Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

[Incarnate]

A short preface

Currently as it is, Deception is player vs. player interaction, and not character vs. character interaction, and it should be CvC interaction, because its the characters that are interacting and not the players.

Basically, if someone tries to deceive other characters through interaction, it comes down to the player's skill to employ it and not the character's, and it should be the characters skill at deceiving others and not the player's because its the character who's attempting to deceive and not the player as the player isn't in the game world. Furthermore, it would be up the other player's abilities and skill to see through the deception, which again should be the player's character's skill and not the player's.

Normally one would have to roll bluff to attempt the deception and the ones being deceived are entitled to a sense motive skill check. But making the bluff roll immediately will make other players aware that someone is attempting at some deception - which can be metagamed on, even if the sense motive roll is made, successful or not, any one in the area would be able to see the roll being made, and thus would know that this character could be an untrustworthy type, even if they're not participating in the interaction with the character.

This is a roleplaying game, so naturally it can only be our character's abilities, skills and powers it can rely on, anything else would be wrong and quite frankly against the rules, and if it would rely on our skill's and abilities as a player rather than the character we play, then we would be violating the rule about playing our sheet accordingly.

Some people say that they don't give any indication of deception with the exception of emotes that fit the deception they're attempting, and that others should do the same. But this is precisely where it goes wrong, because this is now the abilities and skills of the deceiving and those players that are being deceived, where it should be their character's abilities and skills it should rely on.

The Suggestion - Revision 1

It is as follows:
The player who is attempting the deception uses an action that is specifically made to do the deception check as follows:

• The Deception Check:
• Check which characters are within range to be considered a participant to the deception.
• Call a SECRET bluff check for the deceiving character.
• Call a SECRET sense motive check for the participants of the deception.
• Any motive sensing participants in the deception check will be depending on their result SECRETLY be notified whether their character found the character to be sincere or not. If the result exceeds the deceiving character's total then the notification wil be something similar to: "'character' doesn't seem to be sincere". If the result doesn't beat the result of the deceiving character's roll, the notification be similar to: "'character' seem to be sincere". 1st note here, none of the players involved will get any notification of their results. 2nd note: The deceiving character's player won't receive a notification of the other character's disposition to the bluff.

Another way to do the check: To bring Bluff and Sense Motive more inline with respects to CvC

• Determine total modifers for the DC: Take the total Bluff modifier of the deceiving character and divide by 10 round down. Example: 114/10 = 11
• Determine Actual DC: 12+divided bluff modifier. Example: 12+11 = DC 23
• All Motive Sensing participants rolls with their sense motive modifier divided by too. Example: 1d20+7 = 20% chance of beating the DC of 23.
• Rest is handled as per the suggestion above.

1st note: The actual DC base should be tweaked before implementation to find the correct balance.
2nd note: The actual divider could be changed but 10 seems like very good value.
3rd note: Rounding up or down could affect the actual result and should also be considered when testing to find the correct balance.

An example of how the above could look ingame:
Bob: "He ambushed me and I merely defended myself" looks at the body then back at the guard "See he managed to cut me" removes his hand from his side showing a bad cut "See? I'm innoncent!"
Message from system: Bob seems sincere.

Note: Here its assumed that there were only 1 other participant to the deception - the deceiver and motive sensing character.

So with this example, the character could for instance ask if can assist Bob in getting some medical help, or have Bob elobarate on what actually happened even if the character believed Bob, with the latter case it would result in another deception check. But the point is that what ever was stated the character can either believe him or not, but he does seem sincere so he would have good reason to believe him but that doesn't mean he has to. Say for instance Bob here was a tiefling, and the character knows that tieflings can be quite untrustworthy, so he's hesistant to believe Bob so asks him to elaborate on the event that took place.

I know secret rolls and notifications are certainly possible with the engine and there are no actual good reasons why this shouldn't be in the game already. This can implemented in several ways, the best way would be a deception mode that should be enabled when attempting to do so - it could be enabled through the GUI context menu OR be put along with the other modes OR both. Another option is to make it as a "Bluff language" that is used the same way as with voice entry when speaking in a different language, with the exception that it will call the deception check once the message is sent. If the voice entry method is used I would say its necessary to have a deception check box, because without it one would be attempting to deceive in the common language.

So why is this a good way to handle it? First of all this, will get rid of the metagaming possibilities that can occur with an overt bluff roll, as it will now be handled completely secret, where its normally only DM's who can do the secret rolls. So this also means that the characters can now do deception attempts WITHOUT a DM having to be present, as the players of the characters that was attempted of the deception will only get the secret notification IF their character's abilities and skill at the time of the deception, was enough to foil the deception attempt.

As this forum is NOT for pseudo intellectual fencing/debate battles on who can school whos in the funniest way with memes or get the cool kid trophy for the day for the best joke or throw away comment, so this is a little reminder on how to properly engage on forums. Please only add constructive criticism, ideas and proposals that will further development the idea process productively. Please be respectful and thoughtful with your reponses. If you cannot or will not comply to any of the above, then its very simple do not engage in this thread as your responses will not be welcome then! If you have questions, need something elaborated or expanded on, then please do ask respectfully.


// Inc.

[EDIT]
Some clarication on what this actually would do, as its being attributed some things that would be quite far from how it would be and what it actually does. Also, it should be assumed that the rules are changed so that by rule when direct attempts at deception are being made one has to use the deception mode feature.

The suggestion does not enforce any of the participants to the deception to believe anything that was said. What it does is reflect the characters disposition to the character's deception. The disposition to the deception is basically if there is reason believe it or not. So for instance if things was said that the character knows is not correct but the deceiving character seemed sincere, then the character could try to correct the other character. Simply put, just because the deceiving character seems sincere, doesn't mean that he/she is correct, and if one knows that it contradict existing information, that doesn't make the other character liar or that one has to believe every word, but one would be more inclined to do so. Especially when what was contradicts existing information or reality, one could very easily ask where he/she came about this knowledge. So if the deceiving character would respond with yet another deception, then the character would either find him/her to be sincere or not and then continue from there. To note here, alot of elaborate acting could very easily take place here.

A note in regards to potential mechanical exploits and mechanical god-modding, some have expressed a concern in relation to. This cannot be mechanically exploited to achieve some form of god-modding, because all it enforces is a disposition towards the deception that took place, as to whether or not the deceiving character seems sincere.

[Tsidkenu]

Current server rules on this matter are these:

Subject: GENERAL SERVER RULES [MUST READ]

– "Play Your Sheet"
– You are required to play what is on your Character Sheet. For example, no roleplaying of another race if it does not appear on your Character Sheet. In-character (IC) lying and misinformation about your Character's skills, profession and morality is fair and acceptable, but roleplay which does not reflect the Abilities, Feats and Skills that exist on your Character Sheet, is not acceptable.

– Skill Rolls Between players
– Skill rolls may be used as guidelines in RP. However, a player is not required to follow any Skill rolls unless a DM enforces it. Only a DM may enforce skill rolls.

Such a suggestion would require reformulation of the server rules and the way we handle such things. My main concern is that DnD was never really made for CvC interactions such as these, although they must, by necessity, occur on a persistent-world server such as ours. DMs are there to mediate Player vs. Environment (ie, with NPCs). The CvC environment, however, is a much trickier one with necessary elements of dice-roll mechanics and player ingenuity.

A player can easily get 80+ ranks in Bluff, but Sense Motive will always be lacking (I've a bard with the latter, and she caps out at about 50). Mechanically enforcing this skew via a 'deception' mechanic is not going to end well. But I can, as a player, lie through my teeth on both an IC and OOC level in order to have the desired effect of deceiving others (as my past RP has already proven). And, due to metagaming, it is an unfortunate necessity, notwithstanding those amazing collaborative individuals whom you can plot with to tell amazing narrative. And those types of mature individuals are few and far between.

