How to nerf bluff?

[flamewolf393]

How do you handle a player with an insane bluff score? I have a level 4 player that just convinced a dragon to give him its entire hoard... Bluff is basically a wish spell for charisma.

RaW you can convince an npc/monster of *anything* with very few penalties. There are so many ways to boost bluff and so few ways around it.

Then you add in a constant item of the glibness spell? Forget it you can win an entire campaign by yourself.

[Crake]

Convincing someone of something doesn't necessarily make them DO that something. Not to mention there's a table of bonuses to sense motive depending on how outrageous the bluff is. A completely unbelievable bluff is pretty much always gonna fail, or be called ("I'm Io, give me all your treasure!" "yeah right *attack*")

What line exactly did he use?

[Sith_Happens]

Firstly:


Two circumstances can weigh against you: The bluff is hard to believe, or the action that the target is asked to take goes against its self-interest, nature, personality, orders, or the like.

Asking a dragon to give up its hoard? Yeah, that's definitely a +20 Sense Motive. And any dragon that doesn't max Sense Motive to start with deserves what it gets.

Secondly:


A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe

Note the "or." You can convince a dragon to give you its hoard, then get eaten when it it changes it mind five minutes later, or you can give it the best reason in the world why it should give you its hoard, then walk away empty-handed (or, more likely, get eaten) when it refuses anyway.

Thirdly:

Competent DMs don't let players have custom Glibness items.

[Crake]

Thirdly:

Competent DMs don't let players have custom Glibness items.

Haha, I actually totally missed in the OP that the player had a custom glibness item.

The item creation rules use either a continuous spell effect, or another kind of pricing mechanic depending on the effect. In this case it would be +30 to bluff, which would cost 30*30*100gp. It would also require the crafter to have 30 ranks in bluff. So good luck finding someone to make that for you.

[Radar]

Note the "or." You can convince a dragon to give you its hoard, then get eaten when it it changes it mind five minutes later, or you can give it the best reason in the world why it should give you its hoard, then walk away empty-handed (or, more likely, get eaten) when it refuses anyway.
I agree with everything else, but or is not an alternative in common language; it's understood as and/or - not as xor logical function.

Short duration is the most important aspect anyway (usually 1 round as SRD states). If you use Bluff for simple and believable lies, then people will have no reasons to second-guess your tale. If you try some outrageous stuff, people won't ignore it and chase after you quite fast.

[bekeleven]

My friend suggested to me that bluff convinces people that you think something is true. The higher the check, the more convinced they are that even the most outlandish statements coming out of your mouth are believed with 100% sincerity.

Obviously, this nerfs its power in a hilarious way.

[Octopus Jack]

My friend suggested to me that bluff convinces people that you think something is true. The higher the check, the more convinced they are that even the most outlandish statements coming out of your mouth are believed with 100% sincerity.

Obviously, this nerfs its power in a hilarious way.

I've seen this be suggested before.

PC to guard: 'You are actually High Lord Xander, King of the Hamsters return to your people.'

Bluff Roll: 58

Guard: 'Wow really? That's uhm a very...special thing for you to say and think about me' turns to other guard 'Dave fetch the men in white coats, this guy is clearly insane with his beliefs.'

Of course this it that taken to an extreme but you get the point, bluff is neither wish nor mind control, it's a useful tool but if you let it have ultimate free reign, as you've seen, it can very quickly get out of hand.

[Lafaellar]

A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell.

I know there is the epic usage of bluff but this instills another +50 sense motive bonus.

So you either can make somebody do something for you that takes about 1 round or less or you can make him believe something.

This doesn't turn the target into a mindless creature.

Even if somebody calls out for "I am the son of king Zamael and was transformed by an evil wizard" okay, well then the npc doesn't need to react the way the player had in mind.
"So you are? Well I have some business with him *draws his blade*"


There is also something I call "fundamental believe" you simply cannot change with a bluff check and I think it goes with the intention of the rules.
You cannot simply call for a bluff check to make a paladin believe his god doesn't actually exist. I would call for an elaborate series of well designed acts, probably during a period of 1 year or even more, to even allow such a roll.
Or to refer to the situation above: "You cannot be his son... he died in my arms on the battlefield."

As a DM you shouldn't allow such a roll or if you don't want to tell the players there is some fundamental believe behind the NPC you can call for the roll but ignore it.

If you allow the role, well you should allow for the consequence.

Bluff, like everything, should be used to enrich the fun on the table, not make the adventure go haywire.

As for having fun with peasants... well, if a player wants to invest the time to make fun of some level 1 guards, let him if it adds to the fun on the table.

[aleucard]

The only thing that bluff does is convince the other person you think you're truthful or are doing something you're actually not. If you think you're truthful of something completely insane, they'll think you're bat**** too. Bluff only works if the other person is able to word their lie in such a way that the response is beneficial. You're not going to be able to Bluff a dragon into giving you its hoard unless if the you convince the dragon that doing so will be something he's interested in. Most dragons could probably fix any problem you could bring to them personally, without needing to touch their wealth in the slightest, and then you're lunchmeat when you can't deliver; that's assuming that the dragon's willing to listen in the first place.

[Cheiromancer]

The only thing that bluff does is convince the other person you think you're truthful or are doing something you're actually not. If you think you're truthful of something completely insane, they'll think you're bat**** too.
I think you'd use sense motive to determine if someone were insane (at least, you use it to determine if someone is under a magic compulsion, which seems similar enough), so a good bluff check should indicate that not only do you believe what you are saying, but that you are in your right mind, too.

If what you say is wildly improbable, I think the most likely outcome is for the dragon to believe that somehow an epic use of bluff and/or diplomacy is involved. Namely that the person speaking to them has been subject to an epic deception.

So it really behooves the speaker to make a bluff that is somewhat plausible. Maybe say that part of the hoard belongs to a very powerful monster who has just escaped captivity, and is on the way there to retrieve the treasure and punish the dragon. A dragon might at least consider this possibility and take precautions. But no matter the bluff and/or diplomacy modifier, I can't think of anything a character could say that would make a dragon give up its hoard.

Again, bluff makes the person seem entirely sincere (no matter how unlikely the statement) and in his right mind, but I don't think it excludes the possibility that the one bluffing is mistaken in what he says. No matter how high your bluff check, someone might think that you were bluffed, and are now passing on erroneous information.

[SimonMoon6]

Here's a huge way to nerf bluff: allow it to work on PCs.

Honestly, it seems incredibly unfair that all these mind-control skills (Diplomacy, Bluff, etc) simply don't work on PCs. Now imagine if a dragon walks up to a PC and says, "By the way, you are a mouse." And the PC *has* to believe it and *has* to roleplay thinking that they are a mouse. And no magical protections will save him from thinking that he is a mouse.

Pretty soon the players will give in and say, "Okay, let's not use Bluff this way anymore" or (at worst) they'll say, "Wow, this game system isn't fun anymore. Let's play something else."

[angry_bear]

Bluff and other diplomacy related skills aren't mind control abilities. They do not allow the players do whatever they want. They can assist the players, but that doesn't mean they have unlimited power just because they can tell a convincing story.

Trying to pass for royalty for example, maybe you do convince the guard you were polymorphed by an evil wizard. OK, he now brings you to the next set of guards before reaching the king. Only this time, there's a cleric with them who casts true seeing, and every form of spell that detects a deception. If you beat that, he attempts a break enchantment spell on you. There is no longer any way for you to continue this lie, and you're more than likely going to be arrested and then executed for attempting to impersonate royalty.

Or in regards to the dragon.. You have to tell a convincing enough lie for the dragon to give up, basically what it lives for. So I guess, what? An even bigger threat? There isn't much a dragon is going to be afraid of, except maybe a bigger, stronger dragon. And in that case, it's still not going to give it's gold to you before it casts a geas or something to force you to return it once the threat has been eliminated. Or it'll just kill you... At best, even with an epic bluff roll you get to walk away without being annihilated by a dragon.

[Keneth]

Bluff is basically a wish spell for charisma.

Yeah, no. No, it isn't. For all the reasons already mentioned above.

And don't give 4th level players items worth in excess of 90,000 gp.

srsly :smallbiggrin:

[DR27]

The main problem is that RAW amounts to GM fiat - who knows what it actually does, because the description sucks unless it is with regards to combat, hiding, or secret messages.

For an interaction like that, where a PC is actually trying to bargain with a dragon, bluff probably won't work. I'd ask for a diplomacy check using Rich's diplomacy fix. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2) It might be one thing to bluff a dragon into abandoning it's hoard for a minute to go fight an enemy somewhere else, (i.e., creating a diversion) but bluffing them into just giving up treasure? You probably asked for the wrong skill check.

A good way to handle skill checks is to let the PC describe the action they take, decide what skill that corresponds to, and then set a DC. If you are letting PC's just look up and down their skill list, pick the highest one, and then shoehorn it into whatever action - that's not the best way. ("I intimidate the door open!")

[Fax Celestis]

Note the "or." You can convince a dragon to give you its hoard, then get eaten when it it changes it mind five minutes later one round later (it totally says "usuallly one round" right there), or you can give it the best reason in the world why it should give you its hoard, then walk away empty-handed (or, more likely, get eaten) when it refuses anyway.
Fixed that for you.

[Psyren]

PF Bluff includes a "GM discretion" clause that is very useful to prevent things like this. I recommend using that.

[Lafaellar]

I think, like most rules in the book, the people who have written them had in mind, that you apply common sense to them.
It even states in the beginning, that these rules are suggestions and you should change them if appropriate and the DM has the last say in everything.

I think players often need to be reminded of this.

Same with bluff.
If some usage of bluff reaches the point where it is simply silly, as a DM you should stop it. This also would render buying +30 Bluff items useless, as there is no real way to use such an item because you don't need +30 bluff for useable bluffs and the impossible ones may not be rolled for.

[Mnemnosyne]

Keep in mind several limitations. For one, Glibness only works to convince others of the truth of your words. So, sure, you can convince people that what you say is true. That doesn't mean they'll do what you want them to do.

What lie can you tell a dragon to make it give up its hoard? What situation, if the dragon is convinced that it is true, could possibly cause that dragon to give up its hoard? Keep in mind that a dragon's hoard is more than its most prized possession; humans typically just don't have anything they value as much as a dragon values their hoard. No matter what you tell them, even if they believe it, they're going to do whatever they can to keep their hoard. A dragon wouldn't give up his hoard willingly even if you convinced him you were the avatar of Io, the Ninefold Dragon.

Note also that the epic suggestion use of bluff is not strictly 'convincing another of the truth of your words'. I've made that mistake myself, but it was pointed out to me. The +30 from glibness does not apply if you're trying to use Bluff as a suggestion spell, because that involves more than convincing the other guy what you say is true; it involves getting him to act on your recommendation. To use the examples given in the spell text: with glibness, you could convince someone that the pool of acid is actually water, but the +30 bonus would not apply if you are trying to convince them to swim in it. You might also be able to convince the red dragon that there is a treasure nearby. You could not, however, influence it to jointly loot the treasure with you, at least not with the +30 from glibness.

Keep in mind also the examples given for bluff in the PHB. None of them, not even the +20 one for something almost too incredible to believe, involve something about the person being bluffed. Note the 'almost' there. You can always judge that something is flat out too incredible to believe, and bluff automatically fails because they're trying to convince the target of something too ridiculous to be possible. Even in a magical world where things like polymorph and mind-altering magic exist, a person is going to refuse to believe many things as simply being flat out impossible unless there is at least some pre-existing reason why the person might be open to that idea in the first place.

[Fyermind]

Bluff can make them believe that you believe something is true. A great check might convince them. Getting them to do anything about it is diplomacy. Sure anyone might believe you think something is true. You might even be able to make them seriously consider it. If you have a lie they don't have strong conflicting evidence about, they might continue to believe you.

Bluff is great for a split second distraction. "Hey your shoe is untied" can get the guard to glance at his shoes while you run away, but will never make him sit and tie his shoes if they were already tied. This is the example in the PHB.

[Segev]

Bluff expressly can get them to act as you wish for a short time, "usually one round." It can be used to convince them that what you are saying is actually true; it's the con man's skill of choice. It can also be used to convince them that you believe it to be true; that's a separate usage, and really only comes up if they don't believe your lie and now you need to at least not harm your image of veracity.

But a convincing enough speaker - one with high enough Bluff - certainly can make people at least doubt that the sky might, indeed, be red. And take a 1-round action, perhaps, even, based on it. (Like walking over to the window to look out and up.)

But yeah; don't let people have "items that cast Glibness all the time." That's a skill bonus item, and it costs 90,000 gp for +30 competence to Bluff.

[Joe the Rat]

Bluff gets you an opening. Diplomacy (or maybe Perform(Oratory), or better yet, roleplaying) is what gets you in.

Bluffalo: "I am Io, ninefold god of all dragons. Give me your hoard" (rolls)
Dragon: (Opts not to kill you instantly, waits to see what you do next).
Bluffalo: ...
Dragon: "Prove it."
Bluffalo: "...pick a card?"

Better approach:
Bluffalo McDiplomat: "Hail, oh great and mighty Holygeezthat'sabigdragonaxas, chief of all calamities. I bear news of a dire threat to your great golden hoard." (Believable. Also mostly true.)
Dragon (Decides not to eat you for six seconds). "Okay..."
BM: (Spins a tale of a rival moving into the territory, gunning for his treasure. BM's group also oppose this dragon, and suggest that the dragon do some dirty work, as he is far mightier than they. They'll be happy to guard his hoard while he deals with this interloper. Why? Because the rival would not be above sending someone to steal from him. (This is where we Bluff again) Rolls really, really, really well.
Dragon leaves them in charge for a bit. With a threat of death if they try something funny.
BM: "Okay lads, he's out of sight. Get the sacks. We only have a few minutes before he's on to us. And get that teleport spell ready, because he's gonna come back pissed."

[DR27]

Bluff gets you an opening. Diplomacy (or maybe Perform(Oratory), or better yet, roleplaying) is what gets you in.This. I mean, I was laughing when OOTS parodied the OP's problem (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html), because I know that some groups actually take Bluff to this extreme.

[flamewolf393]

This. I mean, I was laughing when OOTS parodied the OP's problem (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html), because I know that some groups actually take Bluff to this extreme.

That is basically how most players I know have treated bluff.

[Mithril Leaf]

Let's not play the whole Permanent Glibness is the issue card, an eternal wand of it is 10 grand, and is 100% legal in every way, while still generally providing enough bluff.

