No, the NPC is not 'immune to bluffs'

[efftem]

Short and sweet:

Group of PCs is trying to take down a big bad villain. Said villain has taken a member of the group hostage. One character (let's call her Princess Twinkletoes, since she's a runaway princess and a dancer and... yadda yadda yadda), having high charisma and ranks in diplomacy and bluff, goes to negotiate. She rolls VERY WELL.

Now,

Comments

[pyrephox]

Wow, that sounds about as fun as the warrior getting a great critical hit on some wild and improbable stunt...and then the GM deciding that the forces of inertia mean that he just broke his arm in three places, knocked the villain into a load-bearing column, which caused part of the roof to cave in and fall on their party's head

[sagelylegs]

I disagree, on the grounds that diplomacy in these things is a dangerous game even if you are good at it. The player chose the angle they were working from, I'd sooner buy letting them use the dice to talk for them if they didn't give specifics. Also, while you can count on the dice to convince someone of something, you really can't control how they'll act on that.

[sagelylegs]

Addendum: combat can be summed up to a series of yes/no questions, hence why it's so much simpler by comparison. Very rarely do you have a conversation that has such straightforward steps.

[pyrephox]

Except, of course, that 'diplomacy' in these situations is a cinematic, abstract construct, the efficacy of which is largely represented by the dice, with the roleplaying added to give a framework to the successful (or unsuccessful) action.

And 'you can't control how they'll act on that' is, in my opinion, kind of a cop out. The GM /does/ control how they'll act on that. That's the whole point of being a GM. And turning a good roll into a bad roll is just not particularly fun. Especially since the strong impression I'm getting is that it was meant as 'gotcha' to a player that the GM already viewed with veiled contempt.

[sagelylegs]

I fail to see how it's a cop out when I only apply that to the person making the attempt, and not the GM themselves. Obviously the GM has control, but the players have little reason to assume an NPC they only just now are talking to will react in a favorable way.

You seem to be harping too much in favor of the system, ignoring the human factor that makes these events happen; you're also assuming a lot about the original poster's mindset, which neither I nor you have any room to do.

[snarking_socks]

I don't know. Even as a player whose hypothetical character would likely get killed/maimed/whatever do to the warrior doing something dumb, I'd find your example situation pretty funny. And you know what? My DM would do it to our group if someone did something that stupid. Because consequences shouldn't be watered-down to make a player feel special.

I don't think anyone "screwed" the player. I can't think of too many people who would just be "awed" by someone effectively going "You're a stupid stupidhead! We don't even like your hostage, so you might as well give up! Nyah nyah!". It might be a bit more bland, but if you can't think up anything witty to say, just roll the dice and go from there.

In short? Your high horse, get off it.

[pyrephox]

And there's a reason why in most media, the villains /do/ let loose ends hang around, when those loose ends are the main characters.

A villain who acts with complete efficiency and brutality is, quite frankly, boring as hell. Sure, the most intelligent thing to do would be to hire snipers to wait at the end of rifle range for the PCs to come out of eating lunch and then headshot every one of them without warning or clue, before the PCs even realize that they're on someone's hit list.

But it would be a short game.

[weariest_river]

... how is a villain who acts with complete brutal efficiency boring as hell? Seems to me it just makes things more difficult to have the bad guy, you know... act in his or her own self-interest and actually win. But I fail to see how more difficult = not fun.

Even the most calculating villains have weaknesses, even if they do tie up all loose ends. They can be glaring weaknesses too, to anyone paying attention.

[weariest_river]

I saw nothing overly powerful in the OP's example. S/he didn't even hurt the character who was thrown off the cliff, and is giving that character their own way to make it back. That seems super cool to me.

But having an arrogant player try and negotiate, and have it backfire? I don't see how that's bad. If the GM had killed the hostage, then yes, I'd agree. But making a player's terrible word choice cause a momentary problem? ... where's the issue?

[snowflake_child]

the GM kept the PC alive after the fall. The drop was a cinematic trick, not a punishment for anyone. I think the gamemaster might have been alittle harsh but he softened that instantly by not killing the hostage PC. Villain tries to escape, party fights said villain, hostage gets little side quest. All good if everyone plays along. The PC should have waited till after game to bring up issues if they still had them and not interrupted play with an outburst.

[pyrephox]

The hostage-stuff isn't really the issue, for me. The hostage can burst into tears, whatever, and the PCs can deal with that

[efftem]

I did ask if she was sure she wanted to say that, and recapped that this villain has a history of violently disposing of those he considers useless for his purposes.

Also, Princess Twinkletoes has a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, whether releasing a bounty ("they gave me their word of honor! As a runaway princess, I believe in honor!") or slapping around a kidnapping victim (Me: Are you sure? This was the guy you were supposed to RESCUE. Princess' player: ...oh. I thought this was another bounty mission.)

Out of game, she is fun to hang around with, but she takes off her logic hat when playing for some reason.