Rolls enforcement in RP situations

[rorax]

Hey.


Here is a question...


Assume you in RP situation with other characters, now one of them is telling a lie that your CHARACTER does not want to believe in. Then the lying character roll extremely high 'bluff' roll and kind of expect all other to believe him.

How would you think it would be proper to react? according to the roll? according to your own character hunch? can and should the bluffing character expect others to take what he said for truth because of his roll? (assume non of them know for fact he's lying).


This is just example, the problem may occur in many other situations mainly when it's matter of personal taste, like diplomacy and perform, but other situations to.

(Bard is telling a joke....it's not funny to your character, but he rolls high perform roll)


So how you would react ? and what do you think the proper thing to do will be?

[Dorn]

Mostly i'd just play out the situation but perhaps some guiding thoughts might be...

1) The liar.
Rolling bluff is a signal that there is a lie. If it was a small lie, and i had a reasonable charisma and/or bluff score i'd not roll. Unless i was asked to by a char or DM in which case i'd roll.

If it was a big lie, or something that might inspire disbelief, or something about a subject that the PCs are likely to know about THEN i'd roll off my own bat.

2) The listeners
a) If my char would have thought that someone (eg has a reasonable wis and/or sense motive) was lying i'd 'tell' them and ask if they seem

b) if someone rolled a high bluff and my char wasbn't already suspicious i'd probably just go along believing the lie. If i had a high wis/sense motive i may be wary however, or ask another question. Makes for fun and interesting RP.

c) If someone rolled a high bluff, but seemed to have a low charisma OR if my char was already suspecious i'd role Sense motive and if i outscorred them by 5 I'd call them out, and if i rolled less than 5 i'd believe them. Within 5 i'd probably be on guard but given or not give benefit of the doubt depending on success or failure.

I'd try and use c) as little as possible as i think investment in skills and ESPECIALLY investment in abilities is far too underrated in dnd and nwn.

In terms of a reaction? SO depends on your characters.

If i had a human noble and a bard made a joke about his beard and rolled perform less than 10, then i would insult him back.

If i had a shield dwarf he'd likely thump them and may break bones.

However, a role of 25 might even have a dwarf secretyl smiling into his ale after threatening the bard with violence as a tip of the hat to dwarven honour. It was a FARKIN funny joke afterall.

I think it's just about paying IN CHARACTER but not assuming that in character gives you phantom pionts in skills/abilities beasue of their background etc. You IC behaviour is rulled by your skillponit and abilities firest and background second (the background having formed the skillpoint/ability distribution at L1 and beyond).

[Greasemang]

Assume you in RP situation with other characters, now one of them is telling a lie that your CHARACTER does not want to believe in. Then the lying character roll extremely high 'bluff' roll and kind of expect all other to believe him.

How would you think it would be proper to react? according to the roll? according to your own character hunch? can and should the bluffing character expect others to take what he said for truth because of his roll? (assume non of them know for fact he's lying).

I'd generally say that mediums can be reached with respect to both character skills and accurate roleplay. I wouldn't say that bluff, for instance, is necessarily a way to convince people that X is true, so much as a way to convince people that you're being honest about X. If their bluff was sufficiently high about something my character has no chance of believing, I might skew towards my character believing that the bluffer is sincere about what they're saying, even if they aren't quite accepting of the content of the bluff.

(Bard is telling a joke....it's not funny to your character, but he rolls high perform roll)

Likewise, there's more to a performance than text often can show. Jokes that are unfunny in their content can be made by presentation, tone of voice, etc.

[mr duncan]

I wouldn't say that bluff, for instance, is necessarily a way to convince people that X is true, so much as a way to convince people that you're being honest about X.

This is about the extent of it for interacting with Player Characters. The social dice checks are really made for interacting with NPCs. Diplomacy flat out says it can only be used on NPCs, and no amount of Bluff is going to get someone to believe something they really do not. The Bluff skill can still be used of corse with the feint feat in combat but if you make a dice roll in a social situation you are really shooting yourself in the foot as far as getting someone to think you are telling the truth

Better to tell your lie and never go for your dice if you are lying to a Player Character. The player will decide if they believe you or not, for those few who care if you are lying or not they can ask for an opposed Sense Motive

Intimidate is much the same, I have seen dozens of players toss out an intimidate check and be totally ignored. If you want to intimidate another character you really need to be able and ready to hurt them, and in that case you will not need to pick up the dice. You just are not going to be able to scare someone in to something unless they are really a little worried about what might happen if they do not give in to your demands

[Veilan]

Oh, this again! Where's yavanion?

In general, the "social" skills are mostly targeted at NPCs. PCs are "special", even though ALFA has a lot of them - but it would still be pretty bad if you ignored them. After all, the investments in mental / social skills and stats are just as real as those into combat stats - just like the half orc can kick your ass, that bard/rogue can make you look stupid, unrefined and perhaps even dishonest.

The trick, as usual, is to find a common ground with your fellow players, by respecting their roleplay and paying heed to it while not giving up your character's free will to respond. Usually it can be very fun and fulfilling for all parties if it is played out with humour and creativity.

