Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

Posted: **Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:41 pm**

NegInfinity wrote:
Incarnate wrote: 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.

No, you didn't get that one right, it was a reference to what is the OP about the deceiving character not doesn't appear to be convincing. As in the character who rolled against the bluff and beat it, the player of that character would get a secret notification about that the character doesn't seem convincing - basically that ones character isn't convinced by what was said by the deceptive character.

NegInfinity wrote: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.

An Ogre with 30 spot? Thats really imbalanced. Do you know what a regular Ogre has in spot, at least the PnP and NWN1 version - 2. Yes thats right, it only has two in spot, so I wouldn't be surprised if it in nwn2 also had 2 in spot. So if the server is geared towards what you just said, then it really shouldn't be an rp server, because if the server is geared towards it, then it encourages minmaxing to achieve those insane numbers, so no wonder there will be a lot of imbalance between characters - powerbuild minmaxed characters vs. rp-build well rounded characters. I don't know about you, but I do see an issue, unless of course the encounters are supposed to be much harder because the players aren't supposed to be minmaxing but making well rounded rp-build emphasizes characters. But it very much seems like so, and especially when staff members seem to encourage minmaxed builds.

I'm actually wondering how it mechanically achieves a spot of 30, because the standard ogre in nwn1 has a +0 wisdom mod, and its total is 2, so obviously only two skill points have been invested in it. So I can only assume that its basically a 27 HD monster UNLESS it has a higher wisdom modifer, the PnP/Nwn is 4HD Monster, so they've basically increased its HD by 23 - thats a huge increase.

Posted: **Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:17 pm**

Hoihe wrote: 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.

This is not true. Social skills are not considered 'trained only'. You are comparing these to rogue skills like open lock, or find trap, which have a segment that says 'trained: yes', meaning it is only acquired on actual training, which social skills are not considered to be since they are well, social, and not limited to ONLY particular roles, and any character with a charisma (even of 12, +1 modifier, which 12 is also within normative commoner values). This means a level 1 commoner with no social skill invested and 12 charisma would benefit from a +1 to a roll, possibly receiving a roll of 21.

In some instances, commoner being a class it does not get any social skills to invest points into. However, in certain handbooks, there a plenty of other classes to represent 'basic' jobs of NPCs, such as a shopkeep, merchant, noble, farmer, trapper, guard etc etc so on and so forth. These classes do sometimes permit social skills as investing skills, but social skills are not required to be 'trained' in order to be invested into, although it would be more likely to be seen on an NPC 'courier', or a 'messenger' sent as a dignitary, it need not specifically be a high level noble to have a considerable skill. NPC's can be retired adventurers, and not all characters with high stats TO be adventurers would have taken to the profession, it is perfectly plausible and acceptable to see an NPC with 18 charisma that ended up in the local militia as a low level guard soldier due to being conscripted at a young age during a time of war. Even a level 1 in perform cross classed could represent military drilling cadence, which would be obtained through drilling (thus training), or reflective of a persons natural ability to lead, leading to them becoming an inspiration and leader to their men as they became a level 5 sergeant, with some amount of diplomacy required when reporting up the chain of command or issuing orders. Simple example that could easily provide (perhaps with a badge and a banner bearer in tow to increase morale) 5 ranks +4 charisma +4 skill check from banner bearer to be a minimum of 13 in a social skill on a sergeant in command of 10 low level soldiers, leading to 'leadership' rolls of 14-33. Un-buffed with magic, at level 5.

A senior professional diplomat would have a much higher skill than this. They spend their time specifically being a diplomat, every single day, as their profession. They may not have the HD or the feats a well rounded adventurer would, but that doesn't mean Mr Bard PC is going to walk into a noble house, roll a diplomacy of 80 and PWN everyone inside. Quite the contrary. However, Mr Bard would exceed at a multitude of adventuring scenarios outside of this specialty and be able to take a hit or three, senior pro diplomat would fold if the wind blows too hard. This doesn't mean they suck at what they do, quite the contrary.

