Bluff VS Diplomacy - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Bluff VS Diplomacy

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
sehmerus
Feb 09, 2009 10:46:43 Staunton is my 2nd level Half-elven bard, who is the annoying "1-up" guy that everyone knows (you know the guy that has to but-in on groups conversation just to say they have that and thiers is better, or they Did that but it was eisier im sure you know the guy LOL)

I’m trying to figure a good character angle into Staunton, I’m pretty much made him a compulsive liar, which is actually what I feel should be his “art” (rather than music like most bards) but I don’t know if I want to have him aware of that, kind of like he’s a bard by definition but not observation, meaning that he acts the role but doesn’t consider himself a bard because he’s not Lying to tell stories for entertainment but instead to simply get attention (and not “rockstar popularity” attention, but “justification that he is important to the world” attention) But the problem I keep bumping into with all of this back story is it relies more on Bluff than diplomacy. Now his 8 bluff is not too shabby, however I would like to key in something that can shine in his 12 Diplomacy. And I’m having a hard time because in my mind Diplomacy and bluff seem to go hand in hand.

So I came up with an idea, but I don’t know if it can be translated in rules the way I want to portray it in the character, and that is Staunton says he is an ambassador to a far off kingdom and presents himself like a noble. (or maybe a noble whose down on his luck) but the idea is that either he Believes he really is this noble and uses it with his diplomacy to get things, or He’s a con-man (can you say sawyer from lost lol) and his cover is being a fake ambassador. Now both of these sound fun to explore in role playing but part of me thinks that I would have to play it off that he actually believes he is this ambassador in order for me as a player to justify using Diplomacy first over bluff. If this is true perhaps it might be interesting playing a compulsive liar who is so good at his fibs that he starts to believe them.

Im curious how others play a high diplomacy in thier character not being an actuall noble or political figure.
#2
kenobi65
Feb 09, 2009 12:10:50 Diplomacy (the skill) isn't just about the ways of nobles and diplomats. It's also about knowing how to use the power of your personality, and the ability to convince others to agree with you. It's about being good with words, and having a bit of innate ability to know what to say, and when (though you could argue that that's also the role of Insight).

The difference between Diplomacy and Bluff is the difference between a legitimate salesman and a con artist (not that some people can't be both ;) ).
#3
telvin3d
Feb 09, 2009 12:27:05 Is he lying?
Yes = Bluff
No = Diplomacy

Now, if he is at the point where he can't tell the difference between reality and his own daydreams that is known as crazy. And I don't mean the "keep that drunk, angry, dwarf under control... he's crazy!" kind of crazy. I mean mentally disturbed. I'd think long and hard about really playing a delusional character in a shared campaign. I can't think of many ways to play it without being really disruptive. Please note, having him be 'crazy' when you want to be able to use diplomacy for a better roll but not 'crazy' when it might affect the game would be basically admitting an attempt to game the system.
#4
sehmerus
Feb 09, 2009 12:37:54
Diplomacy (the skill) isn't just about the ways of nobles and diplomats. It's also about knowing how to use the power of your personality, and the ability to convince others to agree with you. It's about being good with words, and having a bit of innate ability to know what to say, and when (though you could argue that that's also the role of Insight).

I always pictured Diplomacy being sorta like negotiation, or moderating, and Bluff being more of getting others to agree with you

So how would your interpretation of bluff fit into the equasion?

What would be some role playing examples of how the two skills are used differently? and how to define wich one to use if they are both used together (like in a con-artist exaple)
#5
kenobi65
Feb 09, 2009 12:58:39
So how would your interpretation of bluff fit into the equasion?

Here's how I'd view it:

- If I'm trying to convince someone of something, and I know that I'm lying (or, at least, exaggerating) about that something, it's Bluff.
- Otherwise, it's Diplomacy.
#6
gomeztoo
Feb 09, 2009 13:59:05 Samantha, my bard, is quite sweet with words, knowing how to honey someone to get whats he wants. She is also, probably even more than the OP's bard, a liar. It's sin #79 on the long list of sins she is redeeming, and as it is going now it is not going to be easy to get redemtion for it.
Sam lies about everything and is acting all the time.
Whenever she speaks, it is either a lie OR she wants something, even if it just a 'happy ending'... in return she hardly ever trust anyone (high insight).
Hence that I specialized her in Bluff, with Diplomacy coming second.