If the kind of interaction is hostile, though, then you should do the same as for any CvC: Get a DM to mediate it.

Cheers,

[dergon darkhelm]

As I always do when this topic is raised (which has been roughly 2x/year since I joined ALFA), I will plead with people to give wide acceptance of Cha based skill checks made by other PCs and to act accordingly. True, you are not under obligation to do so by the rules, but it makes the game a more exciting and interesting environment.

I'm not going to edit by sig but I will once again post .....


VIVA LA CHARISMA!

[Blindhamsterman]

I'd expect players to make use of skills, because ultimately they're important. They should RP their stuff out, and as a DM I'd probably give a bonus to whatever they roll based on the RP. (thats speaking from my experience as a DM in pnp mostly)

Anyone that thinks they can RP through a social situation which has consequences, whithout making use of their actual skills... is dreaming. Sorry, but it's as simple as that in my eyes (and short of DMA or HDM telling me otherwise, thats how I'll treat it)

quick edit as I'm interested in something:

Intimidate is much the same, I have seen dozens of players toss out an intimidate check and be totally ignored. If you want to intimidate another character you really need to be able and ready to hurt them, and in that case you will not need to pick up the dice. You just are not going to be able to scare someone in to something unless they are really a little worried about what might happen if they do not give in to your demands

how does Xujja know IC that another isn't able to beat the snot out of him? for all he knows that other character is a powerful warrior thats killed and maimed thousands. OOC you can be fairly self assured that most PCs you meet are lower level and by extension, no reall challange, but say... a level 5 or 6 barbarian for example is going to be self assured in his/her abilities, and carry themselves as such, they also likely have a good intimidate skill. So for you to simply ignore them... makes no sense in my eyes. But perhaps you have your reasons I guess (in which case fair enough, just from this side it doesn't make sense to me)

[hollyfant]

Assume you in RP situation with other characters, now one of them is telling a lie that your CHARACTER does not want to believe in. Then the lying character roll extremely high 'bluff' roll and kind of expect all other to believe him.

PCs cannot "force" other PCs to do or think anything. Them's the rules. That's why you need a DM around for CvC, even when it's just verbal.

It's good to react to what others are doing around you though, even when it's targeted "against" your PC. Each player has a responsibility to create a consistent, believable character, with clear objectives, mannerisms and beliefs. Sometimes, that means "going along" with something that is going to end bad. And sometimes, that means putting your foot down.

No amount of bluffing can make a PC cleric believe the Gods aren't real. And no amount of bluffing can make a PC who'se convinced Dragons do not exist, belief there's one beyond the next hill. Interactions that violate the core concept of a character simply do not, cannot apply, in the same way you can't make a PC fly by bluffing he's a seagull.

Personally, I love using skillchecks to re-enforce a character's actions. *looks menacing* has more impact when followed by "roll intimidate: 7 +8 = 15". But the skills aren't there to replace RP. Simply rolling that intimidate check and expecting people to cower in fear is a cheap opt-out. And as for bluff:

A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe.

If someone rolls a high bluff check, and shouts "Look out, behind you!", that should work. Making a PC belief he's adopted when he's the spitting image of his father just won't work, not even when taking that twenty point penalty to the roll. But you could sow doubt...

Mind you, if you want to play character with strong convictions (or just a sceptic) you really should invest some points in Sense Motive. Fair's fair.

[Brokenbone]

Heh, social skills, an oldie but goodie!

Reminds me of a related "I will play my PC any well I damn well please" philosophy which comes up now and again when a nobody PC with ten hitpoints will scoff at the sight of three hundred ogres wearing three hundred inside-out babies on their heads (as hats). Rootin' tootin' toughest guy on the planet who is never scared of anything, ever, unless it's a magic fear effect that requires a very fail-prone will save. Only way that kind of silliness is curbed is via DMs dialing back RPXP, but you need a DM for that too, dontcha?

Play with people whose cooperative play you can respect. Avoid those who are spoilsports.

[maxcell]

+1 Hollyfant

Humanly we will want to go with our own gut despite a roll, and I personally think the rolls need to be between the roller and a DM.

eg you are the liar and you want your lie to be believed, you know you are lying. You roll bluff for the DM.
The listeners may or may not believe you on instinct alone, so they may let the DM know they want to roll sense motive or some such.
In this case the outcome is mediated by the DM, and if it were me if the liar failed the roll I would only let the listener who won know that they get a feeling it is untrue and thus let the ic interaction progress naturally from their.

That being said, when there is no DM about, I think the social rolls would just blow the whole ic interaction. The listener is going to have a gut feeling about whether it is true or not, and if he gets a sign that the liar is rolling bluff it may be very hard to ignore that information in game, at least for me that is.

[rorax]

Of course, i'm not talking about extreme and unrealistic situations. (like "look there are 10 red dragons behind you ...) bluff roll 20 + 10 = 30 , now enforce others to believe me.


