Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

[Cenerae]

None of this is necessary or relevant.

If your character is lying, RP it out. Don't just turn it into a mechanical roll. Mechanically enforced RP is dull and turns the outcome into nothing more than a single dice roll.

If you're worried about metagaming, then don't give them blatant hints.
It's that simple. Leave bluff rolls to be called for by DMs where appropriate. It's more enjoyable for everyone that way, and then nobody needs to code in a system to 'enforce' it. Just be a good RPer and give some small clues here and there so that the other players may figure it out if they're paying attention. That should be far more rewarding than 'oh well I won on this mechanical dice roll so now you have to do what I say', or 'well you gave me no reason to disbelieve you but I know you're lying.'

No it's not that simple and I disagree quite strongly, for instance, you're saying that it will enforce rp and that the outcome is turned into nothing more than a single dice roll - that is very, very far from what this suggestion if implemented will do. In my opinion with or without this suggestion when someone is attempting acts of direct deception one should roll a bluff check, which would be best if done secretly. Metagaming parts comes from the bluff check being done overtly as that will reveal sensitive information about the character's abilities, skills and quite possibly also equipped equipment. Furthermore, this suggestion doesn't mean you won't rp it out, because this is supposed to be used in conjunction with it. Also, as stated before, this doesn't enforce rp in anyway, but it does give an indication on if your character is finding the other character to be sincere or not, which is quite different from what it is now, because as it is now its the player solely that that decides whether or not the character seems sincere, which is player abilities and skill, and not the character's which it should. So no it doesn't enforce the outcome, and the character is free to believe or disbelieve what was said. I think there should be something like this to keep players more in line with their characters abilities and skill, because I said before its not the players abilities and skills that is at work here, its the characters. Also, keep in mind this intended for when DM's are not present.

"It won't make it come down to a dice roll"

"It doesn't enforce RP but it tells the other player if you're being sincere or not"

These statements are mutually exclusive. If there's an enforced dice roll that gives information to players about this sort of thing, it enforces the RP on behalf of both parties - because the target of the bluff now knows they're being lied to, even if they would have had no reason to be suspicious. And the person doing the bluffing now has to be a maxed bluff character with lots of +skill items to actually be able to smile brightly at someone and say 'I'm doing fine, thanks for asking' when they don't really mean it.

And this is all stuff that other people have brought up, I think. Not even getting into the part where bluff skill monkeys could then mechanically enforce RP on other players by telling blatantly outrageous lies that now everyone believes because the dice roll says 'oh this guy's being totes serious and isn't obviously lying'.

Unless you claim that you don't have to use the dice results...in which case you're saying what everyone else is saying, in that you can't actually enforce this sort of thing and shouldn't really be trying to.

[Sun Wukong]

This is fixing a perceived issue by creating more / bigger issues. As i said earlier you'll have some jerk create an 80 sense motive pc jyst to run around asking everyone "are you a Harper? Are you thieves guild? Are you evil???" And other such nonsense.

Since I am jerk who already has that '80+ sense motive' character, maybe I will have to start 'roll-playing' with this 'Chord' fellow a bit more. Sounds like an interesting fellow to ask some questions from.

I like the idea, but not if it's enforceable by rule without a DM present. DM can take into account modifiers based on the bluff involved. A system can't.

A system that pops up a window where both players click on applicable modifiers could be a partial solution to the above issue. This system would adjust the rolls using the avarages of the selected modifiers, and then present the winner of the roll. However, it doesn't take a genius to see that one side could just click on -40 and the other +40 for their mechanical benefit.

But it is not like that DM set DCs or modifier are perfect either, especially when it is two or more factions at each other's throats.

A - "I have stealth skill of 83 before the roll, how on earth was I spotted?"
B - "Well, the other side had this guy with 106 spot before the roll, and you both got modifiers in your favour, but it really came down to luckier roll."

Thus with one side unhappy with the skill roll result, the DM tries to make it even in the next roll, which in turn annoys the other side... And so it goes on until everyone is upset at everyone else and everyone is screaming and calling out favouritism and it doesn't really matter if it is done justly or unjustly.

Now, on Youtube, I do listen to some 'D&D' streams and there is this one group that is rather humorous to listen to. The primary reason is that you have this one top notch roleplayer without any concept about the game rules or mechanics, a player that has some 'DM' experience of his own but remains as the player with characters that have singular interests, a guy who made a troll character and a far more 'trolling' non-troll character, and one guy that openly and repeatedly goes against the party's interests, with a dungeon master that is just frankly inexperienced to the bone because few lucky rolls is enough for him to set the DCs so high that the party needs to roll '20' to succeed at getting off the bed, where unarmed peasant boys are a threat to armed warriors and so on... It is great fun all in all, but I do end up screaming at my screen time to time...

Now, I would like to see more realistic DC checks in game on this server, which would actually give a reason for players to invest into some cross class skills and have more varied characters. Rather than just max the mechanical skills mechanical benefits and leave it at that.

[Incarnate]

"It won't make it come down to a dice roll"

"It doesn't enforce RP but it tells the other player if you're being sincere or not"

These statements are mutually exclusive. If there's an enforced dice roll that gives information to players about this sort of thing, it enforces the RP on behalf of both parties - because the target of the bluff now knows they're being lied to, even if they would have had no reason to be suspicious. And the person doing the bluffing now has to be a maxed bluff character with lots of +skill items to actually be able to smile brightly at someone and say 'I'm doing fine, thanks for asking' when they don't really mean it.