Gomez
#7
sehmerus
Feb 09, 2009 17:30:47 yea it almost seems like there should be a synergy effect with these skills it seems (at least by the way im intrerpreting this thread) that bluff and Diplomacy are both two sides of the same coin.

So if you pull a con about being a noble for example, you would need to succeed a bluff check, but once it passes would you then move to diplomacy checks, because the people believe you already? or does it remain bluff as you are playing the con out?? It wont matter too much for my character because the bluff and diplomacy are both high (bluff =8 and Diplomacy=12) and his lies or cons or whatever are all about himself and his past he doesnt lie to people about anything other than himself. sorta like that time he killed an army of Goblins with a wooden spoon he won from an undead fortune teller with a bad gambling problem.
#8
kenobi65
Feb 09, 2009 19:08:41
So if you pull a con about being a noble for example, you would need to succeed a bluff check, but once it passes would you then move to diplomacy checks, because the people believe you already? or does it remain bluff as you are playing the con out??

That all depends on what you're trying to do once you con them into believing you're a noble.

If you get them to believe you're a noble (and, yes, that'd be a Bluff check), and you then want to get them to, say, pledge money or resources to your quest to reclaim your family lands that you lost to a usurper...that's likely to be another Bluff check.

If, on the other hand, you've bluffed being a noble in order to get people to listen to you, and then you use that attention / respect to, say, convince them to tell you about the secret in the town that no one wants to talk about...that's likely to be a Diplomacy check.
#9
kinevon
Feb 10, 2009 3:16:47 Diplomacy - convincing people to do what you want them to do.

Bluff - convincing people that what you are saying, when you know it isn't completely true, is the truth.

Insight - the ability to detect when someone is not telling the complete truth.
#10
Misroi
Feb 10, 2009 7:18:47 May the gods grant us the Bluff to lie about the things we cannot change; the Diplomacy to change the things we can; and the Insight to know the difference.
#11
WolfStar76
Feb 10, 2009 11:15:21
May the gods grant us the Bluff to lie about the things we cannot change; the Diplomacy to change the things we can; and the Insight to know the difference.

Welcome to my sigfile.
#12
Madfox11
Feb 11, 2009 4:34:46 Ah, but what do you use when you use a lie to get somebody to do something? ;) While on paper the distinction between the two skills is relatively strict, in practice the two often get mixed up.
#13
smerwin29
Feb 11, 2009 6:45:36 And thus was born the Bluffplomacy skill check.
#14
WolfStar76
Feb 11, 2009 6:51:06 Wasn't that part of the Diplomomancer class?
#15
kinevon
Feb 11, 2009 7:09:52
Wasn't that part of the Diplomomancer class?

Make a Wilflex save!
#16
telvin3d
Feb 11, 2009 10:48:24
Ah, but what do you use when you use a lie to get somebody to do something? ;) While on paper the distinction between the two skills is relatively strict, in practice the two often get mixed up.

Bluff. If you are lying, it is always bluff. If you are asking them something really crazy it might be a Bluff to convince them you are telling the truth and then Diplomacy to get them to help you out. If at any point you or a player is lying, it needs a bluff check.
#17
_metz_
Feb 11, 2009 21:16:06 Seriously don't forget the importance of Intimidate.

I always wonder why so many mod authors forbid it, when it's a standard part of interpersonal interactions - negotiating from a position of strength.

Telling the Noble that he needs to let you guys through or the monster will kill his people - Intimidate NOT Diplomacy. (You are in essence, using a correlate threat to encourage him to do what you want)

Telling the Big Guardian that if it attacks you, it will lead to the destruction of the temple by Drow - That's Intimidate.

Telling the Bartender that if he hands over the hunk of statue, the authorities won't have to get involved - That's intimidate.

All of these situations appear in modules where the use of intimidate has been banned, and these situations have been allowed as diplomacy. It makes me really wonder sometimes about the mod writers...

They seem to think Intimidate is only: 'If you don't do what I say, I will hit you with my axe!'

When talking about Face skills, don't forget the humble intimidate. It's a key part of any real negotiation, especially in a world where both sides are armed or dealing with danger on a daily basis...

Diplomacy is actually a combination of Intuition, Bluff, Intimidate, Logic and Flattery. The fact that it is its own skill often means people forget the others...

