Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Oya971 04-23-07, 04:42 AM	Hi all, I was under the impression that between players, you don't roll for bluff/sense motive etc. Basically, it's down to your ability to convince the other through your roleplay. However, I can't find an official rule about that. Am I right/wrong and can you please point me to an official rule? thx
Rhuxley 04-23-07, 07:22 AM	You would be basing this off the old 3.0 rule that says you cannot change the attitude of a PC using the diplomacy skill. Note that you still cannot do this, since it says "changing NPC attitudes" as the action. In short, you can bluff players all day long.
DracoPhoenix 04-23-07, 08:11 AM	You would be basing this off the old 3.0 rule that says you cannot change the attitude of a PC using the diplomacy skill. Note that you still cannot do this, since it says "changing NPC attitudes" as the action. In short, you can bluff players all day long. Sadly the converse is also true - the player can be a total jerk all day and you can't roll a d20 to try and stop him :( (- joke (I hope))
Oya971 04-23-07, 08:54 AM	ok thx
Leilond 04-23-07, 09:07 AM	Hi all, I was under the impression that between players, you don't roll for bluff/sense motive etc. Basically, it's down to your ability to convince the other through your roleplay. However, I can't find an official rule about that. Am I right/wrong and can you please point me to an official rule? thx Well... how do you manage lies? Example Player 1: "Did you take that item without permission?" Player 2: "Yes, I asked to the owner and he gave it to me" Now both the players know that the "Player 2" isn't saying the truth, but Player 1 is a wisdom 8 intelligence 8 fighter without any "sense motive" skill point, and the Player 2 is a Charisma 16 bard with 10 "bluff" skill point I won't be really belivable that the fighter understand that the bard isn't saying the truth... You have two solution 1) The Player 1 is a good role-player and play like his character belive the bard or give a very good "in game" motivation to not belive (good motivation isn't "I know my friend and I won't belive him" unless he already DISCOVERED his friend not saying the truth several times) 2) Roll the dices
Rhuxley 04-23-07, 10:59 AM	I won't be really believable that the fighter understand that the bard isn't saying the truth... You have two solution 1) The Player 1 is a good role-player and play like his character belive the bard or give a very good "in game" motivation to not belive (good motivation isn't "I know my friend and I won't belive him" unless he already DISCOVERED his friend not saying the truth several times) 2) Roll the dices This is probably the most common mistake people make. People tend to confuse "role-playing" with "Social Encounter". Role-playing is whenever you play a role. So in combat when you say "Sophie jumps up on a table, dodging blows as the kips up, and slices the tall hooded fellow across the face. <Player rolls attack, hits and deals damage>" you are role playing just as much as when you say "Sophie walks up to the guard and tries to act all sluttish, and asks him some discreet questions about what he’s guarding. <Player rolls bluff check>". Role-playing is about playing a role, for example when you were 6 and played cops & robbers, you were role-playing. The mechanics are there to se if your successful or not, you could have, for example, used some dice when it was time to decide if little Billy had indeed shot you, and if you are in fact now dead. Role-playing & dice rolling have a symbiotic relationship, role-playing allows you to express your character and her actions, and dice tell you the randomly generated reactions NPCs and objects have. So, when you say, "You have two [options]" you are separating the two. Just because your friend is trustworthy, doesn’t mean that he can automatically tell me some outrageous story, and I will automatically believe him. Quite the contrary, if I am asking "Did you take that item without permission?" then we can assume that I want to know the answer. A "wisdom 8 intelligence 8 fighter without any "sense motive" skill point[s]" simply means that he will roll poorly, and will most likely "play like his character [&] beli[e]ve the bard or give a very good "in game" motivation to not beli[e]ve." Good role-playing does not remove the ability to roll dice. Yes you can lie to another player, and yes they always get a chance to tell if something doesn’t add up. Even if they don’t care if you were lying or not, they still might have a feeling about whether or not its true.
Leilond 04-23-07, 11:26 AM	Good role-playing does not remove the ability to roll dice. Yes you can lie to another player, and yes they always get a chance to tell if something doesn’t add up. Even if they don’t care if you were lying or not, they still might have a feeling about whether or not its true. Sure it doesn't remove the ability to roll the dice, but if both the players and the DM judge that the lie is enought belivable to not need a roll than why rolling? If the bard tell a totally stupid story I can give a +10 to the "sense motive" of the fighter or tell him "No need to roll, your character don't belive the bard" I'm not saying "rolling the dice" means you're not good roleplaying, but "if you don't want to roll the dice you have to give me a good in-game motivation"... it is different!