[TriForce]

That is basically how most players I know have treated bluff.

then its your job as a DM to say "no"

[Segev]

No, it's definitely an issue. Things that only last X amount of time and have limited uses can't be up every time you need them; when you waltz in and have been planning this thing, you should get that kind of advantage. Planning isn't just for wizards, you know.

Having it "all the time" is different because it means you've got it even when you didn't plan ahead (beyond "get a thing that gives this to me all the time").

Note that Haley's bluff checks in the comic rely on people acting a certain way BECAUSE they believe her; they don't take the place of Diplomacy so much as rely on a Batman gambit of knowing how people will respond to certain things being true.



Also:

Bluffalo McDiplomat: Sir Dragon! I just saw thieves in Doomedtown spending your hoard, boasting about how they've replaced it with fakes under undetectable enchantments that will fade in a week, long after they're gone and untraceable!

[Psyren]

Note that Haley's bluff checks in the comic rely on people acting a certain way BECAUSE they believe her; they don't take the place of Diplomacy so much as rely on a Batman gambit of knowing how people will respond to certain things being true.

"You don't work here anymore" or "you're a yellow-footed rock wallaby" aren't really gambits though. In either case it's a safe bet they won't try to apprehend you.

[DR27]

then its your job as a DM to say "no"I'm in the camp though that feels you shouldn't be forcing the DM to shoulder the load by preventing you from playing the way you want with GM fiat. Instead, I feel that the designers of 3.5 failed by providing the DM with faulty tools to do his job. Instead, they expect DM's to make up their own rules on the fly.
In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want.
That's why I like Burlew's diplomacy fix, and that's why I subscribe to the Angry DM's stance that players don't get to choose what skill check applies to their particular action. Maybe Bluff needs a re-work to say what it actually does concerning lying, like it currently says what it does regarding feinting and hiding. That re-work probably should be a joint effort between DM and Bluff-mancer, not the DM's completely random "No."

I am kinda unimpressed by the answers of forum posters when people come here asking for help regarding running their game, and posters respond with "you are the DM, you have total freedom to do anything in the game" - those DMs know that they are in charge, and are asking for tools, not freedom. Or maybe I'm totally wrong and most DM's don't know they can do what they want already. I see questions phrased as "How do I handle players who do X?" as really being "My player has X concept that breaks the game using RAW. What tools out there allow my player to still play X concept without it breaking the game and requiring DM fiat?"

[demigodus]

How do you handle a player with an insane bluff score? I have a level 4 player that just convinced a dragon to give him its entire hoard... Bluff is basically a wish spell for charisma.

RaW you can convince an npc/monster of *anything* with very few penalties. There are so many ways to boost bluff and so few ways around it.

Then you add in a constant item of the glibness spell? Forget it you can win an entire campaign by yourself.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm

Instilling a suggestion in a target is a +50 to DC

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm

Doesn't put the dragon at risk so no penalty for that, however, a dragon giving away his horde of treasure like charity is "way out there, almost too incredible to consider"

that is another +20 to the DC

So we are looking at the Dragon getting a +70 on his sense motive check.

Your player, at level 4, beat a Dragon's sense motive by over 70 points? If not, the bluff shouldn't have worked. If he did, the problem might be utterly insane levels of optimization, and not the skill in question.

[Segev]

"You don't work here anymore" or "you're a yellow-footed rock wallaby" aren't really gambits though. In either case it's a safe bet they won't try to apprehend you.

Granted, but they're also half-throw-away mooks, so it's clear the player and DM are having a little fun at that point rather than bothering to make each individual guard a full-on encounter. If they were intended as something more, "You got me fired!? Maybe if I take you in I'll get my job back!" and "What's it to you? Got a problem with wallabies? That earned you some unnecessary roughness as I take you in!" would be perfectly valid responses.

(Additionally, the DM clearly was willing to let it slide here, but the duration they have to act within is very short. Admittedly, Haley did choose her bluffs carefully to hopefully get continued action out of them until something proved them false.)

[drax75]

To lazy to read all the responses; but you could also do what i do with Bluff/Diplomacy.

Bluff and Diplomacy are not make roll= Win, you must Role play out the conversation rolling high puts the conversation in your favor, for example

Wrong Way
I want to make this dragon give me his horde. I rolled a 100 after bonuses, i say "Dragon give me your horde buddy!", the dragon say's it will not give up its hoard and eats you.

Right Way
I want to make this dragon give me his horde. I rolled a 100 after bonuses,
"I inform the dragon that he has a couple items in his horde that are needed to protect the surrounding area, i inform him we require these items to not only protect him but what's left of his horde." You rolled so well the dragon lets you take a couple items and even offers to come help you vanquish this threat.

In other words, this game is a "Role Playing" game for a reason, force your players to act it out. Bluff and Diplomacy are not the "Jedi Mind Trick".

[Psyren]

I am kinda unimpressed by the answers of forum posters when people come here asking for help regarding running their game, and posters respond with "you are the DM, you have total freedom to do anything in the game" - those DMs know that they are in charge, and are asking for tools, not freedom. Or maybe I'm totally wrong and most DM's don't know they can do what they want already. I see questions phrased as "How do I handle players who do X?" as really being "My player has X concept that breaks the game using RAW. What tools out there allow my player to still play X concept without it breaking the game and requiring DM fiat?"

You may not like that advice but it's often the best solution. If you feel something is abusive or doesn't work well in your game, put your foot down and ban it outright. Often DMs who come looking for "tools" are really after some kind of loophole or vague wording they can invoke passive-aggressively to say "well you know, I personally have no problem with you doing X, but if you take another look at paragraph 3 in subsection B..." when really what they mean to say is "no way in hell." And when the player comes back with another way to do X, they end up right back at square one, trying to find a way to ban it.

For me, conning a dragon out of its hoard should involve magic, or at least something more than a single skill check, if it should be doable at all.

[Yukitsu]

Bluff is already pretty nerfed if you know sense motive. You are allowed a flat DC 20 sense motive (no opposed, no additional modifiers) to realize that someone is untrustworthy or that they are up to something. People just never think to roll it for that purpose, though it holds the double edged sword that a dishonest person telling you the truth won't be believed, so use with caution.

[Amphetryon]

To lazy to read all the responses; but you could also do what i do with Bluff/Diplomacy.

Bluff and Diplomacy are not make roll= Win, you must Role play out the conversation rolling high puts the conversation in your favor, for example

Wrong Way
I want to make this dragon give me his horde. I rolled a 100 after bonuses, i say "Dragon give me your horde buddy!", the dragon say's it will not give up its hoard and eats you.

Right Way
I want to make this dragon give me his horde. I rolled a 100 after bonuses,
"I inform the dragon that he has a couple items in his horde that are needed to protect the surrounding area, i inform him we require these items to not only protect him but what's left of his horde." You rolled so well the dragon lets you take a couple items and even offers to come help you vanquish this threat.

In other words, this game is a "Role Playing" game for a reason, force your players to act it out. Bluff and Diplomacy are not the "Jedi Mind Trick".

In other words, Players who either don't think quickly on their feet, aren't themselves charismatic, or who have a different sense of things from the DM, are discouraged from using CHA-based Skills in your games. Got it.

[Agincourt]

In other words, Players who either don't think quickly on their feet, aren't themselves charismatic, or who have a different sense of things from the DM, are discouraged from using CHA-based Skills in your games. Got it.

drax75's example didn't take much charisma. The hypothetical character is speaking in third person and just describes the general tone of what the character wants to convey. Whether players have the charisma of Don Juan or that of an ogre, they can speak in the third person in the same manner.

I think it's pretty much a given that thinking quickly on your feet is beneficial in a roleplaying game (or any game involving strategy, really). As for having a different sense of things than the DM, that's another ever-present of roleplaying games. It's hard to think strategically if players and DMs have very different ideas of what is clever.

[DR27]

Often DMs who come looking for "tools" are really after some kind of loophole or vague wording they can invoke passive-aggressively to say "well you know, I personally have no problem with you doing X, but if you take another look at paragraph 3 in subsection B..." when really what they mean to say is "no way in hell."Depressingly, that interpretation is probably true more often than not.

[GnomeGninjas]

Here's a huge way to nerf bluff: allow it to work on PCs.

Honestly, it seems incredibly unfair that all these mind-control skills (Diplomacy, Bluff, etc) simply don't work on PCs. Now imagine if a dragon walks up to a PC and says, "By the way, you are a mouse." And the PC *has* to believe it and *has* to roleplay thinking that they are a mouse. And no magical protections will save him from thinking that he is a mouse.

Pretty soon the players will give in and say, "Okay, let's not use Bluff this way anymore" or (at worst) they'll say, "Wow, this game system isn't fun anymore. Let's play something else."

Bluff already works on PCs.:smallconfused:

[Gnaeus]

In the defense of the Bluff-monkey,

Remember that 3.5 is intended to be able to duplicate extremely high fantasy concepts. The defense of highly powerful spells like Teleport or Shapechange is essentially that wizards of legend could do it, and therefore it should have a place in the rules system.

That same body of European legend is full of stories of non epic people tricking demigods (like Death, or the Devil) into doing really stupid things, (like getting into a bag they can't get out of), or making giants believe that you are insanely powerful because you can squeeze water out of a stone that happens to be made of cheese. In a game where the wizard gets a pass on their high end stuff because it is thematically appropriate for wizards to summon pit fiends, I think a trickster themed character would be well within his rights to demand similar treatment, which does not mean "you convince the dragon that you are insane so he eats you" or "you convince the dragon, and 6 seconds later he comes to his senses and eats you".

All that said, I think the glibness item is a real problem here (although as pointed out it could be done as a wand very cheaply), and the system handles bluff very badly. I just think that there is a happy medium between (all bluff does is convince the target that you think stupid things) and (4th level character walks into dragons lair and dragon hands over his wallet).

[Amphetryon]

drax75's example didn't take much charisma. The hypothetical character is speaking in third person and just describes the general tone of what the character wants to convey. Whether players have the charisma of Don Juan or that of an ogre, they can speak in the third person in the same manner.

I think it's pretty much a given that thinking quickly on your feet is beneficial in a roleplaying game (or any game involving strategy, really). As for having a different sense of things than the DM, that's another ever-present of roleplaying games. It's hard to think strategically if players and DMs have very different ideas of what is clever.
Suffice it to say we apparently have vastly different play-styles, and different ideas of what the various Mental-based Attributes on the character sheet - as opposed to those possessed by a given Player - should bring to the game. I'm not a fan of "guess what the DM is thinking" style solutions to in-game scenarios; apparently, from your response, you are.

[Deophaun]

Suffice it to say we apparently have vastly different play-styles, and different ideas of what the various Mental-based Attributes on the character sheet - as opposed to those possessed by a given Player - should bring to the game. I'm not a fan of "guess what the DM is thinking" style solutions to in-game scenarios; apparently, from your response, you are.
I think drax75 got the player's end of the social skills spot on. You don't just say "I bluff the guard. I got a 35 to let me go." You need some idea of how you are going to pull it off. "I give the guard some sob story about my sick mother: 35 to let me go." "I tell the guard that I was chasing some suspicious people that went the other direction: 35 to let me go." You don't need to act it out, but you do need to give the DM a handle on what is actually going on so the NPCs can react and what modifiers come into play.

Now, there are other tools PCs have at their disposal that, if used, the DM should allow the players to pick his brain. Knowledge skills, for example. If you're trying to fast talk a dragon out of his horde and you roll high on a Knowledge: Arcana check, you should know that it's a lot easier to talk dragons out of magic items than it is gold and gems, for example, or who the dragon's biggest rival is, or what possession that dragon prizes above all else. This is where the DM should help players make their social interactions more believable.

Does this penalize players who aren't good at coming up with a line of argument to get what they want? Well, yes, in the same vein that combat penalizes players who aren't good at coming up with tactics, and mysteries penalize players that aren't good at solving puzzles. Skill is part of what makes a game a game.

[SimonMoon6]

Let's not play the whole Permanent Glibness is the issue card, an eternal wand of it is 10 grand, and is 100% legal in every way, while still generally providing enough bluff.

Glibness itself is a pretty big problem. How many other spells grant a +30 to a skill check? A +30 bonus is just absurd, especially in an environment where you have to spend a feat just to get a measly +2 bonus.

Maybe Glibness should be changed to a +2 bonus. That would fix a lot of problems.

[drax75]

Suffice it to say we apparently have vastly different play-styles, and different ideas of what the various Mental-based Attributes on the character sheet - as opposed to those possessed by a given Player - should bring to the game. I'm not a fan of "guess what the DM is thinking" style solutions to in-game scenarios; apparently, from your response, you are.

First i want to say thanks to Agincourt and Deophaun your both pretty spot on.

as for Amph understand its not my goal to make it player versus DM, i am just telling the story. To me though dnd is not like a video game, you don't just put ranks into a skill and auto complete everything with no effort. If i want to do that i will play Fallout, Skyrim, or any other game.

The idea is more like; Ok you rolled well just don't do something stupid and you're good to go. What i mean by "Don't do something stupid" is please give me a reason to let you succeed assuming your role is high enough.

Please put half a brain cell worth of effort and tell my NPC or explain to me why you succeeded. I mean isn't that the point of DnD i mean besides the drinking, fun, and friendship?

If you could just roll and auto succeed everything, wouldn't that be boring?

[Yukitsu]

If you could just roll and auto succeed everything, wouldn't that be boring?

That is AFAIK how every single other mechanic in the game works.

[Amphetryon]

Does this penalize players who aren't good at coming up with a line of argument to get what they want? Well, yes, in the same vein that combat penalizes players who aren't good at coming up with tactics, and mysteries penalize players that aren't good at solving puzzles. Skill is part of what makes a game a game."In the same way" reads, from here, as a belief that the "penalties" are equal. I disagree, strongly, from my own experiences.

[Fax Celestis]

That is AFAIK how every single other mechanic in the game works.

No, it isn't. There's a chance of failure. Not everyone can--or wants to--ridiculoptimize every stat on their character.

[drax75]

That is AFAIK how every single other mechanic in the game works.

You do not have to run a game like that though. Thats part of being a DM is to add some suspense, mystery, and such to a game.

You should never let your players just faceroll through stuff.

I would not want to play in a game like that ever... Sorry

[Yukitsu]

No, it isn't. There's a chance of failure. Not everyone can--or wants to--ridiculoptimize every stat on their character.

Bluff and diplomacy are the ones that always get singled out, but honestly, if I have a +40 knowledge, I always succeed all knowledges, I don't have to RP it out or have justification for why I know. If I have a +80 to hit, I always hit sans on that critical failure. Most mechanics in the game, if you optimize for that one roll, will always be a success.


