Bluff, Intimidate, and Diplomacy: Skills of Confusion! - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Bluff, Intimidate, and Diplomacy: Skills of Confusion!

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Keenath
Apr 07, 2005 13:34:00 There are a lot of people who consistently confuse the results of a successful check with Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. Part of the problem is that you can often cause the same effect by any of the three, but the method varies, and I think it's important to mentally keep them straight. I'll use an example of a PC locked in a jail cell.

Diplomacy
I won't say too much about Diplomacy, because it's usually the other two that get confused for this one. You make the check and you improve the other person's opinion of you. Diplomacy can convince somebody to take an action they normally wouldn't take--for instance, letting you out of the cell--because you manage to get them to emotionally connect with you. You might convince the guard that you're a nice guy and unfairly arrested, and explain how important your mission is... and if you succeed, you can make him like you enough to take a risk for you and let you go. (Lesser success, getting him to "Friendly" instead of "Helpful" would make him give you good food and treat you well, but not let you out.) Diplomacy should NEVER be used against PCs. The PCs make up their own minds as to whom they like or don't like--forcing it is the worst kind of railroading from the DM.

Intimidate
Intimidate gets you many of the same results that a Diplomacy check does, but only for a few minutes. As soon as you're gone, the intimidated character will do whatever he wants to--from summoning guards to grabbing a weapon. For example, you might convince the guard that, if he doesn't let you go, your friends WILL find him, and WILL kill him. If it works, he may let you go, but after you're gone he'll be telling everyone to be on the lookout for an escaped prisoner and his thug friends. And that they're all armed and dangerous, so shoot on sight. Again, this probably shouldn't be used against PCs outside of a combat-intimidation check to cause the Shaken condition.

Bluff
Bluff is a different animal, and the most misunderstood of the Charisma based skills, primarily because you can't really force a PC to take a course of action with it. All you can do is convince them of your sincerity! You make a check with a penalty based on how unbelievable the lie is (or how dangerous it is to believe), and if you succeed, the NPC buys it. That doesn't mean they do what you said.

For example, if I'm in that jail cell, I might try to bluff the guard that I'm a member of the mob, and they'll put a hit out if they hear that I'm being held. Let's just assume that I beat the guard's Sense Motive, and he buys it. Now, the way he reacts is STILL entirely up to the guard! One guard might get nervous and, after some thought, let me out. Another might laugh and say, "Good, we'll arrest them too!" and call for reinforcements. Another might quietly go in the next room, ask his assistant to take over guard duty, and get the heck out of Dodge. It all depends on that guard's alignment and personality. That's where people get confused. In all the cases above, the guard completely buys the bluff, but only one case results in him actually letting you out of jail.

Now, in some cases a bluff might be an implicit part of another action. For example, you're trying to sell a handful of jewels and have to convince the fence that they aren't the crown jewels, really, I swear. In that case, if he believes you, he'll buy them. But if they really weren't the crown jewels, he'd have bought them anyway. You didn't force him to buy just by making a bluff. Similarly, you don't bluff a guard to open the gate; you bluff him that you're somebody who is allowed to pass, and he opens the gate because that's his duty.

A good way to handle a lot of these confusing cases is to combine bluff with one of the other two skills. For example, take the "I'm a made man" bluff above. Once he believes you're a mob member, the DM should then ask for an Intimidate check. The Intimidate check is what makes the guard obey your order to open the door, after he thinks you have authority (or at least threat of violence) on your side.

Alternatively, you might want to convince the guard that you have three starving children, a crippled wife, and no money, and if he won't let you out of jail, they'll all die. That's a bluff check, but then you'd follow up with a Diplomacy check to get him on your side. A failed Diplomacy check would result in him grunting, "Four less rats in the sewer, then." A successful check would probably have him sniffling and letting you out, feeling like a heel for arresting such a noble man. Both of those are contingent on the guard believing the lie, but the lie itself doesn't get him to actually take any given action.
#2
ztyx
May 03, 2005 13:07:13 Rich Burlew of "Order of the Stick" fame (amongst other things) wrote a nice set of alternate rules for determining the DC for diplomacy rolls that I figured could be linked to as an additional way to reduce confusion (or bias) in handling diplomacy.

http://www.giantitp.com/Func0010.html

One issue he had was the ease with which bards could defuse hostile encounters, but the issue I see as most important to get cleared was actually more along the lines of, "How friendly is friendly."

I.e. "Will the guard release me from my cell because I ask him to?", "Is it easier if he thinks he might die if he doesn't?", "What about if someone else will die if he doesn't?".

With some mangling his diplomacy system can also be adapted to adjudicating intimidation checks.

Even though it might be seen as unnecessary brevity I feel that any discussion about diplomacy skill is made poorer from the lack of a link to this Dork Tower comic about the issue.
http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/dorktower/archive.asp?nextform=viewcomic&id=1013
:D
#3
elvnsword
May 04, 2005 0:50:26 Very well done treatsie. I appreciate the outside look into the way to handle Bluff checks especially. You know it is a good way to get across how evil someone is with this. Using the above bluff you bluff him into thinking you are a husband with a wife and three starving kids, and he laughs at you.