NPC classes also enjoy certain feats that are specifically available only the commoner classes, and could easily enjoy a feat such as 'professional dignitary' that would lend them considerable bonuses to their diplomacy skill because it's what they specialize in, and we as adventuring PC's do not.

This also does not mean that the average commoner has a skill of 0, by any means. There would be plenty of level 1 commoners with 12-14 charisma or wisdom (again, 12 to 14 slightly above), who would easily enjoy a skill of 1-2 in any of the social skills without a single point invested. Are they going to be wheelin' and dealin the great world at large? No. This does not mean they don't know how to lie, tell a large tale, repeat a rumor, or figure out if the travelling merchant is trying to swindle them. Quite the contrary.

Posted: **Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:36 pm**

Incarnate wrote:maybe try to add constructive ideas or suggestions to how it could become a possibility, and the issues there might be can worked around.

I did add constructive ideas. I showed you that your system is easily abused as new mechanical form of god-moding within the NWN2 framework we use on BGTSCC, something you don't seem to have quite wrapped your head around yet (but hopefully these kinds of discussions will help you understand the differences). Moreover, while I might agree that non-stacking skills would be a healthy improvement for server balance, it's never going to happen because +50 stacking skill bonuses is probably a hardcoded NWN2 feature and I'm pretty certain the server population would fly like the wind if the Devs suddenly decided to remove all +skill items from the game in order just to sate certain desires for PnP rule enforcement.

There is already a mechanic in-game right now to determine whether your character can pick up deception. Roll Sense Motive and don't be surprised if the other player refuses to feed you any info (although some, like me, might) as they are permitted to do by the server rules, which is why I posted it at the front of this discussion. If a DM is there as overseer, its a different kettle of fish. As it well should be because 114 bluff. And no, no rules will be added to prevent powerbuilding. That is the other side of the server people come here to enjoy. Please get used to it because it isn't going away any time soon.

Your suggestion seems to me to stem around this idea that our character(s) deserves the right to mechanically perceive (and distribute) deceptions promulgated in RP and that it is the responsibility of the roleplayer to therefore toggle 'deception mode' on when they want others to have a chance at perceiving their misdemeanors. I'd just leave it off which would be no different to what we have now, less the effort of the devs to script it all up, bugtest it, implement it, then be on the receiving end of a barrage of new methods to metagame/godmode each other (as the DM team recently rescinded certain operations of the already-extant abuse of the Disguise/Inspect mechanics).

BGTSCC is a live-action roleplaying persistent world wherein we are all actors and actresses of varying talents, and this is where we diverge significantly from PnP. In PnP, you can just tell the DM, "I want to deceive that guy to believe/obtain X." "Ok, roll bluff." [Success/Failure]. There is no need to elaborate on the content. While you can do that on this server with a DM present, BGTSCC is different to PnP because you now have the opportunity to elaborate on the content of how you want to deceive others, and then put it into action in RP with varying results. And players who are good at such things, OOCly, bringing their own RL talents to enliven their characters don't deserve to have their square pegs forced down into a round hole if they don't want it to be, and as you seem to be suggesting they should.

So there's my constructive criticism. Nothing the server has now needs to be changed nor improved regarding this matter except player willingness to develop their own acting and narrative skills to be employed in the characters they play. And I kinda hope that's why we're all here.

Posted: **Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:47 am**

Tsidkenu wrote:
Incarnate wrote:maybe try to add constructive ideas or suggestions to how it could become a possibility, and the issues there might be can worked around.
I did add constructive ideas. I showed you that your system is easily abused as new mechanical form of god-moding within the NWN2 framework we use on BGTSCC, something you don't seem to have quite wrapped your head around yet (but hopefully these kinds of discussions will help you understand the differences). Moreover, while I might agree that non-stacking skills would be a healthy improvement for server balance, it's never going to happen because +50 stacking skill bonuses is probably a hardcoded NWN2 feature and I'm pretty certain the server population would fly like the wind if the Devs suddenly decided to remove all +skill items from the game in order just to sate certain desires for PnP rule enforcement.