I'm talking about moderate situations, for example evil priest is being asked about his faith and wants to lie(bluff skill). A male PC tries to smooth talk another female PC (perform / diplomacy).


I'm up for rolls and think they should dictate the general flow of RP, on the other hand we can not entirely ignore the choice of another player how to react to the situation.

If someone calling a lady "Babe" , we can't expect her to be very happy about it, even if he rolled high diplomacy roll. This actually make me wonder how does a person with average social skills RL can RP high social skills character and not be completely depended on rolls.

[Blindhamsterman]

If someone calling a lady "Babe" , we can't expect her to be very happy about it, even if he rolled high diplomacy roll. This actually make me wonder how does a person with average social skills RL can RP high social skills character and not be completely depended on rolls.

my advise, don't roll up a character that you don't genuinely feel you can play, alternately borrow heavily from books and films for the kind of things to say.

I'm up for rolls and think they should dictate the general flow of RP

generally my view also, while it can't be forced between players. I'd expect to see it if I was DMing a group.

[danielmn]

Socially, I ask for sense motive rolls at times more than not for things besides lying. My PC is stoic a lot of the time, but a sense motive roll opposed by my bluff roll could give away to the other pc a certain posture which may define the mood that's hidden under all that thick skin and armour of my PC. People auto-think an asking for a sense motive means someone is lying, which isn't necessarily the case.. though I think I use the skill a bit more out side of the box than it was intended. A sense motive might also lend the feeling of a partial truth...ie. this PC is telling my PC the truth, but not the whole truth...he's holding back something from my PC. Many occassions where the skill could be utilized besides lying. As to the above answers, I think I agree with Grease the most. It isn't so much that you think what they say is true, but they believe what they say is true (a failed SM), vrs. you know they are telling you a big yarn (a successful SM).

[dergon darkhelm]

And remember too that there are Sense Motive modifiers when opposing a bluff that vary depending on the outlandishness of the lie or the risk that believing the lie or acting upon it would place upon the character being bluffed.

The target wants to believe you. SM mod: -5
The bluff is believable and doesn’t affect the target much. SM mod: +0
The bluff is a little hard to believe or puts the target at some risk. SM mod: +5
The bluff is hard to believe or puts the target at significant risk. SM mod: +10
The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider. SM mod: +20

This means that part of making the bluff work well is by taking active steps to make belief low-risk and even rewarding for the character who is listening.

Ex: Evil PC is trying to get a good PC to assist and kill some humans gathered up ahead that he wants to see dead because they are a rival gang threatening his drug dealing business.

"These men up there are known evil pirates and Cyricists who need to be killed. I have it on good authority that there will be a reward of twenty gold coins per head of all Cyricists killed. I can even pay your reward up front and then I'll deal with getting the payment from the Magister."

That lie rewards the PC for believing the lie and appeals to their own morality.

[JaydeMoon]

Dergon, that's an AMAZING table? Did you make that up? You are a genius! You mean to tell me that there is documentation, somewhere, on how the skills really work? WOW!!!



Just because the actual built in game mechanics don't enforce the rolls doesn't mean they aren't valid.

If someone invests their points in hide and move silent, you do not ignore them and simply state, "Well, I see your character anyway."

If someone invests points in bluff, persuade, or intimidate, you do not ignore them. Doing so is poor play.

Does that mean that if Joe tells you to jump off a cliff and rolls a 5 bajillion on his persuade, you do it?

No, I advise you to carefully read the descriptions of the skills. Persuade (which is diplomacy) is about adjusting attitudes, not necessarily convincing someone to a specific task or idea. Indirectly, adjusting an attitude might indeed convince someone to do exactly what you want, but directly it is just making them friendlier and more open to your ideas.

No amount of bluffing can make a PC cleric believe the Gods aren't real.

This is misleading. I think that a bluffer could make a great case that the gods aren't real, that the cleric's magic are channeled from the arcane, roll an astounding bluff roll and the cleric somehow rolls a 25 (Sense Motive + 20 for being too incredible to believe)... and shake the cleric's faith for a short while. I would award excellent RP to a cleric who was targeted by such a successful bluff to question his path until someone said, "Snap out of it, you idiot, the Gods ARE real, that dude must be a fucking liar!" and roll persuade.

Bluff is not necessarily going to change your entire world view for any length of time.

But you could sow doubt...

That.

Intimidate: If you intimidate someone, expect them to hate you forever after that. If you ever try to intimidate someone a second, third, or later time and fail, expect to be attacked.

In the end, if you want to make use of your awesome social skills and someone else just doesn't want to play along? Nothing is gonna happen, directly. But just note to yourself who they are and put them down as "spoilsports" who aren't as invested in the RP aspect of ALFA as they think they are. If I see it, they'll be getting lower RP awards from me. And probably less 13wt.

Because if you refuse to RP out interesting scenarios that may not be of immediate benefit to your character because you have some hang up about mechanics that the game engine doesn't automatically enforce, then in my opinion you are exploiting the game environment and not RPing to your best ability.