Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kaede 11-26-07, 05:11 PM	So, here's the problem... if the rogue goes mad with the cleric when he doesn't let him steal because is ilegal... when a bard that doesn't has good reputation in the party because he never can fascinate any one because he allways rolls a "1"... When the evil scout goes alone and doesn't tells the other payers about the dragon behind the hill... ALL those situations... If PC metagame is wrong... their characters DON'T know about that dragon... what to do? throw sense motive-bluff? and WHAT is the bluff check is better than anybody else?? Had this problem more than once... as player and as DM... Opinions...?
Pfisiar 11-26-07, 05:16 PM	This is why playing characters willing to cheat the group is a bad thing.
Voran 11-26-07, 05:25 PM	Yeah, often (not always) this signifies player related issues, rather than player-character ones.
Tovec 11-26-07, 05:27 PM	You are asking how your players should handle eachother. Not if Bluff/Diplomacy should be used between PCs. (I think it should but in the right circumstances.) As to your situations. How is the Cleric to stop the Rogue? If the rogue is good, how did the cleric know in the first place? Why is the bard trying to facinate the party in the first place? Why would him failing be a bad thing for his standing in the group? Did the party have a reason to distrust the scout's report about the dragon? If not they are meta-gaming and should stop it. I love evil characters working against the party.
Whitman 11-26-07, 05:38 PM	I'd suggest not having players make checks against each other. You'd get rogues picking everyone's pockets, wizards charming everyone, barbarians killing everyone... It just gets messy. Talking about these things away from the table is the best way to deal with these issues. Maybe some table rules, if you want to be firm about it. Failing that, a session where players get XP purely based on role-playing and team-work ought to get 'em back in line!
Tovec 11-26-07, 09:38 PM	Okay, now I'm going to talk about times when I find the bluff/diplomacy a good idea. It is a bad idea when its used to force someone to do (or not do) something. Ie. Diplomacy against a PC that would result (if they were NPC) in them being fanatic doesn't mean they are going to jump in front of the Tarrasque to save your life. Its a good idea when its trying to cover up things you don't want them to know. Especially things where unless they metagame they shouldn't know. Like if I'm a NE Halfling Rogue Assassin, and I go off and kill someone I think its appropriate to use my bluff against the metagaming know-it-all Druid, who just wanted to get to the guy I'm going to kill before I kill him, to say that I'm going to be in the tavern (or was in the tavern) all day. In my current group I have a Psion who is abusing his powers to make party members his friends with charm person (psionic-equivalent). I think its fine because I remind him that just because they are his friend doesn't mean they will do as he says. It gets out of hand when he tries commanding them to do things they wouldn't do.
PenderGrass 11-27-07, 04:53 PM	If your players are incapable of keeping player knowledge separate from character knowledge, I suggest that when one character separates from the party that you either excuse all the other players or excuse yourself and the player in question. That solves your "dragon over the hill" scenario. This separation tactic can be applied across the board for most of the situations you gave. Rolling bluff vs. sense motive in a PVP circumstance is not a very good way of handling what is happening. Players should be able - in most cases - to decide for themselves what they believe or don't believe. Players should also be reminded that what their character knows is not always the same as what they know. Players that attempt to step beyond this should be "corrected" by the DM. Immediately. :dragon: *****
Meles_Meles 11-27-07, 05:21 PM	Rolling bluff vs. sense motive in a PVP circumstance is not a very good way of handling what is happening. Players should be able - in most cases - to decide for themselves what they believe or don't believe. With really good players, you're right. But in most groups, I use Bluff/Sense Motive rolls. If a player has invested lots of ranks in Sense Motive, it should aid them against PCs as well as NPCs. Likewise, if a character is really good at Bluff, it's unfair to let another player simply "choose" to disbelieve them.
JohnnyWeird 11-27-07, 06:16 PM	When the evil scout goes alone and doesn't tells the other payers about the dragon behind the hill... Stop right there. I apologize in advance if someone else has already made this point. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS IDIOT?! Dragons kill single players. Dragons kill unprepared players. The solution on that one is play it out to the end, then when they've been slaughtered wholesale, start up a new game with the exact same characters minus the scout. ANY other problem you mentioned can be solved in-game. This scout, though, is two morons and one doofus wrapped in the fur of the Great Wrong-Headed Stupid.
wizarddog 11-28-07, 02:51 AM	With really good players, you're right. But in most groups, I use Bluff/Sense Motive rolls. If a player has invested lots of ranks in Sense Motive, it should aid them against PCs as well as NPCs. Likewise, if a character is really good at Bluff, it's unfair to let another player simply "choose" to disbelieve them. I was wondering, if in cases of PVP that Sense motive should have and up to +10 or circumstance to the PC when another PC tries to lie to them. After all, if another PC knows that another is pretty good at lying he will take what they say with a grain of salt. Or I wonder if it would be better that they both roll their checks in secret with the DM observing. :uh-huh:
Voran 11-28-07, 03:28 AM	<snip> This scout, though, is two morons and one doofus wrapped in the fur of the Great Wrong-Headed Stupid. That's almost sig worthy :)
Meles_Meles 11-28-07, 03:57 AM	I was wondering, if in cases of PVP that Sense motive should have and up to +10 or circumstance to the PC when another PC tries to lie to them. After all, if another PC knows that another is pretty good at lying he will take what they say with a grain of salt. Or I wonder if it would be better that they both roll their checks in secret with the DM observing. :uh-huh: I'd say, because by that same token the player making the Bluff knows all the right buttons to push with the person he's trying to trick, the advantages would cancel each other out. Maybe if they were talking about a specific issue that the rogue was known to lie about (for example, he has historically lied about loot and been caught) then a Sense Motive bonus would be in order. But otherwise, I'd say there should be no bonuses.
drake_vampiel_d 11-28-07, 04:43 AM	Do the other characters know of this character's tendency to try to do them wrong becasue if they have no reason to doubt him then they would probably believe him ALSO don't announce what the scout sees on teh other side of the mountain just slip him a note and then let their characters decide whether or not they trust him (esspecially if they notice him "falling behind" when he should be up front of the group).