A Reminder

[Darkened Skies]

I hate to wrestle this thread out of the jaws of the off-topic-monster, but Charisma-definitions aside, we all have something to take away from this. People with high stats should be given certain leeways in events, and people with low stats need to RP them properly.

What I'd also like to point out here as it's pretty relevant is people who have no skill points in a skill, and yet still seem to think their character can excel in them. For example:

People spouting reams and reams of information about the Gods without a single point in knowledge religion (this one's one of the most common ones I've seen)

People acting as a collector of information, or a spy, who have absolutely no skills in gather information or bluff.

General showing off of incredible OOC D&D knowledge IC, when their character sheet shows... oh wait, absolutely no knowledge skill points in ANY of the knowledge skills at all.

People lying through their teeth with no bluff skill, or people fast talking themselves out of trouble with no diplomacy skill.

I'm sure you get the idea. This is a fair warning. We always use skillpoints in events to help you out, so we expect you to RP the negatives of having NO skillpoints too. Hefty consequences will be slapping you in the face very soon if you're seen doing this. Skillpoints are there for a reason, misuse them at your peril.

[Root]

*again decides to break out the best argument for RPing Charisma he's ever seen*

Every charisma modifier represents one positive (or negative) trait.

A 14 Cha Cleric has two positive traits.
A 8 Cha Fighter has one negative trait.

Positive traits are things such as a booming voice, good looks, a strong sense of humour, being good at speeches, confidence, being a talented musician, etc.

Negative traits are things like being crass, insulting, ugly, shy, socially inept, saying the wrong thing all the time, etc etc.

Anyone with a better argument, I'd like to hear it. This one even explains charisma buffs/debuffs.

[mrgrey]

People lying through their teeth with no bluff skill, or people fast talking themselves out of trouble with no diplomacy skill.

Skies - While I agree with most of what you said, I disagree with the following:

(1) I usually roll a knowledge skill when trying to partake in a knowledge-based discussion - it should be the roll that counts, everyone knows some obscure knowledge and can roll a 20.

(2) People who suspect lying should roll a sense motive check and call for a bluff. No one ever calls for sense motive checks, I think I've seen this twice since being on the server. Some of my characters tell half-truths all the time for reasons that have no impact on anyone in the server (for background reasons). In fact, I would argue that most people in society, and particularly in a medieval society with magic where anyone could be out to gut you, lie to stay safe. Reversing this and rolling bluff every time you stretch the truth would (a) spam bluff checks in the talk-box, and (b) lead to lots of meta-gaming where everyone knows/assumes you are up to no good but must all be counted on to pretend like they don't.

Again - the bluff rule should be that you must call for a sense motive vs bluff check and can do this whenever you wish. PCs need to be savvy enough to recognize when something might be out of place. Maybe there are obvious exceptions - such as a witness being cross-examined with every other PC paying attention to that conversation.

I respect your right to disagree.

[Lothoir]

For Knowledge checks, if your character has no ranks you can never achieve any knowledge that requires a DC higher than 10. One rank is all you need

I concur on Sense Motive checks though. I believe this is also a ruling. I remember something about GBX talking about NPC's that lie and PC's taking their every word as gospel. I always roll Sense Motive when my character suspects lying.

[Seheren]

Personally, I don't see why someone should have to roll bluff for every lie. Say someone asks your name, and they have no idea what it is, you shouldn't have to roll bluff to lie. You just say a name, and they know no better. There is no reason they should be able to tell you are lying. Now for anything more outlandish than just a name or something, yes, roll bluff.

[Chiangtao]

Agreed on the bluffing. Often, I'll wait for a bluff roll request from the target, rather than rolling publicly before prompted. I don't like characters to be advertised as liars and thieves before people get to know them, and the meta of a public dice roll can sometimes lead to that.

[Root]

Agreed on the bluffing. Often, I'll wait for a bluff roll request from the target, rather than rolling publicly before prompted. I don't like characters to be advertised as liars and thieves before people get to know them, and the meta of a public dice roll can sometimes lead to that.

What if the player of the character you're lying to dosen't know you're lying, and hence can't ask you for a Bluff?

[Dragor]

What if the player of the character you're lying to dosen't know you're lying, and hence can't ask you for a Bluff?

It doesnt have anything to do with "know"...it has everything to do with "suspect".

[Kirin]

My opinion on the Bluff skill (which may not be shared by DMs, who of course have final say here), is that it's only really used if you're actively trying to deceive another of something major, not "little white lies".