You do not have to run a game like that though. Thats part of being a DM is to add some suspense, mystery, and such to a game.

You should never let your players just faceroll through stuff.

I would not want to play in a game like that ever... Sorry

A part of being a good DM is also realizing that when someone has focused in on a mechanic to the point where the roll will always succeed, or succeed 95% of the time, that this was done so they have something which they can do reliably, not so that they have something that works because the DM says so or does not.

[Amphetryon]

You should never let your players just faceroll through stuff.

As soon as I see someone advising others on how they "should" or "should not" comport themselves and their games, red flags go up.

Why is it your contention that there are WrongBadFun ways for folks to play a game, if everyone involved has fun?

[drax75]

As soon as I see someone advising others on how they "should" or "should not" comport themselves and their games, red flags go up.

Why is it your contention that there are WrongBadFun ways for folks to play a game, if everyone involved has fun?

To the same point why do you have to negatively comment on my advice to another player?

Someone asked for advise and i gave a suggestion. My comment on "should not" was directed at you. Just because i say you "should not" does not infact mean i am telling them how to do anything. I am simply suggesting to you that there are alternatives.

So tell me when you negatively comment on another person's advice which was given in good faith and only trying to help do "Red flags" pop up for you?

[demigodus]

You do not have to run a game like that though. Thats part of being a DM is to add some suspense, mystery, and such to a game.

You should never let your players just faceroll through stuff.

I would not want to play in a game like that ever... Sorry

If your player has +60 to bluff, that is a pretty big tip off, that the character was specifically engineered to faceroll through certain kinds of stuff.

If a character is designed to trivialize certain types of challenges, they should trivialize those types of challenges. No one but an uber ultra optimized tier 1 can trivialize every kind of challenge.

You should add 'suspense, mystery, and such to a game' through the areas that the party isn't godly awesome at. Not trivialize the focus of their entire character because you can't figure out a plot beyond railroading.

That, or tell a player about your houserules that might invalidate half a character before he brings a character with +60 to bluff to the game.

[Friv]

Glibness itself is a pretty big problem. How many other spells grant a +30 to a skill check? A +30 bonus is just absurd, especially in an environment where you have to spend a feat just to get a measly +2 bonus.

Maybe Glibness should be changed to a +2 bonus. That would fix a lot of problems.

+2 is pretty minimal for a second-level spell.

If I were to revise Glibness, in order to make it "still awesome" but not quite as game-breaking, I would change the wording to, "When you roll Bluff checks to convince people you are telling the truth, your die result is always a 20."

[Deophaun]

That is AFAIK how every single other mechanic in the game works.
Well attacks don't work that way, for one. You could be hitting a monster with resistance to your damage type, or immunity to your effect. AC has three different values depending on how you attack. There are three different save scores to go against. Depending on where you position yourself, you might have to deal with cover or range increments. Are you in position to flank? The "How" of an attack often has more to do with success or failure than the die roll.

[Amphetryon]

To the same point why do you have to negatively comment on my advice to another player?

Someone asked for advise and i gave a suggestion. My comment on "should not" was directed at you. Just because i say you "should not" does not infact mean i am telling them how to do anything. I am simply suggesting to you that there are alternatives.

So tell me when you negatively comment on another person's advice which was given in good faith and only trying to help do "Red flags" pop up for you?
I didn't; I said it disagreed with my opinion. I never said what anyone "should" do.

Do you understand the difference?

[Yukitsu]

Well attacks don't work that way, for one. You could be hitting a monster with resistance to your damage type, or immunity to your effect. AC has three different values depending on how you attack. There are three different save scores to go against. Depending on where you position yourself, you might have to deal with cover or range increments. Are you in position to flank? The "How" of an attack often has more to do with success or failure than the die roll.

Yes, but that ends up just being die rolls rather than just the singular, and still requires no real effort or thought from the player to succeed trivially so long as they have sufficiently optimized along that single path. For example, sufficiently optimized to hit doesn't care about the variable AC types, as the to hit should cover them all, and immunities is no different from someone using high bluff encountering a mindless creature. That's simply a case where the high number is in the entirely wrong category for the encounter.

[Waker]

+2 is pretty minimal for a second-level spell.

If I were to revise Glibness, in order to make it "still awesome" but not quite as game-breaking, I would change the wording to, "When you roll Bluff checks to convince people you are telling the truth, your die result is always a 20."

I'd grant a bonus equal to your caster level. I do the same thing with Freedom of Movement and a few others.

[Deophaun]

Yes, but that ends up just being die rolls rather than just the singular, and still requires no real effort or thought from the player to succeed trivially so long as they have sufficiently optimized along that single path. For example, sufficiently optimized to hit doesn't care about the variable AC types, as the to hit should cover them all, and immunities is no different from someone using high bluff encountering a mindless creature. That's simply a case where the high number is in the entirely wrong category for the encounter.
What would be no different for Bluff in terms of DR? Incorporeality? Regeneration? Hit a mimic with a weapon and your weapon might stick to it. What's the equivalent for bluff? What is the blufflomancer's Rust Monster or Black Pudding?

How is a DM supposed to determine what is "too incredible to consider" versus "believable" if you refuse to tell him what the bluff is? How do we know if the guards let you off with a warning or insist on escorting you to your destination for your protection? By saying that you just roll the die, you are leaving undefined a significant portion of whatever success you may want to achieve; you are surrendering total control of the repercussions beyond "let me go" to the DM.

[Yukitsu]

What would be no different for Bluff in terms of DR?

Languages. If you can't speak to it, bluff won't really mean anything. Similar to having the right weapon in your golf bag lets you bypass DR.


Incorporeality?

Nothing, because by the time you're fighting incorporeal stuff, you usually had a chance to own something that hits incorporeal creatures, and if you didn't, shame on you.


Regeneration?

Nothing, because if you knock out a regenerating creature, generally you've won and can kill it afterwards, unless you don't have any means to know what its weakness is. Alternatively, its the same as a mindless creature, it simply doesn't work.


Hit a mimic with a weapon and your weapon might stick to it. What's the equivalent for bluff? What is the blufflomancer's Rust Monster or Black Pudding?

Silence.


How is a DM supposed to determine what is "too incredible to consider" versus "believable" if you refuse to tell him what the bluff is? How do we know if the guards let you off with a warning or insist on escorting you to your destination for your protection? By saying that you just roll the die, you are leaving undefined a significant portion of whatever success you may want to achieve; you are surrendering total control of the repercussions beyond "let me go" to the DM.

Yeah, and frankly I can't imagine why people get so uppity about people, I dunno, just succeeding in what they're trying to do when this is clearly a situation they can succeed. While I personally prefer to RP out stuff, if someone is not a great talker, quick thinker or clever wit, then it's unfair to mechanically hobble their character because of out of character factors.

[XenoGeno]

While I personally prefer to RP out stuff, if someone is not a great talker, quick thinker or clever wit, then it's unfair to mechanically hobble their character because of out of character factors.

Who's saying that? I was in a game that had a Paladin as a face; we were entering a dwarf kingdom, and he rolled Diplomacy, and then said, "Hail, foul dwarves." Obviously an OOC slip of the tongue that we ragged on him about, but we all knew his graceful, tactful Paladin didn't actually say that. But it's still up to the PC to set up the gist of what's being said, with the die roll filling in the details. Would you ban wizards in your game from specializing in evocation, because no character with an 18 Int would be stupid enough to do that?

[Yukitsu]

Who's saying that? I was in a game that had a Paladin as a face; we were entering a dwarf kingdom, and he rolled Diplomacy, and then said, "Hail, foul dwarves." Obviously an OOC slip of the tongue that we ragged on him about, but we all knew his graceful, tactful Paladin didn't actually say that. But it's still up to the PC to set up the gist of what's being said, with the die roll filling in the details. Would you ban wizards in your game from specializing in evocation, because no character with an 18 Int would be stupid enough to do that?

In that particular example, I don't fathom why as a DM I should need more than "I diplomatically greet the dwarves." any less than I don't require the player to say more than "aim sword at goblin #4." Yes, I'd certainly prefer the in character response, but I don't know why it's necessary.

And for the latter, I've seen some pretty intelligent people go into some pretty stupid things when they were young. Who knows why smart people sometimes make bad decisions?

[Deophaun]

Yeah, and frankly I can't imagine why people get so uppity about people, I dunno, just succeeding in what they're trying to do when this is clearly a situation they can succeed.
But what are you trying to do? As the DM in the guard situation, I have no idea beyond "let me go." Everything else you're leaving up to me? Really? Truly? Am I supposed to have a chart I roll on to randomly select how believable your base attempt was to calculate a modifier, or even if success is possible at all (completely unbelievable statements just fail, after all)?

I guess Bluff really is like wish, in that it's now open license for a DM to screw with you.

While I personally prefer to RP out stuff, if someone is not a great talker, quick thinker or clever wit, then it's unfair to mechanically hobble their character because of out of character factors.
None of which is required for what we're talking about.

[Psyren]

To lazy to read all the responses; but you could also do what i do with Bluff/Diplomacy.

Bluff and Diplomacy are not make roll= Win, you must Role play out the conversation rolling high puts the conversation in your favor, for example

Wrong Way
I want to make this dragon give me his horde. I rolled a 100 after bonuses, i say "Dragon give me your horde buddy!", the dragon say's it will not give up its hoard and eats you.

Right Way
I want to make this dragon give me his horde. I rolled a 100 after bonuses,
"I inform the dragon that he has a couple items in his horde that are needed to protect the surrounding area, i inform him we require these items to not only protect him but what's left of his horde." You rolled so well the dragon lets you take a couple items and even offers to come help you vanquish this threat.

In other words, this game is a "Role Playing" game for a reason, force your players to act it out. Bluff and Diplomacy are not the "Jedi Mind Trick".

If I'm reading Amphetryon's post right, he's pointing out that requiring your players to "act it out" is an unnecessary penalty to those who are shy, bad actors, or slow at improvisation. It basically makes the diceroll part of it kinda pointless.

One of the best aspects of "roleplaying" is that it lets us be something we're not - such as a tongue-tied wallflower playing a bard who can charm every woman in the kingdom out of their knickers with a song and a smile. The dice let that happen, and if you're going to circumvent their purpose, you may as well be freeforming or LARPing. (Not that there's anything wrong with those, but this is the D&D subforum.)

[Amphetryon]

If I'm reading Amphetryon's post right, he's pointing out that requiring your players to "act it out" is an unnecessary penalty to those who are shy, bad actors, or slow at improvisation. It basically makes the diceroll part of it kinda pointless.

One of the best aspects of "roleplaying" is that it lets us be something we're not - such as a tongue-tied wallflower playing a bard who can charm every woman in the kingdom out of their knickers with a song and a smile. The dice let that happen, and if you're going to circumvent their purpose, you may as well be freeforming or LARPing. (Not that there's anything wrong with those, but this is the D&D subforum.)

You're reading it right. It would also preclude one of my former Players, who had a stutter, from playing the Bard archetype he enjoyed. Often, Players gravitate toward roles they do not themselves excel at: clumsy people (like myself) want to portray sneaky, high-DEX Characters; the skinniest Player at the table is drawn to the burly Dwarf as often as not; wallflowers choose Characters who live and die by their CHA.

The other part of the argument against making them "act it out," which has been brought up in several other threads, is that you rarely - if ever - see DMs require Players to demonstrate how they'd climb a steep cliff, or jump from one rooftop to another. In other words, most DMs have no problem divorcing a Character's physical stats from the Player portraying said Character.

[XenoGeno]

In that particular example, I don't fathom why as a DM I should need more than "I diplomatically greet the dwarves." any less than I don't require the player to say more than "aim sword at goblin #4." Yes, I'd certainly prefer the in character response, but I don't know why it's necessary.

I don't think it was necessary in that specific case, but I used it to illustrate the point that no one but the most Gygaxian of DMs will penalize the character for minor OOC screw-ups like that. As a broader example, if a player has a stutter and a character does not, you aren't going to assume that the character stutters every time he talks, will you? I know I wouldn't.

Bluff specifically requires you to say how you're bluffing so the DM knows what sort of bonus to apply to the opposed roll. There are, generally speaking, a number of ways to try a convince a person of a single idea, and those different ways vary in how believable they are, as well as how a specific individual would respond. Having a high Bluff just means your character can say something very convincingly, but not necessarily that he'll say the RIGHT something very convincingly; it's why saying something outrageous isn't a penalty to your Bluff check, but a bonus to the opposed Sense Motive check.

As for whether someone who can't think of that sort of thing easily should play that sort of character... honestly, they probably shouldn't. Don't get me wrong, the DM ABSOLUTELY should meet the player halfway on this sort of thing, but if the player can't even do that much... well, if someone I knew was horrendous at bookkeeping, I'd suggest against them playing a caster.

Again, not saying the DM should use exactly what you said and exactly how you said it. They explicitly shouldn't. We roll the dice for a reason. But you should give the DM the skeleton of the bluff you want to make, and then let him fill in the specific details based off the die rolls.


And for the latter, I've seen some pretty intelligent people go into some pretty stupid things when they were young. Who knows why smart people sometimes make bad decisions?

Yeah, but 16/18 Int is, from my understanding, Neil Tyson/Carl Sagan kind of genius, not just a straight-A student. Someone with that sort of logical thought processes would never bother with evocation and most spells in that school; they might generalize, but they would never specialize in something that useless, not when magic is their primary means of survival in the world.

[Psyren]

Bluff specifically requires you to say how you're bluffing so the DM knows what sort of bonus to apply to the opposed roll.

Not exactly - all you have to say is what the bluff is. "I try to convince the dragon that his hoard actually belongs to me" would suffice for this, and let the DM know how to treat the opposed roll without any more involved acting on the player's part. (And again, under PF rules, that one would be very easy for the DM to throw out without needing a check.)

If I were the DM though, even while vetoing that specific attempt, I'd try to steer the players toward a more reasonable lie. Perhaps they can convince the dragon that one (or several!) of the magic items in his stash is actually cursed, and the PCs are here to protect him from accidentally using it. Perhaps they can convince him that a group of dragonslayers is on their way, and they should help him move his hoard deeper into the cave. Or perhaps they can convince him that a rival dragon is issuing a challenge to him from the next valley over, and he should head down there for a bit to see what the fuss is about. Those are pretty outrageous lies, but not totally impossible for the beast to consider.

[Snowbluff]

Add a snow material component. That should fix it.

What?! I am allowed to make bluff jokes, too!

