How do you deal with player characters using skills like diplomacy on each other?
Heres one of the scenarios we had to deal with. The party was exploring a haunted house and since our DM was going with the whole messing with our heads thing I try to roleplay a litte. I get scared and try to leave. The other players (in character) manage to convince me to stay for a bit untill some really creepy stuff starts to happen, at which point I draw my sword and say I'm leaving and I'll use force if neccicary. At this point the most charismatic member of the party chooses to roll diplomacy to try to make me stay. Should they be able to do this? I mean their character may be able to put together a more convincing argument than they can and my character may be a little less able to argue back than I am so in a way it makes sense. But at the same time my character is being forced to do something against my will because of some dice.
There have been a few other instances of this through the few sessions we've had and I was just wondering what peoples opinions on it are and how they feel this kind of thing should be handled.
I think having your PC forced to do something they do not want to do by another PC by using a diplomacy check, is as bad as attacking another PC.
P>S> Nothing bugs me more than a player using role playing as an excuse to derail an adventure. Ask yourself is this what you are doing? Is that why the other players are forcing the diplomacy check on your PC? It does seem that your roleplaying your character out of the adventure. Just think about it. Maybe there is more to the issue than the others using a diplomacy check to force your PC to do something he/ she does not want to do.
happy gaming!
If the other players insist on using skill checks to calm you down then decide the effect (and adverse effect) of success and failure.
Say, should they use Diplomacy successfully, then maybe you're a little bit less inclined to bash heads to leave.
Intimidation, you'd stay but incur a penalty on attack to discourage them from doing it often if at all (and the penalty could also fade after say a milestone or two).
Overall, it's better to just RP the situation and leave skills to the place they should make an impact: anywhere else.
The first is you, the gamer. You know more than your character. For example, how to tell the weather by watching patterns in the clouds or that nucklear fussion makes the sun all hot.
The second is you, the character. He is going to know some things that you do not. For example, the character talking to your character has a really nice rack and you can pretty much agree to anything she says. Hence why the diploymancy might work on your character.
Use your role playing skills to work it out.
Do it if it helps the story. Don't do it if you are constantly trying to get the party to do everything you say.
Now, some people will say "put down the dice and roleplay!"-- who the truth is that the people who claim this are usually skeezy munchkin punks with over-bloated egos who wouldn't actually know how to roleplay if they actually had the character sitting there beside them telling them what to do.
Why do I say this? Because avoiding the dice is usually these people's way of completely and totally ignoring character knowledge in favor of player knowledge so that they can gain the upper advantage. These are the kind of people who want to know the chemical composition of the dragon's breath so that they can use the knowledge from their upper division chemistry class to know what chemical to bring to cause the dragon to explode when they try using their breath.
You know, if a character uses bluff against you and beats your insight ability then even though you as a player know that the character is lying, you should follow through as though you believe them, even if that makes your character look foolish or do something dangerous.
The ONLY reason why you'd throw out the dice in this situation is so that you would be relying on your player knowledge and never, ever fall for a lie or a scheme DESPITE having dump-statted your Wisdom.
Similarly the party should be instrinsically aware who has the highest passive Charisma (Cha + 1/2 level) as the party should default to this character as the party leader up unless they are brand new to the group or they make enough devastatingly bad choices to brand them as a bad leader.
Yes, this does ignore Intelligence, but I am sure everyone is aware that people flock to those with the highest Charisma rather than the highest Intelligence.
Diplomacy rolls and Intimidate rolls work the same. The player describes or pantamimes the characters action and makes the roll (or you both make opposing rolls). Based on the roll you then react to the action taken against you. This does a LOT to seperate the bounderies between Player knowledge and Character knowledge that is all too tempting to overlook (I will freely admit that as nasty as I speak about it here, I am prone to do the same thing when in a group that is blatantly ignoring the difference). Without that roll to objectively represent how convincing the character should be, it is really, really difficult for any player to know how to react-- this is especially true since you rarely have pictures of PCs nor knowledge of the numbers on the other player's character sheet that should indicate how convincing or intimidating or charming the character is supposed to be.
The conflict in this issue often comes down to something very basic. And the "right" answer is the exact opposite of what seems initially intuitive.
Now, some people will say "put down the dice and roleplay!"-- who the truth is that the people who claim this are usually skeezy munchkin punks with over-bloated egos who wouldn't actually know how to roleplay if they actually had the character sitting there beside them telling them what to do.
Why do I say this? Because..,
You need bait to troll. Insulting others is a great way to de- Bait and a well known troll tactic.
In your situation, your character's Moral is shot, and you are essentially failing a Will save against your fear. Bluffing "Hey it's all just illusions, ignore it" or diplomacy "Be brave, we need you here, if you leave we will all be in a far worse situatin then if you stay". The other PCs are using their skills to give you a moral bonus vs fear. You can roleplay the effects of their aid.
Now for this specific instance even if they did roll and extremely good diplomacy roll what is to prevent your character from being frightened again. Sounds like if they wanted to let the dice do the talking they should be rolling diplomacy against will or insight, depending on system, every time something scary happens or you bolt. This being said going off on your own can be very dangerous and depending on your DM can lead to a quick PK.
[4e response] By the book, skill checks typically don't occur except in dramatic situations (battle or skill challenge). However, there's no reason not to use skills on other PCs under those circumstances.
I should mention that I am not an expericenced DM, the incident in question was during my 7th ever time being DM (4th in this campain).
When asked by the high charisma player how ti stop the OP from leaving, I didn't really know I suggested both RP and rolling diplomacy. She chose to just roll.
I think from now on we'll go with rolling the dice, but letting that guide us rather than taking the result as absolute. Obviously Rule 0 will still apply, though I'm going to try and stay out of it as much as I can.
Cheers.
Other campaigns I have played in were such that all the disputes were played out purely in character. The problem with this is when a friend is either much more charismatic and laconic than his character could ever be, or when a player had a character whose charisma was on par with Helen of Troy and bless his heart the actual player was more like a stump. Suspension of disbelief in the numerics of the game was also sometimes hard to accept.
