Should the Bluff skill be usable on PCs?
Hypothetical situation proposed on another forum: Billy doesn’t trust Sue. Billy’s player argues that, even if Sue succeeded on her Bluff check, Billy still wouldn’t believe her. It doesn’t matter how good a lie is if the person being lied to inherently doesn’t trust the speaker. Counterargument? If you inherently distrust someone, that’s what roll modifiers are for.
This is a common discussion. I had a couple of immediate reactions to this particular scenario that I thought might be of general interest.
Note that there are, in fact, two different issues here.
First: Whether or not social skills should compel PC behavior.
One group will argue that playing an RPG is fundamentally about making choices as if you were your character. Therefore, a mechanic which effectively “plays the game for you” is really problematic, particularly if it fundamentally disrupts a player’s conception of the character they’re playing. (The GM gets to create and control the entire universe; it might be best if the player gets to at least have undisputed control over his one character.)
The flip-side of this argument is that being forced to believe a lie against your will is not fundamentally different than being stabbed through your kidney with three feet of steel against your will. Both remove character agency and there’s really no reason to distinguish between the two.
What decides the issue for me, personally, is that I’ve never encountered a player in the latter group who has their enjoyment of the game negatively affected if compulsory social mechanics aren’t used: They’re OK with them, but they don’t need them. On the other hand, I’ve met lots of players in the first group who have their playing experience totally ruined by the presence of compulsory social mechanics.
So, for me, this is kind of a no-brainer: I’ve got an option that will make a lot of people happier and which will have no negative impact on anyone else. That’s the option I should go with.
Second: How the specific mechanic is being applied.
Is the mechanic sufficiently taking into account the level of distrust that Billy has for Sue? It looks like there are roll modifiers, but are those modifiers large enough to truly represent the amount of distrust he has?
Also, should the outcome of a successful Bluff check be “you believe the lie and you have to act as if you are completely gulled and have no doubts whatsoever” or should the outcome of a successful Bluff check be “she looks like she’s telling the truth / you don’t see anyone reason not to believe what she’s saying”?
This ties back into the question of whether or not the social mechanics should be compulsory or not.
To put this in perspective, imagine that this was a Poker game: Someone makes a Bluff check and succeeds against your Sense Motive check. Should the mechanics force the PC to call his bet (or go all in) without having any choice in the matter? Or should the mechanics simply report back “you think he’s got the better hand” and then let the player make the decision?
In general, I prefer social mechanics to either (a) provide information or (b) have a mechanical impact without compelling action.
If you make a Spot check to see someone hiding in a room, a successful check doesn’t compel you to attack them: The Spot check provides you with information (“there’s a dude hiding in there” or “the room appears to be empty”) and then you make a decision about what to do with that information. Similarly, a Sense Motive check should provide you with information (“you think he’s in love with Sarah” or “you don’t think she’s lying”) and it’s still up to you to make a decision about what to do with that information.
Similarly, a successful Intimidate check might apply a morale penalty to your action, but the ultimate decision of whether you drop your sword and run away screaming is up to you.
What about NPCs?
I’m perfectly OK with social mechanics being compulsory for NPCs. In fact, as a GM, I generally prefer it. The difference is that I don’t think of them as “compulsory” — instead those mechanics are the oracle that I consult to tell me what’s happening in the game world. (It’s very similar to a random encounter check: I don’t know what’s going to happen. Let’s consult the mechanics and find out.)
For similar reasons, I find it perhaps unsurprising that people have a lot less problem with compulsory social mechanics in STGs: They are playing a game of narrative control and the relationship they have to their character is very different than the relationship a player has to their character in an RPG. An oracular consultation of the mechanics to determine what their character is doing is more likely to fit into their mental landscape; it also just becomes one more mechanic for determining narrative control among a plethora of such mechanics.
The title of this post caught my eye, because I’m currently working on the “fear” and “social interactions” rules for a game I am creating. I think your viewpoint is spot on. An NPCs social skills should have some sort of impact on the game without removing player agency.
“In general, I prefer social mechanics to either (a) provide information or (b) have a mechanical impact without compelling action.”
This is going to become my new litmus test for any social or behavioral mechanics from now on. Great post!
I like this perspective. If a player wants to roleplay a successful bluff check, that is completely different.
I like it when a mechanic increases interaction. Saying “Bob does not appear to be lying” May still create options to drive the plot. Why is Bob saying something that seems at odds with other things? Is he possessed? Is he a good liar?
If the use of the skill creates options rather than reducing them, that tends to be much more fun.