[XenoGeno]

Not exactly - all you have to say is what the bluff is. "I try to convince the dragon that his hoard actually belongs to me" would suffice for this, and let the DM know how to treat the opposed roll without any more involved acting on the player's part. (And again, under PF rules, that one would be very easy for the DM to throw out without needing a check.)

I consider that sufficient to make a Bluff. I think most people would here as well, but would assume you aren't doing more than going up to the dragon and saying, literally, "Your hoard belongs to me." The bluff check means you look it right in the eye, say it smoothly without twiddling your hands, not a hint of doubt in your being, etc... but you still just say "Your hoard belongs to me," and that's not going to get you very far. A more detailed version of HOW you're bluffing him will not only make the dragon believe it's true, but that it is in its best interest to give it to you.

Just saying, "I'm going to bluff the dragon into giving me its horde! :rolls a 64: Success!" is not enough. If that was, couldn't I just say that in basically any situation, "I as a player might not be able to think of a way out of this, but my character has a 24 int! He could definitely figure out a plan to save the day!"? Because I believe that's what Drax was saying when he gave his examples (though I hope he corrects me if I'm wrong).

[Psyren]

Add a snow material component. That should fix it.

What?! I am allowed to make bluff jokes, too!

I groan what you did there.


I consider that sufficient to make a Bluff. I think most people would here as well, but would assume you aren't doing more than going up to the dragon and saying, literally, "Your hoard belongs to me." The bluff check means you look it right in the eye, say it smoothly without twiddling your hands, not a hint of doubt in your being, etc... but you still just say "Your hoard belongs to me," and that's not going to get you very far. A more detailed version of HOW you're bluffing him will not only make the dragon believe it's true, but that it is in its best interest to give it to you.

Just saying, "I'm going to bluff the dragon into giving me its horde! :rolls a 64: Success!" is not enough. If that was, couldn't I just say that in basically any situation, "I as a player might not be able to think of a way out of this, but my character has a 24 int! He could definitely figure out a plan to save the day!"? Because I believe that's what Drax was saying when he gave his examples (though I hope he corrects me if I'm wrong).

The difference is that, at least if I were DMing, there is absolutely no lie you could tell that would make a dragon give up its entire hoard to you. It wouldn't matter how you described it, and it wouldn't matter if you had the Cha of a fey queen possessed by the restless spirit of a phaerimm, the answer would be no.

But getting individual items from that hoard, or being left alone with it for awhile - those I would consider. Along with the likely consequences, should the players get greedy.

[XenoGeno]

The difference is that, at least if I were DMing, there is absolutely no lie you could tell that would make a dragon give up its entire hoard to you. It wouldn't matter how you described it, and it wouldn't matter if you had the Cha of a fey queen possessed by the restless spirit of a phaerimm, the answer would be no.

Well, speaking personally, if a player surprised me and came up with an elaborate enough lie, I'd allow it, just because I encourage my players to be creative. He wouldn't have to phrase the exact specific words, or recite the lie in the same manner his character would, but he'd have to do more than just say, "I'm going to bluff the dragon to have him give me his hoard." Which I think is what the "Act It Out" camp is saying. D&D is a role-playing game, but because of that it's also a problem-solving game. And if you, as a player, are only good at solving the sort of problems that are resolved by combat, and you try to play an archetype that requires a more flexible approach, then you're going to have a bad time.

For the record, I also agree with Gnaeus' defense of crazy bluffing. But I would say that if a player wants to get away with that sort of thing, they need to come up with the basic gist of the lie themselves, maybe put some prep time into it. Using the dragon hoard example, if the player approached the dragon while wearing the garb and holy symbol of the High Priest of Tiamat, a disguise self to appear dragonblooded, have another party member nearby with some illusions prepped, and said that Tiamat demanded the hoard as tribute... I'd say the player would get away with it, until the dragon found out it was all a lie. It would then be up to them to have gotten far enough away in time.

So, you know, they have to act it out.

[Psyren]

And if you, as a player, are only good at solving the sort of problems that are resolved by combat, and you try to play an archetype that requires a more flexible approach, then you're going to have a bad time.

Given that "combat" is resolved by rolling dice instead of swinging a plastic sword around, I see no reason to reward rolling dice in one context and penalize it in the next.

I'm all for rewarding creativity. But the description of the bluff itself should be enough for that. "Maybe I can convince the dragon to leave us alone." "How?" "I'll tell him we're treasure inspectors." "That's pretty out there, are you sure?" "Yeah, I'll give it a go."

If the player rolled really well on something like that, I might even act it out myself. But again, the roll would only come after I decided it was something possible.



For the record, I also agree with Gnaeus' defense of crazy bluffing. But I would say that if a player wants to get away with that sort of thing, they need to come up with the basic gist of the lie themselves, maybe put some prep time into it. Using the dragon hoard example, if the player approached the dragon while wearing the garb and holy symbol of the High Priest of Tiamat, a disguise self to appear dragonblooded, have another party member nearby with some illusions prepped, and said that Tiamat demanded the hoard as tribute... I'd say the player would get away with it, until the dragon found out it was all a lie. It would then be up to them to have gotten far enough away in time.

So, you know, they have to act it out.

None of that would require actual acting from the players though. I'd call for a Disguise check to look like a Tiamat clergyman, a Knowledge: Religion check to get the outfit right, a Knowledge: Arcana check to look dragonblooded, and possibly a catchall Intimidate check if they flub one of the others. Again, I would probably do the acting if they rolled well enough.

Certainly I would be open to suggestions as to how an interaction would play out fluffwise, but my decision of whether it would work or not wouldn't be impacted by the player's acting skills, something they have little control over and that the game mechanics don't account for anyway.

[XenoGeno]

Certainly I would be open to suggestions as to how an interaction would play out fluffwise, but my decision of whether it would work or not wouldn't be impacted by the player's acting skills, something they have little control over and that the game mechanics don't account for anyway.

You're utterly missing the point. :smallannoyed: No one's saying to LITERALLY act it out, and I have said as much myself. "Act It Out" here means, "you can't just say you're bluffing without giving some sort of description of HOW you're bluffing." Yes, that's going to penalize a character if its player is not as quick on his feet as its stats would lead it to be. But that will happen with pretty much anything you try to do in the game. This is not something that will penalize rolling the dice for Bluff.

As an example of what I'd consider "Acting It Out" in combat, let's say I'm your player, and I'm fighting a monster in a dungeon and I say I want to attack it. You ask how, and I say I fall back and shoot my bow, or drop the bow and charge with a Quick-Drawn spiked chain, or 5-foot step and full attack with the chain. "Not Acting It Out" would be me saying "I don't know, I'm not good at tactics in real life, but my character's been in lots of battles before, so he'd know what to do." Obviously not a perfect analogy, because of the nature of a Bluff skill check makes comparisons to other things apples-and-oranges, but do you see the point I'm making? I object to the notion that just because I'm not sure about something I want my character to do, I can pass on problem-solving and just put my character on auto-pilot because it would know what it would do. The "Acting It Out" is just coming up with the plan. Not literally acting it out like you're in Shakespeare and having everything you say be taken as in-character, with your personal mannerisms bleeding into your character.

In my example about pretending to be a priest, I never once said a player's personal acting ability would come into account. I said the players would have to act it out by coming up with that plan. If they flubbed up the specific words of what they said, I wouldn't hold that against them, as long as they represented the gist of what they wanted to do, and then use the roll to determine if they did it well or not. Maybe I'm wrong and the other people arguing for "Act It Out" mean what you say they mean, but I don't, and that's not the impression I've gotten from, for instance, Drax's example that started this specific debate. Again, please, if anyone disagrees with how I see their viewpoint, please let me know.

[Deophaun]

Not exactly - all you have to say is what the bluff is. "I try to convince the dragon that his hoard actually belongs to me" would suffice for this, and let the DM know how to treat the opposed roll without any more involved acting on the player's part. (And again, under PF rules, that one would be very easy for the DM to throw out without needing a check.)
But that's what we've been saying. The example was "I want the dragon to give me his horde," with no other information as to how. Your example includes that information: Convince the dragon that the character is its rightful owner. It's no different than the other proposed tactic: convince the dragon that his horde is in danger.

It's amazing how much wailing and gnashing of teeth you can get just by asking for that little, as apparently getting that requires "acting it out."

[Psyren]

You're utterly missing the point. :smallannoyed: No one's saying to LITERALLY act it out, and I have said as much myself. "Act It Out" here means, "you can't just say you're bluffing without giving some sort of description of HOW you're bluffing." Yes, that's going to penalize a character if its player is not as quick on his feet as its stats would lead it to be.

That is exactly the situation I'm trying to avoid. Players should never be penalized for things their characters should be able to do. To do so, in my mind, undermines the very essence of what roleplaying is.

Describing what the Bluff actually is, is all I need. Describing how you can present it might help to paint that picture, but won't affect my decision one way or the other. For instance, if the player describes something truly brilliant but they utterly tank the roll, I'm going to say they sneezed midword or something before offering a hook that lets them salvage what they can.



But that will happen with pretty much anything you try to do in the game. This is not something that will penalize rolling the dice for Bluff. As an example of what I'd consider "Acting It Out" in combat, let's say I'm your player, and I'm fighting a monster in a dungeon and I say I want to attack it. You ask how, and I say I fall back and shoot my bow, or drop the bow and charge with a Quick-Drawn spiked chain, or 5-foot step and full attack with the chain. "Not Acting It Out" would be me saying "I don't know, I'm not good at tactics in real life, but my character's been in lots of battles before, so he'd know what to do."

To which I would say "you're right, and here are some good moves that your obviously combat-savvy character might know." And using a combination of the rules and my descriptive imagination, I would present the player with the very tactics you described above, and he would then be able to pick the one that sounds coolest to him. In short, I am not penalizing the player. His character should know this stuff, therefore I, being a good DM, make sure that he is not punished for not thinking of it right away.



Obviously not a perfect analogy, because of the nature of a Bluff skill check makes comparisons to other things apples-and-oranges, but do you see the point I'm making? I object to the notion that just because I'm not sure about something I want my character to do, I can pass on problem-solving and just put my character on auto-pilot because it would know what it would do.

Whereas I object to the notion that just because the player is unsure about something, the character should be too. And there is a middle ground here - again, the DM can present viable options and the player can choose.


But that's what we've been saying. The example was "I want the dragon to give me his horde," with no other information as to how. Your example includes that information: Convince the dragon that the character is its rightful owner.

My example clearly noted that no manner of presenting "give me your hoard," regardless of eloquence, would work at my table. "Leave me alone with your hoard for {time}" or "give me X from your hoard," being lesser requests, would have a chance.

[Deophaun]

My example clearly noted that no manner of presenting "give me your hoard," regardless of eloquence, would work at my table. "Leave me alone with your hoard for {time}" or "give me X from your hoard," being lesser requests, would have a chance.
Good for your example. But that has nothing to do with the point.

[Psyren]

Good for your example. But that has nothing to do with the point.

And your point is?

[Mnemnosyne]

To which I would say "you're right, and here are some good moves that your obviously combat-savvy character might know." And using a combination of the rules and my descriptive imagination, I would present the player with the very tactics you described above, and he would then be able to pick the one that sounds coolest to him. In short, I am not penalizing the player. His character should know this stuff, therefore I, being a good DM, make sure that he is not punished for not thinking of it right away.At this point it kind of sounds like every situation can get resolved by 'I do whatever my character thinks is best in this situation.' Therefore, if I play a wizard, when it comes time to memorize my spells, I just say 'I memorize the spells that my character thinks she should memorize today.' because hey, she's like 10 times as intelligent as I am, she knows better. When it comes time to use those spells, I just say 'I do whatever my character thinks I should do now.' because again, she's ten times as smart as I am. Clearly she has a better solution than I could possibly come up with. Indeed, my presence and input is entirely irrelevant; my character is better at everything than I am, including deciding her actions, so I may as well not interfere with that.

Even if not taken quite to that extent, it still means that very often, a player can stop making some of the choices that we usually consider being a big part of playing D&D.

[Deophaun]

And your point is?
:smallsigh:

There is really no proper response that would not generate a moderator warning at this point. So I'm out.

[Psyren]

At this point it kind of sounds like every situation can get resolved by 'I do whatever my character thinks is best in this situation.' Therefore, if I play a wizard, when it comes time to memorize my spells, I just say 'I memorize the spells that my character thinks she should memorize today.'

That's not a skill check, so for that, the player would indeed get no help. (A Knowledge roll would tell the wizard what her spells do, not which ones to prepare.) Now, if they wanted to use a divination spell of some kind at bedtime (or in the morning) to possibly gain some helpful information on that subject, then I might drop a few hints, but I wouldn't do that for free.



When it comes time to use those spells, I just say 'I do whatever my character thinks I should do now.' because again, she's ten times as smart as I am.

This is also not a skill check. Starting to see the difference?

Basically, skills are there to provide players with ways of accomplishing out of game objectives within the confines of the game. Knowledge rolls give you information about monsters that the player may know about but the character does not. Social skills allow the character to interact in ways the player may not be able to. And so on.

[Pickford]

Firstly:

Asking a dragon to give up its hoard? Yeah, that's definitely a +20 Sense Motive. And any dragon that doesn't max Sense Motive to start with deserves what it gets.

Secondly:
Note the "or." You can convince a dragon to give you its hoard, then get eaten when it it changes it mind five minutes later, or you can give it the best reason in the world why it should give you its hoard, then walk away empty-handed (or, more likely, get eaten) when it refuses anyway.

Thirdly:

Competent DMs don't let players have custom Glibness items.

1 round = 6 seconds. You could, in theory, make the Dragon believe it wants to give you its horde for some reason (i.e. You need the money to cure Dragon cancer)...but only for 6 seconds at which point it does a double take and eats you on round 2.

Edit: If your player is trying to convince you bluff works better than that, they're engaging in puffery (i.e. they are bluffing you, the DM)

[Sith_Happens]

Fixed that for you.

I was being generous.

[XenoGeno]

That is exactly the situation I'm trying to avoid. Players should never be penalized for things their characters should be able to do. To do so, in my mind, undermines the very essence of what roleplaying is.

At the same time, you can't just roleplay a character for someone else. No one's expecting a player to be able to perfectly mimic the character, BUT IT'S STILL HIS JOB TO PLAY HIM TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY.


Describing what the Bluff actually is, is all I need. Describing how you can present it might help to paint that picture, but won't affect my decision one way or the other. For instance, if the player describes something truly brilliant but they utterly tank the roll, I'm going to say they sneezed midword or something before offering a hook that lets them salvage what they can.