There is already a mechanic in-game right now to determine whether your character can pick up deception. Roll Sense Motive and don't be surprised if the other player refuses to feed you any info (although some, like me, might) as they are permitted to do by the server rules, which is why I posted it at the front of this discussion. If a DM is there as overseer, its a different kettle of fish. As it well should be because 114 bluff. And no, no rules will be added to prevent powerbuilding. That is the other side of the server people come here to enjoy. Please get used to it because it isn't going away any time soon.

Your suggestion seems to me to stem around this idea that our character(s) deserves the right to mechanically perceive (and distribute) deceptions promulgated in RP and that it is the responsibility of the roleplayer to therefore toggle 'deception mode' on when they want others to have a chance at perceiving their misdemeanors. I'd just leave it off which would be no different to what we have now, less the effort of the devs to script it all up, bugtest it, implement it, then be on the receiving end of a barrage of new methods to metagame/godmode each other (as the DM team recently rescinded certain operations of the already-extant abuse of the Disguise/Inspect mechanics).

BGTSCC is a live-action roleplaying persistent world wherein we are all actors and actresses of varying talents, and this is where we diverge significantly from PnP. In PnP, you can just tell the DM, "I want to deceive that guy to believe/obtain X." "Ok, roll bluff." [Success/Failure]. There is no need to elaborate on the content. While you can do that on this server with a DM present, BGTSCC is different to PnP because you now have the opportunity to elaborate on the content of how you want to deceive others, and then put it into action in RP with varying results. And players who are good at such things, OOCly, bringing their own RL talents to enliven their characters don't deserve to have their square pegs forced down into a round hole if they don't want it to be, and as you seem to be suggesting they should.

So there's my constructive criticism. Nothing the server has now needs to be changed nor improved regarding this matter except player willingness to develop their own acting and narrative skills to be employed in the characters they play. And I kinda hope that's why we're all here.

You definitely made several good points here, thank you for the thoughtful responses.

I agree with you. As much as we utilize PnP for source material, and as much as we can offer discussion and suggestions to make NwN2 be more like PnP, as a rule it will never truly be PnP.

However, I can and will strongly stand by the following: I have had the honor of attending several events over the past few months since my return, and I can say with GREAT pride, that our DM team here is absolutely wonderful, and this is the closest experience I've had anywhere to true PnP RPG experiences. This is with a wonderful team of PC's that bring in like others have said, a level of acting that is not otherwise really available in PnP tabletop RPG settings all the same.

The openworld aspect is one thing, but attending DM ran events is an entirely different, highly rewarding opportunity for excellent RP you simply will not get in just PvE. The openworld is similar to 'auto-pilot', not something available in PnP, but available here the same.

Posted: **Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:07 am**

Incarnate wrote: then it really shouldn't be an rp server,

It IS an RP server. Attend DM event or several and see for yourself.

Incarnate wrote: An Ogre with 30 spot? Thats really imbalanced. Do you know what a regular Ogre has in spot,

It is balanced - for this server and for the reality of this server.

I suggest to forget PnP ever existed and adapt for what you have here.

There are areas on this servers with level 30 lizardmen that can cast storm of vengeance several times in a row.

This is the reality of this realm.

Posted: **Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:04 pm**

Firstly I've revised the suggestion a bit, but it also seems 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.

Firstly, 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.

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.

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.

Response to Hoihe:

Hidden: show

Hoihe wrote: 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.

Having zero in a skill isn't average, thats lack of skill, so I'm interested to know where this fact is referenced from. The only difference between 0 and 1+ is a game mechanical one, which is if the skill is a trained only skill and you have 0 in it, you can't use it or you can only use it in a limited way. For example knowledge is a trained only, but having zero in it means you have what is considered common knowledge about the subject in question. Where as for instance with Disable Traps which is also trained only, you cannot use it if don't have actual ranks in it. Also, going from 0 to 1 in a trained skill isn't an exponential increase, its a linear increase even when its a trained skill.