The best games I've been a part of were the ones that were able to blend the two together. Roll the dice and take into account how well the success is or how pitiful the failure and then blend that into the roleplaying of your fellow PC. If they give a decent speech and the success of the dice role was good as well, then perhaps your character is affected by the words of their friend and adventuring partner. If the speech is subpar and the role only fair, or even poor then perhaps your characters original gut instinct was the right one.
As long as you are being honest with yourself as to what you think your character is actually feeling or how they would react, then you should also be able to think how they would be affected by these discussions. Just be open to the fact that maybe even though you yourself might not be completely swayed by all this, perhaps your character might.
Agree before playing as a group that there will be no badgering or nagging by the other players as to how someone interprets how they think their character is handled during the game. Save such discussions for afterwards and don't be afraid to share what you think then.
Most of all just continue to have fun and good times.
Cheers.
The best games I've been a part of were the ones that were able to blend the two together. Roll the dice and take into account how well the success is or how pitiful the failure and then blend that into the roleplaying of your fellow PC. If they give a decent speech and the success of the dice role was good as well, then perhaps your character is affected by the words of their friend and adventuring partner. If the speech is subpar and the role only fair, or even poor then perhaps your characters original gut instinct was the right one.
As long as you are being honest with yourself as to what you think your character is actually feeling or how they would react, then you should also be able to think how they would be affected by these discussions. Just be open to the fact that maybe even though you yourself might not be completely swayed by all this, perhaps your character might.
Agree before playing as a group that there will be no badgering or nagging by the other players as to how someone interprets how they think their character is handled during the game. Save such discussions for afterwards and don't be afraid to share what you think then.
Most of all just continue to have fun and good times.
Cheers.
QFT
For me, the player should *always* be in control of his/her character - even when magically controlled, there is no excuse to ruin someone's fun by crossing moral lines, or some psychological ones. Now, the example in the OP isn't that extreme, but I think it bears stating.
Skill use for me should not be used to control another player's actions in the game. But a good player should take into account the use of skills and stats and play accordingly. If you dumped INT and WIS, it's bad playing (and often downright rude) to play your character as a strategist-philosopher immune to deceit or presuasion. If someone makes a good Diplomacy check to persuade your character to do something you hadn't intended, you should at least seriously consider doing that thing, or come up with an appropriate reason not to.
One school of thought is that the Player controls their PC so NO. Another is that the Player doesn't control when they get shot and fall down, the rules do, so why do they control whether the suave villain fools them into not checking their credentials? They are vulnerable to the fast-shooting accurate villain but not the suave villain? If your story is all combat etc., that's fine, suave is just fluff. If you want 'suave' to really matter, you have an issue in D&D of any edition.
Nowhere in play are character-issues more engaged than in negotiations since they are about “what do you agree to”. Thus being told by the dice what happened can be more offensive here than in many other conflict forms (would rather be a dead loyalist because ran out of hit points then a live traitor because my willpower wasn't equal to their fast-talk).
The "domination" effects of some monsters are acceptable because they're short term and clearly "not you deciding it was a good idea". You're not told you decided to give the magic dohicky to the vampire, you were forced to by the domination effect.
I'm a keen fan of a player retaining the ability to explore the character they're creating and not be told by GM or randomness (or other player), “well you gave in and slept with the seductress even though you're supposed to be celibate/faithful". This can “kill” a character as created by player in a crueler way than saying “you’re dead”.
However, I also admit for me personally a key part of roleplaying is an exploration of character and complete player control of character = no surprises which strikes me as boring. I realize that people have different goals in play and exploration of setting, meeting challenges are other goals equally valid (a disjunction of these styles is often cited as a reason for failure of groups of RPG’ers).
Other game systems less focused on gaming combat have gone where 4e Skill Checks are a "baby step". Fate/Spirit of the Century, Dogs in Vineyard, Burning Wheel to name a few. Looking at these, however, you see that really bringing in social combat requires designing it in from the ground up.
All of that said, I have used in past a variant rule that makes PC's subject to such skills but gives them the "option" of not going along subject to a caveat such as "then the DM hand waives the outcome". You say you wouldn't have slept with the seductress, that's fine but she still gets the secret code from where it's hidden in your gear.
Another possible way of handling “you lose a social conflict” but “you don’t get told something about your character’s nature that violates your concept” is to recognize that a successful use of a persuasion skill like Diplomacy is not simply “getting someone to accept a proposal” it is “finding the particular variation of the proposal that they will accept”. That doesn’t mean finding the proposal the subject “wants to accept” ~ the subject has lost not won. It means “finding the chink in their armour that is the way they would accept this”.
This leads to suggesting that the player of the character who has lost a conflict over being persuaded to some course of action creates the variation of the proposal that “is what their character would accept” to take the course of action at stake. This allows them to create the text of the story that most preserves their character concept, even if it does require altering or evolving it somehow. The Player has to do this honestly and not metagaming.
This is not “creating something to their advantage”. It means creating an explanation of why they accept the basic proposal at stake that may include creating a weakness, explaining some backstory, creating some additional facts that explain it all. For example, “I would never cheat on my wife” guy has to decide when he would if a good enough roll to seduce is made that even overcame his +5 fidelity bonus. “Well, if I thought she was cheating on me, in fact was certain, and was a little drunk, thinking of it as revenge, maybe.” Maybe she didn’t cheat on him, it was all in his head or a lie, but that’s a situation when he might cheat and so that’s what the player scripts.
This means giving the player enough “creative authority” to carry off this description. You would never spare a would-be assassin? Well, create the story about why you would spare this one who just won the social skill roll. Go wild, just don’t go so far as to create something you should have to “win” to have authored. Your father was a soldier who was saved by a comrade and gave that comrade half his signet ring as a sign of the “blood debt” owed pledging to repay it. He never did but told you that this was your debt now. The assassin just produced the other half and this is the “blood debt”. Cool, the assassin is your father’s old comrade or his child. Neat bit of story background explaining why you gave in.