Instead of formulating some new mechanic to be abused and turned into the new god-mode, how about improving ourselves and our willingness to participate in story, whether our characters deceive, be deceived or find out the truth through hard work and hours of RP? I lied for 4 months, ICly & OOCly, before Mae murdered Sir Anthem and no-one saw it coming (although more than a few players had their hunches, but left it too late to act on them!)

So worth it!

[CleverUsername123]

(deleted)

[NeonAvenger]

One of the big problems with deception is that there are far too many important things that can affect the outcome that a simple bluff vs sense motive check can account for.

What if you're a tiefling and the person you're trying to bluff thinks all tieflings are liars?
What if you're trying to sell your snake oil to a master alchemist?
What if the person seems to be metagaming but was actually invisibly watching nearby and saw everything you really did?

In order for these situations to be RP'd anything near sensibly both parties must be aware that there is deception taking place so they can act accordingly.

[Incarnate]

Such a suggestion would require reformulation of the server rules and the way we handle such things. My main concern is that DnD was never really made for CvC interactions such as these, although they must, by necessity, occur on a persistent-world server such as ours. DMs are there to mediate Player vs. Environment (ie, with NPCs). The CvC environment, however, is a much trickier one with necessary elements of dice-roll mechanics and player ingenuity.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on the part about DnD never being made for CvC, because thats quite incorrect - I know a lot DM's and players have had the OPINION that players shouldn't use skill against other players, that the players should roleplay it - but thats simply not correct in terms of rules. Its characters that interact with each other in the game world, not the players. With 22+ years DM'ing DnD, I know this, but its also in the books. From a CvC persperctive, some will just be better at deceiving and some will better at foiling deception, where someone else might be good at a different skill - its the our character we play, not a mix between ourselves and our character, and its certainly not ourselves we play.

A player can easily get 80+ ranks in Bluff, but Sense Motive will always be lacking (I've a bard with the latter, and she caps out at about 50). Mechanically enforcing this skew via a 'deception' mechanic is not going to end well. But I can, as a player, lie through my teeth on both an IC and OOC level in order to have the desired effect of deceiving others (as my past RP has already proven). And, due to metagaming, it is an unfortunate necessity, notwithstanding those amazing collaborative individuals whom you can plot with to tell amazing narrative. And those types of mature individuals are few and far between.

80+ ranks in Bluff? Thats just not possible unless you're level 77 character! But even as a total its not possible, so I have to ask you exactly how that is possible? Because it can't all be from skill synergies, in fact only 4 skills in the official rules from 3.5 state synergistic traits with bluff, meaning if you have 5 ranks in Bluff or more these skills will gain synergy bonus, not the other way around:

• Diplomacy check.
• Disguise checks to act in character.
• Intimidate checks.
• Sleight of Hand checks.

Also to note here about skill synergies:
Synergy: Some skills grant a bonus to the use of one or more other skills because of a synergistic effect. This entry, when present, indicates what bonuses this skill may grant or receive because of such synergies. See Table 4–5 for a complete list of bonuses granted by synergy between skills (or between a skill and a class feature).

Another note: All the skills has a skill synergy entry which states what skills gives it +2 synergy bonus. And with respects to Bluff & Sense motive, notice none of the skills gives synergy bonuses to either of them, and thats because they're opposed skills. This is because they should be able equally counter each other.

Check this link for the more rules about skill synergies and table 4-5.
[url?http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingS ... illSynergy]Official Skill Synergies[/url]

I've been through all of the Core & FR books, including erratas, the game manual and game manuels for the expansion, I haven't found anything that changes the list on table 4-5.

So the only other places to get bonuses to bluff would obviously come possibly from:

• Ability modifiers.
• Racial Skill Affinity (Bluff)
• Feats (like improved skill: Bluff)
• Equipment
• Spells, spell-like effects or supernatural abilities

With respects to stacking, any bonuses to the skill shouldn't stack if they're from the same type or source but only get the best, just like with enhancements:

• This for instance means.
• Equipment
• Spells, or spell
• Spells, spell-like effects or supernatural abilities

In conclusion, what is achiveable with the skill bluff should be likewise achieveable with sense motive, the only thing that might tip this scale would be beguiling influence.

With regards to possible abuse, in my opinion I think there should a rule against powerplay as it ruins any form of good roleplay and is just not realistically possible for a character to possess all of those things, unless one has made it specifically to abuse it, in which case on has used OOC knowledge to become as powerful in game as possible - abusing and exploiting system weakness should be penalized.

how about improving ourselves and our willingness to participate in story, whether our characters deceive, be deceived or find out the truth through hard work and hours of RP? I lied for 4 months, ICly & OOCly, before Mae murdered Sir Anthem and no-one saw it coming (although more than a few players had their hunches, but left it too late to act on them!)"

Again, this is players vs player interaction, and you admit to even lying is very questionable. There are several problems with what you state, that requires integrity, self-discipline and willingness. For many they're "just" playing a video game and won't even participate in the rp, where some will engage in rp-lite. Where others engage in rp-moderate or lore accurate rp.

One of the big problems with deception is that there are far too many important things that can affect the outcome that a simple bluff vs sense motive check can account for.

What if you're a tiefling and the person you're trying to bluff thinks all tieflings are liars?
What if you're trying to sell your snake oil to a master alchemist?
What if the person seems to be metagaming but was actually invisibly watching nearby and saw everything you really did?

In order for these situations to be RP'd anything near sensibly both parties must be aware that there is deception taking place so they can act accordingly.

"What if you're a tiefling and the person you're trying to bluff thinks all tieflings are liars?" - That doesn't mean you're going to be better at sensing their motives. That just means you have more reason to doubt what they're saying, which you could either way, it wouldn't result in a sense motive bonus - if anything this could attribute you to FALSELY accusing them of lying.

"What if you're trying to sell your snake oil to a master alchemist?" - After the deception roll, even the MA failed the roll he wouldn't know, however he should as any salesman verify that it indeed is snake oil - and that would be done with an appropriate skill roll.

"What if the person seems to be metagaming but was actually invisibly watching nearby and saw everything you really did?" - Even if one was watching nearby it the person would still have to hold it in relation to some context to know it was incorrect - prior knowledge - and this would trigger a sense motive roll for the character, and even so it wouldn't matter if he already knew it was a lie - and he/she could rp it.

[Wolfrayne]

D&D was designed to be Player vs Environment. You are a group of Adventurers working together for certain goals.... what would be the point of playing otherwise?

Yes you can steal etc from parties but there are very few groups outside of specific campaign settings that barely function let alone last any length of time.

--------------

I know many people who use the disguise sytem to great effect with certain "outfits", i myself will often change names/outfits and such (i would like to see race changes working too. something similar to polymorph for disguises) but the system is still "flawed/incomplete"

Bluff/diplo are fine the way they are and it really is up to the player to decide if they want to acknowledge a roll or not. If someone says to me "the sky is red" Im not going to give a damn how high their bluff is because they are an idiot.

But if someone makes a compeling argument/statement to my character that is believeable then i would be happy to allow rolls against me or may even chose to simple believe them regardless.

I would like to see a more complete Disguise system (again something that functions like the new polymorph but allows you to change your clothing would be neat)

- if its a simple disguise skill i would say yes. make rolls.
- if its the spell no, you need true seeing to bypass such things.

But again these are systems that are not completely working as far as i am aware.