Diplomacy isn't a trained skill, its actually more a mode of communication to influence others or to achieve a desired result, mostly used to negotiate. So having 1+ in the skill doesn't mean you have an education in it or sorts, but it certainly doesn't mean that couldn't be through education it was obtained. If you had 1+ in a Knowledge skill it would mean you had an education of sorts because the knowledge skill is an academic one.

With your diplomat example, that really depends a lot on the setting and overall powerlevel in the particular game, maybe even region-specific, and most certainly also which edition of DnD you're referencing from. But from a general stand point with how would be in 1st edition or 1354 DR, that sounds about right with a typical diplomat. In relation to being the top of his craft, it make sense from a profession and level perspective, and most certainly also in relation to commoners as most commoners only has a few levels tops, and depending on their profession and need for it they might actually have some skill with diplomacy. However, since level affects how high a skill can go in terms of ranks, then the diplomat would most certainly surpass even commoners who have max in diplomacy for their level. Where as an Aristocrat of same level as the diplomat might be sporting the same degree of skill with diplomacy as could be expected.

Response to Tsidkenu:

Hidden: show

Tsidkenu wrote:
Incarnate wrote:maybe try to add constructive ideas or suggestions to how it could become a possibility, and the issues there might be can worked around.
I did add constructive ideas. I showed you that your system is easily abused as new mechanical form of god-moding within the NWN2 framework we use on BGTSCC, something you don't seem to have quite wrapped your head around yet (but hopefully these kinds of discussions will help you understand the differences). Moreover, while I might agree that non-stacking skills would be a healthy improvement for server balance, it's never going to happen because +50 stacking skill bonuses is probably a hardcoded NWN2 feature and I'm pretty certain the server population would fly like the wind if the Devs suddenly decided to remove all +skill items from the game in order just to sate certain desires for PnP rule enforcement.

To me that didn't really seem like it was constructive, but seemed a lot more as opposition where a lot of things was just piled on to shut down the suggestion, rather than suggest ways that could be made to work or add things to the suggestion that it needed to work. How exactly would that become god-modding? I don't think you've fully realized how exactly this mechanic is made, exactly how it would work in the whole context of things. Did you notice that if the motive sensing character's player's roll beat the bluff roll then this player would get a secret notification about the bluffing character not appearing to be convincing? Basically that ones character isn't convinced by the words by the bluffing character. If you're saying that because people could have upwards of 110+ Bluff they could be mechanically god-modding, then I have to ask, how will that be any different from an overt roll made? Because the character would still be able to get that insane roll, even with a dm present. Another very important fact, total skill modifiers is a very accurate representation of what the character could be capable off, so if one had 110+ in Bluff, then one could pull of some very obscene lies and reality contradicting statements.. Also the original suggestion I made isn't perfect hence why I also suggested another way of dealing with instead of opposed rolls.

Tsidkenu wrote:There is already a mechanic in-game right now to determine whether your character can pick up deception. Roll Sense Motive and don't be surprised if the other player refuses to feed you any info (although some, like me, might) as they are permitted to do by the server rules, which is why I posted it at the front of this discussion. If a DM is there as overseer, its a different kettle of fish. As it well should be because 114 bluff. And no, no rules will be added to prevent powerbuilding. That is the other side of the server people come here to enjoy. Please get used to it because it isn't going away any time soon.

Yes - overtly rolling bluff which can cause the metagame issue, that my suggestion would avoid. Also, my suggestions doesn't enforce the result on anyone, what it does is give people an entitled secret roll that accompanies some secret information depends on their results, which doesn't enforce anything. The results would trigger the information regarding if the character seems sincere or doesn't appear to be convincing, the bluffing character would get no information regarding the result and wouldn't know if they seemed to believe it or not.

