adventurers, my cart broke an axel and flung me off the road...
*sense motive is good but fails anyway*
You're pretty sure this guy got drunk, and crashed the cart last night, and has about 15 minutes to get home before the wife kills him.
A player is always in full control of their own characters actions unless magic.
GM can't diplomacy you, other players can't intimidate you (to make you friendly anyway, obviously they can demoralise you). At best a GM can strongly suggest, for example, you really feel favourably towards someone, but it's not binding.
I don't know if that's expressly written somewhere, but that has always been the case in pretty much any game I've ever played.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The funny thing is I rarely make people roll Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate (provided they RP it well) unless it's something that's really a stretch. I like to reward people who actually choose their words/arguments carefully.
And then Sense Motive sidesteps that whole issue -- you're not putting together the pieces and realizing that something doesn't add up...you just roll the die.
I mean, my preferred way of doing things (as a player and a GM) is to just RP conversational sections in character and not roll any dice. But the thing is that sometimes there are "have to convince someone of something they're not inclined to believe or do" so there ought to be a chance of success and a chance of failure. I mean, maybe you convince the Duke that you're trustworthy and maybe you don't.
But figuring out out success/failure based on "quality of roleplaying" runs the risk of putting people in a spot they're not comfortable being in. I mean, some people aren't that glib but want to play a character who is charming to the hilt and so they invest heavily in social skills and charisma. Saying that "you don't succeed at persuasion" because you, personally didn't phrase your argument all that well even though your character has a charisma of 24 and 12 ranks in diplomacy, doesn't really strike me as fair or reasonable.
So I tend to run it where "if you convince me in character", you don't need to roll; if I'm not sure, I'll give you a bonus to the roll based on how well I feel you RPed it; and if you don't really want to RP it for any reason, you can just ask to roll instead.
Sense motive rolls are available on request and not otherwise.