But then again I think the way that skills are handled in mods are laughable as it is.

See this thread for more info:

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 sehmerus Feb 09, 2009 10:46:43	Staunton is my 2nd level Half-elven bard, who is the annoying "1-up" guy that everyone knows (you know the guy that has to but-in on groups conversation just to say they have that and thiers is better, or they Did that but it was eisier im sure you know the guy LOL) I’m trying to figure a good character angle into Staunton, I’m pretty much made him a compulsive liar, which is actually what I feel should be his “art” (rather than music like most bards) but I don’t know if I want to have him aware of that, kind of like he’s a bard by definition but not observation, meaning that he acts the role but doesn’t consider himself a bard because he’s not Lying to tell stories for entertainment but instead to simply get attention (and not “rockstar popularity” attention, but “justification that he is important to the world” attention) But the problem I keep bumping into with all of this back story is it relies more on Bluff than diplomacy. Now his 8 bluff is not too shabby, however I would like to key in something that can shine in his 12 Diplomacy. And I’m having a hard time because in my mind Diplomacy and bluff seem to go hand in hand. So I came up with an idea, but I don’t know if it can be translated in rules the way I want to portray it in the character, and that is Staunton says he is an ambassador to a far off kingdom and presents himself like a noble. (or maybe a noble whose down on his luck) but the idea is that either he Believes he really is this noble and uses it with his diplomacy to get things, or He’s a con-man (can you say sawyer from lost lol) and his cover is being a fake ambassador. Now both of these sound fun to explore in role playing but part of me thinks that I would have to play it off that he actually believes he is this ambassador in order for me as a player to justify using Diplomacy first over bluff. If this is true perhaps it might be interesting playing a compulsive liar who is so good at his fibs that he starts to believe them. Im curious how others play a high diplomacy in thier character not being an actuall noble or political figure.
#2 kenobi65 Feb 09, 2009 12:10:50	Diplomacy (the skill) isn't just about the ways of nobles and diplomats. It's also about knowing how to use the power of your personality, and the ability to convince others to agree with you. It's about being good with words, and having a bit of innate ability to know what to say, and when (though you could argue that that's also the role of Insight). The difference between Diplomacy and Bluff is the difference between a legitimate salesman and a con artist (not that some people can't be both ;) ).
#3 telvin3d Feb 09, 2009 12:27:05	Is he lying? Yes = Bluff No = Diplomacy Now, if he is at the point where he can't tell the difference between reality and his own daydreams that is known as crazy. And I don't mean the "keep that drunk, angry, dwarf under control... he's crazy!" kind of crazy. I mean mentally disturbed. I'd think long and hard about really playing a delusional character in a shared campaign. I can't think of many ways to play it without being really disruptive. Please note, having him be 'crazy' when you want to be able to use diplomacy for a better roll but not 'crazy' when it might affect the game would be basically admitting an attempt to game the system.
#4 sehmerus Feb 09, 2009 12:37:54	Diplomacy (the skill) isn't just about the ways of nobles and diplomats. It's also about knowing how to use the power of your personality, and the ability to convince others to agree with you. It's about being good with words, and having a bit of innate ability to know what to say, and when (though you could argue that that's also the role of Insight). I always pictured Diplomacy being sorta like negotiation, or moderating, and Bluff being more of getting others to agree with you So how would your interpretation of bluff fit into the equasion? What would be some role playing examples of how the two skills are used differently? and how to define wich one to use if they are both used together (like in a con-artist exaple)
#5 kenobi65 Feb 09, 2009 12:58:39	So how would your interpretation of bluff fit into the equasion? Here's how I'd view it: - If I'm trying to convince someone of something, and I know that I'm lying (or, at least, exaggerating) about that something, it's Bluff. - Otherwise, it's Diplomacy.
#6 gomeztoo Feb 09, 2009 13:59:05	Samantha, my bard, is quite sweet with words, knowing how to honey someone to get whats he wants. She is also, probably even more than the OP's bard, a liar. It's sin #79 on the long list of sins she is redeeming, and as it is going now it is not going to be easy to get redemtion for it. Sam lies about everything and is acting all the time. Whenever she speaks, it is either a lie OR she wants something, even if it just a 'happy ending'... in return she hardly ever trust anyone (high insight). Hence that I specialized her in Bluff, with Diplomacy coming second. Gomez
