PDA

View Full Version : Telling player to make bluff checks and not have them metagame



Berserk Monk
2009-08-17, 01:44 AM
How, as a DM, do you get the players to make a bluff check and not have them be naturally be suspicious something's going down? And it's not just for bluffs: search, spot and listen apply too. You tell them to make a roll, and you know they're just thinking for an excuse to be on guard in game. I've thought of someways, but I don't think they'd fly by with most players or be too effective:

One idea I had was every time they had to make one of these rolls, I'd do something kind of subtle (flip a piece of paper, touch my nose, anything to signify the need for a roll, but not obvious).

The second method is that I wouldn't tell them to make these rolls. They can roll them anytime they want for any reason.

Frosty
2009-08-17, 01:51 AM
You have their Bluff modifiers. Roll FOR them in secret. Or, sometimes just randomly ask them to roll for reason.

sonofzeal
2009-08-17, 01:51 AM
Prerolling.

For tense dungeons, get them to preroll 20 Spot/Listen checks, then when one comes up just consult the list.

I also keep postcards with brief notes on each character, including their spot/listen, so I can roll any time.

The other options is to bluff yourself. Ask for rolls fairly frequently, even when there's nothing. That'll REALLY set them on edge. :smallcool:

Kylarra
2009-08-17, 01:54 AM
Well, I'm not sure when you'd randomly be forcing your players to bluff, perhaps you meant sense motive?

tyckspoon
2009-08-17, 01:54 AM
Assuming you mean Sense Motive, as players will usually volunteer to roll Bluff whenever they want to lie to somebody- write down the player's Take 10 value for any skills where you would rather the players not be immediately aware that they need to test it. Roll for whoever is lying to them/trying to sneak past them/whatever. If the Take 10 value wins, the NPC just isn't good enough to get past the PCs, and you tell them whatever the appropriate information is, even if it's just "you don't think this guy is being fully honest with you." If the NPC wins, then it's up to the players to determine whether or not they need to make an active check and try to roll higher.

Another method that works fairly well for at least Spot and Listen is to call for semi-random dummy checks. When the PCs get to a corridor intersection, call for a round of Listen. Tell 'em they hear nothing no matter what they roll- there wasn't anything there at the time. Ask for enough of those and they'll either get really paranoid and volunteer to make Spot/Listen checks all the time, which solves your problem, or they'll learn not to assign any special significance to you asking for an awareness check, which also solves your problem.

Kylarra
2009-08-17, 02:01 AM
The problem with inducing paranoia is that now you should prepare for spending significant portions of gametime on various perception checks.

sadi
2009-08-17, 02:09 AM
I do it two ways, both involve having their numbers. The first is to roll myself, the other is to just tell them to roll a 20. I never let players roll skills that failure has obvious results, unless I'm feeling evil and tell them to randomly roll checks.

magellan
2009-08-17, 02:39 AM
Remove all those nonsensical social skills from the game
Roleplay conversations and have the players "sense motive" and "bluff", not the characters.

Be prepared that it is hard for players to catch you lieing. You already "lie" to them when you are playing a character (because you aren't actually that guy) So subtle things that would give you away IRL don't, because it isn't certain if they are part of your normal "performance" or not. So you gotta be blunt there.

Oh, and random rolls now and then never hurt anybody.

Curmudgeon
2009-08-17, 02:56 AM
Remove all those nonsensical social skills from the game
Roleplay conversations and have the players "sense motive" and "bluff", not the characters.
So you're going to reward glib players and penalize those who can't think up convincing arguments on the fly? So why not have players act out the fights, and the winner is the one with the best moves? Then you could have the strong and graceful players be the winners, and remove all those nonsensical physical actions from the game.

It's a game system for a reason. Just because you happen to be comfortable in roleplaying social intrigue doesn't make that true for others. It's only "nonsensical" if you can't see the sense in it.

Evilfeeds
2009-08-17, 05:28 AM
So you're going to reward glib players and penalize those who can't think up convincing arguments on the fly? So why not have players act out the fights, and the winner is the one with the best moves? Then you could have the strong and graceful players be the winners, and remove all those nonsensical physical actions from the game.

It's a game system for a reason. Just because you happen to be comfortable in roleplaying social intrigue doesn't make that true for others. It's only "nonsensical" if you can't see the sense in it.

Why bother roleplaying at all?

"You come across the dungeon of untimely deaths."
"My character does whatever he thinks is best. He has 18 intelligence."
"A band of kobolds passes by."
"My character acts appropriately. He has 14 wisdom."

Its a game for a reason. Otherwise, you're just penalising the stupid players and rewarding players who can think tactically.

kamikasei
2009-08-17, 05:43 AM
Evilfeeds, do you in fact think that rolls and modifiers have any place in the game or not? If they do have some place, why should they only apply to physical combat?