Tsidkenu wrote:Your suggestion seems to me to stem around this idea that our character(s) deserves the right to mechanically perceive (and distribute) deceptions promulgated in RP and that it is the responsibility of the roleplayer to therefore toggle 'deception mode' on when they want others to have a chance at perceiving their misdemeanors. I'd just leave it off which would be no different to what we have now, less the effort of the devs to script it all up, bugtest it, implement it, then be on the receiving end of a barrage of new methods to metagame/godmode each other (as the DM team recently rescinded certain operations of the already-extant abuse of the Disguise/Inspect mechanics).

Actually, thats not the case, like I've said before, it should be enforced by rule that if one is attempting deception, basically anything that would require a bluff roll, this mode should be used. So leaving it off would be violating the rules and would actually be an attempt circumvent other characters entitled sense motive rolls. I don't see how you could metagame or god-mod with it - care to present some examples on this? Also please consider this in relation to what I've written in relation to it in this response.

Tsidkenu wrote:BGTSCC is a live-action roleplaying persistent world wherein we are all actors and actresses of varying talents, and this is where we diverge significantly from PnP. In PnP, you can just tell the DM, "I want to deceive that guy to believe/obtain X." "Ok, roll bluff." [Success/Failure]. There is no need to elaborate on the content. While you can do that on this server with a DM present, BGTSCC is different to PnP because you now have the opportunity to elaborate on the content of how you want to deceive others, and then put it into action in RP with varying results. And players who are good at such things, OOCly, bringing their own RL talents to enliven their characters don't deserve to have their square pegs forced down into a round hole if they don't want it to be, and as you seem to be suggesting they should.

Hang on there, my suggestion doesn't impede any player from enliving their characters or elaborating on how their character is deceiving others, its doesn't make them any less able to act out their response. What my suggestion does do is hold them more to what their character is actually able to. Like for instance if one has a sense motive of 0 but the player behind is adept in spotting lies and so on, and thus spots the lie with almost uncanny accuracy. Or for instance a player who's really good in deceiving others but his characters bluff score is negligible, and yet he somehow manages to convince others that he's the avatar of Ao. As I've pointed out before - interaction in the game is CvC, so how we interact with other characters has to be somewhat true to our sheet. But that doesn't mean that we can't act out accordling, or that we can't elaborate our responses or actions. Again, as I said before, my suggestion will make players able to ascertain if their characters would find the bluffing character sincere or not convincing - this doesn't mean they're forced to believe everything that was said, but if they found the character sincere, then they would have a good reason to, but then if this contradicted things they knew wasns't correct or could see wasn't so, like the sky being red but could see it was blue. Its a very simple way of holding players more in line with their characters abilities and skills and avoiding metagame.

Tsidkenu wrote:So there's my constructive criticism. Nothing the server has now needs to be changed nor improved regarding this matter except player willingness to develop their own acting and narrative skills to be employed in the characters they play. And I kinda hope that's why we're all here.

I don't agree with you, and unfortunately I can say, that isn't why we're all here, for some they're "just" playing a video game, some its a little more than that and engage in light rp, then there are those that are here mostly for the rp but still also a lot for the game, then there are those that are here mostly for the rp, and very little for the game, and so on. Roleplaying isn't just about acting and narrative skills, its also very much so about immersing yourself in the character, immersing yourself in the world it lives in, its also about interpreting your character sheet and playing it accordlingly, and there many more aspects to rp'ing.

Response to Reckeo:

Hidden: show

Reckeo wrote: As much as we utilize PnP for source material, and as much as we can offer discussion and suggestions to make NwN2 be more like PnP, as a rule it will never truly be PnP.