:-d
I love being evil...
#4
The_Stray
May 04, 2005 23:12:46 I feel this is certainly a good way of interpreting a successful Bluff check. Most people I know have made Bluff a sort of "poor man's suggestion" which, I think goes against some of the spirit of the rules.

One thing I might suggest: let a successful bluff add circumstance bonuses to future intimidate/diplomacy checks...perhaps you get a +2 bonus for each 5 points by which you beat your opponent's sense motive roll?
#5
the_one_true_shea_dup
May 05, 2005 10:34:24
...
Diplomacy
...
Diplomacy should NEVER be used against PCs. The PCs make up their own minds as to whom they like or don't like--forcing it is the worst kind of railroading from the DM.

Intimidate
...
Again, this probably shouldn't be used against PCs outside of a combat-intimidation check to cause the Shaken condition.

Bluff
... animal? ...
All you can do is convince them of your sincerity! You make a check with a penalty based on how unbelievable the lie is (or how dangerous it is to believe), and if you succeed, the NPC buys it.

You know I don't like the fact that diplomacy, an opposed check, can't be used with the PC as a target. That's a unique flaw in the construction of the skill, how many other skills are there categorically denied targeting a player character not a type or something more mechanical. Negotiations are diplomacy too, cant really imagine how you can do negotiations without targeting the npc, its just an advantage not anything compulsive. BTW, Bluff isn't lying.

For example, if I'm in that jail cell, I might try to bluff the guard that I'm a member of the mob, and they'll put a hit out if they hear that I'm being held. Let's just assume that I beat the guard's Sense Motive, and he buys it.
...
Both of those are contingent on the guard believing the lie, but the lie itself doesn't get him to actually take any given action.

No, that's lying, then intimidation to force friendly. Your friend will let you out the cell, or get hurt. Bluff isn't necessary to declare yourself a member of a Mafioso. Bluff does not let you lie. It can let you cover a lie if you say something out of line with the story, and using bluff always involves some sort of deception, but telling a lie takes no skill roll.

Bluff is the art of misdirection. Intimidation is a way to overwhelm your target, and Diplomacy is the method of mood manipulation. Your right in that they are often confused for each other, but I think that your description of the usage of Bluff is indicative of the common misconception that Bluff is actually the Lie skill. It's not. I'm not lying, but I am Bluffing.
#6
Keenath
May 16, 2005 10:40:27
Bluff is a different animal, and the most misunderstood of the Charisma based skills, primarily because you can't really force a PC to take a course of action with it.

Note: This should say "you can't really force an NPC..."