It seems to me that your attempt at reductio ad absurdum cannot be used as an argument against only the point Curmudgeon was making but demands to be applied to the entire game.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-17, 06:10 AM
How, as a DM, do you get the players to make a bluff check and not have them be naturally be suspicious something's going down? And it's not just for bluffs: search, spot and listen apply too.

I use their "take ten" value; problem solved.

Random832
2009-08-17, 06:38 AM
How, as a DM, do you get the players to make a bluff check and not have them be naturally be suspicious something's going down?

Wait, bluff? Isn't sense motive the relevant skill? (or is this a 4e thing?)

Anyway, there's text in the DMG2 that implies that players aren't even supposed to get to make a sense motive check at all if they would not have a reason to be suspicious in character. (The example is of a party member who is charmed and told to lie about the contents of the next room - the DM denies the sense motive check because this is a trusted friend and there's no reason to suspect they are lying)

742
2009-08-17, 07:00 AM
well, pre-rolling sounds smart, roll 100 D20 for each character and print it out, then have a piece of paper with their modifiers on it. PC is lied to? you can do something similar for yourself, with either a sheet for specific NPCs (only you know what theyre likely to do so you can add modifiers in for some) or a big long page for you. in fact for the DM i see very little reason not to do this for combat too, at least as long as you dont get attached to your villians.

the let players bluff/sense motive/diplomacy themselves thing is dreadfully stupid, especially for bluff and sense motive, i guess i can sort of see it for diplomacy, and the skills already broken anyway. i have seen some exceptional lies, but they only work in the situation "wow! throw that in and ill take it for half price!" ok i havent ever actually seen that one in person, but its but far cleaner, less illegal, and less secret than the type of stuff i heard. you would never think it would work, and the DM already knows all sorts of stuff that the PCs dont. it also doesnt allow the more socially adept players to play thugs or the socially inept unless they purposely fail, or the less socially adept players to play james bond types. then theres the fact that most people just dont get that in character, and especially for the DM whos constantly switching from viewpoint to viewpoint. i could keep talking on the subject for an hour if i was bored, but im sure you see where im going here:
bluff/sense motive is possibly the least practical statistic to act out, except for possibly hit points/DR and maybe fly speed.

Dhavaer
2009-08-17, 07:14 AM
Wait, bluff? Isn't sense motive the relevant skill? (or is this a 4e thing?)

Nope, 4e calls it insight instead of sense motive, but it's still a separate skill.

Cyclocone
2009-08-17, 07:14 AM
Be prepared that it is hard for players to catch you lieing. You already "lie" to them when you are playing a character (because you aren't actually that guy) So subtle things that would give you away IRL don't, because it isn't certain if they are part of your normal "performance" or not. So you gotta be blunt there.

But PCs are always suspicious, that's the point of sense motive.:smallsmile:

If you didn't have that mechanic, all conversation between PCs and NPCs would become drawn out and boring as the players atempt to twist your every word and get you to admit to their entirely fictitious suspicions.

With sense motive, you can just check to see if they're even allowed to notice something and then just go: "nopes, there's nothing suspicious going on here, at all. As far as you can tell, Asmodeus is being 100% honest."

And yeah, you can always just take 10 out of combat.

erikun
2009-08-17, 07:54 AM
I can understand prerolling a spot check because the players shouldn't be hinted off that something is amiss, but a search or bluff check? "You didn't realize that you were actually telling the guard a lie to influence his actions, so it is a passive bluff check"?

Bluff is one of those skills where the player intentionally does something which calls for a check. I wouldn't necessarily give them all the modifiers, but it's kind of hard for them to not know when they're trying to influence someone. (Also, they can always ask for a sense motive roll to see if they succeeded.)

kamikasei
2009-08-17, 08:00 AM
erikun, I think it's pretty well agreed at this point that the OP meant Sense Motive, not Bluff.

We also need to distinguish between cases where the player shouldn't know that he's attempting the check unless he succeeds (e.g. Spot) and where the player shouldn't know how well he's rolled even when he asked for the check (Sense Motive).

Random832
2009-08-17, 08:09 AM
Or you could just get players who don't suck at separating IC vs OOC knowledge.

kamikasei
2009-08-17, 08:12 AM
Or you could just get players who don't suck at separating IC vs OOC knowledge.

Quick, don't think about elephants.

Random832
2009-08-17, 08:17 AM
Quick, don't think about elephants.
What's this have to do with what I said? They can think about stuff all they want - and not acting in a certain way based on information doesn't have the same problem as the "don't think about elephants" joke.

kamikasei
2009-08-17, 08:25 AM
What's this have to do with what I said? They can think about stuff all they want - and not acting in a certain way based on information doesn't have the same problem as the "don't think about elephants" joke.