I think you’re on to something with the way a succesful social check doesn’t totally dictate the target’s next behavior.
I also like your observation that in storytelling games social “compulsion” is more palatable.
However, your example focuses strongly on Bluff. How would you do this if someone (PC/NPC) tried to use Diplomacy to improve the attitude of a PC?
I’d like to mention two arguments against this. I don’t think they invalidate your conclusion, but I think they should be mentioned nonetheless:
First, I find the asymmetry between social interaction rules against NPC on the one hand and PCs on the other hand “aesthetically” displeasing. In “simulationist” games like D&D (esp. 3.5) the general rule is that that mechanically monsters and PC work just the same. Now, you gave good reasons why social interaction should be different, but the exception remains to be a little bit annoying.
Second, it emphasizes the tendency to devaluate skills, to a certain degree. Why is a result of a skill check treated fundamentally differently from a compulsion spell like suggestion or dominate (or isn’t it)? Is it really true that only wizards have nice things?
The whole issues is probably one of those things that should be discussed with the players before gaming begins, along with what system to use, any house rules, the general atmosphere, and other similar issues. As the comparison to storytelling games shows, players can be fine with this kind of mechanical result feeding back into their role-playing as long as their expectations are worked out beforehand. At the other end of the spectrum, of course, some players will object strenuously to even magical fear effects.
A huge amount depends on the inter-player dynamic. Social skills might be used by one PC against another as a natural extension of role-playing, or by players as a means gaining some mechanical advantage they would not have otherwise had, or of controlling other people’s characters to bend the story in a direction they want it to go, or even just as a means to bully another player through their character. Obviously, only the first of these is really admissible.
On the other hand, the big issue nobody has brought up yet is the player knowledge / character knowledge divide. Consider the case of the Jerk Paladin. Perhaps the player is afraid that any of the PCs lying, stealing, etc. will cause the paladin to lose their holy powers, but whatever the reason, the result is a player who tries to dictate party strategy and police and control the other PCs’ actions.
So Bob the Thief goes off alone for some petty theft, played through with the DM within earshot of the rest of the party, and Jerry the Paladin’s player tries to have Jerry intercede – and failing that, tries to take the stolen goods back from Bob through threats and violence. Is it okay for Jerry to disbelieve Bob no matter what, even after a spectacular Bluff check?
I mean, Jerry’s player should certainly get to interpret the results of a Bluff check – after all, there’s a difference between “Oh gee I’m sorry we’re best friends now” and “Fine, I guess you really were visiting your sick aunt this time… but I’ve got my eye on you!” And the underlying issue should definitely be talked about, and worked out, in person later on. But as a DM I’d be totally fine with saying “Sorry, you failed your Sense Motive” as a way of shutting down out-of-character knowledge use.
TL;DR: It all depends on the group dynamic, so guidelines should be discussed beforehand if possible.
@Ascalaphus: I don’t allow D&D-style Diplomacy skills to be used against PCs. (This is one of the things I don’t actually like about how Diplomacy is handled in 3E, as I mentioned a long, long time ago).
If I was designing Diplomacy from the ground up as a skill that granted information or a mechanical impact I would probably try something like: Make a Diplomacy check to determine what would motivate the other person. (Will this guard accept a bribe? Does this ambassador want concessions of land or cash or something else? Et cetera.) Do you know who you need to talk to in the noble bureaucracy to resolve the problem you’re having? Do you know the right kind of clothing to wear to a high society ball (or are you going to be suffering a penalty all evening due to your social faux pas)? Do you know somebody who would have leverage over the guy you need leverage on?
@Don Esteban: Interesting points.
First, I agree with you. I prefer symmetrical NPC/PC interactions, too. My final comment there was meant to say “when I’m a GM these mechanics don’t make me flip the table” (whereas I am a player for whom coercive social mechanics are a deal breaker).
Second, I think there is a categorical difference between a magical spell that takes away your free will and, say, someone trying to seduce you.
And, yes, it’s true. Wizards do, in fact, get a different category of things from other characters. If you choose to interpret that as “only wizards get nice things”, then that’s either a reflection of your personal tastes, crappy game design, and/or crappy GMing.
I think it’s curious that we’re more willing to accept being Charmed or Dominated than being Bluffed of Diplomacized. Why is that anyway?
“Because Magic!” doesn’t really answer the question; why does the [i]player[/i] accept it?