Sorry about the typo.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Keenath Apr 07, 2005 13:34:00	There are a lot of people who consistently confuse the results of a successful check with Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. Part of the problem is that you can often cause the same effect by any of the three, but the method varies, and I think it's important to mentally keep them straight. I'll use an example of a PC locked in a jail cell. Diplomacy I won't say too much about Diplomacy, because it's usually the other two that get confused for this one. You make the check and you improve the other person's opinion of you. Diplomacy can convince somebody to take an action they normally wouldn't take--for instance, letting you out of the cell--because you manage to get them to emotionally connect with you. You might convince the guard that you're a nice guy and unfairly arrested, and explain how important your mission is... and if you succeed, you can make him like you enough to take a risk for you and let you go. (Lesser success, getting him to "Friendly" instead of "Helpful" would make him give you good food and treat you well, but not let you out.) Diplomacy should NEVER be used against PCs. The PCs make up their own minds as to whom they like or don't like--forcing it is the worst kind of railroading from the DM. Intimidate Intimidate gets you many of the same results that a Diplomacy check does, but only for a few minutes. As soon as you're gone, the intimidated character will do whatever he wants to--from summoning guards to grabbing a weapon. For example, you might convince the guard that, if he doesn't let you go, your friends WILL find him, and WILL kill him. If it works, he may let you go, but after you're gone he'll be telling everyone to be on the lookout for an escaped prisoner and his thug friends. And that they're all armed and dangerous, so shoot on sight. Again, this probably shouldn't be used against PCs outside of a combat-intimidation check to cause the Shaken condition. Bluff Bluff is a different animal, and the most misunderstood of the Charisma based skills, primarily because you can't really force a PC to take a course of action with it. All you can do is convince them of your sincerity! You make a check with a penalty based on how unbelievable the lie is (or how dangerous it is to believe), and if you succeed, the NPC buys it. That doesn't mean they do what you said. For example, if I'm in that jail cell, I might try to bluff the guard that I'm a member of the mob, and they'll put a hit out if they hear that I'm being held. Let's just assume that I beat the guard's Sense Motive, and he buys it. Now, the way he reacts is STILL entirely up to the guard! One guard might get nervous and, after some thought, let me out. Another might laugh and say, "Good, we'll arrest them too!" and call for reinforcements. Another might quietly go in the next room, ask his assistant to take over guard duty, and get the heck out of Dodge. It all depends on that guard's alignment and personality. That's where people get confused. In all the cases above, the guard completely buys the bluff, but only one case results in him actually letting you out of jail. Now, in some cases a bluff might be an implicit part of another action. For example, you're trying to sell a handful of jewels and have to convince the fence that they aren't the crown jewels, really, I swear. In that case, if he believes you, he'll buy them. But if they really weren't the crown jewels, he'd have bought them anyway. You didn't force him to buy just by making a bluff. Similarly, you don't bluff a guard to open the gate; you bluff him that you're somebody who is allowed to pass, and he opens the gate because that's his duty. A good way to handle a lot of these confusing cases is to combine bluff with one of the other two skills. For example, take the "I'm a made man" bluff above. Once he believes you're a mob member, the DM should then ask for an Intimidate check. The Intimidate check is what makes the guard obey your order to open the door, after he thinks you have authority (or at least threat of violence) on your side. Alternatively, you might want to convince the guard that you have three starving children, a crippled wife, and no money, and if he won't let you out of jail, they'll all die. That's a bluff check, but then you'd follow up with a Diplomacy check to get him on your side. A failed Diplomacy check would result in him grunting, "Four less rats in the sewer, then." A successful check would probably have him sniffling and letting you out, feeling like a heel for arresting such a noble man. Both of those are contingent on the guard believing the lie, but the lie itself doesn't get him to actually take any given action.
#2 ztyx May 03, 2005 13:07:13	Rich Burlew of "Order of the Stick" fame (amongst other things) wrote a nice set of alternate rules for determining the DC for diplomacy rolls that I figured could be linked to as an additional way to reduce confusion (or bias) in handling diplomacy. http://www.giantitp.com/Func0010.html One issue he had was the ease with which bards could defuse hostile encounters, but the issue I see as most important to get cleared was actually more along the lines of, "How friendly is friendly." I.e. "Will the guard release me from my cell because I ask him to?", "Is it easier if he thinks he might die if he doesn't?", "What about if someone else will die if he doesn't?". With some mangling his diplomacy system can also be adapted to adjudicating intimidation checks. Even though it might be seen as unnecessary brevity I feel that any discussion about diplomacy skill is made poorer from the lack of a link to this Dork Tower comic about the issue. http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/dorktower/archive.asp?nextform=viewcomic&id=1013 :D
#3 elvnsword May 04, 2005 0:50:26	Very well done treatsie. I appreciate the outside look into the way to handle Bluff checks especially. You know it is a good way to get across how evil someone is with this. Using the above bluff you bluff him into thinking you are a husband with a wife and three starving kids, and he laughs at you. :-d I love being evil...
#4 The_Stray May 04, 2005 23:12:46	I feel this is certainly a good way of interpreting a successful Bluff check. Most people I know have made Bluff a sort of "poor man's suggestion" which, I think goes against some of the spirit of the rules. One thing I might suggest: let a successful bluff add circumstance bonuses to future intimidate/diplomacy checks...perhaps you get a +2 bonus for each 5 points by which you beat your opponent's sense motive roll?
#5 the_one_true_shea_dup May 05, 2005 10:34:24	... Diplomacy ... Diplomacy should NEVER be used against PCs. The PCs make up their own minds as to whom they like or don't like--forcing it is the worst kind of railroading from the DM. Intimidate ... Again, this probably shouldn't be used against PCs outside of a combat-intimidation check to cause the Shaken condition. Bluff ... animal? ... All you can do is convince them of your sincerity! You make a check with a penalty based on how unbelievable the lie is (or how dangerous it is to believe), and if you succeed, the NPC buys it. You know I don't like the fact that diplomacy, an opposed check, can't be used with the PC as a target. That's a unique flaw in the construction of the skill, how many other skills are there categorically denied targeting a player character not a type or something more mechanical. Negotiations are diplomacy too, cant really imagine how you can do negotiations without targeting the npc, its just an advantage not anything compulsive. BTW, Bluff isn't lying. For example, if I'm in that jail cell, I might try to bluff the guard that I'm a member of the mob, and they'll put a hit out if they hear that I'm being held. Let's just assume that I beat the guard's Sense Motive, and he buys it. ... Both of those are contingent on the guard believing the lie, but the lie itself doesn't get him to actually take any given action. No, that's lying, then intimidation to force friendly. Your friend will let you out the cell, or get hurt. Bluff isn't necessary to declare yourself a member of a Mafioso. Bluff does not let you lie. It can let you cover a lie if you say something out of line with the story, and using bluff always involves some sort of deception, but telling a lie takes no skill roll. Bluff is the art of misdirection. Intimidation is a way to overwhelm your target, and Diplomacy is the method of mood manipulation. Your right in that they are often confused for each other, but I think that your description of the usage of Bluff is indicative of the common misconception that Bluff is actually the Lie skill. It's not. I'm not lying, but I am Bluffing.
#6 Keenath May 16, 2005 10:40:27	Bluff is a different animal, and the most misunderstood of the Charisma based skills, primarily because you can't really force a PC to take a course of action with it. Note: This should say "you can't really force an NPC..." Sorry about the typo.