A quick example: Bob is trying to woo a girl he likes, and she asks him if he likes to dance. He hates dancing, but reflexively responds "I love dancing!". Since she has no reason to doubt him, I'm not sure this is really a bluff check (Though I'd probably roll one for comedic effect here! ). Opinions will always vary on this, though.

On Ability Scores?

If you choose to min/max for combat, that's a perfectly valid choice (as long as it makes RP sense), but you have to face the music and admit your deficiencies. Your 8 CHA fighter is never going to be a convincing leader. Ever. Every single character has something they are not good at, no matter how much you try to cover all your bases. I'd almost go far as to suggest requiring people list their ability scores in their character descriptions, just so other players know how to react to them.

You absolutely do not have to min/max for combat to succeed in NWN. I have a friend who regularly makes 8 CON characters, and she has had several of them grow to powerful and influential positions through her social connections and allies. There's more than one path to power.

[Root]

It doesnt have anything to do with "know"...it has everything to do with "suspect".

Character A of Player A is in a Banite cult.

Player B knows this OOC. Character B dosen't.

Player C dosen't know this IC or OOC.

Character A has seperate chats with both B and C, in which Banites get bought up. Character A merrily denies any involvement.

Player B would know to ask for a Bluff check.

Player C would not.

Burden should fall on Player A to roll Bluff when lying, not to wait for someone to use metaknowledge to point out that he should be doing so.

( Edit: This sounds blunt. It isn't intentionally, just trying to get the point across with minimal word tl;dr )

[Dragor]

Character A of Player A is in a Banite cult.

Player B knows this OOC. Character B dosen't.

Player C dosen't know this IC or OOC.

Character A has seperate chats with both B and C, in which Banites get bought up. Character A merrily denies any involvement.

Player B would know to ask for a Bluff check.

Player C would not.

Burden should fall on Player A to roll Bluff when lying, not to wait for someone to use metaknowledge to point out that he should be doing so.

( Edit: This sounds blunt. It isn't intentionally, just trying to get the point across with minimal word tl;dr )

Right but this is an example where they should have rolled a bluff either way as it falls under the category of "big"

I know I overgeneralized on my last post...I blame ADD...ooo shiney....

[roguethree]

I disagree. I think the burden should be on those who suspect lying is occurring. I roll Sense Motive when I think someone might be bluffing. Bluff check first leads to metagaming. If I have no reason to suspect player A is in the Black Hand, why should he have to roll bluff to satisfy my nonsuspicions?

[Root]

I'd almost go far as to suggest requiring people list their ability scores in their character descriptions, just so other players know how to react to them.

Double-post, but eh.

This is a fine point, and one I'd adhere to myself if NWN2 allowed enough room for a good character description and a stat summary.

If anyone's interested, my h'orc has 8 Wis and 8 Int, and 12 Cha. Anyone suprised by this turn of events clearly hasn't seen her (and likely will be doing soon, hopefully!).

[TheBrogueadier]

As I've seen too many times...

Character A: "No, I'm not part of any cult" *Rolls Bluff out of decency, scores a nat.20 with 12 ranks for a total of 32*

Character X: *Rolls sense motive, rolls a 1, with a sense motive rank of 0, for a total of failure* "I don't know, seems suspicious to me. I'm not sure I believe you."


Previously, for a bit of a giggle, I've gone through stages of rolling bluff checks randomly just to see what happens. The toon involved has been universally shunned after a while because 'People just feel he isn't truthful / There's something wrong with him' despite no lies being involved, nor any sense motives actually revealing any lie...

Personally I'll roll bluff if it's requested, but to many god-awful meta experiences mean I'm not giving out bluff checks unrequested, because people don't respect them.

[Dragor]

I disagree. I think the burden should be on those who suspect lying is occurring. I roll Sense Motive when I think someone might be bluffing. Bluff check first leads to metagaming. If I have no reason to suspect player A is in the Black Hand, why should he have to roll bluff to satisfy my nonsuspicions?

Yes but as Root pointed out the same arguement can be made for this point of view

I think it is situationally dependent...

Bluff and SM are hard to work with due to the many many variables being crunched down into a boolean

...and also since SM automatically opposes bluff mathimatically it makes more sense for Bluff to be rolled without a sense motive being rolled first...

of course I can always contradict myself again later as the debate on it continues in my head.... >_>