#7 sehmerus Feb 09, 2009 17:30:47	yea it almost seems like there should be a synergy effect with these skills it seems (at least by the way im intrerpreting this thread) that bluff and Diplomacy are both two sides of the same coin. So if you pull a con about being a noble for example, you would need to succeed a bluff check, but once it passes would you then move to diplomacy checks, because the people believe you already? or does it remain bluff as you are playing the con out?? It wont matter too much for my character because the bluff and diplomacy are both high (bluff =8 and Diplomacy=12) and his lies or cons or whatever are all about himself and his past he doesnt lie to people about anything other than himself. sorta like that time he killed an army of Goblins with a wooden spoon he won from an undead fortune teller with a bad gambling problem.
#8 kenobi65 Feb 09, 2009 19:08:41	So if you pull a con about being a noble for example, you would need to succeed a bluff check, but once it passes would you then move to diplomacy checks, because the people believe you already? or does it remain bluff as you are playing the con out?? That all depends on what you're trying to do once you con them into believing you're a noble. If you get them to believe you're a noble (and, yes, that'd be a Bluff check), and you then want to get them to, say, pledge money or resources to your quest to reclaim your family lands that you lost to a usurper...that's likely to be another Bluff check. If, on the other hand, you've bluffed being a noble in order to get people to listen to you, and then you use that attention / respect to, say, convince them to tell you about the secret in the town that no one wants to talk about...that's likely to be a Diplomacy check.
#9 kinevon Feb 10, 2009 3:16:47	Diplomacy - convincing people to do what you want them to do. Bluff - convincing people that what you are saying, when you know it isn't completely true, is the truth. Insight - the ability to detect when someone is not telling the complete truth.
#10 Misroi Feb 10, 2009 7:18:47	May the gods grant us the Bluff to lie about the things we cannot change; the Diplomacy to change the things we can; and the Insight to know the difference.
#11 WolfStar76 Feb 10, 2009 11:15:21	May the gods grant us the Bluff to lie about the things we cannot change; the Diplomacy to change the things we can; and the Insight to know the difference. Welcome to my sigfile.
#12 Madfox11 Feb 11, 2009 4:34:46	Ah, but what do you use when you use a lie to get somebody to do something? ;) While on paper the distinction between the two skills is relatively strict, in practice the two often get mixed up.
#13 smerwin29 Feb 11, 2009 6:45:36	And thus was born the Bluffplomacy skill check.
#14 WolfStar76 Feb 11, 2009 6:51:06	Wasn't that part of the Diplomomancer class?
#15 kinevon Feb 11, 2009 7:09:52	Wasn't that part of the Diplomomancer class? Make a Wilflex save!
#16 telvin3d Feb 11, 2009 10:48:24	Ah, but what do you use when you use a lie to get somebody to do something? ;) While on paper the distinction between the two skills is relatively strict, in practice the two often get mixed up. Bluff. If you are lying, it is always bluff. If you are asking them something really crazy it might be a Bluff to convince them you are telling the truth and then Diplomacy to get them to help you out. If at any point you or a player is lying, it needs a bluff check.
#17 _metz_ Feb 11, 2009 21:16:06	Seriously don't forget the importance of Intimidate. I always wonder why so many mod authors forbid it, when it's a standard part of interpersonal interactions - negotiating from a position of strength. Telling the Noble that he needs to let you guys through or the monster will kill his people - Intimidate NOT Diplomacy. (You are in essence, using a correlate threat to encourage him to do what you want) Telling the Big Guardian that if it attacks you, it will lead to the destruction of the temple by Drow - That's Intimidate. Telling the Bartender that if he hands over the hunk of statue, the authorities won't have to get involved - That's intimidate. All of these situations appear in modules where the use of intimidate has been banned, and these situations have been allowed as diplomacy. It makes me really wonder sometimes about the mod writers... They seem to think Intimidate is only: 'If you don't do what I say, I will hit you with my axe!' When talking about Face skills, don't forget the humble intimidate. It's a key part of any real negotiation, especially in a world where both sides are armed or dealing with danger on a daily basis... Diplomacy is actually a combination of Intuition, Bluff, Intimidate, Logic and Flattery. The fact that it is its own skill often means people forget the others... But then again I think the way that skills are handled in mods are laughable as it is. See this thread for more info: