In regards to the topic in General Discussion, I've thought up an (in my mind) excellent remedy to the issue involved in 'admitting' OOCly whether they're lying or being truthful ICly.

The idea is pretty simple. It would essentially be two new types of rolls, say...

/c roll false bluff or: /c roll false persuade (or something to that effect)

Which would output the following:

"*Player is attempting to convince you of the truth of something, he rolled Roll+SkillMod=Total*", and it would do so without saying whether it's a persuade roll or a bluff roll, but would still use the appropriate modifier.

This would allay the very real fear of people metagaming the truth or falsehood of a specific bluff.

I like this idea. Especially as persuade really represents someone powers of speech whereas bluff is the ability to outright lie without visible tells.

excellent idea kotenku.

I don't see the point, really?

We've stated about 15 times in the last few days that you shouldn't roll bluff/persuade/intimidate checks against other PCs. You should just roleplay your own bluff/persuade/intimidate.

Now, if a DM sees a half-orc with a charisma of 6, and an intimidate of -2 trying to bully somebody, he may feel obliged to possess an NPC and make fun of said ugly, pathetic half-orc, but that's a different issue - people failing to RP their skills and stats.

-Cross

Crosswind Now, if a DM sees a half-orc with a charisma of 6, and an intimidate of -2 trying to bully somebody, he may feel obliged to possess an NPC and make fun of said ugly, pathetic half-orc, but that's a different issue - people failing to RP their skills and stats.

-Cross

i like this idea as well, you cant just RP it, it dapands, many times, on rolls. even a good bluffer can fail.

i say we put a pole for that as well as hear what dms thinks about it

I don't see any harm in implementing it. If the opposing player wants to disregard the roll, let him, or if the rolling player wants to show that he has 15 ranks in bluff, intimidate or whatever, let him roll it if he pleases. Naturally of course, it is the DM's decision since they're the ones that would have to script this.

Crosswind I don't see the point, really?

We've stated about 15 times in the last few days that you shouldn't roll bluff/persuade/intimidate checks against other PCs. You should just roleplay your own bluff/persuade/intimidate.

Now, if a DM sees a half-orc with a charisma of 6, and an intimidate of -2 trying to bully somebody, he may feel obliged to possess an NPC and make fun of said ugly, pathetic half-orc, but that's a different issue - people failing to RP their skills and stats.

-Cross

The problem is exactly DM time here. They can't be everywhere, and have a lot of workload on them already, so some DM-free but satisfying solution should be reached.

And if the social skills are forbidden to be used against PCs, than PvPs could be forbidden as well. There is no difference between a simulated ability to lie and a simulated ability to swing a sword or cast a spell. If I have to RP my character lying and the situ decided based on that than the same way I could be asked to RP as I fight, and the hit and damage is decided how I did it, without any rolls. Sounds a bit crazy? It is. But that's what happening from the system and modell point of view with that.

Not to mention it would render the social skills very much secondary in usage behind combat and magical skills/abilities which can't be a direction on a RP dedicated server.

All of that above is only my personal thoughts on the matter, not intended to flame or whine or hurt anybody. Constructive comments are welcome.

Nagypapi There is no difference between a simulated ability to lie and a simulated ability to swing a sword or cast a spell.

you are right... but!

yes, this is a ROLE playing game and sever, though sometimes players want a bit help with the role. in real PnP game, a dm would inforce the player to roll the 1d20 dice.

it just made realise: we dont need any new implematation, why wont we just roll 1d20 (already implemented) and we do the rest. if the player we lie to would ask (by tell) we can tell the number of ranks we have, for the current roll (answer like: in the skill i used i have x ranks...) and then declare "// roll: xx + skill: yy = zz "

something like this could be ok, i think. again it depands on the players' modesty, though, it will be metagaming not to be honest about it. if one player is not sure what skill to use, he/she can consult others and use the skill needed.

post your opinion, i think i start using it now

That is my opinion here, too. I played RPG is in the last 15 years, and if you have a bad bluff score, you are a bad liar. The same way if you have a low attack bonus, you are a bad fighter. Period. No escape routes. That's the way the system models everything. Doing otherwise is breaking balance.

Roleplay is neccessary of course, depending on the situation. In a combat scene we prefer to describe the combat moves at least to some extent, instead of just rolling the dice. Same way at social skills, altough RP has a bigger part there. But the skill is still needed. That's the way the system is balanced. Some people are good warriors. Others are great mages. Others are great liers and wrapping others around his/her fingers easily.

This could be done on EfU as well.

I already saw some players quickslotting some combat maneuver description, and using in in a fight. That's great, enchancing the combat experience. And maybe that's most we can do in combat with the NWN engine.

On the other hand social skills needs more RP, and maybe just one skill roll at the end. SImply because we judge things during the modelled system, with the skills. Let's take perform as example. Any player can type in the text of a great performance. Regardless of what is his character is. Without one simple perform roll it can't be judged by the other players, how good was it, and which was the better. Just based on the text we type in it simply not objective. Anybody can write "he plays on his instrument a merry tune beautifully". Beautifully? Let's decide it by a perform check. (or by the modifier only, it makes no difference now). Same with bluff, persuade, intimidate. Sure, RP it out to the hilt. But than make that skill roll to ground (or fail, even) that effort, as we have no other way to judge the situation OOCly, and make an appropriate reaction.