That's what we've been saying. You don't need to act out every detail, but we need to know what the Bluff is. You can't just say, "I Bluff the dragon! 100! I succeed!" You have to say how you're bluffing. If you can't do that much as a player, this probably isn't the archetype for you. In fact, RPGs in general probably aren't for you, because they require the ability to think on your feet. That's necessary for playing the game. But having a high Bluff skill by itself doesn't mean that you say the right lie, just that you say some lie convincingly.


Whereas I object to the notion that just because the player is unsure about something, the character should be too. And there is a middle ground here - again, the DM can present viable options and the player can choose.
Speaking from personal experience, if a player is that unwilling to actually play his character, not only is the DM going to get burnout, but the other players aren't going to have a fun time either. If a played can't or won't play the game, they probably shouldn't. Again, this doesn't involve a player's ability to actually act things out, or speak clearly, or anything like that. Just their ability to try and roleplay.


That's not a skill check, so for that, the player would indeed get no help. (A Knowledge roll would tell the wizard what her spells do, not which ones to prepare.) Now, if they wanted to use a divination spell of some kind at bedtime (or in the morning) to possibly gain some helpful information on that subject, then I might drop a few hints, but I wouldn't do that for free.

This is also not a skill check. Starting to see the difference?

Basically, skills are there to provide players with ways of accomplishing out of game objectives within the confines of the game. Knowledge rolls give you information about monsters that the player may know about but the character does not. Social skills allow the character to interact in ways the player may not be able to. And so on.

Except that contradicts what you said here in regards to my example with the fighter:

To which I would say "you're right, and here are some good moves that your obviously combat-savvy character might know." And using a combination of the rules and my descriptive imagination, I would present the player with the very tactics you described above, and he would then be able to pick the one that sounds coolest to him. In short, I am not penalizing the player. His character should know this stuff, therefore I, being a good DM, make sure that he is not punished for not thinking of it right away.

Where's the skill check there? No, you're taking the onus of roleplaying out of your player's hands. You can't just look at the stats and say "My character does what my character would do." That's not roleplaying. Players are going to do things that their characters wouldn't do. People in stories have out-of-character moments, grab onto Idiot Balls, and the like. Better to try and fail than not try at all.

[Psyren]

At the same time, you can't just roleplay a character for someone else.

I'm not. All I'm doing is avoiding penalizing the player for a bad choice his character feasibly wouldn't have made. He still has the option to (a) choose from among the reasonable alternatives I provide or (b) disregard my attempt to help entirely - both of which place the onus on him, not on me.



That's what we've been saying. You don't need to act out every detail, but we need to know what the Bluff is. You can't just say, "I Bluff the dragon! 100! I succeed!" You have to say how you're bluffing.

I think the disconnect between us is the use of the word "how." I take "how" to mean more than simply saying what the lie is - I take it to mean that the player would have to actually present the falsehood persuasively. Which I don't think is necessary or fair to the process. If that's not what you meant, then great, we're on the same page.



If you can't do that much as a player, this probably isn't the archetype for you. In fact, RPGs in general probably aren't for you, because they require the ability to think on your feet.

No. I'm a firm believer that anyone can roleplay anything. The tools to help them succeed are in the rules. If they need a little help from the DM to get there and have fun, so be it, that comes with the job.

If this truly how you feel, I doubt we'll see eye to eye on any of this.



Except that contradicts what you said here in regards to my example with the fighter:

It doesn't, and here's why - knowing what combat moves are at your disposal is just like knowing what spells are at your disposal. The choice of which one to use still falls on you, but the overall information on your capabilities is information I will freely provide.

For example, if an inexperienced player doesn't know he can 5-foot step before shooting an arrow to avoid an AoO, I'm going to tell him. I'm not going to say "oh hey, you're supposedly a great archer and all but you totally messed that up and got whacked in the face with no do-over."



People in stories have out-of-character moments, grab onto Idiot Balls, and the like. Better to try and fail than not try at all.

The chance to fail is still very much there - picking the wrong choice, or acting on incomplete information. But the character not knowing what the choices are just because the player doesn't is unreasonable.

[XenoGeno]

No. I'm a firm believer that anyone can roleplay anything. The tools to help them succeed are in the rules. If they need a little help from the DM to get there and have fun, so be it, that comes with the job.

If this truly how you feel, I doubt we'll see eye to eye on any of this.

Let me tell you speaking from personal experience: you are completely incorrect. I've had a couple of players who were completely inept at basically every aspect of role-playing. Everyone else would bend over backwards for these players, but they were still massively incompetent. They had to have their hands held basically the entire way or they would perform massively disastrous actions. And that's not even getting into their mechanical incompetence and utter unwillingness to more than skim the rules; frequently, we break the rules for them and them alone to make it easier for them. Ask pretty much anyone in that group, and they'll say the same thing. They. Can't. Roleplay. They love the genre, love the idea of it... but they suck. And it kills the fun out of everyone else, and eventually we just had to unofficially cut them, because, somehow, they only got worse over time.


For example, if an inexperienced player doesn't know he can 5-foot step before shooting an arrow to avoid an AoO, I'm going to tell him. I'm not going to say "oh hey, you're supposedly a great archer and all but you totally messed that up and got whacked in the face with no do-over."

In fairness, I never meant to imply a new player. That's a completely different issue and a total false equivalency. I'm referring to a player who just chooses to play a character type that they lack the personal skills to play well. Again, if you were DMing a player who was the absolute worst at bookkeeping, you wouldn't want them to play a caster, would you? You'd steer them towards something else during character creation, right?

[nightwyrm]

Tangentially related, but funny...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/969298_566207360108850_1438747016_n.jpg

[Amphetryon]

In fairness, I never meant to imply a new player. That's a completely different issue and a total false equivalency. I'm referring to a player who just chooses to play a character type that they lack the personal skills to play well. Again, if you were DMing a player who was the absolute worst at bookkeeping, you wouldn't want them to play a caster, would you? You'd steer them towards something else during character creation, right?

So, you question a prospective Fighter Player on his knowledge of various sword-fighting, pole-arm fighting, and archery techniques, and strongly encourage him to only make use of those weapons which he demonstrates that he can use effectively in a variety of situations, complete with knowing the names of the forms and appropriate defenses?

Or - as I posited earlier - do you reserve this sort of elitism for a Character's mental Skills?

[Psyren]

Let me tell you speaking from personal experience: you are completely incorrect.

I'll give you a minute to pick up on the logical fallacy here.


I've had a couple of players who were completely inept at basically every aspect of role-playing. Everyone else would bend over backwards for these players, but they were still massively incompetent. They had to have their hands held basically the entire way or they would perform massively disastrous actions. And that's not even getting into their mechanical incompetence and utter unwillingness to more than skim the rules; frequently, we break the rules for them and them alone to make it easier for them. Ask pretty much anyone in that group, and they'll say the same thing. They. Can't. Roleplay. They love the genre, love the idea of it... but they suck. And it kills the fun out of everyone else, and eventually we just had to unofficially cut them, because, somehow, they only got worse over time.

This entire passage reeks of elitism and impatience to such a degree that I'm very grateful our playgroups will never intersect.



In fairness, I never meant to imply a new player. That's a completely different issue and a total false equivalency. I'm referring to a player who just chooses to play a character type that they lack the personal skills to play well. Again, if you were DMing a player who was the absolute worst at bookkeeping, you wouldn't want them to play a caster, would you? You'd steer them towards something else during character creation, right?

We all started somewhere. Nobody came out of the womb understanding how to play every (or even any) D&D class; I certainly didn't. That desire to play a caster is what drove me to learn the rules for doing it well, just as the desire to learn Incarnum and Psionics drove me to learn those rules etc.

Would I say to that player, "you might have more fun with X than Y?" I'd mention it exactly once. And if they continued wanting to play Y, I'd help them play Y. Because ultimately, our real-life friendship is a little more important to me than playing some game at maximum efficiency.

Also, what Amphetryon said.

[Fax Celestis]

Nobody came out of the womb understanding how to play every (or even any) D&D class; I certainly didn't.

Maybe you didn't. I've been playing since i was 6. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Maybe you didn't. I've been playing since i was 6. :smalltongue:

I played Magic that early, but not D&D :smallbiggrin:

[Fax Celestis]

I played Magic that early, but not D&D :smallbiggrin:

Magic didn't exist until I was 10. Oldfax is old.

[Amphetryon]

Magic didn't exist until I was 10. Oldfax is old.

M:tG came out when I was college age. You were saying?

[Fax Celestis]

M:tG came out when I was college age. You were saying?

Ampheytron is in an age category up from me, lol.

[Psyren]

Magic didn't exist until I was 10. Oldfax is old.

When I said "that early" I didn't specifically mean 6 :smallsmile: I was 8 when Magic debuted, if my math is right.

[Radar]

Roleplaying as much as acting is something that goes easier for some people then for other. Bluff, Diplomacy or other such skills should not require the player acting out their character. However, the player definately should sketch the tale they try to spin or general arguments of their diplomatic offer. If you don't impose any time constrains on OOC discussion, everyone should be able to come up with some plausible scenario for their bluff. It might even by worked out by the group as a whole, but they definately should make some effort. At the very least, make it count for a circumstance bonus or make it otherwise affect the DC of the test.

However, there is no wrong way to have fun, so there is no point in arguing that much.

[BRC]

Let me tell you speaking from personal experience: you are completely incorrect. I've had a couple of players who were completely inept at basically every aspect of role-playing. Everyone else would bend over backwards for these players, but they were still massively incompetent. They had to have their hands held basically the entire way or they would perform massively disastrous actions. And that's not even getting into their mechanical incompetence and utter unwillingness to more than skim the rules; frequently, we break the rules for them and them alone to make it easier for them. Ask pretty much anyone in that group, and they'll say the same thing. They. Can't. Roleplay. They love the genre, love the idea of it... but they suck. And it kills the fun out of everyone else, and eventually we just had to unofficially cut them, because, somehow, they only got worse over time.

Depends how you define "Can Roleplay".
Physically, Roleplaying is about making the decisions your character would make. Anybody capable of playing the game is technically capable of making those decisions. If your character would punch a guy in the face, good roleplaying would be to say "I punch that guy in the face". "Can Roleplay" does not mean "Is good at Roleplaying", which is in itself different from "Roleplays Well".

Anybody "Can Roleplay", somebody who is good at roleplaying knows what their character would do in a given situation, somebody who roleplays well follows through on that. Normally the last two go together, but not always.

For example, if your character is the proud son of a disgraced noble family, prone to fits of rage whenever people talk badly about his lineage, and you run into a nobleman who calls your character's grandfather "A traitor and a bandit".
In this situation the party is relying on the goodwill of said nobleman.
A person who is good at roleplaying would know that in this situation their character should get angry and do something impulsive, possibly involving the nobleman's face and a candelabra. Somebody who roleplays well would find some way to express this. At this point somebody who roleplays well would do somthing to express that anger. The player could also know that their character should do somthing violent, but since that would be really stupid in this situation they choose to just stay silent.

In fact, since part of good roleplaying is making sure everybody else is having fun, one could argue that a good roleplayer would figure out some way to demonstrate their character's indignation without disrupting the scene.

"Can't" implies a zero possibility. It was always possible for the players you are describing to roleplay well, it just didn't happen, but just because they're not good at it dosn't mean they can't do it. Roleplay checks can be made untrained.



In fairness, I never meant to imply a new player. That's a completely different issue and a total false equivalency. I'm referring to a player who just chooses to play a character type that they lack the personal skills to play well. Again, if you were DMing a player who was the absolute worst at bookkeeping, you wouldn't want them to play a caster, would you? You'd steer them towards something else during character creation, right?

"Steer" is too strong a word. A DM should never make demands of individual players like that (A DM could make a demand of the group as a whole. If the setting features no sentient races besides Humans the DM could demand that everybody play a human). A DM could reccomend that the player play somthing with less bookeeping, and if the player insists it's the DM's job find some way to help the player.

If the player obstinently refuses this help and is continually disrupting play with bad bookeeping, that's another situation.

[XenoGeno]

My anecdote wasn't a fallacy, it was a counter-example to disprove a general statement that made a universal claim, of which only one counter-example is needed to prove the whole statement false (if Psyren had said "most people can roleplay most anything," I'd have agreed; I used to feel the same as him until playing with these people in a few different campaigns convinced me not everyone could).

As for me being elitist, I assure you I'm not, though I see why people draw that from that short summation. I wanted to keep it brief and not get too off-topic, but I will just say that I gamed with those two for about five years, and only quit on them once they became jerks IRL (and five years is longer than anyone else played with them for). If you guys want specific stories, PM me and I'll gladly share them and you'll see where I'm coming from.

As to the comparisons with fighter classes, that's such a false equivalency. They're very straightforward classes, usually. Characters that specialize in completing encounters socially, are essentially puzzle solvers. It requires a flexible way of thinking, nothing to do with a player's social or acting ability in real life. I used to not be a social person at all, and in fact D&D (and RPGs in general) are largely responsible for me opening up and coming out of my shell. But when the DM approaches me with a puzzle, whether a riddle in an ancient labyrinth, or trying to talk my way out of being executed by the High Queen, or figuring out which combination of spells will save the day, it's up to me to figure out how my character would do it. I can't just point to the character's Int, or Cha, or whatever, and say "My character's stats are so high that he would know what to do, he's so much more intelligent/charismatic/whatever than I am! Asking me to figure it out is penalizing the character!" That's an utterly ridiculous notion, and why I don't think certain players should play certain archetypes. If you're bad at solving puzzles, don't play an archetype that's supposed to solve puzzles.

[Yukitsu]

As to the comparisons with fighter classes, that's such a false equivalency. They're very straightforward classes, usually. Characters that specialize in completing encounters socially, are essentially puzzle solvers. It requires a flexible way of thinking, nothing to do with a player's social or acting ability in real life. I used to not be a social person at all, and in fact D&D (and RPGs in general) are largely responsible for me opening up and coming out of my shell. But when the DM approaches me with a puzzle, whether a riddle in an ancient labyrinth, or trying to talk my way out of being executed by the High Queen, or figuring out which combination of spells will save the day, it's up to me to figure out how my character would do it. I can't just point to the character's Int, or Cha, or whatever, and say "My character's stats are so high that he would know what to do, he's so much more intelligent/charismatic/whatever than I am! Asking me to figure it out is penalizing the character!" That's an utterly ridiculous notion, and why I don't think certain players should play certain archetypes. If you're bad at solving puzzles, don't play an archetype that's supposed to solve puzzles.

Frankly, I'd walk out for that kind of DM. I hate riddles, and absolutely refuse to try to solve them, or if I can immediately figure out the answer, I write it down, and refuse to share it out of principle.