darkeness 04-23-07, 12:02 PM	This is probably the most common mistake people make. People tend to confuse "role-playing" with "Social Encounter". Role-playing is whenever you play a role. So in combat when you say "Sophie jumps up on a table, dodging blows as the kips up, and slices the tall hooded fellow across the face. <Player rolls attack, hits and deals damage>" you are role playing just as much as when you say "Sophie walks up to the guard and tries to act all sluttish, and asks him some discreet questions about what he’s guarding. <Player rolls bluff check>". Role-playing is about playing a role, for example when you were 6 and played cops & robbers, you were role-playing. The mechanics are there to se if your successful or not, you could have, for example, used some dice when it was time to decide if little Billy had indeed shot you, and if you are in fact now dead. Role-playing & dice rolling have a symbiotic relationship, role-playing allows you to express your character and her actions, and dice tell you the randomly generated reactions NPCs and objects have. So, when you say, "You have two [options]" you are separating the two. Just because your friend is trustworthy, doesn’t mean that he can automatically tell me some outrageous story, and I will automatically believe him. Quite the contrary, if I am asking "Did you take that item without permission?" then we can assume that I want to know the answer. A "wisdom 8 intelligence 8 fighter without any "sense motive" skill point[s]" simply means that he will roll poorly, and will most likely "play like his character [&] beli[e]ve the bard or give a very good "in game" motivation to not beli[e]ve." Good role-playing does not remove the ability to roll dice. Yes you can lie to another player, and yes they always get a chance to tell if something doesn’t add up. Even if they don’t care if you were lying or not, they still might have a feeling about whether or not its true. An excellent answer Rhuxley! So many people think that good character creation, solid use of feats and skills (what I call power gaming) and roleplaying are mutually exclusive. The dice and rules are the Mechanics of the game, but it is the players ability and willingness to imerse themselves into the story and the persona of their character while trying to avoid using thier own knowledges (meta-gaming) that make things interesting. Leilond: When I DM I always make the DC of a social skill dependant on roleplaying (sometimes people have off days and just can't get into the role). The better the story, the more believable the bluff, the lower the DC (or the bigger the RP bonus for opposed checks). I once had a player in a solo game that was being questioned by the gaurds. He was guilty as heck, but came up with an excellent story (his character was pretty intellegent as well). He rolls the bluff and gets a 1... I roll and get a 20. Some might say, thems the breaks, but realy it just points out the flaw of the system. That was when I decided to make social skills (and sometimes even physical ones) roleplaying dependant. Don't want to roleplay? Fine, roll the dice. Got an excllent, ellaborate story (I have even had players get up and start acting)... roll the dice... 1, no problem you still succed (or might still fail if the guard actually has a high sense motive, how likely is that with the broken skill rules for fighters?!?)
Rhuxley 04-23-07, 12:23 PM	I once had a player in a solo game that was being questioned by the gaurds. He was guilty as heck, but came up with an excellent story (his character was pretty intellegent as well). He rolls the bluff and gets a 1... I roll and get a 20. Some might say, thems the breaks, but realy it just points out the flaw of the system. That was when I decided to make social skills (and sometimes even physical ones) roleplaying dependant. Don't want to roleplay? Fine, roll the dice. Got an excllent, ellaborate story (I have even had players get up and start acting)... roll the dice... 1, no problem you still succed (or might still fail if the guard actually has a high sense motive, how likely is that with the broken skill rules for fighters?!?) The way I have figgured out to play things like that is circumstance. So your bard has a great story about where he was yesterday to clear him of his guilt, and it works out perfect, and rolepaying wise it was excelent, but he rolls a 1, and that dumb as bricks guard rolls a nat 20? Well then apparantly yesterday was that guards off day, and he also happens to like <wherever your bard says he was>, and he didnt see the bard at all. What does the bard have to say to that? Its true man, dems da breaks. Sometimes, randomly, about 0.25% of the time, someone spent the day with the person your saying is your alibi. Sucks when it happens, but a 2nd more clever lie should cover it up(cuz really, what are the chances you roll that poorly again).
Rhuxley 04-23-07, 12:37 PM	Sure it doesn't remove the ability to roll the dice, but if both the players and the DM judge that the lie is enought belivable to not need a roll than why rolling? If the bard tell a totally stupid story I can give a +10 to the "sense motive" of the fighter or tell him "No need to roll, your character don't belive the bard"Why? Because thats stupid, that why. If you ask a player for a spot check, she cant say "no, i close my eyes", cuz she wouldnt know why shes closing her eyes. Similarly you cannot agree to be lied to, you either believe the lie, you dont belive it, or you dont believe it and dont care that they are lying. As a matter of fact it gives you a mechanical bonus if you can voluntarily fail a check. Lets say you ask the bard "dude... did you just steal that?", and he says no, and you decide to believe him, then tomorrow, someone asks you "do you know who stole <the thing the bard stole>?" and you say no, you dotn have to make a bluff check, cuz you dont know, but if you had been forced to roll a sense motive earlier and had passes, you would have to hope your luck held out in spite of your crummy bluff modifier. It would be like the GM saying "roll a bluff to see if you can make the guard believe you dont know", and you respond "No, I'm gunna purposly forget". Its one of those skills like listen, you can't turn it off. I'm not saying "rolling the dice" means you're not good roleplaying, but "if you don't want to roll the dice you have to give me a good in-game motivation"... it is different! My appologies, cuz it seemed like you were saying "if you do want to roll the dice you have to give me a good in-game motivation, cuz otherwise you automaticly believe your friend"