Nagypapi That is my opinion here, too. I played RPG is in the last 15 years, and if you have a bad bluff score, you are a bad liar. The same way if you have a low attack bonus, you are a bad fighter. Period. No escape routes. That's the way the system models everything. Doing otherwise is breaking balance.

No roleplaying system can realistically reflect the mental and social dimensions of characters for the simple reason that that is where the actual roleplaying steps in, the undefined creative input of the players themselves. D&D is not exception. The mental statistics -- Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma -- and social skills such as Bluff and Persuade are guidelines in that gray territory, landmarks in whose general vicinity your roleplaying should hover. That still leaves a lot up to the player. There are many "escape routes".

but the main point still stands:

a person with NO ranks in bluff is a MUCH worse lier than someone with ranks --> no matter what their roleplaying skills are like

otherwise, while good roleplaying should be rewarded, not everyone can do it so easily, especially if english is a second language.

Anthee

I call bullshit here. Your absoluteness makes it sound as if D&D is the perfect roleplaying system where the number of skill points one is able to put into, say, Bluff, is perfectly balanced in the first place. While your ranks in Bluff should of course reflect your ability to lie to some extent, the above is just not the case, in particular due to the often unfair class-crossclass distinction. "Breaking the balance"? Just... please. Are you serious? :?

No roleplaying system can realistically reflect the mental and social dimensions of characters for the simple reason that that is where the actual roleplaying steps in, the undefined creative input of the players themselves. D&D is not exception. The mental statistics -- Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma -- and social skills such as Bluff and Persuade are guidelines in that gray territory, landmarks in whose general vicinity your roleplaying should hover. That still leaves a lot up to the player. There are many "escape routes".

Please read through again what I wrote. There was nothing about the absoluteness of D&D or crap like that you try to put into my mouth. I played with other RPG systems, and yes, no one of them is perfect. All of them a modell wich simplifies reality. But regardless of the system, there is one principle which is always there: the system is there to show the limits of the character. (Unless you play Amber, but that is a different story). Be it any system, with any roll, it is the main point.

You can't be a better climber than your Climb skill indicates. Can't be a better pilot (in Star Wars for example) than your pilot skill indicates. Can't be a better fighter than your attack skill or bonus or whatever the system use indicates. And it goes the same way to social skills, like diplomacy, con, bargain, lie, bluff, presuade, intimidate, whatever the system uses.

And than comes RP. RP has to show your character. But as your character is determined by skills, your RP should be also, otherwise your RP is bad! Admittedly there are a lot of vagueness here. There is no skill for everything, as every system is a modell, therefore a simplifying. A difference between eg. a 8 and a 7 Bluff score is also hard to evaluate and RP. But it gives the guidelines for what to RP. If your skills indicates a bad liar, you should RP the character as it is. Brilliant RP doesn't make your character suddenly capable to lie expertly. It is not correct RP to do.

Whether you realize it or not, you were saying just what I accused you of. The problem is not that

Nagypapi there are a lot of vagueness here. There is no skill for everything, as every system is a modell, therefore a simplifying.

I think we're talking past each other here. You're emphasizing the limitations that social skills impose on roleplaying; I'm emphasizing the freedom that the inherent vagueness and guideline-like nature of those social skills bring to roleplaying. Neither of us is wrong per se. This is a battle of perspectives, my opinion being that adopting a mindset where your pro-mechanics perspective is emphasized would be harmful for roleplay.

well, you guys write a lot, adn i just woke up, so i couldnt read it all.

as i read it here, you guys want to go back 1st addition... haha no feats etc.

let me as kyou this one question (about bluffing). if one person dont know how to lie. dont usualy do it, and had not practiced it.

will he never be able to lie successfuly? i really am seeking a true answer, cause i beleive he CAN. and it will be an absured if not.

This topic is strongly going to the direction of this topic: https://efupw.com/efu1-forum/topic/38/3876/rolling-does-nt-always-require-apposed-roll/index.html?amp;highlight=

On the actual topic then. I have to strongly agree with Crosswind here. As to the opposing argument of a DM not being around watching all the time. Well, there will always be people not roleplaying their stats correctly out there, and since no one is forced to roll anything (unless a DM tells you to, of course, but that's irrelevant here) this wouldn't help much as these persons would be likely to not roll at all.

I don't see the harm of implementing this thing, other than someone wasting their time on scripting it when there would be lots of far more useful things to script too. I'm sorry, but I fail to see the benefit of this suggestion.

I also fail to see the point of the social skills being somehow "forbidden" if the rolls aren't necessary. If your character has nonexistant bluff, he's no good at acting, telling lies, etc. If you're investing a good deal of skill points to the social skills, then your character is good at them, another simple thing. What's the big problem here?

The suggestion was made for use in the instances when Two consenting players are roleplaying together. Specifically, in a situation where say, someone is randomly teleported from one place into a Watch Cell, they would ask me to let them out, and I'd try to find out if he's bluffing or not, he would roll the hidden roll, and I'd see the total and the modifier but NOT if it's bluff or persuade. That way, I have no OOC knowledge, and don't have to worry about metagaming whether he's telling the truth or not.

The point is to keep the knowledge of whether or not someone is bluffing or telling the truth when he rolls bluff completely secret both IC and OOC.

This isn't supposed to be a debate on when bluff should be used.