Bluff versus incredible truth [Archive] - Wizards Community

Bluff versus incredible truth [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
redscizor
07-25-07, 12:13 PM I have this situation:
I have one succubus that is enemy of party (but never she I attack them, but yes they to her), but when she speaks with them, she says in ocaciones the truth and other bluff, but party always thinks that this lying

example:

Lie: I come shipment by the Gods to punish
Truth: Its king called me to eliminate its enemies

but party in both cases thinks that it is lie

My succubus has around to checks of 25+1d20 of bluff

aside it wanted to know as bluff works in these cases the penalty to the compulsive lies or recurrent lies
malignor
07-25-07, 12:29 PM Luckily, the social side of D&D can include RL examples.

Q: What happens when you know someone's a compulsive liar, but half the time they're so convincing you don't know if it's true or not?

A: Most people chalk it up to "I don't know", or don't even listen in the first place, knowing everything that comes out of that mouth was first cycled through a Bull's digestive tract.

= = = = = =

On a side note, about bluff.
Last game, my barbarian was facing off against an assassin. He shot me with a crossbow bolt and made a HUGE bluff check, saying "This bolt is magic. If you come within 10' of me, the magic will kill you instantly!"

It was very convincing. My barbarian was very sure he was telling the truth.

But there's a problem.

Every time someone used an "absolute thing" on him, it's failed. Lethal poison has never killed him. Enchantments never worked or were broken through. Traps can't stop him. From my barbarian's perspective, all these "surefire methods" couldn't stop him through all his months of battle, where he crushed what seemed to be overwhelming odds time and time again. In the face of magic, the barbarian has thus far been an unstoppable crushing force that overpowered everything in his path. So why should this work?

Charge!
jaelis
07-25-07, 02:40 PM The way I see it, if you fail the bluff check your opponent can tell that you're lying. If you make the check, he doesn't immediately know you're lying, but that doesn't mean he thinks you're telling the truth. You might be wrong, you might be a good bluffer, etc.

So if you're telling an incredible truth, there's no check to make. No one will be able to sense that you're lying because you're not. But that doesn't mean that they'll believe you. So if your succubus won the bluff check for a lie, then the party is on their own to decide what to do. If she had failed the check, they would be able to tell she was lying.
Xeviat-DM
07-25-07, 02:50 PM I think taking out the subject of a bluff believing the bluffer, rather than just not detecting the lie, is kind of weak sauce. That's why there are modifiers on the bluff check based on how hard to believe it is, and separate modifiers for how badly it would hurt the bluffie.
Novacat
07-25-07, 03:03 PM I have this situation:
I have one succubus that is enemy of party (but never she I attack them, but yes they to her), but when she speaks with them, she says in ocaciones the truth and other bluff, but party always thinks that this lying

example:

Lie: I come shipment by the Gods to punish
Truth: Its king called me to eliminate its enemies

but party in both cases thinks that it is lie

My succubus has around to checks of 25+1d20 of bluff

aside it wanted to know as bluff works in these cases the penalty to the compulsive lies or recurrent lies
OK, wut?
jaelis
07-25-07, 03:27 PM I think taking out the subject of a bluff believing the bluffer, rather than just not detecting the lie, is kind of weak sauce. That's why there are modifiers on the bluff check based on how hard to believe it is, and separate modifiers for how badly it would hurt the bluffie.

It's harder to keep a straight face with an unbelievable bluff, and you pay a lot more attention to a statement that has a big impact on you?

It's certainly weaker than treating bluff as "I can make you believe anything," but it makes vastly more sense to me.
JadeSpider9643
07-25-07, 05:13 PM A successful bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time(usually 1 round for less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell. For example, you could use a bluff to put a shopkeeper off guard by saying that his shoes are untied. At best, such a bluff would make the shopkeeper glance down at his shoes. It would cause him to ignore you and fiddle with his shoes.

bluff can only make people think something relitively easy to believe and only for a very short time. You can't change a cleric's religion with bluff. you can't take control of a kingdom with it. it can't convince a jailor to let you out of your cell and release you. 5 seconds after a bluff the target will think about it, and either realize it's a lie, (if it was a reasonable attempt) or realize you're insane (if it was an unreasonable attempt, like "the gods sent me peronsally to kill you all!")
DaidojiTaidoru
07-25-07, 05:24 PM bluff can only make people think something relitively easy to believe and only for a very short time. You can't change a cleric's religion with bluff. you can't take control of a kingdom with it. it can't convince a jailor to let you out of your cell and release you. 5 seconds after a bluff the target will think about it, and either realize it's a lie, (if it was a reasonable attempt) or realize you're insane (if it was an unreasonable attempt, like "the gods sent me peronsally to kill you all!")

Exactly.