While, granted, if the players immediately take out their weapons and form a circle "just because, no reason" when they fail a spot check, that's a problem with the players... there is a lot to be said for being able to actually suprise the players, not just the characters, and sparing them the need to break immersion in the first place.

Or to put it another way: if your post was a response to the OP directly and his concern that "you know they're just thinking for an excuse to be on guard in game", you were correct; if it was addressing the discussion since, it was unduly dismissive of real concerns.

blazinghand
2009-08-17, 08:26 AM
At the beginning of each session I record Spot, Listen and Sense Motive modifiers for all the PCs and roll certain checks behind the screen (spot or listen for example to see an opponent they haven't noticed yet, so as not to give it away). For elves and dwarves, I also record their Search check since it's suspicious to suddenly ask both the elf and the dwarf to roll Search checks as they walk down a corridor.

Hawriel
2009-08-17, 09:23 AM
Dont give any overt clues like telling your player 'roll a sence motive/bluff check' when talking to the NPC. Instead Roll the NPCs bluff/cha against a target number based on believability. Use degrease of success or failer. Then alter how you portray the NPCs behavior. If he rolled very well portray the NPC as being very cool/sensere/confidant. If he rolled badly give him tells as he is trying to be cool/sensere/confidant. He my contradict himself, over complicated the lie, body language might be off. If the player(s) pick up on any shiftyness themselves then they can ask to roll a sence motive vs the NPCs bluff roll. If they dont well thats their problem.

magellan
2009-08-17, 02:40 PM
So you're going to reward glib players and penalize those who can't think up convincing arguments on the fly? So why not have players act out the fights, and the winner is the one with the best moves? Then you could have the strong and graceful players be the winners, and remove all those nonsensical physical actions from the game.

It's a game system for a reason. Just because you happen to be comfortable in roleplaying social intrigue doesn't make that true for others. It's only "nonsensical" if you can't see the sense in it.

Simple actually: we don't have dragons and wizards at hand. We need to make that stuff up /abstract it. For social interaction: no reason, we can do that 100% lifelike at the table. And yes: Uncomfortable in social situations: your problem. But: It's good training to overcome those things. (public speaking is public speaking, if it's with 5 friends or with a hall of 500 strangers. RPing helps)

kamikasei
2009-08-17, 02:43 PM
Simple actually: we don't have dragons and wizards at hand.

I don't see Curmudgeon mentioning dragons or wizards. I see him mentioning combat, which last I checked is something that is entirely possible in the real world.

Random832
2009-08-17, 02:51 PM
Simple actually: we don't have dragons and wizards at hand. We need to make that stuff up /abstract it. For social interaction: no reason, we can do that 100% lifelike at the table.

then why is Charisma a stat?

sofawall
2009-08-17, 03:04 PM
CORMAG the Barbarian is better at social skills with a 6 cha and no ranks than the bard with 20 cha and max ranks and skill boosting items and skill focus, just because CORMAG's player is a motivational speaker and the bard's is a grumpy lumberjack from the far north of Canada?

magellan
2009-08-17, 03:34 PM
I don't see Curmudgeon mentioning dragons or wizards. I see him mentioning combat, which last I checked is something that is entirely possible in the real world.

That would limit us to small brawls with no. of players vs 1 DM. Wouldn't really be all that enjoyable (and considerably shorter)

@random
Nobody knows...

The Bard looks a whole lot different: he has no social skill ranks. Social skill ranks don't exist. Social skill boosting items don't exist either. (and 18 CHA doesn't happen that often with 4d6 drop lowest) Besides that: what is the problem with the situation?

kamikasei
2009-08-17, 03:40 PM
Besides that: what is the problem with the situation?

It prevents anyone from effectively playing a character they can't perfectly act out, which is not really what roleplaying is about.

Game systems include rules for representing abilities the player doesn't have. That covers combat ability, utility skills, and yes, social skills. It also allows you to use those skills, not just to represent abilities you lack, but to bridge the gap between your character fully immersed in the world and you hearing brief descriptions at second hand.

rezplz
2009-08-17, 03:48 PM
That would limit us to small brawls with no. of players vs 1 DM. Wouldn't really be all that enjoyable (and considerably shorter)

@random
Nobody knows...

The Bard looks a whole lot different: he has no social skill ranks. Social skill ranks don't exist. Social skill boosting items don't exist either. (and 18 CHA doesn't happen that often with 4d6 drop lowest) Besides that: what is the problem with the situation?

The problem is that if someone isn't already good at being social and convincing, they are effectively barred from playing a character who IS good at being social and convincing. It's like barring a player who isn't very strong from being a melee-type fighter. Our characters are not us, and as such should not be crippled by OUR weaknesses (unless if it is incredible stupidity).