True it will never truly be like PnP as that will fundamentally impossible but we can certainly get very close. However when its attempted to make a cross between NWN2 and PnP with emphasis on lore and how it actually is in the world, it matters a great deal how the elements are handled and implemented. And it certainly also matters where the general emphasis lies. I thought it was on RP, but it seems its geared much more towards powerplay and rp is attempted on that foundation - which fundamentally will cause greater imbalances. Powerplay focuses on exploiting known weaknesses and "abusing" the system to create a character that becomes optimal in exploting these weaknesses or become as powerful as possible, which is a very poor reflection on how it is in the world. Where when you create a character for rp-play the focus is around making a real character in the world, a well-rounded and diverse character with flaws and other imperfection - a more balanced character. Guess what happens with game-balance? Take CvC or for instance, a fully powerbuild character vs. a fully rp-build character - guess who most likely will win - the powerbuild character. So naturall

Reckeo wrote:However, I can and will strongly stand by the following: I have had the honor of attending several events over the past few months since my return, and I can say with GREAT pride, that our DM team here is absolutely wonderful, and this is the closest experience I've had anywhere to true PnP RPG experiences. This is with a wonderful team of PC's that bring in like others have said, a level of acting that is not otherwise really available in PnP tabletop RPG settings all the same.

I'm not saying they aren't or that great rp isn't possible, but I am saying there are some greater issues that really needs to be looked at. What I was saying about conditions possibly not being taken into account by the DM's is that I don't know if they are or aren't, but it is likely that some don't and are more prone to take the rolls as is. But what you're saying here, doesn't really have anything at all to do with a CvC interaction where bluff and sense motive are involved.

Reckeo wrote:The openworld aspect is one thing, but attending DM ran events is an entirely different, highly rewarding opportunity for excellent RP you simply will not get in just PvE. The openworld is similar to 'auto-pilot', not something available in PnP, but available here the same.

You've addressed DM run events and PvE, mind telling me what CvC is and how this reached from game balanced perspective?

Response for NegInfinity:

Hidden: show

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:19 am**

Incarnate wrote:
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.

Still a no.

Circumstance bonuses aren't taken into consideration and they cannot be handled atomatically. While I understand the intent, seeing the roll is now private, people will not be able to use their own judgement to determine how likely is the bluff.

Trying to "divide" skills will simply render skills completely meaningless and leave success of deception to random number generator.

For example with 33 bluff your base roll will be 3. With 0 bluff it will be 0. What's the point of investing in the skill to begin with?

Also, it is not possible to raise sense motive as high as bluff skill.

Incarnate wrote:Since its an rp-server their emphasis should be on roleplay, features and mechanics that enrich expand on this, not making super tough encounters that requires one to create a minmaxed powerbuild character.

Where you put your emphasis is determined by you and not by mechanics.

Incarnate wrote: You know, the Ogre is the same in NWN1 as in PnP which was pointed out it my post, so]

It is not NWN1. It is not pnp, it is not nwn1, it is not even nwn2. It is a custom realm.

Drop existing expectations and accept it as is.

As I said before, the best idea is to think of the server as being placed on some alternative material plane which is not toril. Or maybe even somewhere in limbo. Then it starts making sense.

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:49 am**

NegInfinity wrote: Circumstance bonuses aren't taken into consideration and they cannot be handled atomatically. While I understand the intent, seeing the roll is now private, people will not be able to use their own judgement to determine how likely is the bluff.

I don't think you realize exactly what this does, and doesn't take away their judgement, again as I've already clarified, that the check basically makes it reflect the motive sensing character's disposition to the character's deception. The disposition to the deception is basically if there is reason to believe it or not. So, no it doesn't take away their judgement, they can still freely disbelieve it if they have a good reason to. This also why circumstance modifers aren't necessary, because the check doesn't deal in whether you believe it or not, but if the deceiving character seems sincere or not - because this what sense motive also does especially when avoiding getting bluffed it specifically assesses someone’s trustworthiness, hence if the character seems sincere or not. Every character and player certainly retains their judgement, because they're not enforced to believe it, they choose either to believe it or not while using their best judgement - but its key if they found the character sincere or not. Because if they found the character to be sincere, they'd be more likely to think of the character as being incorrect if they had reasons not to believe the character, while if they found the character to be insincere but had reasons to believe the character then they might change their initial assessment, and if they found the character to be insincere and had reasons to disbelieve the character then the they would have even more reason to disbelieve - but not it doesn't take away their judgement - the assessment just becomes more in line with what their character would assess than the player.