I wonder if we don’t like the idea that we weren’t “strong” enough to resist nonmagical social pressure? Despite that vast amount of research showing that people can (and regularly) are influenced, we like to think of ourselves as being essentially self-willed, under our own control. Giving in to someone is a sign of weakness. Maybe our dislike of social game mechanics is due to a sense of (wounded) pride? Related to the way people IRL will sometimes deny being cheated, even though they were the victim of a sophisticated con artist and the proof is strong?
Magic might get around this because “it’s not my fault, it was magic” protects our sense of being [i]essentially[/i] self-willed people, but we got overruled with overwhelming force.
If you look at it like this, the unreasonableness of it becomes more apparent. We’re willing to accept other people being physically stronger – the wizard’s player might not like that the fighter could beat his PC up easily – but the very [i]suggestion[/i] that the bard could talk him into something he didn’t like is repugnant. Unless he’s using magic, in which case it’s okay – he’s a jerk, just like that fighter, but it’s not a game-ender.
I too have aesthetic problems with the asymmetric social mechanics in RPGs. It seems unreasonable that PCs can compel NPCs with powers the NPCs can’t use on the PCs. Especially when thematically it makes sense: the evil sleazy councillor [i]should[/i] be able to manipulate the PCs, because he can do it to everyone else, and it’s basically his shtick.
I think part of the problem is the open-endedness and brute force of many social mechanics. The combat system of most games is the part that has received the most balance-testing. And mind-controlling magic often has fairly strict limits on what it can make someone do. But mundane social skills tend to lack a lot of those limits.
This is understandable; sometimes you want to shortcut a social encounter with a single die roll (because it’s not very significant). So these mechanics are very powerful. That however makes them a poor fit for more extended social challenges, with several rounds of back and forth. It’s basically one roll or one contested roll, or the adventure features a special subsystem just for this scene. (I realize by now I’m talking mostly about Pathfinder.) They actually keep reinventing those subsystems because the main system is kinda broken.
It’s funny because combat is the other way around. there’s no really graceful way to shortcut a combat in which the PCs clearly overwhelm the opposition. If a 10th level party meets a lame goblin, they still have to do Initiative, make attack rolls, roll damage and so forth. Because everyone knows the outcome, the combat is often handwaved; there’s no neat way to reduce it to a single die roll in the standard rules.
So your earlier idea, that the stakes for social rolls are often too extreme, seems to have merit here.
For an interesting take on this subject – too long to summarize entirely – I would like to point to this article: http://angrydm.com/2013/08/help-my-players-are-talking-to-things/
His basic thrust is that Diplomacy doesn’t “make people do things” – people have reasons to do something or not do something. You find out about those reasons through the encounter, and with Diplomacy can overcome reasons against your request, or provide reasons to go along with it.
I think that contains the seeds of a more nuanced approach to social challenges, that could actually be built as a symmetric system because it has much more respect for the receiving character’s attitudes.
I think it’s curious that we’re more willing to accept being Charmed or Dominated than being Bluffed of Diplomacized. Why is that anyway?
When magic takes control of a character, the character is losing control over their actions.
When a social mechanic forces the character to make a particular choice, the player is losing control of their character.
There’s a really huge difference between those two scenarios.
Of course rules should be different for PCs and NPCs. PCs are played by individuals as heroic alter-ego protagonist stars of the show. NPCs are extras cast by a single director who should not really care what happens to them other than their effects on the shared story.
In real life, people are often conned, coerced, duped and bullied into doing thing that they don’t really want to do (or later regret). Most of us play RPGs to feel empowered, not to simulate being a sucker.
If you and your group enjoy having your PCs mechanically manipulated by each other and by NPCs, however, go for it. Sure, you could take it as a roleplaying challenge to accept a change of motivation that results from a die roll. I imagine that with the right group and the right game, this could be crazy fun.
If you, as a GM or player, want to use social skills to manipulate the behavior of PCs and the other players do not enjoy this, however, you are just being a jerk. Is everyone still having fun?
“When magic takes control of a character, the character is losing control over their actions.
When a social mechanic forces the character to make a particular choice, the player is losing control of their character.”
Which is why, as a player, I have never blinked an eye at, say, failing a ‘Fear’ or ‘Terror’ test – say in WFRP. The character has quite clearly lost control of himself, just as he would if he was physically picked up and thrown by a Giant.
Justin Alexander said: “When magic takes control of a character, the character is losing control over their actions.
When a social mechanic forces the character to make a particular choice, the player is losing control of their character.
There’s a really huge difference between those two scenarios.”
But is the difference really that big? Suppose you had a wizard with a Dominate Person spell, and a rogue with a nonmagical Dominate Person ability (for which he paid an equivalent opportunity cost in feats/rogue talents/skill ranks).