A good compromise is to always have people act out social situations - but still have them roll the check. Depending on how convincing they were with their roleplaying, they get a plus or minus on their check.

If you limit players based on what they can do IRL, we'd have a lot more parties made up entirely of wizards with CHA and STR of 6. Just saying.

Zeful
2009-08-17, 03:49 PM
Simple actually: we don't have dragons and wizards at hand. We need to make that stuff up /abstract it. For social interaction: no reason, we can do that 100% lifelike at the table. And yes: Uncomfortable in social situations: your problem. But: It's good training to overcome those things. (public speaking is public speaking, if it's with 5 friends or with a hall of 500 strangers. RPing helps)

The same can be argued for anything really. You can't fight: Your problem. You're not smart/wise/strong/agile/tough: Your problem. Can't cast spells: Your problem.

Punishing people who are socially awkward playing characters that aren't is no different from punishing people who are weak, when their character's are strong.

And no, the roleplaying situations at the table are not "100% lifelike" and haven't been for almost 5 centuries.

sofawall
2009-08-17, 03:51 PM
Alternatively, CORMAG's cousin CORMAG is also a barbarian, and he has a mere 4 int. He is played by a rocket scientist.

The wizard with 32 int is played by a football player with a grade 10 education.

Does this mean CORMAG is better with people, and CORMAG's cousin CORMAG is smarter, because the players playing them are better?

Is the wizard stronger than CORMAG because the football player is stronger than the rocket scientist? Obviously, no. so why does it apply to social skills?


That would limit us to small brawls with no. of players vs 1 DM. Wouldn't really be all that enjoyable (and considerably shorter)

So you think we shouldn't use real life ability to fight because it wouldn't be fair for the people who can't fight? Because it's impossible to accurately simulate a D&D battle?

Well, it's equally impossible to simulate 18 cha.

Optimystik
2009-08-17, 03:58 PM
So you're going to reward glib players and penalize those who can't think up convincing arguments on the fly? So why not have players act out the fights, and the winner is the one with the best moves? Then you could have the strong and graceful players be the winners, and remove all those nonsensical physical actions from the game.

It's a game system for a reason. Just because you happen to be comfortable in roleplaying social intrigue doesn't make that true for others. It's only "nonsensical" if you can't see the sense in it.

This, x100. The whole point of roleplaying is to give the shy player the chance to literally be the life of the party. Assigning numbers to it is the best way of keeping things fair to everyone at the table.

Kylarra
2009-08-17, 04:06 PM
A good compromise is to always have people act out social situations - but still have them roll the check. Depending on how convincing they were with their roleplaying, they get a plus or minus on their check.I do something similar. They can actually RP out their social attempts for a chance at a bonus, or just take the straight unmodified roll. Of course they can always end up talking themselves into a penalty, fair is fair after all. :smallamused:

ashmanonar
2009-08-17, 04:19 PM
Remove all those nonsensical social skills from the game
Roleplay conversations and have the players "sense motive" and "bluff", not the characters.

Be prepared that it is hard for players to catch you lieing. You already "lie" to them when you are playing a character (because you aren't actually that guy) So subtle things that would give you away IRL don't, because it isn't certain if they are part of your normal "performance" or not. So you gotta be blunt there.

Oh, and random rolls now and then never hurt anybody.

It would be a disaster if I did this. I don't have a liar's face, so my players can usually tell when I'm lying, and they'd eat me alive for it.

Skorj
2009-08-17, 04:24 PM
I do something similar. They can actually RP out their social attempts for a chance at a bonus, or just take the straight unmodified roll.

Yes! For all the mental stats, the player should be allowed to generate a bonus through being smart, charismatic, or remembering all the details all the time. However, minmax a 4 CHA, and the +3 bonus I'll give you for being very glib as a player will only help a little. Need some moderately obscure mundane item in the middle of the dungeon? You can have it on the inventory, or make a WIS roll to see if your character "remembered to bring it". Using an INT-based skill? Suggest a clever approach for a bonus.

I do think it's fine, however, for players to meta-game a little with sense motive, spot, and listen checks (the way that players who are trying not to usually do anyway). You can get a sense that the person you're talking to is a bit shifty without knwoing anything more. You can "feel watched" without actually spotting anything, just the hairs on the back of your neck raising. That all works IC.

kamikasei
2009-08-17, 04:32 PM
Yes! For all the mental stats, the player should be allowed to generate a bonus through being smart, charismatic, or remembering all the details all the time.

Indeed, I don't think anyone who advocates social skills having a use wants them to replace actual roleplaying, only assist it. The "well you might as well just roll for everything" attitude is a strawman.


