Social Skills vs. PC's [Archive] - Wizards Community

Social Skills vs. PC's [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
James_Nostack
01-24-06, 08:40 AM I'm interested in allowing NPC's to use social skills - Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc. - against Player Characters, but I'm new to D&D and I'm not sure how it would work. Simply mirroring the existing rules doesn't quite seem fair: Diplomacy generally has a static DC, right, regardless of how tough or cool the characters are? Or am I misunderstanding the social skill rules?

What I'd like is an effective system to reflect in-game persuasion, etc., that makes social NPC's dangerous, but not overwhelmingly so. The game in question will probably involve a lot of social stuff, so it's a rule I'd rather not hand-wave.

(Please note that I'm fully aware of issues of player ownership of their characters, etc. that might arise from NPC's bossing PC's around. The group I'm playing with is fine with that so long as it can be done fairly. So the issue isn't should I do this, but rather how.)
Yabanjin
01-24-06, 11:53 AM In my experience you have to describe the situation very well, then follow up on your descriptions. Basically, your PCs must trust you because of patterns that you've established.

For example: Let's say that you've had the PCs roll sense motive checks or knowledge: whatever checks to assess some dude/situation. Once the dice are rolled, they must be told that, yes in fact they get the strong sense that this dude/situation will kick their butts. Then, if they decide to go against the warning, the dude/situation actually does kick their butts. The same basic process can be applied to situations for diplomacy and bluff... basically you have to condition the players to trust you when you say, "you get the sense that... . " they must come to believe 'their senses.'

This has to be consistent for some time and you can't let/make them feel foolish for doing it. And they should come to trust that their senses are telling them the truth. And most of the time, the information should be true.

However:

On occasion, when necessary (e.g. a really charming rogue is jabbering to the players while trying to sell something that you want them to waste money one or use as a plot hook), begin dishing out the incorrect information (that they sensed or felt or realized or whatever).

Of course they won't know the difference between when their 'senses' were right and when they got duped. Here again, if they're made to feel foolish for trusting their senses (which are in fact totally based on what you tell them), then you'll have to remove this from the tool box. It'll take a long time to get the trust back.

By The Way: This is meant to be used judiciously as a steering tool not a railroading tool.

I hope this is what you had in mind.
Hodo
01-24-06, 11:57 AM Until or unless you memorize all the modifiers, a good rule of theumb to use is: Beneficial factors add +2 to skill checks and detrimental ones add -2. Characters cooler, tougher, or generally hostile towards the NPC should get +2 or more to rolls as factors warrant. NPCs that are known for being particulalry trustworthy or have been nice to the PCs thusfar should probably get a +2 or something as well. I also think enviroment should play a roll. Much easier to talk people into doing dangerous things when you personally ask them in the dining hall of your mansion after a feast as opposed to sending some hooded stranger to deliver a scroll in a tavern at night.

Bluff, dimplomacy, and other skill checks that actively oppose things like sense motive and spot are always rolled. You can never take 10, 20, or start from some static baseline.

If an NPC wants to use diplomacy or bluff on PCs, roll for his skill and compare that to the players' sense motive. I suggest you roll the NPC's die behind a screen so the players aren't sure if they made a poor roll or a good one.

Either way, do not let the players know what the target roll, and don't say things such as, "he ends up convincing you to do X and Y" A succesful bluff or diplomacy check means that the character knew exactly what to say to this particular person and how to say it. A failed one implies they didn't. Try to represent this in your PC's responses through subtle cues like stumbling or avoiding direct eye contact if they fail, or things like confidence and mention of rewards should they succeed.

As for intimidate checks, try to add something that's really intimidating. If a halfling fighter uses an intimidate check on them and succeeds, rather than telling them that he just simply scares them, the PCs should note his battle scars, realize that nobody else in town has actually stood up to him, or the tooth of a dragon he slew all by himself hanging around his neck.
Gilean
01-24-06, 12:43 PM This works as long as the players are allowed to roll the dice. Or you roll in public. Honest players that won't metagame are also quite useful.