[NegInfinity]

• The Deception Check:
  Check which characters are within range to be considered a participant to the deception.
  Call a SECRET bluff check for the deceiving character.
  Call a SECRET sense motive check for the participants of the deception.
  Any participants in the deception check that exceeds the deceiving characters total will SECRETLY be notified that deceiving character (in the actual notification it will show the name of the character and NOT the deceiving part) doesn't appear to be convicing but this doesn't mean that the "name of the character" was attempting to be deceptive. To note here, none of the players involved will get any notification of their results. Any other participant won't be notified.

You're overthinking it and making it overcomplicated.

The server has hordes of feinters which has bluff skill probably around 70 if not higher. If you start roll-playing via bluff skill with them, they'll ALWAYS win.
Likewise plenty of people have 0 in their sense motive skills, due to it being, well, very rarely utilized.

So I'd rather prefer current system where you have to convince other character via actual words and not via a bluff check.

The proposition also reminds me of a rant written by some DM elsewhere, who complained about experience of playing PnP campaign with people who are too used to MMO mechanics. Went like this:

So they say: "I roll diplomacy".
And when I ask them: "Great, what do you say?" they can't come up with anything.


So my personal policy is that when somebody rolls high bluff, they better be able to come up with verbal text equivalent to that high bluff roll. Unless it is something trivial.

One interesting thing about this suggestion is making the roll secret, because currently rolling ANYTHING publicly reveals ridiculous amount of information.

However, the probelm with this idea is that bluff has circumstance modifiers:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm which can be very high.

Those cannot be handled by a script, which means the recepients of bluff roll should be notified by how many points their sense motive has been beaten, which means it is not very different from public bluff roll.

That does not solve problem of people with 0 sense motive skill, however.

So... although some interesting points are made, I'd rather not see this implemented, and would see it as encouragement of roll-play.

Also, this:

As this forum is NOT for pseudo intellectual fencing/debate battles on who can school whos in the funniest way with memes or get the cool kid trophy for the day for the best joke or throw away comment, so this is a little reminder on how to properly engage on forums. Please only add constructive criticism, ideas and proposals that will further development the idea process productively. Please be respectful and thoughtful with your reponses. If you cannot or will not comply to any of the above, then its very simple do not engage in this thread as your responses will not be welcome then! If you have questions, need something elaborated or expanded on, then please do ask respectfully.


// Inc.

Is not the best way to start a suggestion.

[NegInfinity]

One of the big problems with deception is that there are far too many important things that can affect the outcome that a simple bluff vs sense motive check can account for.

What if you're a tiefling and the person you're trying to bluff thinks all tieflings are liars?
What if you're trying to sell your snake oil to a master alchemist?
What if the person seems to be metagaming but was actually invisibly watching nearby and saw everything you really did?

In order for these situations to be RP'd anything near sensibly both parties must be aware that there is deception taking place so they can act accordingly.

This is something that corresponds to circumstance bonuses and sense motive modifiers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm ) and cannot be handled automatically via a script.
A human DM is required to handle this kind of check properly.

[DiceyCZ]

Basically, if someone tries to deceive other characters through interaction, it comes down to the player's skill to employ it and not the character's, and it should be the characters skill at deceiving others and not the player's because its the character who's attempting to deceive and not the player as the player isn't in the game world.

There is and always was a pretty basic rule when playing actual Role Play RPG games - To be able to play your character's sheet make a character you yourself are able to bring to life through your own skills.

Quite frankly deciding to play a diplomat with poor expression skills and just thinking that rolling "Diplomacy" is enough or playing someone who constantly lies while you are unable to do so convincingly and saying "But my character has 70 bluff you can't tell he's lying or not" is wrong idea and devolves the game to a set of numbers.

Play your char sheet, but make sure you are able to do so.

[NeonAvenger]

"What if you're a tiefling and the person you're trying to bluff thinks all tieflings are liars?" - That doesn't mean you're going to be better at sensing their motives. That just means you have more reason to doubt what they're saying, which you could either way, it wouldn't result in a sense motive bonus - if anything this could attribute you to FALSELY accusing them of lying.

My example was an awful one so I'll try again with this - The point is more: What if you're lying about something the PC has personality traits or RP background that would directly counter your lie? "I'm from Icewind Dale. Tieflings are very common there". When the person you're lying to is from Icewind Dale. Do they have to flip a coin between "They're lying" and "They don't know the lore" to decide whether or not to call you out?
If you're claiming to be a sailor to a character with a long history of being a sailor can they tell that you're lying? Or will they guess that you (the player) don't actually know anything about sailing?

"What if you're trying to sell your snake oil to a master alchemist?" - After the deception roll, even the MA failed the roll he wouldn't know, however he should as any salesman verify that it indeed is snake oil - and that would be done with an appropriate skill roll.

Or if your lie is that you're Cormyrian nobility and they have 25 ranks in Lore: Nobility?
Or you lie about having been at a famous battle and get all the details wrong but they have 30 ranks in Lore: History?
Again. How do they know they have to ask to roll if the player doesn't know if you're lying or not? The character would immediately spot the lie, the player might not.
Claiming to be a master smith to someone with high ranks in crafting skills. They should immediately recognize that you're talking gibberish.
On the other side of course is that reasonable levels in a skill combined with being a good con artist should let you fool even professionals in a field.
Skills are vital to many deceptions but the game engine has exactly zero ways of recognizing this.

"What if the person seems to be metagaming but was actually invisibly watching nearby and saw everything you really did?" - Even if one was watching nearby it the person would still have to hold it in relation to some context to know it was incorrect - prior knowledge - and this would trigger a sense motive roll for the character, and even so it wouldn't matter if he already knew it was a lie - and he/she could rp it.

It's more the idea that the deceiver may call out the other party for metagaming information "they couldn't possibly have" requiring them to reveal information about their character and activities that the deceiver should have no access to every bit as much the target of the lie shouldn't normally have information about the lie taking place.

In one of those great ironies: Lying requires more honesty and communication between players than telling the truth.

[Tsidkenu]

From a CvC persperctive, some will just be better at deceiving and some will better at foiling deception, where someone else might be good at a different skill - its the our character we play, not a mix between ourselves and our character, and its certainly not ourselves we play.

Every character I play has a part of my personality in it. That is an unavoidable part of the whole roleplaying experience and what makes it so exhilarating and I wouldn't have it any other way. I am not my character, but a part of me is in every character I have.

80+ ranks in Bluff? *snip*

Your entire argument here is pointless because we're talking about NWN2 as designed and hardcoded on the Infinity Game Engine and not PnP, but just for the challenge I came up with this perfectly permissible BGTSCC character.

Level 30 Drow (or Aasimar) Bard.

33 base skill ranks in Bluff.
35 base CHA with +3 CHA item = 38 (+14) CHA.
Confidante +2
Silver Palm +2
Skill Focus Bluff +3
Negotiator +2
Greater Heroism +4
Inspire Competency +8

= 68 bluff before item bonuses. If the server allowed Epic Skill Focus then this would become 78 (-1 Epic Charisma but then use Eagles' Splendor for +4 to still end up with 38 CHA)

NWN2 then allows a +50 item bonus (stacking across all items with +bluff on them). Subtract 4 from this for G. Heroism (as that spell counts in the cap) and that leaves a possible maximum bluff score of 114 (124 with Epic Skill Focus, which I don't think we have). And with that kind of 'deception' roll at play mechanically as per your suggestion, that character could convince the entire server that they are Ao the Overgod come in the flesh to demand the worship of the entire world, and no-one could say or do anything to be convinced otherwise. Mechanically.