You can get a sense that the person you're talking to is a bit shifty without knwoing anything more.

Not if he bluffs you so successfully that you think he's totally sincere, you can't.

erikun
2009-08-17, 05:04 PM
erikun, I think it's pretty well agreed at this point that the OP meant Sense Motive, not Bluff.
Oh, whoops.

Well, the rules for Spot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm) indicate that the character takes a -5 penality for being distracted, and I would think the same should apply to rolls like Sense Motive and Listen. The party that just saved a little girl from goblins probably wouldn't be suspecting her of being the evil sorcerer-lich, and so a -5 to Sense Motive would be understandable. I wouldn't apply the penality very often, though; just when it would be unusual for the party to (reasonably) suspect something is up. Most characters are going to suspect the local merchant to haggle the best deal, for example, or the prince to not mention everything about a mission.

Pre-rolling or being sneaky* are probably the best ways to handle a party's roll. I generally prefer making one roll, then comparing it to everyone's bonuses to see who will notice what's happening. Of course, if the players start asking to roll Sense Motive checks, I let them - hence the use of pre-rolling.

Another option I've used is "Take 5." Take 5 means the equilivant of rolling 5 on a skill check, and is the same as Taking 10 with the above -5 penality. Anything that can be observed by Taking 5 is outright obvious to the character. I use this in addition to the rolls above, but it's handy for telling who would see what in a given situation. Because I can compare the Take 5 to the DC beforehand, I will know before the game even begins that the ranger can spot the orcs on the other side of the cliff, or that the bard can tell the court jester gets nervous whenever the prince starts talking - and can add that to my notes for the description. Of course, this assumes said characters are present. If the ranger decided to stay behind to guard the rear, the party may run into an ambush anyways...

--

* One way of "being sneaky" with rolls is that, when you know a Spot/Listen/Sense Motive roll is coming up, take 3-4 dice out of your dice bag. Roll them behind the screen once or twice. Next, add the d20 to your hand, then roll the dice. Set the d20 to the side (behind the screen, roll showing) then roll the other dice a few more times. Return them to the bag.

Yes, it gets the party suspicious. Most will probably ask for Spot/Listen checks as soon as you start, and will question the next couple of things they run across. Still, it's better than rolling when the Bluff actually occurs, and works well enough if you don't have a pre-rolled sheet handy. The best time to do so is during scene descriptions, or during "downtime" while the party is just talking amongst themselves.

woodenbandman
2009-08-17, 05:40 PM
I think that the (Use their take 10) is a good idea on some level, but then it becomes trivially easy to create NPCs that a PCwill never suspect are lying. Compromise: Declare that you are sensing their motive, and you get another roll. Otherwise, you believe what you want. Also, allow them to retroactively apply sense motive if evidence arises that casts suspicion (probably give a bit of a penalty).

Kylarra
2009-08-17, 05:45 PM
I think that the (Use their take 10) is a good idea on some level, but then it becomes trivially easy to create NPCs that a PCwill never suspect are lying. Compromise: Declare that you are sensing their motive, and you get another roll. Otherwise, you believe what you want. Also, allow them to retroactively apply sense motive if evidence arises that casts suspicion (probably give a bit of a penalty).I passively give them a 10, but they can roll it if they want.

RandomBlueGuy
2009-08-17, 06:10 PM
with my players i always tell them at the beginning of a campaign that any search/spot/sense motive etc etc check that they may need to roll will always be assumed as a take 10, i have a copy of their character sheets so this is easy.

if they are talking to an npc/walking through a dungeon etc etc and they think something is up then they choose to roll/take 10/take 20 (obviously an extended search out of combat or when time is not important.)

this way they never get to metagame as they never see me roll or are asked to roll, they also get to choose when to be suspicious IC as there is no OOC sign or trigger.

This is done with all skill checks that are appropriate or the players do not specifically ask to roll or take the time to do properly (take 20)

p.s. this is one of my first posts, Big hello and thankyou to so many people on these forums, you have given me so many ideas for my campaigns and clarified so many ambiguous rules for me. this is the best d&d site i have ever found.

p.p.s Order of the stick is the best d&d based comic out there by far

PLUN
2009-08-17, 06:14 PM
Introduce it as a skill that can be used actively. Let the players know what it's there for - when you have your doubts most scrutiny skills, regardless of system, let you read if a person is 'on the level' or not after they've said something. Of course, that means they'll probably be doing it quite a lot more, but 'proactive scrutiny' has it's drawbacks - you can tell a person is hiding something or not in general, but specifics require some cross examination, and any completely harmless lies or exclusions will probably pass under this 'profiling' session. When it's rolled poorly, trust them or give them a 'you're not sure' and let them work it out.

