chad878262 wrote:The one piece of your post I will agree with is the ability to have hidden rolls so the opposition doesn't metagame when you roll bluff. However, without a way to enforce the requirements consistently it still doesn't change my overall stance. In the end there needs to be some level of trust between players because DMs are not always going to be watching. Adding new mechanics like this still requires trust. Trust that the player will use it, because there is no way to enforce it consistently and fairly.
Its actually reasonably fair that if one is attempting deception that a bluff roll is required, even aside my suggestion, because it is CvC interaction and not PvP interaction. Personally I think it should be by rule that anyone that attempts deception should make a bluff roll and like wise sense motive should, at least for guideline purpose with how their characters could react. There should also be guidelines put up that explains what affects the outcome of the bluff/sense motive so that the players with good reason will know how to apply the circumstances in relation to the roll and how to interpret the result of the rolls. This is from the same perspective I the deception system should be used without a dm present - deceptions should be rolled for by rule, acted out and rp'ed - with or without my suggestion.
chad878262 wrote:Good to see the response to criticism is consistent across all of your threads though. Anyone who presents you with constructive criticism, with no negativity outside of the mechanical issues with such an implementation is met with "you don't understand, you aren't trying to understand, etc." The fact is, the same could be said to the mirror. There are issues with such an implementation and unless there is a magical way to address them it would be a bad idea to implement. I don't say this last paragraph to start a further negative discussion with you, but simply because if you continue folks are much less likely to participate, give feedback or consider your future ideas. I know I certainly have less desire to read your suggestions with each of your responses, because you accuse others of not understanding or disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing. Would be better if you consider and respond to the issues raised.
I completely get what your saying but the responses I get to me indicates that what I'm trying to get across isn't being understood correctly or isn't being interpreted so that it gives the same level of realization I have for what I suggested - I'm not saying this to judge anyone or insult anyone, and to be fair for the most part its not been constructive critisism the threads have been getting but flat out opposition that is basically to shut down the suggestion without actually pointing out what the problems could be or is with it it. Furthermore, when there has been constructive critisism I've counter-argued with very good points like how it actually addresses that specific problem - but then I'm met again met with the very same things I've just explained - hence why I feel its not being understood correctly. So I totally get what you're saying and of course will take your advice, but do also understand it from my side of it. Oh and another quite important fact, alot of the people (most are the same) that actually respond to my threads do so in the same manner with flat out opposition with no or very few constructive points and with not much support than their oppion. So while I reply to this, its not further continue in negative a discussion about this, but to shed some light on this from my point of view.
chad878262 wrote:How do you enforce such a mechanic consistently and fairly without potential for exploitation or favoritism?
Simply put, if by rule its made so only by roll will a direct act of deception be legal, because one can be deceptive in many ways where a non-direct wouldn't require a roll - those without CvC interaction, hence why their should be a roll for when making a direct act of deception when CvC. If someone is caught trying to circumvent this and there is proof, but this player goes "free", then honestly its a leadership issue, not an issue with the system. As DM one has the responsibility to adjudicate the rules fairly and reasonably, so if a DM lets one slide "off the hook" then perhaps that one doesn't have enough integrity to be a DM - again, an issue for the leadership to handle. The rules apply for everyone so its in everyones interest that everyone follows them, those that don't is ruining it for others. But aside this, if by rule a direct act of deception is only legal if there was a bluff/sense motive check, then it really doesn't matter if the player omitted it or forgot it, and it wouldn't be any different from how it is when rolls aren't made currently, only those who knows otherwise would be able to know if a deception was taking place or not - which in my opinion is very wrong as characters who are being subjected to bluff/deception is entitled sense motive.
chad878262 wrote:Does such a mechanic demonstrably enhance RP consistently? Because it is still a button, which players can simply chose not to click. Since it requires someone to click, can you really punish a player for simply 'forgetting' to click it? In this case they would not have actively broke a rule, but passively forgotten to follow a rule. It is one thing when someone chooses to RP a Solar, they are actively breaking the 'play your sheet role'... Having a rule that requires the player to take an action is a different beast, and would be a first.