Again, this is players vs player interaction, and you admit to even lying is very questionable.

Got a better way to keep your fellow players in the dark that your Helmite Pryat is actually a Banite Dreadmaster? I got a lot of interest from past & present Helmite players who wanted me to revive the Everwatch when i first started playing Mae yr Machshikhah. How do I tell them, "Nah I'm not actually playing a Helmite but a Banite in disguise; I don't want to do an Eliphas and lead your guild sorry" without giving my game away? So yep! I lied to them, IC and OOC! And it was better that way when at the end all their mouths gaped and they said, "Wait, she's a what?!" And I'd do it all again in a heartbeat.

Some people play the game. I play the game. And I love it.

[Reckeo]

Some people play the game. I play the game. And I love it.

I think hidden rolls would only lead to hidden exploits, when this kind of RP can be handled in the right kind of setting with the right kind of.....'playas'. Not everything requires an overhaul, there are plenty of other things I think that need addressing or changing at this time, Bluff isn't high on my list of priorities, despite the good points being made here.

This discussion is really good as a door opener to many other discussions about RP, and the mechanics of the server.

Think of how appraise works. Or when you go to place an item on Auction and Mudd tells you "This item has a value of 32142 gold pieces", but you know no one is going to pay anymore than 5000 for it. A lot of the social skills are better handled through respectful RP. Deception is a lot more than simply telling a lie, it can be at times living one unknowingly. Bluff is not an all encompassing skill, it is a limitation of a representation of one and specific for certain circumstances only.

The only other problem I see, is that, if someone has struggling social skills IRL (this is NOT an insult or a judgement) and is trying to RP a charming, suave, diplomat/swindler. Obviously this person is going to have a difficult time, but it also a learning chance to grow as an RPer, and even as an individual (to an extent). Rolls and mechanics can make up for this, and they should. I don't imagine I have 42 arcane knowledge even though my bard does.

If I RP a wizard with 22 intelligence, I couldn't even begin to comprehend the things that character could, as I and no one I know on this planet in my opinion would have such a thing. To me, as a flawed human being, speaking for myself, the characters I play the best, are ones that are within the bounds of limitations and flaws, because it is the closest to who I am as a human being and it is what I can identify with and portray the best through RP. It is HIGHLY rewarding. I am not saying you need to RP a character that shouldn't be adventuring around with all kinds of problems....but flaws make a rounded character come to life, and it makes victories despite them all the greater. I'm talking about actual character flaws, not superficial ones like 'scars', which a lot of younger players seem to use as the go-to for 'obvious flaw'. Flaws need not be something like that. It could be a gambling problem, a bit of greed, a dash of false cultural superiority, or a bad temper on rainy days.

These flaws can manifest in all kinds of imaginative ways, they need not just be the ones we see mechanically.

[Incarnate]

To avoid a VERY long wall of text, everyone of my reponses have been categorized to whom they're intended. However there are various things in my responses that might relate to either of my responses.

Reponse to NegInfinity:

Hidden: show

You're overthinking it and making it overcomplicated.

Actually, I'm not - I'm simplifying it, and trying to make it CvC as it should be.

The server has hordes of feinters which has bluff skill probably around 70 if not higher. If you start roll-playing via bluff skill with them, they'll ALWAYS win.
Likewise plenty of people have 0 in their sense motive skills, due to it being, well, very rarely utilized.

Min/Maxing really should be against the rules as it really has the potential to ruin rp, and it specifically abuses the system to produce optimal results, which is a very bad reflection how it really is in the Forgotten Realms world. Having 0 in a skill is a choice, just like maxing a skill is a choice, and having 0 in Sense Motive is a choice and that should have consequences. Furthermore, I'd even go so far to say, that if one has 0 in any of the social skills, like bluff and sense motive, but one rp's as one with a higher social interaction skill, not only is one in violation with the play your sheet rule, but one is also abusing the system to get more skill points towards other skills because one can just use his/her player skills to achieve the result. Again, we're not playing ourselves or a mix of it, we're playing a character whos skills are reflected on the sheet - there is a reason for the rule about playing whats on our sheet.

The proposition also reminds me of a rant written by some DM elsewhere, who complained about experience of playing PnP campaign with people who are too used to MMO mechanics. Went like this:

So they say: "I roll diplomacy".
And when I ask them: "Great, what do you say?" they can't come up with anything.


So my personal policy is that when somebody rolls high bluff, they better be able to come up with verbal text equivalent to that high bluff roll. Unless it is something trivial.

With what I'm suggesting you're still required to say something, and you know its only if you beat the bluff check that you get the secret notification that one isn't convinced, and when one is making the bluff speech no one gets any overt indication of one attempting a bluff which also means that one doesn't necessarily have to believe every word thats being said but from a general stand point when people say something they're usually honest. So if what is being said contradicts reality or what you already already know, then of course you may just briefly give it merit, but shortly after one might reach a conclusion that was being said was incorrect. There is also a very big difference in being incorrect and actually lying. So obviously, you can't make people believe what they can blatantly see isn't as it being said, like the sky being red. Perceptions are relative, so if one is saying the sky is red, then it might be to the character, which here sense motive kicks in if it succeeds.

One interesting thing about this suggestion is making the roll secret, because currently rolling ANYTHING publicly reveals ridiculous amount of information.

This is the only way it should be, when someone engages in deception its imperative that no indication of it being a deception thats attempt, hence why the secret rolls and notification.

However, the probelm with this idea is that bluff has circumstance modifiers:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm which can be very high.

Those cannot be handled by a script, which means the recepients of bluff roll should be notified by how many points their sense motive has been beaten, which means it is not very different from public bluff roll.

Granted circumstance modifiers will affect, but even in an overt roll they're not taken into the roll. Now I can't be exactly sure on this, but its very likely that the DM's don't take these modifers into the equation either and just treats the rolls as is.

That does not solve problem of people with 0 sense motive skill, however.

Their character sheet reflects what their character, so if having 0 in a skill means they're going to be at a disadvantage, then thats just how that is. Also what skills they have put ranks in has been their own choice, so the consequences that come with it is their own problem. I'd also like to point something out I think and feel is a problem in general to rp, is when people min/max their characters to be the best in a particular field, because not only does it abuse the system to create it, but it also causes balance issues in relation to other characters, ESPECIALLY in a CvC context. People seriously should create more diverse and realistic characters, and in my opinin there should be some guidelines to what is acceptable type of characters and which are not.

Also, this:

As this forum is NOT for pseudo intellectual fencing/debate battles on who can school whos in the funniest way with memes or get the cool kid trophy for the day for the best joke or throw away comment, so this is a little reminder on how to properly engage on forums. Please only add constructive criticism, ideas and proposals that will further development the idea process productively. Please be respectful and thoughtful with your reponses. If you cannot or will not comply to any of the above, then its very simple do not engage in this thread as your responses will not be welcome then! If you have questions, need something elaborated or expanded on, then please do ask respectfully.


// Inc.

Is not the best way to start a suggestion.

There is a simple reason why its there - I'm so seriously tired of the type of behaviour I mention and inproper forum etiquette, which has become more and more apparent that people apparently are need of being reminded of what is acceptable forum behaviour and responses, and what is not. When it gets to a point where even staff members need to be moderated, then it tells that a friendly reminder is in order. Plus, I find it to be quite disruptive to any construtive process, discussion or idea development, when people come barging in with their pitchforks, rude flat out opposition full of disrespect who just assume the worst and isn't to be reasoned with and apparently don't want to follow simple instructions to abide when engaging in the thread given by OP or those who participart constructivelive in the thread.