Zadus
2009-08-17, 06:38 PM
CORMAG the Barbarian is better at social skills with a 6 cha and no ranks than the bard with 20 cha and max ranks and skill boosting items and skill focus, just because CORMAG's player is a motivational speaker and the bard's is a grumpy lumberjack from the far north of Canada?

As a nothern canadian, I totally know what you mean.

On the flip side. It really sucks to give an amazing speach and then have it negated by a bad role. I'd give out modifiers for the player using a social skill well.

magellan
2009-08-18, 01:01 AM
It would be a disaster if I did this. I don't have a liar's face, so my players can usually tell when I'm lying, and they'd eat me alive for it.

That's another thing RPing is good training for ;)

Also everybody knows that there are several reasons why it doesn't work for fighting:
a) Throw away your monster Manuals
b) Forget fights with more participants than Players
c) Forget fights with more than 1 Opponent (because you usually only got 1 DM)
d) Injuries/death
e) forget a 2nd encounter (see d)

As for the mental/social stuff:

How does it work with Skills and Rolls:
The IRL rocket scientist presents the solution the puzzle, the DM rules "That's OOC". The Wizard rolls. Ok. done
The IRL Lawyer presents the argument. The bard rolls. Ok done.

removing social skills changes nothing at the table. Just removes a superfluous roll.

And yes: you do get to train public speaking, fast talking, lieing... all actually valuable RL skills that need constant practice. Can't say that about sword swinging (the valuable RL part)

Kylarra
2009-08-18, 01:08 AM
Presumably you also roleplay out skill checks for the physical ones too right? People can ride horses, handle animals, swim, pick pockets, open locks, etc.

Gralamin
2009-08-18, 01:10 AM
That's another thing RPing is good training for ;)

Also everybody knows that there are several reasons why it doesn't work for fighting:
a) Throw away your monster Manuals
b) Forget fights with more participants than Players
c) Forget fights with more than 1 Opponent (because you usually only got 1 DM)
d) Injuries/death
e) forget a 2nd encounter (see d)

As for the mental/social stuff:

How does it work with Skills and Rolls:
The IRL rocket scientist presents the solution the puzzle, the DM rules "That's OOC". The Wizard rolls. Ok. done
The IRL Lawyer presents the argument. The bard rolls. Ok done.

removing social skills changes nothing at the table. Just removes a superfluous roll.

And yes: you do get to train public speaking, fast talking, lieing... all actually valuable RL skills that need constant practice. Can't say that about sword swinging (the valuable RL part)

And what if you have, say, a shy person who isn't good at RPing, and who finds it uncomfortable to act out what they are doing? Why should you make it hard for them to have fun in a game just because you find your way better?

With the right group, your way works fine. With the wrong group, it doesn't work at all. This is a poor balance, and poor advice to give to others without knowing the details about their group.

Milskidasith
2009-08-18, 01:13 AM
So your argument is basically "D&D roleplaying is great training for the real world because you get to practice bluffing somebody who is played by somebody who knows you are lying (and so without rolls can just pass or fail you no matter how badly or well you RP'd) in a setting that sort of imitates the social conventions of 500 years ago but with magical beasts and tons of other stuff that would never happen in the real world?"

Seriously, that is just a terrible way to think of it. I play D&D to have the fun of playing a character who's amazing and heroic (or vile, or just badass), not to get an impromptu lesson in public speaking. I mean, just... why? Why the hell do you think that playing D&D is a good way to train your social skills, and even if it was, why do you think they have a system for social skills?

Also, pretty much everything in the game could also be done IRL, except combat (and sparring in combat isn't particularly hard). You could easily give IQ tests to your wizard; don't have an IQ of 145/190 (depending on if you have IQ being roughly 10*Int or the more reasonable 50+5*int), you can't cast spells 9th level spells. Can't see the five red dots you put on objects in the room within 30 seconds, you can't cast wisdom based spells.

kamikasei
2009-08-18, 03:43 AM
How does it work with Skills and Rolls:
The IRL rocket scientist presents the solution the puzzle, the DM rules "That's OOC". The Wizard rolls. Ok. done
The IRL Lawyer presents the argument. The bard rolls. Ok done.

You want to encourage people to play others' characters for them?

Magellan, you seem to be missing a very fundamental point here: what you describe is not what RPGs are for. They're not why most people play, they're not what the games were designed to do. RPGs are not "training" and would be a damn poor tool if you tried to use them as such. You're at the table to play a game, not to learn method acting (never mind the good points already made by others about the "real world applicability" of in-character interpersonal skills).

Does D&D help your social skills? Sure! You need to get along with the others at the table, employ teamwork, overcome shyness and stage fright to speak in character, etc. Does that mean that a) you should or b) you need to or gain any benefit from being restricted to characters with the mental and interpersonal abilities you yourself possess? No, it doesn't.