The dragon makes a really impressive roll on Diplomacy putting forward its case for you not to kill it even though the battle has gone your way. You decide, what the case is ~ it pledges believably to protect that village from now on meaning not only do its attacks stop but the village will have powerful protection for decades. Or it turns out to be a shapeshifter of a gender appealing to you and..... Or it was also asking to have its hoard retained and instead it tells you wear to find one much bigger (though still guarded of course).
This works as long as the “persuasion” point is a course of action. The player furnishes the explanation of that action that is consistent with their choice of character’s beliefs etc. since there are many different beliefs/facts that can explain a course of action. It does not work if the persuasion is about “belief” itself (e.g., the persuasion is about attending a religious service not what the character actually believes). Character principles, values etc. would not be subject to change through such a system.
Thus a clarification that Diplomacy is still about “proposals, courses of action” not “what you believe, feel or think”.
This reflects that changing people’s convictions etc. is very hard whereas persuading them to put down money for flim-flam just depends on coming up with the right flim-flam.
Rob
I've just recently started my first ever game of D&D and one of the other players in the group is asking me about a particular issue and I thought it would be a good idea to ask some more experienced players.
I should mention that I am not an expericenced DM, the incident in question was during my 7th ever time being DM (4th in this campain).
Gamers have been arguing over whether PCs "should" or "shouldn't" use skill checks against each other, but there are two practical aspects of your situation that take precedence over any ivory tower ideals that may be discussed:
1. A PC is a primary protagonist, a main character, and as such they always make decisions for themselves when push comes to shove. (The exception of course being if the PC is under some kind of magical mind control.) Role playing your character as indecisive while the other PCs trying to get him/her to mush on into the scary dungeon is great fun, but the bottom line is that you get to decide what your character does. Rolling dice in your situation can be a great aid to everyone's role playing, but in the end you decide what your PC does regardless of the dice.
2. D&D is a cooperative game, so it's in everyone's best interest if you role play a reason for your PC to stay with the group, at least while in the dungeon. As a DM I really try to discourage players from separating their PCs from the group while they're outside of civilization because it spreads my attention out. And if I'm in a foul mood, your lone PC might pay for it...
TS
OP's DM Here.
I should mention that I am not an expericenced DM, the incident in question was during my 7th ever time being DM (4th in this campain).
When asked by the high charisma player how ti stop the OP from leaving, I didn't really know I suggested both RP and rolling diplomacy. She chose to just roll.
I think from now on we'll go with rolling the dice, but letting that guide us rather than taking the result as absolute. Obviously Rule 0 will still apply, though I'm going to try and stay out of it as much as I can.
Cheers.
I would encourage your player not to role play himself out of the game like that. This has led to using game mechanics to force one PC against his will, to basicially stay with the adventure. Maybe the place is to scary for him to leave the side of the other PCs or something. If you ask me the real issue for your group isn't a Pc forcing another PC to do something against his will with adiplomacy check, as much as tryng to keep one player's Pc from role playing that Pc out of the game. Tell them to grow up, if he's going to play with others then he should play the same game as the rest of the group on the table.
I would encourage your player not to role play himself out of the game like that. This has led to using game mechanics to force one PC against his will, to basicially stay with the adventure. Maybe the place is to scary for him to leave the side of the other PCs or something. If you ask me the real issue for your group isn't a Pc forcing another PC to do something against his will with adiplomacy check, as much as tryng to keep one player's Pc from role playing that Pc out of the game. Tell them to grow up, if he's going to play with others then he should play the same game as the rest of the group on the table.
I wouldn't have actualy totaly wandered off I was just trying to create a bit of interesting conflict (though you are sort of right, but like I say, first time player, bound to mess it up a bit). Also you missed the point, I was just using my experience as an example because I could remember/describe it most vividly. It was the core question that was important not that particular situation. I actualy made this topic because another players character was forced to down some dwarven ale even though he protested and said that he was a man of the cloth and would not drink alcohol.
I wouldn't have actualy totaly wandered off I was just trying to create a bit of interesting conflict (though you are sort of right, but like I say, first time player, bound to mess it up a bit). Also you missed the point, I was just using my experience as an example because I could remember/describe it most vividly. It was the core question that was important not that particular situation. I actualy made this topic because another players character was forced to down some dwarven ale even though he protested and said that he was a man of the cloth and would not drink alcohol.
I guess I missed the point. But at least you see my point of Role playing yoourself out of the game. I have seen it many a times and veteran players will do it as well. The thing to remember is that is all of your guys game, players and DM, you need to play together our you will see the game fall apart. That is why I'm not a big fan of forcing a PC to do something they do not want to do by having another PC make a successful Diplomacy check. If you ask me that kind of play is just for bullies. Nobody wants to play with a bully.
Peace
That is why I'm not a big fan of forcing a PC to do something they do not want to do by having another PC make a successful Diplomacy check.
Curious, where in either 3e or 4e does it say you can do this? By my count, allowing anything of this sort is just another example of bad houserules.
You can't even use Diplomacy on PCs in 3e, with the possible exception of Mediating (between a PC and an NPC, or perhaps even two PCs). 4e's a bit more open:
Make a Diplomacy check to change opinions, to inspire good will, to haggle with a patron, to demonstrage proper etiquette and decorum, or to negotiate a deal.
A Diplomacy check is made against a DC set by the DM. The target's general attitude toward you and other conditional modifiers might apply to the DC.
A DM is well within his rights to allow one PC to change another PC's opinion on something with a Diplomacy check; however, it isn't mind control, and someone totally opposed to performing an action or persuing a goal should have a pretty high DC to beat.
Curious, where in either 3e or 4e does it say you can do this? By my count, allowing anything of this sort is just another example of bad houserules.
No where, your exactly right, forcing a PC to abide by another players wishes, is bad house ruling.