Reponse to DiceCZ:

Hidden: show

There is and always was a pretty basic rule when playing actual Role Play RPG games - To be able to play your character's sheet make a character you yourself are able to bring to life through your own skills.

Play your char sheet, but make sure you are able to do so.

Thats actually not a rule, thats really more a guideline to make the character and rp more believeable. And there are times where that will not be possible - like for instance this would mean that most would have stay below INT 15 as that is the beginning level of being a genius. Obviously, some one would be able to go with INT 15 or above, but 18-19 would be around the human cap for what is currently documented. Higher level of intelligence means a higher level of comprehension and understanding, so obviously the same goes for lower level intelligence means lower level of comprehension and understanding. So one with an INT of 13-14 might be or just barely be able to understand and comprehend what one with an INT of 15 would understand normally.

To make a very good point here especially with intelligence (this is NOT an insult or a judgement) - those who have a higher intelligence will be able to discuss things on lower level of intelligence, where as its much more difficult with one of lower intelligence to discuss things on a higher level intelligence.

This is rpg, we're sometimes going to be playing characters that possess skills and abilities we ourselves do not, and more often than not, so rolls and mechanics can make up for this, and they should.

Reponse to NeonAvenger:

Hidden: show

My example was an awful one so I'll try again with this - The point is more: What if you're lying about something the PC has personality traits or RP background that would directly counter your lie? "I'm from Icewind Dale. Tieflings are very common there". When the person you're lying to is from Icewind Dale. *snip*

I've already responded above with something that relates to this. But simply put, even if someone knows that would be incorrect, that doesn't mean that other character actually would be attempting to lie. But even if so, one with a high bluff could convince someone who knows better, it would most likely just be very briefly the character would be convinced, because once it sinks in and gives it some thought the character would think that can't be right because I know such and such.

It's more the idea that the deceiver may call out the other party for metagaming information "they couldn't possibly have" requiring them to reveal information about their character and activities that the deceiver should have no access to every bit as much the target of the lie shouldn't normally have information about the lie taking place.

In one of those great ironies: Lying requires more honesty and communication between players than telling the truth.

Again, this still means that this character has prior knowledge that can be linked to the situation or the deceiving character.

Response to Tsidkenu:

Hidden: show

Every character I play has a part of my personality in it. That is an unavoidable part of the whole roleplaying experience and what makes it so exhilarating and I wouldn't have it any other way. I am not my character, but a part of me is in every character I have.

Parts of your personality being a part of your character doesn't mean that your character has anything to do with you at all with the exception that you're playing it - in other words You ARE NOT your character, your character does not possess your skills or your knowledge - that would be metagaming! This is exactly what I'm pointing out here - Social interactions in the game is Character to Character NOT Player to Player, not even in table rp. It may be that you're typing behind the screen, but its your character with its abilities, skills and powers that is interacting with another character that has its own abilities, skills and powers where its player is behind a screen reading what you've written - Character to Character or Character vs. Character interactions - NOT Player to Player or Player vs. Player, this is a really big misconception.

80+ ranks in Bluff? *snip*

Your entire argument here is pointless because we're talking about NWN2 as designed and hardcoded on the Infinity Game Engine and not PnP, but just for the challenge I came up with this perfectly permissible BGTSCC character.

Level 30 Drow (or Aasimar) Bard.

33 base skill ranks in Bluff.
35 base CHA with +3 CHA item = 38 (+14) CHA.
Confidante +2
Silver Palm +2
Skill Focus Bluff +3
Negotiator +2
Greater Heroism +4
Inspire Competency +8

= 68 bluff before item bonuses. If the server allowed Epic Skill Focus then this would become 78 (-1 Epic Charisma but then use Eagles' Splendor for +4 to still end up with 38 CHA)

NWN2 then allows a +50 item bonus (stacking across all items with +bluff on them). Subtract 4 from this for G. Heroism (as that spell counts in the cap) and that leaves a possible maximum bluff score of 114 (124 with Epic Skill Focus, which I don't think we have). And with that kind of 'deception' roll at play mechanically as per your suggestion, that character could convince the entire server that they are Ao the Overgod come in the flesh to demand the worship of the entire world, and no-one could say or do anything to be convinced otherwise. Mechanically.

First of all, as I've pointed out above powerbuilding/minmaxing creates issues with balance in CvC and really has the potential to ruin rp, especially because of the abusive nature of powerbuilding/minmaxing, because those that create diverse and more setting realistic characters will never be able to match a character respectively that was created abusing the system to make it as powerful in its field. Personally I think there should be rules against minmaxed/powerbuild characters, there should be guidelines in place for what is acceptable and not acceptable characters - the above is a clear example of what I'm talking about, it would be one of those cases where its specifically built for abusing bluff mechanics. Even outside of the system I suggested this would steamroll any character's sense motive.

One thing I can see that is clearly very different from PnP and NWN2 - is that the PnP bard gains way less class features, inspire compentence is only +2, speaking of which inspire compentence doesn't work on the bard him/herself, at least not in the PnP version. Another thing I can see from your example is that if this is hardcoded into NWN2 its more imbalanced than I thought, because +50 from item bonuses simply goes against the rules about how bonuses stack.

The Stacking Rules:
In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.
So...:

• They stack if: Different Source AND Different type - this means they have to be a different source and type to stack.
• They don't stack if: Same type OR Same source - this means they don't stack if they have the same type and they don't stack if the same source.

As far as I recall there are these types of modifiers that can apply to skills:

• Multiple instances of the bonuses don't stack; only the highest bonus applies.
• Competence Modifier
• Insight Bonus
• Luck Modifier

An equipment item individually counts as a source, but with the above given rules a character can only benefit from ONE OF EACH TYPE because they all don't stack, so no matter how many items equipped the character only benefit from ONE of each type. Now I'm not sure what the max skill bonus can exist on an item in the game, but it should narrow down the bonuses from items.

I'd also like to point out, that what is possible to achieve with bluff is also possible to achieve with sense motive, at least to a reasonable degree as they're supposed their diametrical opposition, anything else is clear favoritism towards bluff. I don't know if this is just the case with Nwn2db or if this is also in nwn2, but it seems Skill Focus (sense motive) can't be taken, even though there is NOTHING in the rules that says otherwise. IF there doesn't exist equipment that respectively give bonuses to the skill sense motive, the its outright imbalanced, since sense motive is the only skill that counters bluff in a deception check, even if handled by a dm. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to consider spells and invocations be made to match those that give bonuses to bluff.

With all this being said, I personally favor quality over quantity and less is more, so even if its possible get that +114 bluff, the deception can just be changed from an opposed check to a DC check.
First what would be needed to bring that insane number down to a reasonable scale where it becomes possible to manage and beat. A possible way to do this would be to divide by 10 and round down.
So 114/10 = 11. So to set the DC we could use 12+modified bluff mod. So in this case it would be 12+11 = 23. Naturally we'd have to divide the motive sensing characters total sense motive too. so going by the plus 50 from equipment (even if its not correct) and the 33 ranks in sense motive plus the +14 wisdom modifier = 33+14+50 = 97 | 97/10 round down = 9. So the character would have a 1d20+9 to beat the DC of 23 = 30%. Obviously, what I just presented could be used to bring the opposing skills back in line when used in CvC, and of course the actual approach would be subject to change including any values used to determine the dc and modifier to the roll.

Again, this is players vs player interaction, and you admit to even lying is very questionable.