My character is not me and can do things I cannot. He is fully immersed in a world that I'm only hearing sketchy descriptions of. Roleplaying means trying to get in to his head, but when it comes time to try to pull off some feat, my skills are not the relevant ones. I cannot make the jumps he can or wield the weapons he can or cast the spells he can or beguile the people he can. As it happens, he can. So I may make an earnest attempt to describe what he does, but when it comes down to it, it's his ability and not mine that determines whether he succeeds.

magellan
2009-08-18, 04:54 AM
Ok: for horse riding you would need a horse and free space.
But for a negotiation with the local baron: what is it you would need for thatthat is not at the table already?

And of course you don't play RPGs for training social skills. It's just an added benefit.

As for the encouragement: It's what happens anyway, isn't it? How do you RP somebody who is off the charts smart while you are not? You tell your DM "My character would have known that" pointing at your character sheet now and then. Personally i see no benefit in that, just adding rules where none are needed.

What can i say: I am old and firmly believe the worst design decision in D&D was adding non weapon proficiencies :smallsmile:

kamikasei
2009-08-18, 05:08 AM
Ok: for horse riding you would need a horse and free space.
But for a negotiation with the local baron: what is it you would need for thatthat is not at the table already?

To negotiate face-to-face with a single NPC, you need nothing not at the table. You don't need anything to have a fist fight with a single enemy, either.

To rally a mob, to rouse an army, to hunt down elusive rumours throughout the city's underworld - these cannot be feasibly done using only the player's skill any more than can commanding an army, battling a dragon, or bridging a bottomless chasm.


As for the encouragement: It's what happens anyway, isn't it? How do you RP somebody who is off the charts smart while you are not? You tell your DM "My character would have known that" pointing at your character sheet now and then. Personally i see no benefit in that, just adding rules where none are needed.

Intelligence is a special case because a) being abstract, it's much more transferable between player and character and b) it's much harder to fake than other abilities - the DM can tell you what you notice or how the NPCs react to you, but unless he changes things on the fly he can't make that high Intelligence make your character more correct in his reasoning than you.

That's an argument that Intelligence is problematic, not that social skills should be discarded.

Well, I doubt you'll be convinced by any argument if this is a long-standing view. I can only point out that your approach is restrictive whereas the alternative opens up more options for players to play characters unlike themselves, surely a boon in a game of the imagination.

Grifthin
2009-08-18, 05:29 AM
I'm in favour of telling players to make bluff checks. as a example

Last session our Party of:
Ork Paladin (no not half ork)
2x Dwarves (fighter and cleric, all good aligned)
1x Wujen half elemental
1x Kender barbarian
and myself (gnome necromancer, sole evil character in party).

We where exploring some dwarven ruins, and the dwarves made it abundantly clear that if I defiled their dead I would end up with a axe between my shoulderblades. So as we cross the floor of the tower we get swarmed from all sides with undead, and my character spots some zombies carrying dwarven waraxes. Using detect undead I see they are significantly stronger, and likely to destroy us especially with the weaker ones swarming in.

So what do I do ? I cast command undead a coupla a times. I take control of the undead and help us turn the tide of battle. I tell the dwarves that their ancestor spirits have come to aid us. A rather large lie. DM says opposed bluff checks. Here I have to try and fast talk my way out of a sticky situation. I wouldn't have stressed nearly as much if I didn't have to roll against a Paladin, and 2 dwarves.

So in this situation not calling bluff checks wouldn't have caused arguments as the dwarves either refuse to listen to what I'm saying or just flat out don't care. but because of the roll I have to try and talk my way through it and they have to stay in character (ie everyone believing me barring the cleric (yay for untrained bluff checks))

magellan
2009-08-18, 05:34 AM
To negotiate face-to-face with a single NPC, you need nothing not at the table. You don't need anything to have a fist fight with a single enemy, either.

To rally a mob, to rouse an army, to hunt down elusive rumours throughout the city's underworld - these cannot be feasibly done using only the player's skill any more than can commanding an army, battling a dragon, or bridging a bottomless chasm

Rally a mob, rouse an army, and hunt down elusive rumours throughout the city's underworld can all be broken down to conversations. Rallying a mob for example: If your argument holds no water a handfull in the mob of 100s will speak out, easily handled by the DM. If all speak out IRL you would have no way to discern what all of them were saying, also easily handled by the DM by saying "rabble rabble rabble rabble"




Intelligence is a special case because a) being abstract, it's much more transferable between player and character and b) it's much harder to fake than other abilities - the DM can tell you what you notice or how the NPCs react to you, but unless he changes things on the fly he can't make that high Intelligence make your character more correct in his reasoning than you.