If the NPC wins a bluff vs. sense motive, describe it as true. Tell the players that their characters think it is true. If they metagame, make it true, or not, depending on what is the most awkward to them. And talk about it after the game.

On diplomcay, describe the NPC's (who has good diplomacy) suggestion favourably. If it comes to dice, tell the palyers that if they fail whatever roll they resist it with, they agree to the terms on table.

Controlling characters is good, but social offense should be as legitimate as physical offense is. And magical.
James_Nostack
01-24-06, 01:15 PM I know Bluff is vs. Sense Motive, and Intimidate is vs. a special roll (1d20 + level + Will, I think), but isn't Diplomacy just vs. 15, 20, 25, etc.? I don't have my books with me. It's that static DC that bugs me: I'd like to think that, say, high level Bards or Clerics are better at resisting diplomacy than low-level ones.
Millennium
01-24-06, 04:02 PM Generally speaking, you shouldn't force the characters to react a certain way (or to not react a certain way) to things, including NPC skill rolls. What you can do, however, is modify how you describe what's going on. You can't control what the PCs do, but you can control what they perceive.

If you do this right, you don't even need house rules to cover it. Make these rolls behind a screen, and make sure you keep notes of your characters' Sense Motive modifiers and such. Keep a couple of descriptions in mind, depending on how well the NPC does on the roll. If the NPC completely owns the PCs on an Intimidate, for example, then make your descriptions of what he does sound very menacing. On the other hand, if the PCs beat the NPC by a large margin, make the description sound ridiculous. You can do similar things with other kinds of skill rolls.

End result: NPCs can use social skills, PCs remain in control, and you don't need to alter any rules.
Millennium
01-24-06, 04:07 PM I know Bluff is vs. Sense Motive, and Intimidate is vs. a special roll (1d20 + level + Will, I think), but isn't Diplomacy just vs. 15, 20, 25, etc.? I don't have my books with me. It's that static DC that bugs me: I'd like to think that, say, high level Bards or Clerics are better at resisting diplomacy than low-level ones.
The difference between Diplomacy and Bluff is that Diplomacy isn't something people try to resist. It stays on friendly terms, and generally everyone wants to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion. If the situation degenerates into something that a given party would actually want to resist, then it's degenerated into a case where Bluff or Intimidate versus Sense Motive is called for.

That's why there's a static DC for Diplomacy: by definition, it's a "friendly" skill.
Dhavaer
01-25-06, 12:46 AM I know Bluff is vs. Sense Motive, and Intimidate is vs. a special roll (1d20 + level + Will, I think), but isn't Diplomacy just vs. 15, 20, 25, etc.? I don't have my books with me. It's that static DC that bugs me: I'd like to think that, say, high level Bards or Clerics are better at resisting diplomacy than low-level ones.

Try Rich Burlew's Diplomacy mod.
Diplomacy (http://www.giantitp.com/Func0010.html)
Jagyr Ebonwood
01-25-06, 01:19 PM I also highly recommend Rich's diplomacy rules.

Here's something else to keep in mind. Obviously, with the "Player's have the final say" caveat, there is always the possibility of a PC going completely against all sense and reacting contrary to the dice. This is metagaming (usually) and should have consequences.
The best (ie. realistic) in game consequences for this kind of thing is the lowering of the PCs reputation. If the PC refuses to be intimidated by the halfling warrior's 27 result, let him pay for it later. Like, when shopping in town for armor later, for example:

Shopkeep: Hey, aren't you the guy that tried to stand up to Haskur the Bloody in the square this morning? You must be dumb as a bag of maces. Hey, I've got a great deal on some magic armor, it weighs nothing, and is only visible to the truly brilliant.
jagggar
01-25-06, 06:17 PM Diplomacy as written is not meant to be used by NPCs on PCs. If you want to use Diplomacy that way, I also recommend using Rich Burlew's version.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
James_Nostack 01-24-06, 08:40 AM	I'm interested in allowing NPC's to use social skills - Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc. - against Player Characters, but I'm new to D&D and I'm not sure how it would work. Simply mirroring the existing rules doesn't quite seem fair: Diplomacy generally has a static DC, right, regardless of how tough or cool the characters are? Or am I misunderstanding the social skill rules? What I'd like is an effective system to reflect in-game persuasion, etc., that makes social NPC's dangerous, but not overwhelmingly so. The game in question will probably involve a lot of social stuff, so it's a rule I'd rather not hand-wave. (Please note that I'm fully aware of issues of player ownership of their characters, etc. that might arise from NPC's bossing PC's around. The group I'm playing with is fine with that so long as it can be done fairly. So the issue isn't should I do this, but rather how.)
Yabanjin 01-24-06, 11:53 AM	In my experience you have to describe the situation very well, then follow up on your descriptions. Basically, your PCs must trust you because of patterns that you've established. For example: Let's say that you've had the PCs roll sense motive checks or knowledge: whatever checks to assess some dude/situation. Once the dice are rolled, they must be told that, yes in fact they get the strong sense that this dude/situation will kick their butts. Then, if they decide to go against the warning, the dude/situation actually does kick their butts. The same basic process can be applied to situations for diplomacy and bluff... basically you have to condition the players to trust you when you say, "you get the sense that... . " they must come to believe 'their senses.' This has to be consistent for some time and you can't let/make them feel foolish for doing it. And they should come to trust that their senses are telling them the truth. And most of the time, the information should be true. However: On occasion, when necessary (e.g. a really charming rogue is jabbering to the players while trying to sell something that you want them to waste money one or use as a plot hook), begin dishing out the incorrect information (that they sensed or felt or realized or whatever). Of course they won't know the difference between when their 'senses' were right and when they got duped. Here again, if they're made to feel foolish for trusting their senses (which are in fact totally based on what you tell them), then you'll have to remove this from the tool box. It'll take a long time to get the trust back. By The Way: This is meant to be used judiciously as a steering tool not a railroading tool. I hope this is what you had in mind.
Hodo 01-24-06, 11:57 AM	Until or unless you memorize all the modifiers, a good rule of theumb to use is: Beneficial factors add +2 to skill checks and detrimental ones add -2. Characters cooler, tougher, or generally hostile towards the NPC should get +2 or more to rolls as factors warrant. NPCs that are known for being particulalry trustworthy or have been nice to the PCs thusfar should probably get a +2 or something as well. I also think enviroment should play a roll. Much easier to talk people into doing dangerous things when you personally ask them in the dining hall of your mansion after a feast as opposed to sending some hooded stranger to deliver a scroll in a tavern at night. Bluff, dimplomacy, and other skill checks that actively oppose things like sense motive and spot are always rolled. You can never take 10, 20, or start from some static baseline. If an NPC wants to use diplomacy or bluff on PCs, roll for his skill and compare that to the players' sense motive. I suggest you roll the NPC's die behind a screen so the players aren't sure if they made a poor roll or a good one. Either way, do not let the players know what the target roll, and don't say things such as, "he ends up convincing you to do X and Y" A succesful bluff or diplomacy check means that the character knew exactly what to say to this particular person and how to say it. A failed one implies they didn't. Try to represent this in your PC's responses through subtle cues like stumbling or avoiding direct eye contact if they fail, or things like confidence and mention of rewards should they succeed. As for intimidate checks, try to add something that's really intimidating. If a halfling fighter uses an intimidate check on them and succeeds, rather than telling them that he just simply scares them, the PCs should note his battle scars, realize that nobody else in town has actually stood up to him, or the tooth of a dragon he slew all by himself hanging around his neck.