You can't even use Diplomacy on PCs in 3e, with the possible exception of Mediating (between a PC and an NPC, or perhaps even two PCs). 4e's a bit more open:
A DM is well within his rights to allow one PC to change another PC's opinion on something with a Diplomacy check; however, it isn't mind control, and someone totally opposed to performing an action or persuing a goal should have a pretty high DC to beat.
Where in the rulebook does it say that a Dm has the right to force a Pc to abide by a diplomacy by a Pc or Npc.
I think a DM forcing a player to abide by a diplomacy check by a Pc or NPC is bad DMing. A player should be in command of almost all of his actions. THe exceptions would be so,e kind of charm power like Crown of Madness, a such things are compulsion and a part of combat. Otherwise a player should always make a call on what his character does. I'm not able to quote the PHB, DMG of any Dnd edition, I write from many years of experience. It just isn't fun to have your PC railroaded like that.
Stick with skill challenges out of battle to speed things along to the next tactical combat.
Where in the rulebook does it say that a Dm has the right to force a Pc to abide by a diplomacy by a Pc or Npc.
It's implied by the fact that the DM sets the DC. If the check is successful, the character's opinion on a matter is changed. It's up to the player how the character acts henceforth, the same way a successful Diplomacy check against an NPC won't necessary get them to take a particular action (it might make the action more appealing, however).
PC #1: "We should hunt down and kill the ogres to save this village."
PC #2: "But there's no money in it. It goes against all of my principles. I refuse."
Player #1: I roll a 'Diplomacy' check to convince him that it's worth doing.
DM: Alright. PC #2 really doesn't want to do this, so the DC is 16.
Player #1: *rolls an 18* Alright!
PC #1: "You do realize that even though these people can pay us, the ogres might have some nice stuff to take. Besides, you hate creatures bigger than yourself, remember?"
PC #2: "Hmm. Well, I guess it might be worth doing. But only if we have a good plan of attack."
First off, the DM and DEFINATELY other players don't get to decide what your PC does. The DM may assign consequences, but if everyone else at the table is going to yank your string everytime you don't do something they want you to do, or do anything they DON'T want you to do, what's the point of showing up? At my table, you either RP things like that out, or don't. Social checks are, IMHO, shortcuts. Players at my table will quickly find that RPing out that bluff (without the dice) may have a much higher chance of success than rolling the dice would have.
Second... I get that you were trying to roleplay being scared. However, if you'd bailed on the adventure for a little flavor text before things got rolling, you'd be sitting on the sofa eating cheetos and getting no experience or treasure while the rest of the party split your share of the take. Try not to ruin everyone else's fun in the name of RP, hm?
It's implied by the fact that the DM sets the DC. ..
There is nothing implied in the rules that gives a right to a DM to force a Pc to do something a player does not want thier PC to do. That is an assumption on your part. I assume otherwise. Most players resent that kind of railroading by the Dm. In my opinion it is bad DMing. Even using a power like Crown of Madness, will cause players to groan. So much of the game and players decisions rely on the DM, not allowing players to decide how his PC will react to another PCs or NPCs action goes along way to ruin the illusion of control players have over there PCs. If start letting one player control another player's PC with a diplomacy check, your going to end up with a lot of unsatisfied players. My experience may not be the same as others on this issue. Each Dm and gaming group has to decide for themselves if taking control of another player's PC is alright for them.
Each Dm and gaming group has to decide for themselves if taking control of another player's PC is alright for them.
So, if my group says it's okay, I'll roll up a character min-maxed to have an unbeatable Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate check. The whole party (and most NPCs we come across, for that matter) will be my willing sock-puppets and do my every wish.
Simply put, it's a bad idea. If PCs can be controlled with these sorts of die rolls, where do you draw the line? Say a character totally blows a roll when another player makes a Diplomacy roll to convince him to jump off a cliff? Splat, start rolling a new one.
There is nothing implied in the rules that gives a right to a DM to force a Pc to do something a player does not want thier PC to do.
....
At what point above is it at all ambiguous as to how much control a player has over his PC? You can change his opinion slightly, and that is it. It is not mind-control.
Say a character totally blows a roll when another player makes a Diplomacy roll to convince him to jump off a cliff?
At least under 3e, even magical compusions can't cause a creature to follow commands that are blatantly suicidal...
So, if my group says it's okay, I'll roll up a character min-maxed to have an unbeatable Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate check. The whole party (and most NPCs we come across, for that matter) will be my willing sock-puppets and do my every wish.
Then your group will learn what I learned along time ago, Giving a player that much control over another player's PC isn't all that much fun, for everone.
Simply put, it's a bad idea. If PCs can be controlled with these sorts of die rolls, where do you draw the line? Say a character totally blows a roll when another player makes a Diplomacy roll to convince him to jump off a cliff? Splat, start rolling a new one.
Agreed totally bad idea. But who are you and I, to decide how another DM and group should play there RPG.
....
At what point above is it at all ambiguous as to how much control a player has over his PC? You can change his opinion slightly, and that is it. It is not mind-control.
At which point have you shown the rules imply the Dm has a right to make a PC abide to a bluff or diplomacy check, against that PC's player's wishes? If you argue that a roll can change a Pc's opinions slightly, but that does not give the Dm the right to make a PC abide to a bluff or diplomacy check, against that PC's player's wishes as in, mind control, then we're in argreement.:D
At least under 3e, even magical compusions can't cause a creature to follow commands that are blatantly suicidal...
You are right. I used Curse of the Dark Dream a 1st level worlock daily to force a PC off a cliff. Potentially a fatal compulsion. (I"ll get that tiefling you'll see!!:evillaugh ). But that would have never happened in 3e or Ad&d
At which point have you shown the rules imply the Dm has a right to make a PC abide to a bluff or diplomacy check, against that PC's player's wishes?
Nowhere in the books does it say the PC is immune to anything other than the most basic of 3e Diplomacy checks. Can you point to anywhere in the rules to say PCs are special in this regard?
BTW, 'Curse of the Dark Dream' isn't technically mind control, as the target isn't taking a move action to walk off a cliff - you're moving the target. You could push people around in 3e with spells, too.