I would say it does enhance rp, because as this would help keep players more inline with their characters actual abilities and skills, but it also gives an indication of if their character would find the deceiving character sincere or insincere based on their character's abilities and skills rather than their own. If by rule its the player's responsibility to follow the rules, and by rule the player is to use the deception mode whenever attempting direct acts of deception then I'd definitely say yes you can punish the player, whether omitting or forgetting, the end result is the same - cheating. Omitting the use of the mode is of course certainly much worse because that is a conscious act of cheating, where as forgetting to use the mode is unintentional cheating, but still cheating. If a player keeps "forgetting" and violating the rules then the player isn't abiding by the rules. The real question is how lenient is the punishment going to be for "forgetting" to abide by the rules be and how severe are they going to be for the one who consciously dishonors and violates the rules? The rules apply for us all, so its a community effort to make sure that we all abide by them. So for instance if a player sees a character engaging in what could look like a direct act of deception but no secret notifcation was received, and one was part of the conversation as with others then the player should remind the player through a PM that acts of deception requires one to use the mode for it. In my opinion I do think this if used the way it supposed to it will enhance RP consistently and it will prevent a lot potential metagaming, which the current system suffers under, including but not limited to, revealing sensitive information about the character's abilities, skills and equipment, etc. when doing overt rolls.
chad878262 wrote:Edit: Based on the intimidation thread, a potential middle ground might be to create a "hidden bluff vs. Sense Motive" button whereby a player could select another PC and use that skill roll to create a hidden bluff vs. sense motive check. Thereby only providing feedback to the opposing player if the sense motive wins. Now, the issue is it does get more complex since there are modifiers based on how big a bluff it is, so it might require a bit more complexity (as in, a way to add modifiers to the roll based on small bluff vs. telling someone you're actually the Lord of Murder's Avatar). In addition I would still argue this would be for use either with DM oversight or at the discretion of the player committing the bluff. I do not believe it is a good idea to create a rule requiring it due to the issues I stated above.
As I've pointed out, my suggestion deals with the perception of the trustworthiness of the statement by the deceiving character, where the character's player can based on the actual things being said, the sincerity, and other things decide if the character should or should not believe it and react accordingly to it. So obviously there has to be some guidelines presented on how to interpret the degrees of the bluff and how to apply it to the actual circumstances, but not in terms of modifiers, but in terms of better judgement on how a character would react.
Oh and another thing I think you (you as in the staff) might want to consider how to deal with, which isn't really in the scope of this suggestion, but by lore and rules, characters who're able to reach what are considered epic actions with bluff and sense motive skills due to high skill levels and through roll can do some things you might or might not be interested in the characters being able to on the server, even mechanics doesn't support it. At least for rp-sake I believe there should be stance on this, because this might not be reflected on one's sheet directly, but wouldn't normally be anyways.
Epic Bluff
- Instill suggestion in target |DC:60| - This is identical to the effect of the suggestion spell, except that it is nonmagical and lasts for only 10 minutes. It can be sensed as if it were an enchantment effect (Sense Motive DC 25).
- Display false alignment |DC:80| - The character can fool alignment-sensing effects by displaying a false alignment of his or her choice. Once set, a false alignment remains as long as the character remains conscious and awake.
- Disguise surface thoughts [DC:100| - The character can fool spells such as detect thoughts (or similar effects) by displaying false surface thoughts. While the character can’t completely mask the presence of his or her thoughts, he or she can change his or her apparent Intelligence score (and thus the character’s apparent mental strength) by as much as 10 points and can place any thought in his or her “surface thoughts” to be read by such spells or effects.
Sense Motive
- Discern partial alignment |DC:60| - This use of the skill lets a character discern one component of a target’s alignment. When making the check, the character states whether he or she is trying to discern the law-chaos or good-evil component.
- Discern full alignment |DC:80| - This use of the skill lets a character determine both components of a target’s alignment.
- Detect surface thoughts [DC:100| - This lets a character read the surface thoughts of a single target (as the 3rd-round effect of the detect thoughts spell). There is no saving throw to resist this effect, though the target can use Bluff to disguise his or her surface thoughts (see the Bluff skill description), in which case this becomes an opposed check (any result lower than 100 automatically fails).
<3 )? Now in and of itself no big deal, a great concept, but what if this player is not the role player that Lisa or Incarnate is and just goes around asking every PC they run in to "Are you a Harper?" and then crying foul when people don't roll deception? There is a reason skill rolls require DM oversight and I really don't think that to change. 