Got a better way to keep your fellow players in the dark that your Helmite Pryat is actually a Banite Dreadmaster? I got a lot of interest from past & present Helmite players who wanted me to revive the Everwatch when i first started playing Mae yr Machshikhah. How do I tell them, "Nah I'm not actually playing a Helmite but a Banite in disguise; I don't want to do an Eliphas and lead your guild sorry" without giving my game away? So yep! I lied to them, IC and OOC! And it was better that way when at the end all their mouths gaped and they said, "Wait, she's a what?!" And I'd do it all again in a heartbeat.

Some people play the game. I play the game. And I love it.

I'm very much against it being based on Player skill rather than character skill, hence why I'm making this suggestion, which I'm sure can be made to work - so maybe try to add constructive ideas or suggestions to how it could become a possibility, and the issues there might be can worked around.

Response to Reckeo:

Hidden: show

I think hidden rolls would only lead to hidden exploits

Like what kind of hidden exploits, any specific you got in mind?

This discussion is really good as a door opener to many other discussions about RP, and the mechanics of the server.[/quote]
I agree, and I have actually touched upon quite a lot in the response.

Think of how appraise works. Or when you go to place an item on Auction and Mudd tells you "This item has a value of 32142 gold pieces", but you know no one is going to pay anymore than 5000 for it. A lot of the social skills are better handled through respectful RP. Deception is a lot more than simply telling a lie, it can be at times living one unknowingly. Bluff is not an all encompassing skill, it is a limitation of a representation of one and specific for certain circumstances only.

I think it should be considered that what I suggested doesn't necessarily have to be the final way its going to be, you know its better to on the idea than to shut it down. The problem with handling it overtly is that a) requires integrity and willingnesss b) there is actually a rule that prohibit players from enforcing rolls and their results onto other players. Furthermore, most players are not equipped knowledge wise to determine dc's for skill rolls and how to interpret the roll, hence why that is dm's job. But dm's cannot be present at all times, so there is need for skills rolls being more mechanically enforced, where act of deception is one them. Also to note, I've also made some points that is regarding this.

The only other problem I see, is that, if someone has struggling social skills IRL (this is NOT an insult or a judgement) and is trying to RP a charming, suave, diplomat/swindler. Obviously this person is going to have a difficult time, but it also a learning chance to grow as an RPer, and even as an individual (to an extent). Rolls and mechanics can make up for this, and they should. I don't imagine I have 42 arcane knowledge even though my bard does.

That is one the problems with players vs. player social interaction/combat, but it basically also means that if it relies on your social skills as player then you can effectively put all skill points you would've placed in social skill, in other skills that the character would make it and effective/optimal/minmaxed/powerbuild character - whichr really just abuses the system even more and creates and encourages a serverwide game imbalance. I've touched upon other things in this response that relates to this.

If I RP a wizard with 22 intelligence, I couldn't even begin to comprehend the things that character could, as I and no one I know on this planet in my opinion would have such a thing. To me, as a flawed human being, speaking for myself, the characters I play the best, are ones that are within the bounds of limitations and flaws, because it is the closest to who I am as a human being and it is what I can identify with and portray the best through RP. It is HIGHLY rewarding. I am not saying you need to RP a character that shouldn't be adventuring around with all kinds of problems....but flaws make a rounded character come to life, and it makes victories despite them all the greater. I'm talking about actual character flaws, not superficial ones like 'scars', which a lot of younger players seem to use as the go-to for 'obvious flaw'. Flaws need not be something like that. It could be a gambling problem, a bit of greed, a dash of false cultural superiority, or a bad temper on rainy days.

These flaws can manifest in all kinds of imaginative ways, they need not just be the ones we see mechanically.

Yes, we should be creating characters that are more diverse well rounded setting realistic characters with flaws, personality, emotion, motivations, goals, etc. and not just a minmaxed powerbuild nifty set of specific maxed out skills, spells, powers, etc. But that exactly what it is to some. As I've said before, I think there should be guidelines to what is acceptable and not acceptable characters, in my opinion minmaxed characters would be really rare, because most people in the world are well rounded, diverse and maybe with a few areas of expertise, but still nothing obscene.

[NegInfinity]

Min/Maxing really should be against the rules as it really has the potential to ruin rp, and it specifically abuses the system to produce optimal results, which is a very bad reflection how it really is in the Forgotten Realms world.

Not happening.

You can wear truckload of magic items and get huge bonus to a skill. That's reality and it is not going to change.

For FR version of it, look at stuff like Arseplomancer.
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Arseplomancer

Likewise characters can get crazy stats and skill bonuses. For example I had druid, which, IIRC could get wisdom stat of something like 46. Think about it for a second. It is a state of omniscience pretty much where you can hear steps of an individual ant one mile away.

What's more, the server is geared towards this stuff. You HAVE to have huge bluff if you're going to feint anything serious. Because BGTSCC ogres can have 30 spot and deflect arrows feat.

It isn't going to change.

With what I'm suggesting you're still required to say something, and you know its only if you beat the bluff check that you get the secret notification that one isn't convinced,

Did I understand it correctly that you get notification when your TARGET isn't convinced?
If so, that's godmoding and metagaming and should be done this way. You don't know if someone is convinced or not. They can lie to you and bluff you back, by pretending they believe you.

Now I can't be exactly sure on this, but its very likely that the DM's don't take these modifers into the equation either and just treats the rolls as is.

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken here.

Their character sheet reflects what their character, so if having 0 in a skill means

You have 0 sense motive and 80 bluff. Does that mean you're incapable of detecting a bluff attempt, when you know everything there is to know about bluffing?

There is a simple reason why its there - I'm so seriously tired of the type of behaviour I mention and inproper forum etiquette, which has become more and more apparent that people apparently are need of being reminded of what is acceptable forum behaviour and responses,

While I understand where you're coming from, "reminding" doesn't work.

[Hoihe]

To avoid a VERY long wall of text, everyone of my reponses have been categorized to whom they're intended. However there are various things in my responses that might relate to either of my responses.

Reponse to NegInfinity:

Hidden: show

You're overthinking it and making it overcomplicated.

Actually, I'm not - I'm simplifying it, and trying to make it CvC as it should be.

The server has hordes of feinters which has bluff skill probably around 70 if not higher. If you start roll-playing via bluff skill with them, they'll ALWAYS win.
Likewise plenty of people have 0 in their sense motive skills, due to it being, well, very rarely utilized.

Min/Maxing really should be against the rules as it really has the potential to ruin rp, and it specifically abuses the system to produce optimal results, which is a very bad reflection how it really is in the Forgotten Realms world. Having 0 in a skill is a choice, just like maxing a skill is a choice, and having 0 in Sense Motive is a choice and that should have consequences. Furthermore, I'd even go so far to say, that if one has 0 in any of the social skills, like bluff and sense motive, but one rp's as one with a higher social interaction skill, not only is one in violation with the play your sheet rule, but one is also abusing the system to get more skill points towards other skills because one can just use his/her player skills to achieve the result. Again, we're not playing ourselves or a mix of it, we're playing a character whos skills are reflected on the sheet - there is a reason for the rule about playing whats on our sheet.

The proposition also reminds me of a rant written by some DM elsewhere, who complained about experience of playing PnP campaign with people who are too used to MMO mechanics. Went like this:

So they say: "I roll diplomacy".
And when I ask them: "Great, what do you say?" they can't come up with anything.


So my personal policy is that when somebody rolls high bluff, they better be able to come up with verbal text equivalent to that high bluff roll. Unless it is something trivial.