NegInfinity wrote:Trying to "divide" skills will simply render skills completely meaningless and leave success of deception to random number generator.

The whole reason why this may be necessary is due to bluff being possible to achieve much higher results with than sense motive, including that there is a potential +50 through item bonuses. So this would serve to bring bluff and sense motive more inline with each with respects to CvC.

NegInfinity wrote:For example with 33 bluff your base roll will be 3. With 0 bluff it will be 0. What's the point of investing in the skill to begin with?
Also, it is not possible to raise sense motive as high as bluff skill.

Exactly, and that is why it may be needed with this way of handling the deception check, and maybe both checks should exist and the script should determine which would be best to use, as in if the bluff or sense motive skill of either participants has over specific threshold.

NegInfinity wrote:
Incarnate wrote:Since its an rp-server their emphasis should be on roleplay, features and mechanics that enrich expand on this, not making super tough encounters that requires one to create a minmaxed powerbuild character.
Where you put your emphasis is determined by you and not by mechanics.

I don't think you get what I'm talking about here - If the emphasis from dev/staff is geared towards powerplay rather than rp-play it will cause stronger need for minmaxed powerbuilds - so like you were saying there are monster that require 70+ bluff to efficiently feint, if this is the type of emphasis there is accross the board in the game world, then that means there is stronger need for what I just said.

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:15 am**

Incarnate wrote:Exactly, and that is why it may be needed with this way of handling the deception check,

Or maybe leaving things as is would be a good idea.

I'm not seeing a way of making this work with bluff and I think current situation works well enough.

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:32 am**

NegInfinity wrote:
Incarnate wrote:Exactly, and that is why it may be needed with this way of handling the deception check,
Or maybe leaving things as is would be a good idea.

I'm not seeing a way of making this work with bluff and I think current situation works well enough.

If I didn't know any better I'd think you're not seeing it because you don't wan't it to change from what it is currently, as I've quite thoroughly and sufficiently described how this suggestion would work - as the suggestion stands now it blends perfectly, I'd even go as far as to say that even with 110+ bluff it could still work but would be more balanced with more content in that strengthened sense motive equally as bluff is now. The reason why it could still work is that people aren't enforced to believe what is said, this is the equivalent of the rule that says that players cannot enforce a roll unto a player.

Let me ask you, how is making an overt bluff roll with a 110+ bluff any different than with what I'm suggesting? That people get to decide what if they will respect the roll or not as they want as a player? Then let me ask you, are we not playing a roleplaying game? Is it not through our character's abilities, skills and perception that we perceive and experience the world? We're obligated to play our sheets because of the play your sheet rule, but most certainly also because this is a roleplaying game.

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:33 am**

(deleted)

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:36 am**

CleverUsername123 wrote:There's no problem with how it is right now and this idea is both unnecessary and needlessly complicated.

There actually is, and that you don't see it is concerning, especially with the amount of clarifications and elaborations I've made throughout this thread. Also, you're not being constructive to the thread as I've asked people to be in the OP if they engage in this thread.

Let me just mention a few of the issues with the current way of doing it:

Overt Bluff Rolls.
Is very prone to metagame.
It reveals sensitive information about a character's possible level, skill, ability and more.
Is possible to abuse to get more effecient skill point distritbution due to it being player abilities and skills being used rather than being based on the character's abilities and skills.
Is Player vs. Player interaction and NOT Character vs. Character Interaction as it should be.

Also, you state its needlessly complicated, I beg to differ as its very simple and clean in its approach, and actually solves several issues while staying very true to how it already is with respects rules, player options and interactivity. In fact, it doesn't remove anything, it enhances and enriches what there currently is. Perhaps you care to actually suggest an improvement to it? Rather than outright be against it, like you are with the most of my suggestions. Oh, and in case you didn't know, both Bluff & Sense Motive rolls a supposed to be rolled secretly , which the current way doesn't support UNLESS there is a DM present who's handling it.