I constantly disregard the roll, no matter how high, if it's anything but trivial stuff. I haven't heard anything from the DM telling me that I had to be manipulated because the figter rolled a 19.
First off as a Player, no matter what you roleplay, threatening to use force on your fellow party members is not good. You could have simply slipped away when the others weren't looking. I usually have player who run's a PC always trying to attack the first thing he sees' if awaken--as a DM I try to overrule this rash move as PvP is not good.(giving him reason why he wouldn't)
Now normally using Bluff, diplomacy, intimidate don't work on other players. But they can give insight. A roll will give such insight.
A bluff simply tells you you don't know if the bluffer is lying or not. Not whether you believe them.
A diplomacy simply shows you see the other PC's side of the issue--not necessarily agreeing with them nor taking action in support of that action.
A intimidate (which is never good to use on a PC because it is so temporary) reveals a nature of another PC that changes the relationship between them.
As a DM I try to mediate on these rolls by revealing insight rather than results. But when it comes to PvP I take a more aggressive role in enforcing results. ;)
Good thread. I just started playing and I put up with Intimidate attacks from fellows constantly because my Lawful Good Paladin wont let them steal an unconsious guard's gold and insists on stabalizing the dying soldier because he was just doing his job.
I constantly disregard the roll, no matter how high, if it's anything but trivial stuff. I haven't heard anything from the DM telling me that I had to be manipulated because the figter rolled a 19.
It's kind of hard to bully someone in going against their alignment and personality. The others should be using better tactics:
"Surly this gold will be used for an malicious purpose. Let us liberate it for our goal. What better way to fight evil?":D
Good thread. I just started playing and I put up with Intimidate attacks from fellows constantly because my Lawful Good Paladin wont let them steal an unconsious guard's gold and insists on stabalizing the dying soldier because he was just doing his job.
If this is 3e, your 3rd-level immunity to fear should come in real handy here. If they continue to be d-bags, go the Batman route and figure out the best way to neutralize each one of your party members "just in case." Hey, you never know when they might get charmed. :D
If this is 4e...well, you can't really use Intimidate outside of combat or skill challenge, so...
Nowhere in the books does it say the PC is immune to anything other than the most basic of 3e Diplomacy checks. Can you point to anywhere in the rules to say PCs are special in this regard?
No where in the 3.5 PHB does it say a Pc must abide by a Diplomacy check. But;
Diplomacy
...,
check: You can change the attitude of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check;...
It is very specific in stating that a Diplomacy check can effect npc. The omission of stating a Diplomacy check can change the attititude of a player character, should be a guide for astute role players and DMs of the game designers intentions for what players and DMs should be using Diplomacy checks for, of course this is an assumptions
BTW, 'Curse of the Dark Dream' isn't technically mind control, as the target isn't taking a move action to walk off a cliff - you're moving the target.
Technically Curse of the Dark Dream is a charm. Despite the mechanics of the power, you are causing the target to hullicinate and move from falling into an ilusionary pit of snakes or something wicked like that. I would say it is mind control, even if the target doesn't take a move action to move, that is how the power slides the target.
You could push people around in 3e with spells, too.
I'm sure super cool.:D
The omission of stating a Diplomacy check can change the attititude of a player character, should be a guide for astute role players and DMs of the game designers intentions for what players and DMs should be using Diplomacy checks for, of course this is an assumptions
So...just curious...can an NPC lie to a PC in your game? Feint or Demoralize? Those are all basic things that PCs really shouldn't be immune to, regardless of their source. Diplomacy is explicit because it directly affects a descriptor that only NPCs have, their attitude.
So...just curious...can an NPC lie to a PC in your game? Feint or Demoralize? Those are all basic things that PCs really shouldn't be immune to, regardless of their source.
I guess were talking about 3.5 but the basics concept should aply in any rpg. I think.
1. Yes a NPC can lie in my game. A NPC can lie convincingly (i.e. a good bluff check). But no matter how good of a lie, and/ or how gulable a Pc (i.e. a bad sense motive check), a player decides if his PC, believe in a NPC or not. Even if a NPC is telling the truth, if a PC makes a sense motive check, I make a bluiff check. Some times it doesn't matter who rolls what, the players will not trust a NPC. But I never decide if a PC believes a NPC, no matter what a NPC rolls in a bluff check or if the NPC is telling the truth.
2. Yes! But a feint grants a combat advantage (no dex mod to AC for the next attack). Feint does not grant the Dm the right to decide an action for a PC against the PC's player's wishes. If you argue that a Diplomacy check does effect a PC through the granted combat advantage in the use of a feint, then you are right. But that is the exception not the rule. Still, you make a point.
3. No! Again I do not let a diplomacy check demoralize a PC. Whether a PC wishes to retreat or continue a fight, is up to the player, most of the time. The exception, for me, would be a spell, like command, retreat. But I would never let a NPC's diplomacy check cause a PC to retreat or surrender.
Diplomacy is explicit because it directly affects a descriptor that only NPCs have, their attitude.
So we agree Diplomacy is explicit effect for NPCs?
But where is it explicit that Diplomacy effects a PCs attitude?
Wherte is it implied?
P.S> I enjoy this debate, much respect.
I guess were talking about 3.5 but the basics concept should apply in any rpg.
Well, it does depend on game system. Earlier it seemed apparent that the 3e rules were being referenced more, so I'm sticking with them for the remainder.
But no matter how good of a lie, and/ or how gulable a Pc (i.e. a bad sense motive check), a player decides if his PC, believe in a NPC or not...But I never decide if a PC believes a NPC, no matter what a NPC rolls in a bluff check or if the NPC is telling the truth.
I can't help but think this is very metagamey, and sort of negates the need for Sense Motive in many cases. The player might not trust an NPC - heck, the PC might not trust an NPC - but if he fails a Sense Motive check, that shows the NPC managed to lie successfully to the character. Think about all the stories where the hero is talking to/interrogating the enemy; the enemy, despite being under suspicion, very often still manages to dupe the hero.