With what I'm suggesting you're still required to say something, and you know its only if you beat the bluff check that you get the secret notification that one isn't convinced, and when one is making the bluff speech no one gets any overt indication of one attempting a bluff which also means that one doesn't necessarily have to believe every word thats being said but from a general stand point when people say something they're usually honest. So if what is being said contradicts reality or what you already already know, then of course you may just briefly give it merit, but shortly after one might reach a conclusion that was being said was incorrect. There is also a very big difference in being incorrect and actually lying. So obviously, you can't make people believe what they can blatantly see isn't as it being said, like the sky being red. Perceptions are relative, so if one is saying the sky is red, then it might be to the character, which here sense motive kicks in if it succeeds.

One interesting thing about this suggestion is making the roll secret, because currently rolling ANYTHING publicly reveals ridiculous amount of information.

This is the only way it should be, when someone engages in deception its imperative that no indication of it being a deception thats attempt, hence why the secret rolls and notification.

However, the probelm with this idea is that bluff has circumstance modifiers:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm which can be very high.

Those cannot be handled by a script, which means the recepients of bluff roll should be notified by how many points their sense motive has been beaten, which means it is not very different from public bluff roll.

Granted circumstance modifiers will affect, but even in an overt roll they're not taken into the roll. Now I can't be exactly sure on this, but its very likely that the DM's don't take these modifers into the equation either and just treats the rolls as is.

That does not solve problem of people with 0 sense motive skill, however.

Their character sheet reflects what their character, so if having 0 in a skill means they're going to be at a disadvantage, then thats just how that is. Also what skills they have put ranks in has been their own choice, so the consequences that come with it is their own problem. I'd also like to point something out I think and feel is a problem in general to rp, is when people min/max their characters to be the best in a particular field, because not only does it abuse the system to create it, but it also causes balance issues in relation to other characters, ESPECIALLY in a CvC context. People seriously should create more diverse and realistic characters, and in my opinin there should be some guidelines to what is acceptable type of characters and which are not.

Also, this:

As this forum is NOT for pseudo intellectual fencing/debate battles on who can school whos in the funniest way with memes or get the cool kid trophy for the day for the best joke or throw away comment, so this is a little reminder on how to properly engage on forums. Please only add constructive criticism, ideas and proposals that will further development the idea process productively. Please be respectful and thoughtful with your reponses. If you cannot or will not comply to any of the above, then its very simple do not engage in this thread as your responses will not be welcome then! If you have questions, need something elaborated or expanded on, then please do ask respectfully.


// Inc.

Is not the best way to start a suggestion.

There is a simple reason why its there - I'm so seriously tired of the type of behaviour I mention and inproper forum etiquette, which has become more and more apparent that people apparently are need of being reminded of what is acceptable forum behaviour and responses, and what is not. When it gets to a point where even staff members need to be moderated, then it tells that a friendly reminder is in order. Plus, I find it to be quite disruptive to any construtive process, discussion or idea development, when people come barging in with their pitchforks, rude flat out opposition full of disrespect who just assume the worst and isn't to be reasoned with and apparently don't want to follow simple instructions to abide when engaging in the thread given by OP or those who participart constructivelive in the thread.

Reponse to DiceCZ:

Hidden: show

There is and always was a pretty basic rule when playing actual Role Play RPG games - To be able to play your character's sheet make a character you yourself are able to bring to life through your own skills.

Play your char sheet, but make sure you are able to do so.

Thats actually not a rule, thats really more a guideline to make the character and rp more believeable. And there are times where that will not be possible - like for instance this would mean that most would have stay below INT 15 as that is the beginning level of being a genius. Obviously, some one would be able to go with INT 15 or above, but 18-19 would be around the human cap for what is currently documented. Higher level of intelligence means a higher level of comprehension and understanding, so obviously the same goes for lower level intelligence means lower level of comprehension and understanding. So one with an INT of 13-14 might be or just barely be able to understand and comprehend what one with an INT of 15 would understand normally.

To make a very good point here especially with intelligence (this is NOT an insult or a judgement) - those who have a higher intelligence will be able to discuss things on lower level of intelligence, where as its much more difficult with one of lower intelligence to discuss things on a higher level intelligence.

This is rpg, we're sometimes going to be playing characters that possess skills and abilities we ourselves do not, and more often than not, so rolls and mechanics can make up for this, and they should.

Reponse to NeonAvenger:

Hidden: show

My example was an awful one so I'll try again with this - The point is more: What if you're lying about something the PC has personality traits or RP background that would directly counter your lie? "I'm from Icewind Dale. Tieflings are very common there". When the person you're lying to is from Icewind Dale. *snip*

I've already responded above with something that relates to this. But simply put, even if someone knows that would be incorrect, that doesn't mean that other character actually would be attempting to lie. But even if so, one with a high bluff could convince someone who knows better, it would most likely just be very briefly the character would be convinced, because once it sinks in and gives it some thought the character would think that can't be right because I know such and such.

It's more the idea that the deceiver may call out the other party for metagaming information "they couldn't possibly have" requiring them to reveal information about their character and activities that the deceiver should have no access to every bit as much the target of the lie shouldn't normally have information about the lie taking place.

In one of those great ironies: Lying requires more honesty and communication between players than telling the truth.

Again, this still means that this character has prior knowledge that can be linked to the situation or the deceiving character.

Response to Tsidkenu:

Hidden: show

Every character I play has a part of my personality in it. That is an unavoidable part of the whole roleplaying experience and what makes it so exhilarating and I wouldn't have it any other way. I am not my character, but a part of me is in every character I have.

Parts of your personality being a part of your character doesn't mean that your character has anything to do with you at all with the exception that you're playing it - in other words You ARE NOT your character, your character does not possess your skills or your knowledge - that would be metagaming! This is exactly what I'm pointing out here - Social interactions in the game is Character to Character NOT Player to Player, not even in table rp. It may be that you're typing behind the screen, but its your character with its abilities, skills and powers that is interacting with another character that has its own abilities, skills and powers where its player is behind a screen reading what you've written - Character to Character or Character vs. Character interactions - NOT Player to Player or Player vs. Player, this is a really big misconception.

80+ ranks in Bluff? *snip*

Your entire argument here is pointless because we're talking about NWN2 as designed and hardcoded on the Infinity Game Engine and not PnP, but just for the challenge I came up with this perfectly permissible BGTSCC character.

Level 30 Drow (or Aasimar) Bard.

33 base skill ranks in Bluff.
35 base CHA with +3 CHA item = 38 (+14) CHA.
Confidante +2
Silver Palm +2
Skill Focus Bluff +3
Negotiator +2
Greater Heroism +4
Inspire Competency +8

= 68 bluff before item bonuses. If the server allowed Epic Skill Focus then this would become 78 (-1 Epic Charisma but then use Eagles' Splendor for +4 to still end up with 38 CHA)

NWN2 then allows a +50 item bonus (stacking across all items with +bluff on them). Subtract 4 from this for G. Heroism (as that spell counts in the cap) and that leaves a possible maximum bluff score of 114 (124 with Epic Skill Focus, which I don't think we have). And with that kind of 'deception' roll at play mechanically as per your suggestion, that character could convince the entire server that they are Ao the Overgod come in the flesh to demand the worship of the entire world, and no-one could say or do anything to be convinced otherwise. Mechanically.

First of all, as I've pointed out above powerbuilding/minmaxing creates issues with balance in CvC and really has the potential to ruin rp, especially because of the abusive nature of powerbuilding/minmaxing, because those that create diverse and more setting realistic characters will never be able to match a character respectively that was created abusing the system to make it as powerful in its field. Personally I think there should be rules against minmaxed/powerbuild characters, there should be guidelines in place for what is acceptable and not acceptable characters - the above is a clear example of what I'm talking about, it would be one of those cases where its specifically built for abusing bluff mechanics. Even outside of the system I suggested this would steamroll any character's sense motive.