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:26 am**

Incarnate wrote:
CleverUsername123 wrote:There's no problem with how it is right now and this idea is both unnecessary and needlessly complicated.
There actually is, and that you don't see it is concerning, especially with the amount of clarifications and elaborations I've made throughout this thread. Also, you're not being constructive to the thread as I've asked people to be in the OP if they engage in this thread.

Let me just mention a few of the issues with the current way of doing it:

Overt Bluff Rolls.

Is very prone to metagame.

It reveals sensitive information about a character's possible level, skill, ability and more.

Is possible to abuse to get more effecient skill point distritbution due to it being player abilities and skills being used rather than being based on the character's abilities and skills.

Is Player vs. Player interaction and NOT Character vs. Character Interaction as it should be.
Also, you state its needlessly complicated, I beg to differ as its very simple and clean in its approach, and actually solves several issues while staying very true to how it already is with respects rules, player options and interactivity. In fact, it doesn't remove anything, it enhances and enriches what there currently is. Perhaps you care to actually suggest an improvement to it? Rather than outright be against it, like you are with the most of my suggestions. Oh, and in case you didn't know, both Bluff & Sense Motive rolls a supposed to be rolled secretly , which the current way doesn't support UNLESS there is a DM present who's handling it.

One issue I'M seeing is failure to accomodate for circumstance bonus. Basically you'd need to know for how many points the bluff check surpasses your sense motive dc, secret roll or not.

I would also be against dividing any skill, because it'll simply make the check meaningless.

OVerall I'm not a fan of the idea, because it encourages roll-play instead of acting out your character's behavior.

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:39 am**

NegInfinity wrote: One issue I'M seeing is failure to accomodate for circumstance bonus. Basically you'd need to know for how many points the bluff check surpasses your sense motive dc, secret roll or not.

They can still freely disbelieve it if they have a good reason to. This also why circumstance modifers aren't necessary, because the check doesn't deal in whether you believe it or not, but if the deceiving character seems sincere or not - because this what sense motive also does especially when avoiding getting bluffed it specifically assesses someone’s trustworthiness, hence if the character seems sincere or not.

The problem with revealing by how many points either was beaten could potentially reveal information about the other character's skill level, abilities and equipment.

[quote"NegInfinity"]I would also be against dividing any skill, because it'll simply make the check meaningless.[/quote]
It most certainly won't make the check meaningless, especially not if the script determines if either skill is above certain threshold, and only in this case will it use the divide method. This is the CvC balancing factor.

NegInfinity wrote:OVerall I'm not a fan of the idea, because it encourages roll-play instead of acting out your character's behavior.

I'm sorry you still don't get it. This doesn't by any means mean that you don't have to act it out - you do. This roll is supposed to be used in conjunction with the deception, as in an actual act of deception. Like for instance with the example I made in the revised suggestion, which basically reflects how it could look ingame.

For your convenience NegInfinity:

Incarnate wrote: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.

So in the above example the motive sensing character is a guard - this guard doesn't have to believe Bob but would have good reason because Bob does seem sincere. With Bob's statement the guard also knows that its very likely that it wasn't what really happened but its certainly plausible, and by being a guard he's experienced these sorts of things before were it was just an outright lie. So the guard asks if Bob could elaborate on what actually happened.

So as you can see, this doesn't take anything away from the player, because he/she can freely act it out and is free to either have his or her character believe it or disbelieve it.

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2018 5:01 am**

Incarnate wrote:but if the deceiving character seems sincere or not

This is not what bluff skill does.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm

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

So it will be:

Bob: I'm Ao the overgod!
Message from the system: Bob seems to be speaking truth.

I would say that sincire/insincire does not even need bluff check.

Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

Re: Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

Re: Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

Re: Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

Re: Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

Re: Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

Re: Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

Re: Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

Re: Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

Re: Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

Re: Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

Re: Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

Re: Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

Re: Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

Re: Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

Re: Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.