That's an argument that Intelligence is problematic, not that social skills should be discarded.

Well, I doubt you'll be convinced by any argument if this is a long-standing view. I can only point out that your approach is restrictive whereas the alternative opens up more options for players to play characters unlike themselves, surely a boon in a game of the imagination.

It's true for intelligence, and more so for the even more elusive wisdom and charisma (I assume you have been, like me, in more than one discussion what those 2 stats actually mean) Player points at character sheet saying "I know i've been a jerk to NPC but look: He has to like me!"

Whenever i played systems with skills i noticed that often players would start "going through the laundry list" regularly. It's understandable. You got a list that tells you what you can do, of course you look there for options! I found that when you remove that list players found it easier again to do whatever they could think of. Need a roll to determine success? tie it to one of the main stats. So not having skills actually ties you down less than having skills.

But i am fully aware that i am pretty alone with that opinon :)

kamikasei
2009-08-18, 05:35 AM
DM says opposed bluff checks.

Eh? What lie was the dwarf telling you? Isn't this your bluff opposed by his sense motive?

In any case, this is simply a situation where you want to attempt something and the DM tells you it requires a check. That's just play; it's quite different to the DM asking you for a reactive check where knowing the check was needed gives you information that you shouldn't have if you fail it.

kamikasei
2009-08-18, 05:41 AM
Rallying a mob for example: If your argument holds no water a handfull in the mob of 100s will speak out, easily handled by the DM.

As if rallying a mob depends entirely on the merit of your argument! This is exactly the sort of situation where a stat for charisma comes in to play.


It's true for intelligence, and more so for the even more elusive wisdom and charisma (I assume you have been, like me, in more than one discussion what those 2 stats actually mean) Player points at character sheet saying "I know i've been a jerk to NPC but look: He has to like me!"

Not at all. That's a problem with the players, not with the stats. Yes, you can say that a high-charisma character can say and do things that a less forceful personality wouldn't get away with. There are rules for that sort of thing, albeit poorly designed rules. They are not license for characters to treat NPCs as mind-controlled and they're not presented as such.


Whenever i played systems with skills i noticed that often players would start "going through the laundry list" regularly. It's understandable. You got a list that tells you what you can do, of course you look there for options! I found that when you remove that list players found it easier again to do whatever they could think of. Need a roll to determine success? tie it to one of the main stats. So not having skills actually ties you down less than having skills.

...That's an argument that applies every bit as much to every stat in the game as it does to social skills and Charisma. Do you really not recognize that? It's a major complaint directed against both 3.5 and 4e, for example, and there it's based almost entirely on combat and not on social situations.

Grifthin
2009-08-18, 05:48 AM
@ kamikasei - Opposed bluff check as in Bluff opposed to his sense motive.
sorry about being unclear.

J.Gellert
2009-08-18, 06:37 AM
What I do is roll the NPC's bluff/stealth checks against a DC of 11 + PC's sense motive/perception skill modifier. Easier, and a little faster if you've written down the numbers beforehand.

Melamoto
2009-08-18, 09:30 AM
@magellan
Let's say I have a friend. Now, he is a loner, has few friends and is basically a basement dweller. He comes to a D&D session, and wants to be a Rogue character, and be the group speaker. He has a high Cha score, and is basically meant to be the party speaker. This group consists of a barbarian who can barely put words together and was a hermit for most of his life, a wizard who spends all his time in the library, a ranger who hates everyone, and the rogue who uses trickery and subtlety to work his way to the top. The rogue instantly becomes the least useful person in the party due to the fact that he can't use his character the way it was meant to be at all.
Not to mention the converse, which is that we have somebody who uses Cha as a dump stat and has a backstory where he has almost never met another person, and yet he is the best bluffer and talker in the group.
And what about people with conditions that mean they can't speak properly, like Tourettes? Do you just make special rules for those people so that they can play the game properly, or do you outright restrict them from certain types of characters?

Ninetail
2009-08-18, 03:32 PM
Ok: for horse riding you would need a horse and free space.
But for a negotiation with the local baron: what is it you would need for thatthat is not at the table already?

Body language. Facial expressions. Exact tone of voice. Training in courtly etiquette. Intimate knowledge of the local culture, eg. appropriate forms of address, ceremonial gestures, cultural taboos. Probably a dozen other things.

Random832
2009-08-18, 03:53 PM
Body language. Facial expressions. Exact tone of voice. Training in courtly etiquette. Intimate knowledge of the local culture, eg. appropriate forms of address, ceremonial gestures, cultural taboos. Probably a dozen other things.

But just like if you tried to replace a horse and ride check with "a horse and free space, good luck", his philosophy here seems to be "You don't have any of that so YOU FAIL", not "You don't have any of that so we roll the dice instead"