No it doesn't enforce rp on either side, and the target doesn't know they're being lied to, even if they succeed their roll sense motive roll.
Character of the target will know parts of what is being said is a bluff, but not necessarily a lie, and furthermore using the information that the deception mode is being used means someone is lying is metagame, because the character doesn't know this. Just because someone seems insincere doesn't mean they're lying and even its a lie it doesn't tell any extent of it. But more importantly, the characters are not enforced to believe or disbelieve whats being said based on the sincerity assessment, but it certainly will help if people used that as a guideline as how to react to it.

The example of actually being able to smile brightly at someone and say 'I'm doing fine, thanks for asking' when they don't really mean it. The very fact that on failing a bluff on that would not only be realistic but it would also open up for more quality rp. Personally, I find it abusive and exploitive to the system when people minmax to become the best, not only is it not realistic - not even for the setting but it creates imbalances between minmaxed powerbuilt characters and rp-build characters, this imbalance is also present with overt rolls.

And this is all stuff that other people have brought up, I think. Not even getting into the part where bluff skill monkeys could then mechanically enforce RP on other players by telling blatantly outrageous lies that now everyone believes because the dice roll says 'oh this guy's being totes serious and isn't obviously lying'.

Unless you claim that you don't have to use the dice results...in which case you're saying what everyone else is saying, in that you can't actually enforce this sort of thing and shouldn't really be trying to.

Again, as I've said before the result of the deception check doesn't enforce anything on either character, as they're free to believe or disbelieve it, especially if the character has information that supports or contradicts what is being said, or has a core belief that for instance that all tieflings lie.

Now, I would like to see more realistic DC checks in game on this server, which would actually give a reason for players to invest into some cross class skills and have more varied characters. Rather than just max the mechanical skills mechanical benefits and leave it at that.

I support this as would like to see the same, but even further, that one considers not maxing for mechanical benefits in favor of more well-rounded rp-built characters.

[CleverUsername123]

(deleted)

[Incarnate]

If the vast majority responds negatively to an idea, IT'S A BAD IDEA. This is a bad idea. You seem to think you know what's best for the server more than the rest of its population, and you really, really don't. This idea is bad, people don't like it. Move on.

I disagree, just because some people don't like it, doesn't mean that its a bad idea, and furthermore people have various reasons why they may dislike it, and it might not even be the idea they dislike, but more the fact that they think it might change how they play - which it really doesn't. It could be just single part of the suggestion they dislike, but that make the whole idea a bad idea, hardly. Another thing here, the vast majority of the server forums population? Have you actually counted how many who've constructively engaged with the thread? 16 other people have responded to this thread, and some of these have only said what you do now, so the vast majority, is very, very far from it. Again, disliking an idea isn't equal to its a bad idea, and perhaps instead of trying to silence the idea, then try to work with it constructively, help develop and progress it, offer constructive suggestions to it, but if you can't offer anything constructive to it, then its better to stay quiet.

[CleverUsername123]

(deleted)

[V'rass]

Give up min-maxing/power-building... yeah no sorry. Currently this server is so imbalanced when it comes to mobs that the only way to have a chance is by powerbuilding and min-maxing. Every single mob on this server is op, and dont try to lie to my face and say this is not true im not stupid. Take a look at the lowly goblin for example, normally a goblin would have maybe 12 hp, 15 ac, and 10 ab. Here the goblins have have 60+ hp, 30 ac, and around 25 ab. Goblins are supposed to be weak and easily killed by those past lv 4-5, the ones here can reliably kill entire groups of those with lv 10+. And it just gets worse from there. Sorry but i will only give up min-maxing when something is done to correct the op mobs.

[Sapper Woody]

and perhaps instead of trying to silence the idea, then try to work with it constructively, help develop and progress it, offer constructive suggestions to it, but if you can't offer anything constructive to it, then its better to stay quiet.

All your threads you've said something like this. "Don't just say it's not a good idea, help me make it to where you like it." That's a false dichotomy fallacy. It is perfectly acceptable for people to think that the way it is currently is the best way to have it.

However, you can't accept that people are disagreeing with you on this, or any other of your threads. Things are the way they are, and people like them that way. Posting a suggestion is fine. But then telling people that it's unacceptable to leave things as they are, when that's exactly what they want, is not opening up dialogue. You are silencing other people while telling them not to silence you.

[NegInfinity]

I disagree, just because some people don't like it, doesn't mean that its a bad idea, and...

In this world good and bad are matter of viewpoint and not an absolute thing, unlike D&D.

People who criticize the idea simply think that amount of negaitve consequences the idea brings will outweight amount of positives. Or they do not see positives at all. So they do not see the idea as good.

Simply put because you are not the only person on the server, it makes sense to see how many people dislike something, and makes sense to avoid implementing changes that are dislikes by significant portion of the server.

In case of this idea, I'm not seeing much positives, I see a lot of problems, I see no way to salvage it, and I don't see much point.

That's the gist of it.

[CleverUsername123]

(deleted)