One thing I can see that is clearly very different from PnP and NWN2 - is that the PnP bard gains way less class features, inspire compentence is only +2, speaking of which inspire compentence doesn't work on the bard him/herself, at least not in the PnP version. Another thing I can see from your example is that if this is hardcoded into NWN2 its more imbalanced than I thought, because +50 from item bonuses simply goes against the rules about how bonuses stack.

The Stacking Rules:
In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.
So...:

• They stack if: Different Source AND Different type - this means they have to be a different source and type to stack.
• They don't stack if: Same type OR Same source - this means they don't stack if they have the same type and they don't stack if the same source.

As far as I recall there are these types of modifiers that can apply to skills:

• Multiple instances of the bonuses don't stack; only the highest bonus applies.
• Competence Modifier
• Insight Bonus
• Luck Modifier

An equipment item individually counts as a source, but with the above given rules a character can only benefit from ONE OF EACH TYPE because they all don't stack, so no matter how many items equipped the character only benefit from ONE of each type. Now I'm not sure what the max skill bonus can exist on an item in the game, but it should narrow down the bonuses from items.

I'd also like to point out, that what is possible to achieve with bluff is also possible to achieve with sense motive, at least to a reasonable degree as they're supposed their diametrical opposition, anything else is clear favoritism towards bluff. I don't know if this is just the case with Nwn2db or if this is also in nwn2, but it seems Skill Focus (sense motive) can't be taken, even though there is NOTHING in the rules that says otherwise. IF there doesn't exist equipment that respectively give bonuses to the skill sense motive, the its outright imbalanced, since sense motive is the only skill that counters bluff in a deception check, even if handled by a dm. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to consider spells and invocations be made to match those that give bonuses to bluff.

With all this being said, I personally favor quality over quantity and less is more, so even if its possible get that +114 bluff, the deception can just be changed from an opposed check to a DC check.
First what would be needed to bring that insane number down to a reasonable scale where it becomes possible to manage and beat. A possible way to do this would be to divide by 10 and round down.
So 114/10 = 11. So to set the DC we could use 15+modified bluff mod. So in this case it would be 12+11 = 23. Naturally we'd have to divide the motive sensing characters total sense motive too. so going by the plus 50 from equipment (even if its not correct) and the 33 ranks in sense motive plus the +14 wisdom modifier = 33+14+50 = 97 | 97/10 round down = 9. So the character would have a 1d20+9 to beat the DC of 23 = 30%. Obviously, what I just presented could be used to bring the opposing skills back in line when used in CvC, and of course the actual approach would be subject to change including any values used to determine the dc and modifier to the roll.

Again, this is players vs player interaction, and you admit to even lying is very questionable.

Got a better way to keep your fellow players in the dark that your Helmite Pryat is actually a Banite Dreadmaster? I got a lot of interest from past & present Helmite players who wanted me to revive the Everwatch when i first started playing Mae yr Machshikhah. How do I tell them, "Nah I'm not actually playing a Helmite but a Banite in disguise; I don't want to do an Eliphas and lead your guild sorry" without giving my game away? So yep! I lied to them, IC and OOC! And it was better that way when at the end all their mouths gaped and they said, "Wait, she's a what?!" And I'd do it all again in a heartbeat.

Some people play the game. I play the game. And I love it.

I'm very much against it being based on Player skill rather than character skill, hence why I'm making this suggestion, which I'm sure can be made to work - so maybe try to add constructive ideas or suggestions to how it could become a possibility, and the issues there might be can worked around.

Response to Reckeo:

Hidden: show

I think hidden rolls would only lead to hidden exploits

Like what kind of hidden exploits, any specific you got in mind?

This discussion is really good as a door opener to many other discussions about RP, and the mechanics of the server.

I agree, and I have actually touched upon quite a lot in the response.

Think of how appraise works. Or when you go to place an item on Auction and Mudd tells you "This item has a value of 32142 gold pieces", but you know no one is going to pay anymore than 5000 for it. A lot of the social skills are better handled through respectful RP. Deception is a lot more than simply telling a lie, it can be at times living one unknowingly. Bluff is not an all encompassing skill, it is a limitation of a representation of one and specific for certain circumstances only.

I think it should be considered that what I suggested doesn't necessarily have to be the final way its going to be, you know its better to on the idea than to shut it down. The problem with handling it overtly is that a) requires integrity and willingnesss b) there is actually a rule that prohibit players from enforcing rolls and their results onto other players. Furthermore, most players are not equipped knowledge wise to determine dc's for skill rolls and how to interpret the roll, hence why that is dm's job. But dm's cannot be present at all times, so there is need for skills rolls being more mechanically enforced, where act of deception is one them. Also to note, I've also made some points that is regarding this.

The only other problem I see, is that, if someone has struggling social skills IRL (this is NOT an insult or a judgement) and is trying to RP a charming, suave, diplomat/swindler. Obviously this person is going to have a difficult time, but it also a learning chance to grow as an RPer, and even as an individual (to an extent). Rolls and mechanics can make up for this, and they should. I don't imagine I have 42 arcane knowledge even though my bard does.

That is one the problems with players vs. player social interaction/combat, but it basically also means that if it relies on your social skills as player then you can effectively put all skill points you would've placed in social skill, in other skills that the character would make it and effective/optimal/minmaxed/powerbuild character - whichr really just abuses the system even more and creates and encourages a serverwide game imbalance. I've touched upon other things in this response that relates to this.

If I RP a wizard with 22 intelligence, I couldn't even begin to comprehend the things that character could, as I and no one I know on this planet in my opinion would have such a thing. To me, as a flawed human being, speaking for myself, the characters I play the best, are ones that are within the bounds of limitations and flaws, because it is the closest to who I am as a human being and it is what I can identify with and portray the best through RP. It is HIGHLY rewarding. I am not saying you need to RP a character that shouldn't be adventuring around with all kinds of problems....but flaws make a rounded character come to life, and it makes victories despite them all the greater. I'm talking about actual character flaws, not superficial ones like 'scars', which a lot of younger players seem to use as the go-to for 'obvious flaw'. Flaws need not be something like that. It could be a gambling problem, a bit of greed, a dash of false cultural superiority, or a bad temper on rainy days.

These flaws can manifest in all kinds of imaginative ways, they need not just be the ones we see mechanically.

Yes, we should be creating characters that are more diverse well rounded setting realistic characters with flaws, personality, emotion, motivations, goals, etc. and not just a minmaxed powerbuild nifty set of specific maxed out skills, spells, powers, etc. But that exactly what it is to some. As I've said before, I think there should be guidelines to what is acceptable and not acceptable characters, in my opinion minmaxed characters would be really rare, because most people in the world are well rounded, diverse and maybe with a few areas of expertise, but still nothing obscene.[/spoiler][/quote]



Fun fact. 0 in a social skill is called being average. 1 in a social skill means you actually either received training from a mentor, studied source material to teach yourself or went out of your way to obtain a skill without training, to the point that it is now considered trained.

The average Adept working as an actual chancellor in some noble's court won't surpass level 3, level 5 if they have a lot of experience. Level 5 is 3 + 5 + charisma. An actual professional will have at most 10 points in a social skill (if they were born awfully suave)!

Okay, you say, let's double their levels since BGTSCC and not P&P. That makes our senior professional diplomat level 10, with 3 + 10 charisma. Let's assume 12 base charisma, with +2 points in charisma and a +1 magical item, and they have 16 diplomacy. This dude is the top of his craft in the commoner world. A PC will surpass them, sure, but again - the normal amount of diplomacy a random joe has is 0. If you so much as have a single point in it means you have an education of sorts.