The key point here is ignoring a failed Sense Motive roll is akin to exploiting every weakness of an enemy, despite a failed Knowledge roll. Seperation of player from character; the author may know what's going on, but the main character will have to figure things out for himself.
No! Again I do not let a diplomacy check demoralize a PC.
"Demoralize" is a standard action that bestows the [Shaken] condition on a creature for 1 round. Very similar to feinting. I only asked this because it seems the players are ignoring a lot of failed rolls, and was curious how far it extended.
The standard use of 3e Intimidate, however, is about the only way you can force someone to do something. This is an invaluable tool for DMs, being able to have town guards basically tell the PCs "Knock it off!" if they get rowdy. :D Players maliciously using this to screw with other players is something a DM shouldn't stand for; however, if everyone agrees with it for the sake of story, it seems fairly appropriate if a Paladin or morally staunch Fighter tries to tell the Rogue "Quit breaking the law, ***hole!" with an Intimidate check.
So we agree Diplomacy is explicit effect for NPCs?
I think I stated that in my very first post - in 3e, yes, Diplomacy is blatantly targeting NPCs only.
But where is it explicit that Diplomacy effects a PCs attitude? Where is it implied?
Again, you lost me here. 4e Diplomacy makes no mention of it specifically targeting NPCs, and has a few specific effects tied to it. None of those effects change their attitude (because PCs don't have an attitude trait) or force them to do anything. A PC could effectively ignore a good Diplomacy check by just playing dwarf-like (aka, stubborn as hell), conceding on certain points, but still unwilling to go along with the general concensus of the party.
If you really don't want your character to go on that adventure, the whole issue of using influence skills on each other is secondary to some other, more immediately important issue. Deal with that.
..., and sort of negates the need for Sense Motive in many cases.
No, because a succesful sense motive check guarantees the Pcs know the NPC is lieing or not. Trust me though, sometimes that does not matter, an NPC can be telling the truth, the PCs were successful in a sense motive and still they refuse to trust your NPC. Would you force the PC in believing the truth even if the player refuses too? What story opportunities might be lost by not playing on the Pc's lack of trust of a honest NPC.
I can't help but think this is very metagamey..,
The player might not trust an NPC - heck, the PC might not trust an NPC - but if he fails a Sense Motive check, that shows the NPC managed to lie successfully to the character. Think about all the stories where the hero is talking to/interrogating the enemy; the enemy, despite being under suspicion, very often still manages to dupe the hero.
Some players might fall for the NPC lies, some may not. Some players will RP the die rolls (i.e. play gullible with an obvious failed sense motive) Some players will refuse to believe for RP reasons. Still some players will metagame and refuse because the dice rolls as I make all rolls in front of the players. So be it. Each player decides what his PC will believe, as a Dm I am not the author but a facilitator. Everyone in the game group helps tell the story, players get to decide what Pcs do, for the most part. That just my Dm philosophy, a hold over from a time when DnD was more game than role playing. Besides a Dm has got to be prepared for when the villian failes to bluff the PCs. Other wise why have a bluff check if the villlian is going to succede for story reasons anyway?
The key point here is ignoring a failed Sense Motive roll is akin to exploiting every weakness of an enemy, despite a failed Knowledge roll. Seperation of player from character; the author may know what's going on, but the main character will have to figure things out for himself.
Well, were playing a game not writing a novel. So each player is capable of so much seperation from there PC. Some players have no problem roll playing the die rolls, others will not. I still believe in letting my players decide such things for there PCs. So far so good, we still have great and exciting games.
"Demoralize" is a standard action that bestows the [Shaken] condition on a creature for 1 round. Very similar to feinting.
I was unaware of that. So through the entire run of 3e it "demoralize" was never used by us. Although I did from time to time allowed intimidate as a standard action to make enemies surrender. But my PCs were not subject the roll.
I only asked this because it seems the players are ignoring a lot of failed rolls, and was curious how far it extended.
I will state that I never told a player "Your sense motive failed!" or "The NPC succesfully bluffed your PC" I was always more ambiguous. I usually would say you can't tell if he is lieing or not. From there it is up to the player to decide if the PC beleives or not. Some will RP the die roll, some will meta game. I care less, my NPC will act accordingly.
The standard use of 3e Intimidate, however, is about the only way you can force someone to do something. This is an invaluable tool for DMs, being able to have town guards basically tell the PCs "Knock it off!" if they get rowdy. :D
I've Dmed 3e throught it's entire run, and never used Intimidate to force a PC's action. If they don't want to listen to the town gaurd, then the town guard will have to arrest them. What happens if the gaurds fail their imtimidatation check? If the gaurds are destined to succede then why make the check anyway? If you go this route then you risk railroading your Pcs.
Players maliciously using this to screw with other players is something a DM shouldn't stand for; however, if everyone agrees with it for the sake of story, it seems fairly appropriate if a Paladin or morally staunch Fighter tries to tell the Rogue "Quit breaking the law, ***hole!" with an Intimidate check.
Well at least a player railroading another player is out in your game.
I think I stated that in my very first post - in 3e, yes, Diplomacy is blatantly targeting NPCs only.
Well, it does depend on game system. Earlier it seemed apparent that the 3e rules were being referenced more, so I'm sticking with them for the remainder.
Again, you lost me here. 4e Diplomacy makes no mention of ...
Hmmm
Again, you lost me here. 4e Diplomacy makes no mention of it specifically targeting NPCs, and has a few specific effects tied to it. None of those effects change their attitude (because PCs don't have an attitude trait) or force them to do anything. A PC could effectively ignore a good Diplomacy check by just playing dwarf-like (aka, stubborn as hell), conceding on certain points, but still unwilling to go along with the general concensus of the party.
You are right 4e diplomacy makes no mention of a specifically targeting NPCs. But nothing in the language implies it targets Pcs as well. So whether it targets PCs, NPCs or both would be an assumptions.
I think I stated that in my very first post - in 3e, yes, Diplomacy is blatantly targeting NPCs only.