At some level bluff becomes the "Your shoelaces are untied" trick. Some people are skilled enough to make people look just out of reflex despite knowing that it's a lie. Its those few seconds before the lightbulb comes on and they go "Hey! That's total BS!"

More reasonable and less verifiable lies of course have no duration on them (or rather have the duration, until caught).

If you're having problems with characters not believing fiends whether they're lying or not well that rapidly can become a self correcting problem. Just have the fiend start telling the party all the truths they won't believe and that will get them in trouble for not believing. It's like hiding your tracks only your victims actively avoid learning the truth.

Besides, a partial truth is the biggest lie of all.
Sigfried Trent
07-25-07, 05:43 PM I usualy deal with it thusly...

A PC is bluffing an NPC. I decide on an appropriate modifier based on the NPCs knowledge (of the subject of the bluff and of the PC). If the bluff succeds the NPC believes the PC to be telling the truth.

An NPC bluffing a PC. The PC must choose to sense motive before any rolls are made. If the bluff fails, the PC is given an accurate sense of whether they think the PC is trying to decieve them, if the NPC isn't lying, I will and the Sense Motive roll is especialy good I will try to give them some insight into what the NPCs motivations are lying or otherwise. (for example: "You think the mayor is not telling you something he thinks is important.")
JadeSpider9643
07-26-07, 04:56 PM I usualy deal with it thusly...

A PC is bluffing an NPC. I decide on an appropriate modifier based on the NPCs knowledge (of the subject of the bluff and of the PC). If the bluff succeds the NPC believes the PC to be telling the truth.