The reason is, for one, the riddle is probably a bad one. Most riddles are really quite bad. For another, I don't presuppose that I'm int 24. I am decent at solving riddles, and have solved more than my fair share in my group given enough time, but even if I can solve the riddle, I can't presuppose that I'm as smart as my character. Ultimately, I can't really get behind this being a useful demand either.

Edit: And what's worse, you're now telling me that you're telling what I can or cannot play. That's atrocious from a DM.

[BRC]

Frankly, I'd walk out for that kind of DM. I hate riddles, and absolutely refuse to try to solve them, or if I can immediately figure out the answer, I write it down, and refuse to share it out of principle.

The reason is, for one, the riddle is probably a bad one. Most riddles are really quite bad. For another, I don't presuppose that I'm int 24. I am decent at solving riddles, and have solved more than my fair share in my group given enough time, but even if I can solve the riddle, I can't presuppose that I'm as smart as my character. Ultimately, I can't really get behind this being a useful demand either.

Edit: And what's worse, you're now telling me that you're telling what I can or cannot play. That's atrocious from a DM.
In which case you would walk out on any but the most railroady DM's.

A Riddle is just another type of puzzle, and a puzzle is really just a problem solved by thinking. "What is the best way to assault the dragon's keep" is a puzzle, as is "Who murdered the captain of the town guard" and "how do we convince the local duke to pardon the innocent man he ordered executed". Even "Answer the question to pass the gate" style riddles can be done well.

[Yukitsu]

In which case you would walk out on any but the most railroady DM's.

A Riddle is just another type of puzzle, and a puzzle is really just a problem solved by thinking. "What is the best way to assault the dragon's keep" is a puzzle, as is "Who murdered the captain of the town guard" and "how do we convince the local duke to pardon the innocent man he ordered executed". Even "Answer the question to pass the gate" style riddles can be done well.

They theoretically can, but I've yet to actually see a DM give me a good riddle. Most of the time, I can put to paper a dozen or more equally feasible answers to their so called riddle, and there's no actual enjoyment to trying to figure out which one is right. If I did see a good riddle, I've been so inundated by bad ones I certainly wouldn't take the time to realize it.

See, fundamentally, "what is the best way to assault the dragon's keep." has several answers. Maybe the answer is even that you don't directly assault it. Ditto for convincing a Duke of something. While the "who murdered the captain of the town guard" only has one answer, it has far more clues to point to the answer, and several of those clues are concise as opposed to esoteric, and deliberate as opposed to inane. A riddle by contrast typically is presented as having one answer, and the clues to reaching it are never that direct, and often incredibly inane. Hence why I have no problems with the other forms, but am really, really offended by riddles.

[BRC]

They theoretically can, but I've yet to actually see a DM give me a good riddle. Most of the time, I can put to paper a dozen or more equally feasible answers to their so called riddle, and there's no actual enjoyment to trying to figure out which one is right. If I did see a good riddle, I've been so inundated by bad ones I certainly wouldn't take the time to realize it.

See, fundamentally, "what is the best way to assault the dragon's keep." has several answers. Maybe the answer is even that you don't directly assault it. Ditto for convincing a Duke of something. While the "who murdered the captain of the town guard" only has one answer, it has far more clues to point to the answer, and several of those clues are concise as opposed to esoteric, and deliberate as opposed to inane. A riddle by contrast typically is presented as having one answer, and the clues to reaching it are never that direct, and often incredibly inane. Hence why I have no problems with the other forms, but am really, really offended by riddles.
A well done "Ancient Temple" riddle can be just as well done as "Who killed the guard captain."

here's one. A door in an ancient temple with dwarven runes that read "Speak The Name of the True Hero of The Battle of the Burning Bluffs".

Alright, so a simple knowledge history check reveals that the Battle of the Burning Bluffs was a battle between a coalition of dwarves and humans battling against a Red Dragon and his army of hobgoblin minions.

The answer is Druff Goblincrusher, a Dwarven Captain who spotted the Dragon incoming and died making sure his men got into the safety of tunnels before the Dragon strafed the cliffs.

Now, investigating the standard histories would credit the hero as Sir Gillen Drakesbane, the human knight who slew the dragon. However the runes are Dwarven so it's probably not him.

The other most obvious answer is Glod Granitehearted, the dwarven general who commanded the battle and died leading a sneak attack against a cadre of hobgoblin sorcerers. However Glod Granitehearted's attack is frequently celebrated by the dwarves as the turning point in the battle, and the use of the phrase "the True Hero" indicates an unrecognized hero.

However, investigating the temple itself reveals that it was built for a dwarf who fought at the Battle of the Burning Bluffs and had been positioned at the top of the cliffs, and therefore only survived because Druff Goblincrusher warned him into the tunnels. Only by combining knowledge of the battle itself and the dwarf who built the temple can the PC's solve the riddle.

[Nerd-o-rama]

A well done "Ancient Temple" riddle can be just as well done as "Who killed the guard captain."

here's one. A door in an ancient temple with dwarven runes that read "Speak The Name of the True Hero of The Battle of the Burning Bluffs".

Alright, so a simple knowledge history check reveals that the Battle of the Burning Bluffs was a battle between a coalition of dwarves and humans battling against a Red Dragon and his army of hobgoblin minions.

The answer is Druff Goblincrusher, a Dwarven Captain who spotted the Dragon incoming and died making sure his men got into the safety of tunnels before the Dragon strafed the cliffs.

Now, investigating the standard histories would credit the hero as Sir Gillen Drakesbane, the human knight who slew the dragon. However the runes are Dwarven so it's probably not him.

The other most obvious answer is Glod Granitehearted, the dwarven general who commanded the battle and died leading a sneak attack against a cadre of hobgoblin sorcerers. However Glod Granitehearted's attack is frequently celebrated by the dwarves as the turning point in the battle, and the use of the phrase "the True Hero" indicates an unrecognized hero.

However, investigating the temple itself reveals that it was built for a dwarf who fought at the Battle of the Burning Bluffs and had been positioned at the top of the cliffs, and therefore only survived because Druff Goblincrusher warned him into the tunnels. Only by combining knowledge of the battle itself and the dwarf who built the temple can the PC's solve the riddle.

My current DM is fond of this kind of multiple choice riddle, except sometimes she forgets to give context to those of us who can't read her mind for setting details...

[BRC]

My current DM is fond of this kind of multiple choice riddle, except sometimes she forgets to give context to those of us who can't read her mind for setting details...

In this case I would want to ensure that the PC's have access to all needed information (Plus a good bit of unneeded information).

First the Pc's make a Know: history check, getting information based on their roll.
Information they don't get from that roll could be gained by getting a local wizard to hand over his book detailing the history of the battle, asking people at the local taverns who may have heard stories about the battle, or going into the woods to find an elven hermit who witnessed the battle firsthand. In this case the challenge should be getting the information needed to solve the riddle, not remembering a piece of backstory the DM mentioned a few sessions ago.

[Yukitsu]

A well done "Ancient Temple" riddle can be just as well done as "Who killed the guard captain."

here's one. A door in an ancient temple with dwarven runes that read "Speak The Name of the True Hero of The Battle of the Burning Bluffs".

Alright, so a simple knowledge history check reveals that the Battle of the Burning Bluffs was a battle between a coalition of dwarves and humans battling against a Red Dragon and his army of hobgoblin minions.

The answer is Druff Goblincrusher, a Dwarven Captain who spotted the Dragon incoming and died making sure his men got into the safety of tunnels before the Dragon strafed the cliffs.

Now, investigating the standard histories would credit the hero as Sir Gillen Drakesbane, the human knight who slew the dragon. However the runes are Dwarven so it's probably not him.

The other most obvious answer is Glod Granitehearted, the dwarven general who commanded the battle and died leading a sneak attack against a cadre of hobgoblin sorcerers. However Glod Granitehearted's attack is frequently celebrated by the dwarves as the turning point in the battle, and the use of the phrase "the True Hero" indicates an unrecognized hero.

However, investigating the temple itself reveals that it was built for a dwarf who fought at the Battle of the Burning Bluffs and had been positioned at the top of the cliffs, and therefore only survived because Druff Goblincrusher warned him into the tunnels. Only by combining knowledge of the battle itself and the dwarf who built the temple can the PC's solve the riddle.

There's definitely a problem I'd have with the general process, that being the answer is inherently opinion, which in all honesty makes it a process of reading the creator and/or DM's mind. A murder mystery is not inherently that sort of question, but rather, if properly done is concretely the butler, and not the butler in the warden's opinion.

Even getting past that it's trying to find out some ancient dead guy's opinion on the matter, I'm looking at a riddle with many true answers, and only one correct answer, which inherently irritates me. And even then, the vast bulk of the work is done through a process of "I rolled an infinite on my knowledge history check. Those names? Let's try them all process of elimination style." Going back to the notion that just rolling a die should get you past certain types of encounters as much as an elaborate set of questions asked in character, this is a fairly clear cut case where just rolling makes sense if your character is that strong at that category. Yes if he isn't, there's that fall back where you can think up ways to get that information, and that makes it all potentially more interesting, but that doesn't negate that functionally, a high enough roll of the die can get you the answer without elaboration.

[Psyren]

As to the comparisons with fighter classes, that's such a false equivalency.

It's really not. Whether the challenge is physical (maneuvering a blade past hardened dragonscales) or mental (outwitting a devil), mechanically they are handled the same way - with the dice. Roll d20, add modifiers, compare result to target number.

Where the description comes into play for me is deciding whether the check can be attempted or not, not in resolving the check itself. And here again I treat mental and physical tasks the same.

Physical: "I want to charge and sneak attack that flat-footed Giant" "His nearest vital is the artery in his thigh, and your halfling can't reach; if you jumped you might be able to, though." "Okay, I'll give it a try!" "Give me a Jump check as you charge with a running start bonus; if you make it, roll attack."

Mental: "I want to convince that dragon his whole hoard is mine." "That's too outrageous for any dragon to believe. Try thinking a little smaller." "Well, what we really want is that magic gem - maybe I can convince him to give it to us, or let us look for it." "Those both sound more reasonable. Tell me which one you're going for, then roll Bluff."

Note in both cases there is still roleplay, but it happens before the check is made, not during. And the player doesn't have to be silver-tongued or a professional gymnast to describe to me the actions he wants to take. Certainly once the roll is made the player can embellish and be as flowery as he wants (I often find that, when a player rolls high on a persuasion check, they act like a cross between Winston Churchill and Morgan Freeman) but his eloquence or lack thereof doesn't cause me to pass or fail them, that's what the dice are for.

[Amphetryon]

As to the comparisons with fighter classes, that's such a false equivalency. They're very straightforward classes, usually. Characters that specialize in completing encounters socially, are essentially puzzle solvers. It requires a flexible way of thinking, nothing to do with a player's social or acting ability in real life. I used to not be a social person at all, and in fact D&D (and RPGs in general) are largely responsible for me opening up and coming out of my shell. But when the DM approaches me with a puzzle, whether a riddle in an ancient labyrinth, or trying to talk my way out of being executed by the High Queen, or figuring out which combination of spells will save the day, it's up to me to figure out how my character would do it. I can't just point to the character's Int, or Cha, or whatever, and say "My character's stats are so high that he would know what to do, he's so much more intelligent/charismatic/whatever than I am! Asking me to figure it out is penalizing the character!" That's an utterly ridiculous notion, and why I don't think certain players should play certain archetypes. If you're bad at solving puzzles, don't play an archetype that's supposed to solve puzzles.
Explain, if you would, how the sentence I've bolded is fundamentally different than saying "If you're bad at physical combat, don't play an archetype that's supposed to combat things physically." The only difference I currently perceive between the two is that one relies on the Player's physical ability, and the other relies on the Player's mental ability. . . though in both cases, the way that ability syncs up with the DM's understanding of the activity in question may well play a part, from what you've said.

[XenoGeno]

It's really not. Whether the challenge is physical (maneuvering a blade past hardened dragonscales) or mental (outwitting a devil), mechanically they are handled the same way - with the dice. Roll d20, add modifiers, compare result to target number.

Yes, it IS a false equivalency, in this context, because I'm arguing the player skill needed to come up with successful tactics is significantly different between the two. Here, let's look once more at Drax's examples that generated the argument in the first place:

Wrong Way
I want to make this dragon give me his horde. I rolled a 100 after bonuses, i say "Dragon give me your horde buddy!", the dragon say's it will not give up its hoard and eats you.

Right Way
I want to make this dragon give me his horde. I rolled a 100 after bonuses,
"I inform the dragon that he has a couple items in his horde that are needed to protect the surrounding area, i inform him we require these items to not only protect him but what's left of his horde." You rolled so well the dragon lets you take a couple items and even offers to come help you vanquish this threat.

Where under the Right Way described does it say the player's personal acting ability comes into play? It doesn't. What it asks for is for a player to have an idea on how to solve a challenge using their character's skill set. To have tactics to accomplish a goal. And again, this is a pretty fundamental aspect of not just D&D, but RPGs in general. Mundane combat, by comparison, rarely has the plethora of options that casting and social combat have. Sure, a player might be able to climb up the wall and cut the chain holding up the chandelier so it falls on the enemy; but just charging him with a sword or shooting him with arrows are also both tactically sound. No knowledge of real-life combat styles needed, just the ability to think tactically; but to a much less degree than other methods of combat.


Mental: "I want to convince that dragon his whole hoard is mine." "That's too outrageous for any dragon to believe. Try thinking a little smaller." "Well, what we really want is that magic gem - maybe I can convince him to give it to us, or let us look for it." "Those both sound more reasonable. Tell me which one you're going for, then roll Bluff."

Your two counter-ideas, by themselves, come across more as Diplomacy checks. After all, neither "Can I have that magic gem?" or "Can we look for that magic gem?" are by themselves lies. The player would either have to roll Diplomacy to get the dragon's disposition up to where it would be willing to do one of those things, or the player needs to come up with something that's an actual lie. And yes, they need to come up with a lie; while anything they say is going to give a bonus to the opposed SM check in this instance, depending on what the specific lie is, the bonus will vary. For example, "I tell the dragon that an evil king needs that gemstone for a plan to take over the world, but I'm willing to take the gem so the king's army's chases me instead!" Compare to, "I tell him I'm the avatar of Queen Tiamat demanding that gemstone as tribute!" They're both kind of out there, but the former is more believable (it's D&D, that sort of thing probably happens to the dragon once every few decades or so) and would probably be either +5 or +10 (DM's discretion, I'd say +5 unless the gem was REALLY valuable), while the latter is so ridiculously unlikely that it would be a +20. Either one COULD succeed, depending on the roll; in the latter case, maybe as the character invokes Tiamat's name, there's a small earthquake that the Bluffer has the presence of mind to take advantage of. The roll determines whether the plan succeeds. It DOESN'T determine what the plan is.