As we agree it is explicit in 3e, Diplomacy only targets NPCs, only where is it implied that it works on PCs? Just wondering, as you stated previously it is implied or are you only argueing it is implied in 4e only?
Would you force the PC in believing the truth even if the player refuses too?
It's really not about forcing a player to do anything. Just for example, in my game, the result of a Sense Motive is typically:
* "You can tell he's telling the truth."
* "You're pretty sure he's telling the truth."
* "You're pretty sure he's leaving something out."
* "Yeah, he's totally lying."
Now, if after getting that first response (definite truth) the player acts in a way that contradicts how his PC perceived things, I'll call him out on it. Maybe I just have good players, because this typically never happens; they make their rolls and abide by them, just like every other aspect of the game.
What story opportunities might be lost by not playing on the Pc's lack of trust of a honest NPC.
Trust me, I've got some pretty paranoid players, but they know how to seperate player knowledge from PC knowledge.
Each player decides what his PC will believe, as a Dm I am not the author but a facilitator.
DMs who believe they are somehow authors are nutcases IMO.
That said, the rules are there for a reason. It's not a game if you can't lose.Other wise why have a bluff check if the villlian is going to succede for story reasons anyway?
There is no "succedes anyway" in there - the bluff check is a deliberate randomization to see if the PCs see through an NPC's obfuscation. Depending on how the dice land, that's the direction the story goes.
I still believe in letting my players decide such things for there PCs.
Sounds like a decent houserule for your group. My initial point, by RAW...well, it's still up there.
If they don't want to listen to the town gaurd, then the town guard will have to arrest them. What happens if the gaurds fail their imtimidatation check? If the gaurds are destined to succede then why make the check anyway? If you go this route then you risk railroading your Pcs.
The entire point in Intimidation is to possibly AVOID a messy arrest, jail, escape/bail sequence. The PC(s) could make their modified level check and decide to resist, or just stand down so they don't get into deep ****. I don't see where you're getting this "destined to succeed" stuff from. The whole point of rolling is randomization.
You are right 4e diplomacy makes no mention of a specifically targeting NPCs. But nothing in the language implies it targets Pcs as well. So whether it targets PCs, NPCs or both would be an assumptions.
Well, now that I think about it, it doesn't really say anything about targeting NPCs. Or monsters, for that matter. What a worthless skill!
Just wondering, as you stated previously it is implied or are you only argueing it is implied in 4e only?
Well, looking back at that post, I wrote the "implied" thing immediately after quoting 4e, while repeatedly saying that it doesn't work in 3e.
It's really not about forcing a player to do anything. Just for example, in my game, the result of a Sense Motive is typically:
* "You can tell he's telling the truth."
* "You're pretty sure he's telling the truth."
* "You're pretty sure he's leaving something out."
* "Yeah, he's totally lying."
Now, if after getting that first response (definite truth) the player acts in a way that contradicts how his PC perceived things, I'll call him out on it. Maybe I just have good players, because this typically never happens; they make their rolls and abide by them, just like every other aspect of the game.
That's how it would play out in my game. Except I don't expect my PC to abide by the rolls. They can decide to trust the NPC or not, it is there decision. Some players play the roll others cannot, it depends on how immersive a player can get. I wonder if this comes from my experience in DMing AD&D prior to things like a bluff check.
Trust me, I've got some pretty paranoid players, but they know how to seperate player knowledge from PC knowledge.
I once skipped asense motive check and told the player the NPC was not lieing. The player still did not believe me. Talk about paranoid. Since that moment truth or lie NPC make bluff checks v. PC Sense motive checks
DMs who believe they are somehow authors are nutcases IMO.
Funny, when I first played DND, I mean really played DND, what hooked me in was that everyone left the table feeling like they had one. DND is not the ussual winner or loser game. ONe of the grat things about DnD, I thought, is you can have a great game and no one loses.
There is no "succedes anyway" in there - the bluff check is a deliberate randomization to see if the PCs see through an NPC's obfuscation. Depending on how the dice land, that's the direction the story goes.
So if a NPC bluffs a PC then the how you play it out depends on whether or not the PCs believe the NPC. For your players it depends on the dice roll. For me it is whether the players are going to believe the NPC or not. In the end as DMs you need to be ready for both, whether your players role play the die roll or just role play.
Sounds like a decent houserule for your group. My initial point, by RAW...well, it's still up there.
But there is nothing RAW, explicit or implied in the rules of 3e or 4e, that says you PCs must abide by a diplomacy or bluff check. You have yet to prove that point, it is still remains your assumption.
The entire point in Intimidation is to possibly AVOID a messy arrest, jail, escape/bail sequence. The PC(s) could make their modified level check and decide to resist, or just stand down so they don't get into deep ****. I don't see where you're getting this "destined to succeed" stuff from. The whole point of rolling is randomization.
So having the guards intimidate the PCs is not a full prove way to stop them from "messing arround". The guards can still blow the check, and the pC can still end up in jail or worse. It works the same way in your games as it does in mine. So what did I learn from this, PCs who ignore an intimidation check or the check does not work on them, both end up in jail.
Well, now that I think about it, it doesn't really say anything about targeting NPCs. Or monsters, for that matter. What a worthless skill!
You don't like fourth edition. I got that much. Me I love the 4th edition.
Well, looking back at that post, I wrote the "implied" thing immediately after quoting 4e, while repeatedly saying that it doesn't work in 3e.
You lost me here I would appreciate an explanation.
Well I think I see the difference to our approaches in DMing bluff checks. I believe the root of my DMing style comes from older versions of the game. Back in the old AD&D days there were no such skill checks as bluff, diplomacy and the like. Back then the idea was to roleplay those situations out. One of the pardigms in that approach to RPGs, is the player decides what his PC does and thinks.
I am guessing you DMed since 3rd edition (Correct me if i'm wrong). So the concept of rolling diplomacy and bluff check has always been apart of your Dm and player experience. So role playing with die rolls has always been a part of your game. ANyway I am guessing. But from what I see you don't force PCs to abide by the die roll, you jsut expect it. To be honest I probably would fit in with your group if that were your DM style. Because as a player that is how I play. But I have played with many others in the past decades, not everyone can emerse themselves in the game like that.