Why are people more upset about being bossed around by the rogue than by the wizard?
I think there’s something about the concept of magic that allows players to subconsciously tell themselves that it wasn’t their fault that they lost control. But if an NPC uses a nonmagical power that’s just as expensive to do the same thing, people feel somehow humiliated. Even more if the power that’s being used isn’t very special (just expensive) – it suggests that YOU aren’t all that special. That’s why it’s probably even more painful to get hit with Diplomacy than with an exotic (yet nonmagical) rogue talent. But because magic is special, getting bossed around with magic doesn’t make you a non-special loser.
Ascalaphus: “I think there’s something about the concept of magic that allows players to subconsciously tell themselves that it wasn’t their fault that they lost control. But if an NPC uses a nonmagical power that’s just as expensive to do the same thing, people feel somehow humiliated. Even more if the power that’s being used isn’t very special (just expensive) – it suggests that YOU aren’t all that special. That’s why it’s probably even more painful to get hit with Diplomacy than with an exotic (yet nonmagical) rogue talent. But because magic is special, getting bossed around with magic doesn’t make you a non-special loser.”
Nicely put. Humiliation is probably one factor, but I think loss of control can evoke more complicated and profound feelings. At the least, there is potential anger at being bullied into doing something you did not want to do. I cannot imagine wanting to continue playing with someone who wanted to control MY character. I would be angry, but would probably also think the offender had issues in real life that caused him to want to do this. Beyond humiliation and anger, though, the sense of disempowerment could evoke evoke memories of real life loss of control, which are usually unpleasant at best.
In a game, having a character stabbed with a sword or charmed by magic powers adds to the heroic tale. Being conned by a rogue or misled by a charismatic scoundrel is too much like reality to be fun. It is even less fun if it is done willfully by another player or a sadistic GM.
Again though, if a group shares the consensus that they are willing to let the behavior of their characters be subject to dice rolls, it could be fun.
I’m with Ascalaphus here; excellent points.
Let’s exclude discussion on player vs. player here. But I don’t understand why you should have such strong feelings against being misled or conned by an NPC when you’re perfectly fine with being stabbed, mutilated, poisoned, burned or paralyzed by them. 😉 And I do think both things can add to a story equally well if executed nicely.
And, by the way, I think that having a charmed character takes control from the player over their character just as much as being talked into something by a really convincing character. In fact, in essence it’s exactly the same thing. Only that in one case it is “magic” and in the other case it is psychology. I guess has something to do with that “illusion of free will” that all of us are constantly falling victim to.
Of course it’s not fun when it happens all the time. Just as it is not fun to be paralyzed or charmed or killed all the time. I’d like to emphasize that I generally disagree with the conclusions in the article. But a few questions have been raised in the comments that are worth thinking about.
d47 wrote: In real life, people are often conned, coerced, duped and bullied into doing thing that they don’t really want to do (or later regret).
Another important point here is that there’s nothing about a lack of coercive social mechanics which prevents you from having NPCs con, coerce, dupe, or bully the PCs. The only thing the lack of coercive social mechanics prevents you from doing it; instead of just rolling some dice and saying “well, I guess Mr. Johnson fools you and now you have no choice but to take the job” you have to actually con them into taking the job.
And when you do that, the revelation that they’ve been conned will be satisfying instead of cheap.
Ascalaphus wrote: But is the difference really that big?
Yes.
Look, I get it: You have a different opinion. Congratulations. But when hundreds and thousands of people say “I’m OK with A, but B, which is different, really ruins my fun” it’s an act of supreme hubris to say, “Nope, you must be lying because my opinion is the only one that could possibly matter.”
It’s like discussing what color you should paint a room and someone says to you, “Well, I like rooms that are painted blue but red rooms really don’t work for me.” And you respond by claiming that, because you’re fine with both red rooms and blue rooms, that red and blue are actually the exact same color.
I think it’s fairly clear that a large segment of the gaming population sees a difference between magic overriding their PC control and coercive but mundane social mechanics. Players don’t generally like to lose control over their PCs at all, but the introduction of magic is just enough to make them accept it.
I think the difference between Magical Domination and Persade/Diplomacy/Fast Talk/Bluff/whatever (and players’ perceptions of that difference) may come down to a somewhat separate question of player choices, choices that go all the way back to char gen.
If you (other PC) want to stab me (my PC); then you will have, from the beginning, selected combat options. I, in turn, will also have selected combat options. Your attack becomes part of that process and I will be more accepting of the outcome even if it results in loos of control of the character through death.