And the player doesn't have to be silver-tongued or a professional gymnast to describe to me the actions he wants to take.

:smallannoyed: I'm starting to wonder if you're reading my posts in full or just skimming. I say this because I make it clear in nearly every single one of my posts, I'm not asking the player to be charismatic in real life. I'm certainly not myself, I think I'm one of the worst actors in my group. But you can't point to your character's stats and say "I don't need to think of a plan, my character's going to come up with one." The die roll, the skills; they don't come up with a plan, they just tell you if a plan succeeds. I feel like I'm repeating myself repeating myself, but you keep saying I argue for something I explicitly argue against. I would greatly appreciate if you'd stop that.

[Yukitsu]

:smallannoyed: I'm starting to wonder if you're reading my posts in full or just skimming. I say this because I make it clear in nearly every single one of my posts, I'm not asking the player to be charismatic in real life. I'm certainly not myself, I think I'm one of the worst actors in my group. But you can't point to your character's stats and say "I don't need to think of a plan, my character's going to come up with one." The die roll, the skills; they don't come up with a plan, they just tell you if a plan succeeds. I feel like I'm repeating myself repeating myself, but you keep saying I argue for something I explicitly argue against. I would greatly appreciate if you'd stop that.

I suspect that for most of us, coming up with a convincing or compelling thing to say by default is an issue of having charisma, which frankly it is. It's a process of convincing the DM that you have a viable plan, and not in all honesty, actually having a good plan.

Acting to a degree is certainly an issue of charisma, but so is getting a DM on board with what you're saying, getting the DM on your side with a specific phrase, or making him believe that what you're doing makes the game more interesting on the whole. If someone is bad at that, they will never successfully do what you're demanding of them because they lack the charismatic skills IRL to do so.

[Psyren]

If someone is bad at that, they will never successfully do what you're demanding of them because they lack the charismatic skills IRL to do so.

This is the crux of what I'm saying. To which Xeno's reply, if I'm reading his argument right, is "well, that player shouldn't be playing a charismatic type if he is bad at convincing his DM of his plans." Whereas I would say "The player can play whatever he wants - the dice are there so that I can help him accomplish those objectives in a just and consistent manner."

[NichG]

The important thing in all of this is to be clear on 'what the game part of the RPG is'. We've got the 'role-playing' part down, but we can't forget that this is also a game. Games almost universally imply that there are varying levels of skill in the players of the game, so it becomes important to ask 'at this particular table, what is the skill that the game is testing?'

There's no wrong answer to this. You could in fact have a game where you have to successfully armwrestle the DM to grapple a monster. Its kind of cheesy, but you could do it and have it be logically consistent - basically, the game is about arm wrestling and the role-playing acts to frame those arm wrestling events within a meaningful context.

The problems arise when people aren't on the same page about 'what the game is' at a given table, and especially when its not clear what the relative value of playing a certain game versus playing with certain people is.

If I'm just trying to hang out with my friends, I should run a game that plays to their skills. So if they're all good at and enjoy personally solving mysteries, I should run a game where they can use their OOC skill at solving mysteries. If they enjoy social manipulation, I should run a game where they can use their OOC skill at social manipulation. If they enjoy SCA-style combat, I could even run a game where battles are played out in live action, and we'd all have fun. But I shouldn't try to run a game that focuses on something that one of my friends is bad at, because they're going to feel excluded. This isn't some absolute philosophical thing about roleplay versus metagaming, its just a consequence of me trying to have fun with a specific group of people.

Now, the other end of this is, lets say the game is the thing. If I want to play a game where the focus is on solving riddles, lets say, then it makes sense for me to restrict myself to playing with people who can have fun solving riddles OOC. If this is the goal, I don't have to be careful not to exclude people who aren't good at it, because the goal is to find and play with people who are good at it (or at least who enjoy it).

The thing that can be really tricky here is, for a lot of online games, they're recruiting from a very wide base and they don't often say what the point of the game is very clearly. Maybe a given game has lots of different things its about - a combination of character creation skills, riddle solving, dealing with social situations, etc. In such a complex case, where the players don't really know eachother yet, it really is the right thing for the DM to ask people to not play characters who are going to be forced to, OOC, deal with things that the player doesn't want to deal with.

That's not bad DMing, thats a DM seeing a trainwreck about to happen and letting the player know that they may not be happy with their choices. No different than warning the guy about to play a crit-focused build or a rogue that he's entering into a campaign that is going to be about killing undead, golems, and oozes in an underground dungeon far away from civilization.

[Randomocity132]

I'm not. All I'm doing is avoiding penalizing the player for a bad choice his character feasibly wouldn't have made. He still has the option to (a) choose from among the reasonable alternatives I provide or (b) disregard my attempt to help entirely - both of which place the onus on him, not on me.



I think the disconnect between us is the use of the word "how." I take "how" to mean more than simply saying what the lie is - I take it to mean that the player would have to actually present the falsehood persuasively. Which I don't think is necessary or fair to the process. If that's not what you meant, then great, we're on the same page.



No. I'm a firm believer that anyone can roleplay anything. The tools to help them succeed are in the rules. If they need a little help from the DM to get there and have fun, so be it, that comes with the job.

If this truly how you feel, I doubt we'll see eye to eye on any of this.



It doesn't, and here's why - knowing what combat moves are at your disposal is just like knowing what spells are at your disposal. The choice of which one to use still falls on you, but the overall information on your capabilities is information I will freely provide.

For example, if an inexperienced player doesn't know he can 5-foot step before shooting an arrow to avoid an AoO, I'm going to tell him. I'm not going to say "oh hey, you're supposedly a great archer and all but you totally messed that up and got whacked in the face with no do-over."



The chance to fail is still very much there - picking the wrong choice, or acting on incomplete information. But the character not knowing what the choices are just because the player doesn't is unreasonable.

I'm also gonna disagree with all of this, but say that if your players are fine with your particular method of DM'ing, cool for you guys. I wouldn't wanna play with your group, but if you guys are fine with it, then whatever. That's all that really matters.

Everybody houserules something, and even if most of the thread thinks your houserules are crappy, as long as it works for your group, it's serving the only purpose it's supposed to have. As long as it works for you guys, what other people think of it is irrelevant.

This is, of course, assuming that they are fine with it.

[XenoGeno]

This is the crux of what I'm saying. To which Xeno's reply, if I'm reading his argument right, is "well, that player shouldn't be playing a charismatic type if he is bad at convincing his DM of his plans." Whereas I would say "The player can play whatever he wants - the dice are there so that I can help him accomplish those objectives in a just and consistent manner."

:smallsigh: I'm not saying any of that, and for the umpteenth time, I'm explicitly arguing against that. This is my last post on this thread, I'm done, just going to say this: Dungeons and Dragons is a game of tactics, strategy, and role-playing. When I say tactics and strategy, I don't necessarily mean "the orc is ten feet away but if I use two move actions I can get to his other side without provoking an AoO and flank so the rogue can sneak attack." No, what I mean is both characters and players have short-term and long-term goals, and come up with plans to accomplish them. It is up to the players to determine what those plans are, not the DM. If a player genuinely forgets something, or makes a decision off of a description I gave that he misunderstood, then sure I'll let him know the mistake and let him try again. If during character creation, if I see a player making a crap build, I'll quite nicely suggest an alternative. But once the character is made, unless the DM screws something up, it is up to the player to decide what his character does, not the DM. The DM can and should use the roll results to fill in the details, and of course to see if it succeeds. But the crux of what the character is doing should lie on the player's shoulders. Certain archetypes require a greater ability to think flexibly and outside-the-box, and the Bluffomancer is at the forefront there. If a player lacks the ability to do that well, they should probably pick another class that more suits their playstyle. But the DM shouldn't decide what's an in-character action or not for a PC. That's the player's job. If your players are okay with that, fine. It's not a game I would ever want to be in, but more power to you if that works for you. But please stop implying my method of DMing is bad and elitist.


I suspect that for most of us, coming up with a convincing or compelling thing to say by default is an issue of having charisma, which frankly it is. It's a process of convincing the DM that you have a viable plan, and not in all honesty, actually having a good plan.

Acting to a degree is certainly an issue of charisma, but so is getting a DM on board with what you're saying, getting the DM on your side with a specific phrase, or making him believe that what you're doing makes the game more interesting on the whole. If someone is bad at that, they will never successfully do what you're demanding of them because they lack the charismatic skills IRL to do so.

But... that's what D&D is. A social game, interactions between people. And I'm not saying you have to convince a DM about anything; I'm saying that Bluff requires a lie to be provided for the DM to judge how believable it is so the appropriate bonus or penalty, and so the DM can figure out how an NPC will respond depending on the roll. The die roll will determine whether or not someone believes you, but even if they believe you the specifics of the lie might have unintended consequences. Back to the dragon hoard example: "I Bluff the dragon saying there's some great threat coming to kill it! 100 on the roll!" "Okay, it thanks you for alerting it and begins fortifying its position with spells and traps to attack anyone coming for it!" Compare to: "I bluff the dragon saying there's some great threat coming to collapse the cave on top of the dragon, trapping it in its lair! 100 on the roll!" "Okay, it thanks you for alerting it and cats some spells to buff itself before flying off in the direction you indicated."

You can't just lump it all together. "I Bluff the dragon into leaving us alone with the treasure! 100 on the roll!" is just not enough, considering the wide variety of things it can represent, which would have different reactions from the NPC.


Explain, if you would, how the sentence I've bolded is fundamentally different than saying "If you're bad at physical combat, don't play an archetype that's supposed to combat things physically." The only difference I currently perceive between the two is that one relies on the Player's physical ability, and the other relies on the Player's mental ability. . . though in both cases, the way that ability syncs up with the DM's understanding of the activity in question may well play a part, from what you've said.

I missed this earlier (I spend way too long typing up posts and this was posted after I started typing my last post and before I posted it). This is such an unreasonable comparison. I'm not asking a player to lie to me while convincing me they're telling the truth, and if they can't that fails; nor am I asking them to tell me every word their character says, and if they mess up telling me so does their character. I'm simply asking them to come up with a plan they think their character would come up with, and then rolling to see how that works. There might still be unexpected consequences, of course, but how often do plans work perfectly in fiction? It's not my job as the DM to tell them how a plan will work out before they try it. It's the player's job to come up with a plan and see where it takes him.




I said I'm done with replying to this thread and I am; no matter how y'all reply, I won't respond. I will apologize if I came across as saying your playstyle was wrong; I never meant to. But there were several comments that strongly implied that the way I (and seemingly several others) played was this generally bad, elitist style, and that touched a bit of a nerve. However, I'm curious, do all of y'all who disagree with me also disagree with the Giant's version of Diplomacy? It's essentially built on the same concepts that you all seem so opposed to. Look at the extended example. That's the sort of "thinking on the feet" that I claim is needed from the player to play the trickster/silver-tongued archetype well.

[Yukitsu]

But... that's what D&D is. A social game, interactions between people. And I'm not saying you have to convince a DM about anything; I'm saying that Bluff requires a lie to be provided for the DM to judge how believable it is so the appropriate bonus or penalty, and so the DM can figure out how an NPC will respond depending on the roll. The die roll will determine whether or not someone believes you, but even if they believe you the specifics of the lie might have unintended consequences. Back to the dragon hoard example: "I Bluff the dragon saying there's some great threat coming to kill it! 100 on the roll!" "Okay, it thanks you for alerting it and begins fortifying its position with spells and traps to attack anyone coming for it!" Compare to: "I bluff the dragon saying there's some great threat coming to collapse the cave on top of the dragon, trapping it in its lair! 100 on the roll!" "Okay, it thanks you for alerting it and cats some spells to buff itself before flying off in the direction you indicated."

The problem I have with your line of thinking is that in practice, yes, you absolutely are demanding that the player either trick or convince the DM to go along with his plan. No plan that a player makes will ultimately be sensible in any meaningful way, the only difference between one that will work and one that won't work, is that you've convinced the DM that it's sensible in some way or another. (reaction if I were playing that dragon: Eat PCs, then cast buffs, then go find thing that wants to cause cave in, as there is no reason at all not to add their treasure to my horde, and even less reason to leave them with it, even if they're telling the truth.)

If it truly were a brilliant plan, and not just a plan the DM went with, the sheer nature of it would make a roll irrelevant, it would simply work by following the chain of actions to consequence.


You can't just lump it all together. "I Bluff the dragon into leaving us alone with the treasure! 100 on the roll!" is just not enough, considering the wide variety of things it can represent, which would have different reactions from the NPC.

The resistance you're getting from this notion is that no, you absolutely don't need any more than that. The dragon goes off to do something, you take it all, you leave. That's the effect you want, I don't particularly see why a dozen random other nonsense half baked tack ons needed to be added to this scenario solely designed to screw the character who clearly wanted to solve things through talking, even if the player can't do so.

[Amphetryon]

The problem I have with your line of thinking is that in practice, yes, you absolutely are demanding that the player either trick or convince the DM to go along with his plan. No plan that a player makes will ultimately be sensible in any meaningful way, the only difference between one that will work and one that won't work, is that you've convinced the DM that it's sensible in some way or another. (reaction if I were playing that dragon: Eat PCs, then cast buffs, then go find thing that wants to cause cave in, as there is no reason at all not to add their treasure to my horde, and even less reason to leave them with it, even if they're telling the truth.)

If it truly were a brilliant plan, and not just a plan the DM went with, the sheer nature of it would make a roll irrelevant, it would simply work by following the chain of actions to consequence.



The resistance you're getting from this notion is that no, you absolutely don't need any more than that. The dragon goes off to do something, you take it all, you leave. That's the effect you want, I don't particularly see why a dozen random other nonsense half baked tack ons needed to be added to this scenario solely designed to screw the character who clearly wanted to solve things through talking, even if the player can't do so.

Exactly. This is placing demands on the Player's CHA, rather than the Character's CHA.

[Psyren]

I think Yukitsu and Amphetryon have summarized my position enough that I can leave this behind too. If you still don't understand, read their posts again; if you simply disagree, then our impasse will simply remain.