P>S> You still have not proven the rules in 4e or 3e RAW, explicit or implied allow a DM to force a PC to abide by a Diplomacy, bluff or any other charisma based skill check by an NPC.
NPC's are affected by these skills for a reason. If an NPC (or another PC) is trying to bluff (or any other social skill) your character, you have your PC's knowledge about what to expect. Example:
Tippy the Merchant is offering a book for sale which he claims is the journal of HighMuckeyMuck the Mage, which will lead you to the ruins of his tower, great adventure and wagonloads of treasure. You, as the player, may choose to believe that the book is genuine, or not. (Imagine your chagrin if you, the player, didn't believe him, but the DM forced you to believe, shell out two dungeons' worth of gold, and found it was a battered old cookbook written in ogre!)
Now, reverse things. You've got a battered old cookbook written in ogre, that you're trying to unload, and you want to make a few extra coins. You try to convince Tippy the Merchant that it's HighMuckyMuck the Mage's journal, and he can make a fortune reselling it to another adventuring party, since yours is headed the other direction to attend your granddaddy's funeral, and you need immediate cash to get there in time. The DM KNOWS that you're full of crap (since your DM placed the ogre cookbook in the first place!). In order to simulate the NPC's ignorance, a method is in place to settle whether or not you are believed.
Likewise, intimidate checks. You may or may not believe that the orc trying to bully you into handing over your ale money in the alley can whomp the heck of you, so no roll is needed. The DM, however, knows EXACTLY what the odds are of you whomping the orc for HIS ale money, so an Intimidate roll is needed to see if the orc believes you can do it.
Make sense?
To clarify, we certainly don't have discussions of whether or not a Player can stab another player into corrosion, surely they can (though it means that they aren't the kind of people I'd like to game with, we'd never think for a second that sort of thing shouldn't be allowed RAW)
Similarly, A PC or a NPC should be allowed to influence a PC with flowery words. The only difference is that in one situation, if the target refuses he is killed and in the other, he isn't really playing the role playing aspects of the rolls.
That said, a PC who abuses guile to get what he wants out of other PC's is probably about as welcome to at a table of mine as someone who kills players, and a DM who abuses guile can be put in the same category as the one who railroads characters in some other way. Can a PC or DM do it? RAW yes, RAI yes, just be careful, be mature (at both ends) and play the rolls in your role.
In summation, unless you say that a PC/NPC can't attack and affect a PC/NPC, then you shouldn't say that they can't be affected by less bloody means. But all things in moderation, and only for the purpose of the story.
P>S> You still have not proven the rules in 4e or 3e RAW, explicit or implied allow a DM to force a PC to abide by a Diplomacy, bluff or any other charisma based skill check by an NPC.
I guess I'm just not very clear. So I'll throw the ball back to you; could you please quote anywhere in the PHB or DMG - irregardless of edition - that players may ignore Cha-based skills (other than the very specific example of 3e Diplomacy)?
For the record, I very much enjoy 4e, I was being facetious about the 4e Diplomacy skill - by your reasoning, it has no effect on anybody, since it doesn't specifically say it affects PCs, NPCs, or monsters.
I guess I'm just not very clear. So I'll throw the ball back to you; could you please quote anywhere in the PHB or DMG - irregardless of edition - that players may ignore Cha-based skills (other than the very specific example of 3e Diplomacy)?
You got me there! I guess were both making assumptions about the rules that fit our individual style of DMing ;)
For the record, I very much enjoy 4e, I was being facetious about the 4e
Great. my assumption was wrong.
Diplomacy skill - by your reasoning, it has no effect on anybody, since it doesn't specifically say it affects PCs, NPCs, or monsters.
By my reasoning in 4e Diplomacy works the same as it has for me while I played 3e. Whether it specifically states it works on NPCs or PCs makes no difference to me. So your assumption is wrong.
P>S> I give the exclusive right for a player to decide thier Pc's action as much as possible. Even to making them technically immune to NPC and other PC charisma based skill checks. In my view it is more important to maintain that sense of PC control for my players. Trust me it has worked for me as a Dm for over 25+ years and 4 DnD editions. Besides who am I to decide that a die roll understands a PC better than that Pcs player.
My take on this batch of skills follows. This is my interpretation, and reasoning behind it, take it or leave it, as it suits you.
NPC's are affected by these skills for a reason. If an NPC (or another PC) is trying to bluff (or any other social skill) your character, you have your PC's knowledge about what to expect. Example:
Tippy the Merchant is offering a book for sale which he claims is the journal of HighMuckeyMuck the Mage, which will lead you to the ruins of his tower, great adventure and wagonloads of treasure. You, as the player, may choose to believe that the book is genuine, or not. (Imagine your chagrin if you, the player, didn't believe him, but the DM forced you to believe, shell out two dungeons' worth of gold, and found it was a battered old cookbook written in ogre!)
Now, reverse things. You've got a battered old cookbook written in ogre, that you're trying to unload, and you want to make a few extra coins. You try to convince Tippy the Merchant that it's HighMuckyMuck the Mage's journal, and he can make a fortune reselling it to another adventuring party, since yours is headed the other direction to attend your granddaddy's funeral, and you need immediate cash to get there in time. The DM KNOWS that you're full of crap (since your DM placed the ogre cookbook in the first place!). In order to simulate the NPC's ignorance, a method is in place to settle whether or not you are believed.
Likewise, intimidate checks. You may or may not believe that the orc trying to bully you into handing over your ale money in the alley can whomp the heck of you, so no roll is needed. The DM, however, knows EXACTLY what the odds are of you whomping the orc for HIS ale money, so an Intimidate roll is needed to see if the orc believes you can do it.
Make sense?
Makes total sense to me>
:D
Unless your playing a PVP campaign in which case you'll just have to suffer.