If you try to dominate me, again we have both made choices in Play regarding magical issues. You’ve learned spells etc, I’ve chosen to learn or ignore countermeasures; taken or discarded magic items etc. Again, my choices in Play have an effect on your attempt to dominate me and I would see that.
If you try to Bluff me; as a player it appears to come out of the blue.
With “Social Skills” being given less “love” by the system than magic and combat, there really aren’t many ways I can make choices in Play that would affect your attempt to influence me. That, I think, is why players might be upset at “losing control” over their characters.
I think that everyone is missing the bigger picture I this discussion of the players being charmed and deceived in the game. This set assumes that DM is a straight-laced, straight-faced reliable narrator. The DM does not have to tell the whole truth to the players. Not when he is role-playing an NPC, who may be lying or trying to manipulate the players, not when the players fail certain social skills checks, if those are used.
And most of the use of social skills on players need not be revealed to them or interfere with their role-play. And envoy is sent to the players camp to spy out their weaknesses. Envoy has high CHA and a diplomacy skill, and goes on the charm offensive. CHA and Diplomacy skill checks for the Envoy, WIS and INT checks for the players. If the players succeed, DM will describe to them how the envoy is closely looking at their weapons, armor and other gear. Players don’t succeed, envoy is role played as polite and concerned, no other hint is given. Players fail their checks, not only does the DM not reveal envoy’s snooping, but the players also fell for the envoy’s charms and blabbed out their plans to him, which the enemy will now be assumed to know about, once the envoy makes it back.
I think d47 and K make some good points.
Whether the person looses control of their character through magic or diplomacy, they are still losing control of their character. The only difference between the two is what is forcing the action. Now, most of us agree that players typically have less of an issue with losing control due to magic than skills and even less due to death. Why is that?
As a player, one thing I notice is that the interactions around magic and combat (and how they influence each other) are better defined and the ability to counter the use of those abilities is easier to put together. When it comes to skills, if your class doesn’t get a lot of skill points, there really isn’t a whole lot you can do to get more (raise intelligence or take a class with more skill points). So if you don’t have a lot of skill points, you kind of feel that your character has a whole realm of the game that they can’t participate in mechanically.
Another issue is that magic has defined time limits. Dominate doesn’t last forever (or particularly long) unless the caster is either really high level, has a special ability, or is super focused in it. Social skills on the other hand, really don’t have a nicely defined time limit. I think that tends to contribute to why players don’t like being influenced by social skills.
@ Esteban, Ascalaphus
I think part of the difference between coercive social mechanics and being charmed/dominated or stabbed/grappled/poisoned is the issue of disassociation. When a social exchange takes place, there are two different layers of interaction occuring simultaneously: the interaction between the two characters in the gameworld and the interaction between the players in the real world. If the NPC beats the PC in a diplomacy check but the GM hasn’t convinced the player, the fictional result is contradicting and overriding the real-world result. But the GM is not physically dueling/grappling the player, or actually casting a charm spell on the player, so in those cases there is no real-world result for the mechanics to override.
This might be slightly off topic, but I *really* like the mechanic in Jeremy Strandberg’s Homebrew World (https://spoutinglore.blogspot.com/2018/07/homebrew-world.html):
When you are compelled to act against your will,
mark XP if you act as bidden. If you resist, roll
+WIS: on a 10+, you shake off the compulsion
and act as you wish; on a 7-9, choose 1:
• Do nothing while you struggle for control
• Start acting as compelled, but stop or divert
yourself at the last moment
• Hurt yourself to immediately regain control
(1d6 damage, ignores armor)
On a 6-, pick 1:
• Mark a debility, take 1d6 damage, and do
something drastic to regain control.
• Run with it. You come to later having done
gods-know-what.
The critical thing this accomplishes is to put clear bounds on what your character can and cannot be forced to do. You can choose to play along and earn an xp bonus. But if you object, there’s a clear way to resist. Make the roll, and depending how well it goes you can break free, but even on the worst result the player still retains the right to say “I will do something heroically drastic to escape this.”
Now, here’s an interesting thought experiment: what if this happened in reverse? In other words, imagine that Sue’s player *did* convince Billy’s player, but the dice said that Billy saw through her bluff. How would that play out? Or better yet, imagine that Sue was an NPC. Would that make a difference?
Or suppose that Billy doesn’t trust Sue, but as it happens Sue *actually is* telling the truth. Do you think Billy would object to a Sense Motive roll telling him that Sue is being honest?