Gilean 01-24-06, 12:43 PM	This works as long as the players are allowed to roll the dice. Or you roll in public. Honest players that won't metagame are also quite useful. If the NPC wins a bluff vs. sense motive, describe it as true. Tell the players that their characters think it is true. If they metagame, make it true, or not, depending on what is the most awkward to them. And talk about it after the game. On diplomcay, describe the NPC's (who has good diplomacy) suggestion favourably. If it comes to dice, tell the palyers that if they fail whatever roll they resist it with, they agree to the terms on table. Controlling characters is good, but social offense should be as legitimate as physical offense is. And magical.
James_Nostack 01-24-06, 01:15 PM	I know Bluff is vs. Sense Motive, and Intimidate is vs. a special roll (1d20 + level + Will, I think), but isn't Diplomacy just vs. 15, 20, 25, etc.? I don't have my books with me. It's that static DC that bugs me: I'd like to think that, say, high level Bards or Clerics are better at resisting diplomacy than low-level ones.
Millennium 01-24-06, 04:02 PM	Generally speaking, you shouldn't force the characters to react a certain way (or to not react a certain way) to things, including NPC skill rolls. What you can do, however, is modify how you describe what's going on. You can't control what the PCs do, but you can control what they perceive. If you do this right, you don't even need house rules to cover it. Make these rolls behind a screen, and make sure you keep notes of your characters' Sense Motive modifiers and such. Keep a couple of descriptions in mind, depending on how well the NPC does on the roll. If the NPC completely owns the PCs on an Intimidate, for example, then make your descriptions of what he does sound very menacing. On the other hand, if the PCs beat the NPC by a large margin, make the description sound ridiculous. You can do similar things with other kinds of skill rolls. End result: NPCs can use social skills, PCs remain in control, and you don't need to alter any rules.
Millennium 01-24-06, 04:07 PM	I know Bluff is vs. Sense Motive, and Intimidate is vs. a special roll (1d20 + level + Will, I think), but isn't Diplomacy just vs. 15, 20, 25, etc.? I don't have my books with me. It's that static DC that bugs me: I'd like to think that, say, high level Bards or Clerics are better at resisting diplomacy than low-level ones. The difference between Diplomacy and Bluff is that Diplomacy isn't something people try to resist. It stays on friendly terms, and generally everyone wants to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion. If the situation degenerates into something that a given party would actually want to resist, then it's degenerated into a case where Bluff or Intimidate versus Sense Motive is called for. That's why there's a static DC for Diplomacy: by definition, it's a "friendly" skill.
Dhavaer 01-25-06, 12:46 AM	I know Bluff is vs. Sense Motive, and Intimidate is vs. a special roll (1d20 + level + Will, I think), but isn't Diplomacy just vs. 15, 20, 25, etc.? I don't have my books with me. It's that static DC that bugs me: I'd like to think that, say, high level Bards or Clerics are better at resisting diplomacy than low-level ones. Try Rich Burlew's Diplomacy mod. Diplomacy (http://www.giantitp.com/Func0010.html)
Jagyr Ebonwood 01-25-06, 01:19 PM	I also highly recommend Rich's diplomacy rules. Here's something else to keep in mind. Obviously, with the "Player's have the final say" caveat, there is always the possibility of a PC going completely against all sense and reacting contrary to the dice. This is metagaming (usually) and should have consequences. The best (ie. realistic) in game consequences for this kind of thing is the lowering of the PCs reputation. If the PC refuses to be intimidated by the halfling warrior's 27 result, let him pay for it later. Like, when shopping in town for armor later, for example: Shopkeep: Hey, aren't you the guy that tried to stand up to Haskur the Bloody in the square this morning? You must be dumb as a bag of maces. Hey, I've got a great deal on some magic armor, it weighs nothing, and is only visible to the truly brilliant.
jagggar 01-25-06, 06:17 PM	Diplomacy as written is not meant to be used by NPCs on PCs. If you want to use Diplomacy that way, I also recommend using Rich Burlew's version.