An NPC bluffing a PC. The PC must choose to sense motive before any rolls are made. If the bluff fails, the PC is given an accurate sense of whether they think the PC is trying to decieve them, if the NPC isn't lying, I will and the Sense Motive roll is especialy good I will try to give them some insight into what the NPCs motivations are lying or otherwise. (for example: "You think the mayor is not telling you something he thinks is important.")
Players shouldn't have to declare a sense motive check to get one. Since bluff is an opposed check the bluffer can't even attempt his bluff without the player getting his chance. Ideally this should be a secret roll (and even better, the player should not know that the roll is made to prevent meta-gaming, aka "Hold up guys, I think somethings here, I just failed a spot check") If players have to actively demand that they get what they are naturally entitled to, you end up with players declaring sense motive on everything. See Here(1) (http://agc.deskslave.org/comics/AGC5-5.GIF) and Here(2) (http://agc.deskslave.org/comics/AGC5-6.GIF) to understand why this is a bad idea.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
redscizor 07-25-07, 12:13 PM	I have this situation: I have one succubus that is enemy of party (but never she I attack them, but yes they to her), but when she speaks with them, she says in ocaciones the truth and other bluff, but party always thinks that this lying example: Lie: I come shipment by the Gods to punish Truth: Its king called me to eliminate its enemies but party in both cases thinks that it is lie My succubus has around to checks of 25+1d20 of bluff aside it wanted to know as bluff works in these cases the penalty to the compulsive lies or recurrent lies
malignor 07-25-07, 12:29 PM	Luckily, the social side of D&D can include RL examples. Q: What happens when you know someone's a compulsive liar, but half the time they're so convincing you don't know if it's true or not? A: Most people chalk it up to "I don't know", or don't even listen in the first place, knowing everything that comes out of that mouth was first cycled through a Bull's digestive tract. = = = = = = On a side note, about bluff. Last game, my barbarian was facing off against an assassin. He shot me with a crossbow bolt and made a HUGE bluff check, saying "This bolt is magic. If you come within 10' of me, the magic will kill you instantly!" It was very convincing. My barbarian was very sure he was telling the truth. But there's a problem. Every time someone used an "absolute thing" on him, it's failed. Lethal poison has never killed him. Enchantments never worked or were broken through. Traps can't stop him. From my barbarian's perspective, all these "surefire methods" couldn't stop him through all his months of battle, where he crushed what seemed to be overwhelming odds time and time again. In the face of magic, the barbarian has thus far been an unstoppable crushing force that overpowered everything in his path. So why should this work? Charge!
jaelis 07-25-07, 02:40 PM	The way I see it, if you fail the bluff check your opponent can tell that you're lying. If you make the check, he doesn't immediately know you're lying, but that doesn't mean he thinks you're telling the truth. You might be wrong, you might be a good bluffer, etc. So if you're telling an incredible truth, there's no check to make. No one will be able to sense that you're lying because you're not. But that doesn't mean that they'll believe you. So if your succubus won the bluff check for a lie, then the party is on their own to decide what to do. If she had failed the check, they would be able to tell she was lying.
Xeviat-DM 07-25-07, 02:50 PM	I think taking out the subject of a bluff believing the bluffer, rather than just not detecting the lie, is kind of weak sauce. That's why there are modifiers on the bluff check based on how hard to believe it is, and separate modifiers for how badly it would hurt the bluffie.
Novacat 07-25-07, 03:03 PM	I have this situation: I have one succubus that is enemy of party (but never she I attack them, but yes they to her), but when she speaks with them, she says in ocaciones the truth and other bluff, but party always thinks that this lying example: Lie: I come shipment by the Gods to punish Truth: Its king called me to eliminate its enemies but party in both cases thinks that it is lie My succubus has around to checks of 25+1d20 of bluff aside it wanted to know as bluff works in these cases the penalty to the compulsive lies or recurrent lies OK, wut?
jaelis 07-25-07, 03:27 PM	I think taking out the subject of a bluff believing the bluffer, rather than just not detecting the lie, is kind of weak sauce. That's why there are modifiers on the bluff check based on how hard to believe it is, and separate modifiers for how badly it would hurt the bluffie. It's harder to keep a straight face with an unbelievable bluff, and you pay a lot more attention to a statement that has a big impact on you? It's certainly weaker than treating bluff as "I can make you believe anything," but it makes vastly more sense to me.
JadeSpider9643 07-25-07, 05:13 PM	A successful bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time(usually 1 round for less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell. For example, you could use a bluff to put a shopkeeper off guard by saying that his shoes are untied. At best, such a bluff would make the shopkeeper glance down at his shoes. It would cause him to ignore you and fiddle with his shoes. bluff can only make people think something relitively easy to believe and only for a very short time. You can't change a cleric's religion with bluff. you can't take control of a kingdom with it. it can't convince a jailor to let you out of your cell and release you. 5 seconds after a bluff the target will think about it, and either realize it's a lie, (if it was a reasonable attempt) or realize you're insane (if it was an unreasonable attempt, like "the gods sent me peronsally to kill you all!")
DaidojiTaidoru 07-25-07, 05:24 PM	bluff can only make people think something relitively easy to believe and only for a very short time. You can't change a cleric's religion with bluff. you can't take control of a kingdom with it. it can't convince a jailor to let you out of your cell and release you. 5 seconds after a bluff the target will think about it, and either realize it's a lie, (if it was a reasonable attempt) or realize you're insane (if it was an unreasonable attempt, like "the gods sent me peronsally to kill you all!") Exactly. At some level bluff becomes the "Your shoelaces are untied" trick. Some people are skilled enough to make people look just out of reflex despite knowing that it's a lie. Its those few seconds before the lightbulb comes on and they go "Hey! That's total BS!" More reasonable and less verifiable lies of course have no duration on them (or rather have the duration, until caught). If you're having problems with characters not believing fiends whether they're lying or not well that rapidly can become a self correcting problem. Just have the fiend start telling the party all the truths they won't believe and that will get them in trouble for not believing. It's like hiding your tracks only your victims actively avoid learning the truth. Besides, a partial truth is the biggest lie of all.
Sigfried Trent 07-25-07, 05:43 PM	I usualy deal with it thusly... A PC is bluffing an NPC. I decide on an appropriate modifier based on the NPCs knowledge (of the subject of the bluff and of the PC). If the bluff succeds the NPC believes the PC to be telling the truth. An NPC bluffing a PC. The PC must choose to sense motive before any rolls are made. If the bluff fails, the PC is given an accurate sense of whether they think the PC is trying to decieve them, if the NPC isn't lying, I will and the Sense Motive roll is especialy good I will try to give them some insight into what the NPCs motivations are lying or otherwise. (for example: "You think the mayor is not telling you something he thinks is important.")
JadeSpider9643 07-26-07, 04:56 PM	I usualy deal with it thusly... A PC is bluffing an NPC. I decide on an appropriate modifier based on the NPCs knowledge (of the subject of the bluff and of the PC). If the bluff succeds the NPC believes the PC to be telling the truth. An NPC bluffing a PC. The PC must choose to sense motive before any rolls are made. If the bluff fails, the PC is given an accurate sense of whether they think the PC is trying to decieve them, if the NPC isn't lying, I will and the Sense Motive roll is especialy good I will try to give them some insight into what the NPCs motivations are lying or otherwise. (for example: "You think the mayor is not telling you something he thinks is important.") Players shouldn't have to declare a sense motive check to get one. Since bluff is an opposed check the bluffer can't even attempt his bluff without the player getting his chance. Ideally this should be a secret roll (and even better, the player should not know that the roll is made to prevent meta-gaming, aka "Hold up guys, I think somethings here, I just failed a spot check") If players have to actively demand that they get what they are naturally entitled to, you end up with players declaring sense motive on everything. See Here(1) (http://agc.deskslave.org/comics/AGC5-5.GIF) and Here(2) (http://agc.deskslave.org/comics/AGC5-6.GIF) to understand why this is a bad idea.