[TuggyNE]

I think the problems Yukitsu and Amphetryon have ably summarized should be seriously considered, but I'm not sure XenoGeno is entirely wrong either; the key difference, though, is that appending potential objections free-form, and then expecting free-form solutions to those, is inherently going to work against those who have low IRL Cha. Therefore, instead of saying "well, the dragon figures it would be best to hole up in its cave and defend itself there because you forgot to lie about how that wouldn't work", the outcome should be considered based on as close to a one-to-one mapping of fluff and mechanics as possible; if you only make one roll, you only have one basic "chunk" of your plan to explain at a high level, and it succeeds or fails based on that.

Personally, I'd prefer to expand D&D social skills into a full social combat system, which would have detailed mechanics to represent those sorts of convoluted plans. But, importantly, those would be mechanics, not free-form, and thus avoid the problems of being essentially arbitrary and founded on OOC player abilities.

[Pickford]

In which case you would walk out on any but the most railroady DM's.

A Riddle is just another type of puzzle, and a puzzle is really just a problem solved by thinking. "What is the best way to assault the dragon's keep" is a puzzle, as is "Who murdered the captain of the town guard" and "how do we convince the local duke to pardon the innocent man he ordered executed". Even "Answer the question to pass the gate" style riddles can be done well.

Who murdered the captain of the town guard is a secret, not a puzzle. Puzzles are complex, often involving several secrets, secrets are singular pieces of information that answer a question.

And Mysteries are situations where the ultimate answer is unknowable. For example: What will I have for lunch today?

Even if you know I've said I will have a tuna sandwich, and you know I have tuna in my fridge, you still do not know that I will accomplish the goal of having tuna for lunch. I could be hit by a car and die, or change my mind, etc...

Hence, you can take a best guess, but you can't know for certain.

[Psyren]

Who murdered the captain of the town guard is a secret, not a puzzle. Puzzles are complex, often involving several secrets, secrets are singular pieces of information that answer a question.

And Mysteries are situations where the ultimate answer is unknowable. For example: What will I have for lunch today?

Even if you know I've said I will have a tuna sandwich, and you know I have tuna in my fridge, you still do not know that I will accomplish the goal of having tuna for lunch. I could be hit by a car and die, or change my mind, etc...

Hence, you can take a best guess, but you can't know for certain.

For that matter, what even is a sandwich? Really think about it. Are we even here right now? Duuuuude. There is no sandwich

[Ravian]

My general rule at the table is that with any kind of social skill check be it Bluff, Diplomancy, or Intimidate (Or even Gather Information, though usually that just seems like rushed diplomancy) the player always has to describe what they are going to say to begin with, I don't care if it's ridiculous or insane but under no circumstances can they say I bluff that guy into letting us in. Usually because if they roll dice first and get a high number they will often add in ridiculous stuff because the result is already known. Before I had established this as a hard rule my players at one point encountered a magic door that was semi-intelligent. They were looking for a way through when one player said they would bluff it into thinking they were allowed inside. Before I could ask for details he snatched up a d20 and promptly rolled a nat 20. Eventually after a quick futile argument I just let them inside to avoid a huge fuss.

I made this rule soon afterwards.

Now players know that they need to come up with something convincing to say, if only slightly. The general expectation is that the DC will be much higher if they make it more and more ridiculous. Since my players don't really make Bluffalos they prefer to tone it down rather than rely on a 20 coming up. I don't think I've ever had to scale a DC based on the credibility of their claim but the belief that I am makes them much more cautious.

[BRC]

Exactly. This is placing demands on the Player's CHA, rather than the Character's CHA.



except that making the game totally unreliant on the Player's capabilities is a terrible idea. If you did, Gameplay would go like this.

DM: The Duke wants you to rescue his son from the dragon.
Player: I roll Wisdom to see if this is a good idea.
DM: It is a good idea.
Player: I roll Int to determine the best way to rescue the son.
DM: You determine that the best way is to convince the Dragon to let the Son go.
Player: I roll Charisma to convince the dragon.
DM: The Dragon agrees and lets the Duke's son go free. The Duke rewards you.


The argument of "Players don't need to know how to swing swords, so why should they need to know how to tell convincing lies" is deeply flawed.

First of all, they don't need to tell a convincing lie, they just need to say one. Nobody in real life needs to believe it. Just like the player does not need to swing a sword, they just need to say they are swinging a sword.

Secondly, swinging a sword ALSO requires player decisions. First the Player decided to build their character a certain way, then, in the encounter, they decided to engage a certain foe with their sword. Then, they may or may not have decided to use various feats or tactics. Did they charge or move in normally? Are they power attacking? Are they prioritizing the big orc out front, or the tattooed hobgoblin with the staff and cloak skulking around the back?

All those decisions are the sword swing's version of deciding what lie to tell. They, along with the dice roll, determine the swing's effectiveness and chance to succeed or fail.

[aleucard]

As a semi-newbie with extensive reading of the rules and books of 3.5, I'll give my take on the whole situation, and what I get from the discussion.

Bluff requires the player to describe some form of falsehood that they're to attempt to pass off as (at least their character thinking it is) true. Just stating what you want the end goal to be (ex; give me that there gem from your hoard) isn't gonna do ****, though it might work under Diplomacy (to a limited degree, dragons in general think of their hoard as adding to their personal worth as an individual, so asking one to give it up would be like asking a triathlete to give up a leg). No exact acting out of the bluff is required, though a good DM would likely give a bonus to their check depending on how well they do (see this link for an example of this with Intimidate, which is also something that convinced me to make my next character a Paladin; http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Powder_Keg_of_Justice ). Also, any equipment modifications that allow uncapped skill bonuses should be banned, or at least restricted heavily depending on skill-breakability.

[Yukitsu]

except that making the game totally unreliant on the Player's capabilities is a terrible idea. If you did, Gameplay would go like this.

DM: The Duke wants you to rescue his son from the dragon.
Player: I roll Wisdom to see if this is a good idea.
DM: It is a good idea.
Player: I roll Int to determine the best way to rescue the son.
DM: You determine that the best way is to convince the Dragon to let the Son go.
Player: I roll Charisma to convince the dragon.
DM: The Dragon agrees and lets the Duke's son go free. The Duke rewards you.


This is in contrast to the side case where someone is capable of a tremendous, singly focused optimized for that one skill number. If somehow, a player can succeed at all of those checks automatically, I suspect the problem isn't the method so much as that they are somehow getting 100+ on every ability check rather than just 1 skill check. In your example, someone that can evidently reach huge numbers on every single roll is trivializing an encounter (problem with a character getting 100+ on every type of check AKA a wizard doing it) while pretty much any practical case, someone could maybe manage one of those if they spent every last hour optimizing it. (which is their character actually, you know, functioning.)

[Amphetryon]

except that making the game totally unreliant on the Player's capabilities is a terrible idea. If you did, Gameplay would go like this.

DM: The Duke wants you to rescue his son from the dragon.
Player: I roll Wisdom to see if this is a good idea.
DM: It is a good idea.
Player: I roll Int to determine the best way to rescue the son.
DM: You determine that the best way is to convince the Dragon to let the Son go.
Player: I roll Charisma to convince the dragon.
DM: The Dragon agrees and lets the Duke's son go free. The Duke rewards you.


The argument of "Players don't need to know how to swing swords, so why should they need to know how to tell convincing lies" is deeply flawed.

First of all, they don't need to tell a convincing lie, they just need to say one. Nobody in real life needs to believe it. Just like the player does not need to swing a sword, they just need to say they are swinging a sword.

Secondly, swinging a sword ALSO requires player decisions. First the Player decided to build their character a certain way, then, in the encounter, they decided to engage a certain foe with their sword. Then, they may or may not have decided to use various feats or tactics. Did they charge or move in normally? Are they power attacking? Are they prioritizing the big orc out front, or the tattooed hobgoblin with the staff and cloak skulking around the back?

All those decisions are the sword swing's version of deciding what lie to tell. They, along with the dice roll, determine the swing's effectiveness and chance to succeed or fail.

If all of my posts on this subject to this point do not make clear how much I disagree with the above, nothing I could say in an attempt to clarify it further would appear to make any difference.

[denthor]

Rules as written:

State that a bluff the puts nobody in any harm.

I am a simple peasant girl enjoying the fair. Get a straight up roll

greater bluffs:

I would never sell you the crown jewels of ... that would get us both killed get a penalty -5 role

Outrageous bluffs

You fifty orcs I can kill you all and you better not get any of your blood on my white outfit. Penalty like -15 to the roll

[Pickford]

Rules as written:

State that a bluff the puts nobody in any harm.

I am a simple peasant girl enjoying the fair. Get a straight up roll

greater bluffs:

I would never sell you the crown jewels of ... that would get us both killed get a penalty -5 role

Outrageous bluffs

You fifty orcs I can kill you all and you better not get any of your blood on my white outfit. Penalty like -15 to the roll

That last one would of course require 50 bluff checks. (And probably a -50 modifier unless you did something incredible at the same time to mitigate it)

[Yukitsu]

That last one would of course require 50 bluff checks. (And probably a -50 modifier unless you did something incredible at the same time to mitigate it)

Depends on your level. By level 11 or so you're considered "legendary" and would probably carry around some notoriety.

[Pickford]

Depends on your level. By level 11 or so you're considered "legendary" and would probably carry around some notoriety.

Citation? (I just don't recall where that is from off-hand.)

Also: It's not a bluff if you're actually capable of doing it.

[Yukitsu]

Citation? (I just don't recall where that is from off-hand.)

Also: It's not a bluff if you're actually capable of doing it.

Legend lore spell states that it works on legendary figures. It then goes on to state that this is generally people who are around level 11.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/legendLore.htm

Also, 50 orcs is a lot, even for an 11th level guy, but depending on how the stories about him get spun, it may seem believable.

[Nettlekid]

This is the crux of what I'm saying. To which Xeno's reply, if I'm reading his argument right, is "well, that player shouldn't be playing a charismatic type if he is bad at convincing his DM of his plans." Whereas I would say "The player can play whatever he wants - the dice are there so that I can help him accomplish those objectives in a just and consistent manner."

It's that last sentence that I really agree with, and I can attest to it from personal experience. As a person I have pretty a bad Bluff and Sense Motive, but I once played a Malconvoker who had phenomenal Bluff. Whenever I dealt with people I would always have a conversation, I never just die-rolled past the actual chitchat, but because I knew my Bluffs would be high enough to beat anyone, I as a player was much more comfortable saying whatever came to mind. The very first meeting had the cliche stopped-by-bandits-asking-for-toll-money scenario. Now as a Player, I failed my Sense Motive and thought they were actual toll collectors. Knowing I had a good Bluff, I countered with the equally cliche "I paid the toll yesterday...No, I was told I would get a receipt today...The man who told me that had to run off, I think there was a fire somewhere in the forest...Well thank you, and I hope you get that sorted out" kind of thing. Despite the fact that it wouldn't have flown were I to try something similar in real life, I felt confident enough to say it because it was sure to work.

One thing, to go back to the very original question that the OP asks for, "How to nerf Bluff," is circumstance penalties put in place by the DM! The party walks in and with a Bluff of 100 says to the dragon "We actually own all your treasure, so give it to us." The dragon has memories of collecting the treasure. The dragon has owned the treasure longer than it expects the party has been alive. The dragon knows that it is a bit gullible and sometimes believes people foolishly, and has been working really hard with the support of its peers to take things with a grain of salt instead of at face value. As a result, that Bluff of 100 can twiddle down to 0. If the players get annoyed with the DM for doing this, the DM can remark about any of the various circumstances that make their Bluff too implausible.

Perhaps that earlier OotS strip makes a good example. When Haley says to the one guard that he's actually a yellow-footed rock wallaby, he would have no memories of such, and he'd look at himself and not see a wallaby, and so there'd be a pretty steep circumstance penalty. Haley could then say that the guard had been subjected to Programmed Amnesia to lose his memories and make him see his old body to trick him. Circumstance penalty lessened. The guard might ask how she knows this, or why an evil wizard might want to enchant him thusly. From this point, any implausible lie that cannot be easily disproven will do the trick. She might say that she is a divine oracle in disguise, sent by the King of Anywhere, in search of the long-lost prince, who matches the guard's description, and was last seen questing after an evil Enchanter with a penchant for turning his foes into wallabies, because the prince knew the Enchanter's one weakness. Now, this would be absolutely ridiculous, which is why you need a high Bluff to pull it off. But there's nothing to stop it being true, unlike "We own all your gold, Dragon." If players played like this in a game of mine, I'd have a chuckle, and let them do whatever they wanted after sending that guard on his way.

[MOLOKH]

Generally, a failed Bluff check in social interaction makes the target too suspicious for you to try again in the same circumstances...

I have always interpreted this to mean that if someone has a reason to suspect you'd be lying, you can't really bluff that person at all - he'll automatically disregard any of your claims, unless maybe there is some kind of proof. For instance, if you're in a courthouse and being trialed for murder, it doesn't matter how hard you yell "I'm innocent!" or the like with a ridiculously pimped Bluff modifier, because what really will matter are witnesses, evidence, and the like.

This, on the other hand, brings up different metagame issues, like what attitude PCs and NPCs would have towards eachother and why, but this is where the "roleplaying" aspect of the game really comes in full force.

[Hamste]

Rules as written:

State that a bluff the puts nobody in any harm.

I am a simple peasant girl enjoying the fair. Get a straight up roll

greater bluffs:

I would never sell you the crown jewels of ... that would get us both killed get a penalty -5 role

Outrageous bluffs

You fifty orcs I can kill you all and you better not get any of your blood on my white outfit. Penalty like -15 to the roll

Not sure, but I think that last one is not bluff but intimidate

[Segev]

Actually, no, somebody being predisposed to distrust you is just a penalty to the Bluff/increase to the DC. Con men manage to fast-talk people who start off suspicious into trusting them fairly frequently (at least in fiction, which this game tries to emulate). And you don't even have to trick them into believing the overt nature of what you're saying. A high enough Bluff can represent playing on their distrust, until they do what you want while thinking they've out-smarted you.

"Oh, no way we're leaving you in that cell to be safe and secure while the assassins (that you insist aren't here, so we are sure must be) come for the king. Especially invisible ones who can't cross cold iron bars. In fact, we're locking ourselves in here; you get out there and stop them, you cad!"

[Decado]

How do you handle a player with an insane bluff score? I have a level 4 player that just convinced a dragon to give him its entire hoard... Bluff is basically a wish spell for charisma.

RaW you can convince an npc/monster of *anything* with very few penalties. There are so many ways to boost bluff and so few ways around it.

Then you add in a constant item of the glibness spell? Forget it you can win an entire campaign by yourself.

I hope that dragon has a "WTF did I just do!" moment when it surveys its now empty dwellings, before flying forth to wreak furious vengeance on the never again to be believed PC.