Bluffing to tell the Truth? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Bluffing to tell the Truth? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Rerecros
03-12-07, 08:03 PM Say a criminal uses magic to switch bodies with a PC.
If said PC was arrested she could just say what happened to her, and a bluff check wouldn't be required because it is the truth, and the authorities would just let her go, averting the entire crisis.

There should be a way for PCs to get in trouble with ignorant peasants without players solving it with an automatically successful skill check.

How you do handle skill checks for PCs to try to convince NPCs that what they perceive to be impossible is true.
shadowsofwhite
03-12-07, 08:42 PM Simple, there is a reason the Diplomacy skill exists. Everybody expects to have to lie their way out of everything, so they put their skill points into bluff, rather than Diplomacy. Anybody can lie about what happened, but getting people to believe the truth, as ludicrous as it may seem, takes skill in dealing with people.
tyrecian
03-12-07, 08:42 PM from the chart under bluff in the SRD:

"The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider. +20 (to sense motive checks)"

I would even consider something physically impossible (to a peasant at least) to have even higher. Not to mention that a jailor, a cop, has heard lots of crazy stories. "my rat is a wizard who needs a dispel", etc. Maybe they dont even care.

Bluff checks should be rewarded if they are timely and if the skill is not being used at every corner by the "rules". Rule 0 allows you to just say no sometimes if it will impede the story line too much. Sometimes whether the truth is known, feared, likely, or totally unknown it wont matter.

In the case of the jail scenario, arrested because of a crime, well that requires convincing a judge, who might not yet have arrived (indeed even be called in yet) to a small-ish town/villiage. if the players want to abscond from prison, so be it, but to try and convicne gendarmes and peasantry that they should break the chains of beaurocracy and perhaps get into trouble themselves from wealthier or more powerful authorities would be not in their best interest.

also, even if the bluff worked to tell the truth, or in other words convince the peasantry of the story, it is also likely that something tragically untoward could have happenned that makes it worse. The use of proscribed magic for instance. In this way the characters of the party become complicit in far greater crimes, even if innocent bystanders. Perhaps now a judge inst enough, the royal mage council will want to hear about this, but it takes them a month or more to hear every lunatic case that comes up.

Finally remember a bluff check requires someone is listenning. Ever try to convince a cop of something they dont want to hear? it might not be your bong, your roomate might have admitted it wasnt yours, but his. Still you are arrested because the cops dont care. And no help from the peasantry (your neighbors) is going to change that.

I am reminded of a module i played long ago in 2nd edition, where there was a massive illusion taking place that made the guards appear as zombies and the zombies appear as people. When it was over, our successful party had killed almost half the village guard, since we had a fabulous archer and we were awoken in the night by screams. We killed as many zombies as possible. Naturally the arrows sticking out of the guards' corpses were ours, and there was no way we were going to talk our way out of that one, bluff or not, evidence trumps whine anyday.
jaelis
03-12-07, 08:47 PM Bluff checks are not charm spells, and neither is telling the truth. It's just being able to lie well.

If you try to bluff someone and they beat your check, then they can tell you're lying. If you beat their check, then they can't tell. But that doesn't mean they automatically believe you, it just means they can't tell you're lying. How they react would depend on the situation.

In the case you describe, the authorities would probably assume you were either a good liar, or else that you were schizophrenic or something and you were telling the truth as you perceived it. Of course, a little bit of divination magic would straighten everything right out, but that's another question.
Steevo
03-13-07, 01:36 AM Bluff checks are not charm spells, and neither is telling the truth. It's just being able to lie well.

I agree. Just because you're telling the truth doesn't mean the guards will go "Hey, he didn't have to roll a bluff check, I guess we'll let him go." I mean, even if the guards believed the PC (in my game world,) they'd probably still lock him up and then get him to describe his real body. Then once they've got both people, they can sort of the whole body-swapping thing once and for all.

Diplomacy is probably the most appropriate skill to use when a PC is trying to convince someone of the truth (no matter how ridiculous it might sound.) Either that or have the guards make a Sense Motive check against a static DC based on how credible the story is. In the latter case, I would probably apply the PC's CHA score as a circumstance modifier to that roll to account for his likability swaying the guard's opinion. Possibly apply some other circumstance modifiers for hard evidence, reputations of those involved, etc, etc.
runestar
03-13-07, 02:11 AM I remember a funny scenario from ages past.

What if there was an elemental made out of poop outdoors and you were trying to convince people that it was true?

"I am not kidding! There really is a dung elemental outside..."

I would probably just make it a subset of bluff. Either way, you are trying to get people to believe in something they normally would not believe. The execution should be more or less the same.:)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rerecros 03-12-07, 08:03 PM	Say a criminal uses magic to switch bodies with a PC. If said PC was arrested she could just say what happened to her, and a bluff check wouldn't be required because it is the truth, and the authorities would just let her go, averting the entire crisis. There should be a way for PCs to get in trouble with ignorant peasants without players solving it with an automatically successful skill check. How you do handle skill checks for PCs to try to convince NPCs that what they perceive to be impossible is true.
shadowsofwhite 03-12-07, 08:42 PM	Simple, there is a reason the Diplomacy skill exists. Everybody expects to have to lie their way out of everything, so they put their skill points into bluff, rather than Diplomacy. Anybody can lie about what happened, but getting people to believe the truth, as ludicrous as it may seem, takes skill in dealing with people.
tyrecian 03-12-07, 08:42 PM	from the chart under bluff in the SRD: "The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider. +20 (to sense motive checks)" I would even consider something physically impossible (to a peasant at least) to have even higher. Not to mention that a jailor, a cop, has heard lots of crazy stories. "my rat is a wizard who needs a dispel", etc. Maybe they dont even care. Bluff checks should be rewarded if they are timely and if the skill is not being used at every corner by the "rules". Rule 0 allows you to just say no sometimes if it will impede the story line too much. Sometimes whether the truth is known, feared, likely, or totally unknown it wont matter. In the case of the jail scenario, arrested because of a crime, well that requires convincing a judge, who might not yet have arrived (indeed even be called in yet) to a small-ish town/villiage. if the players want to abscond from prison, so be it, but to try and convicne gendarmes and peasantry that they should break the chains of beaurocracy and perhaps get into trouble themselves from wealthier or more powerful authorities would be not in their best interest. also, even if the bluff worked to tell the truth, or in other words convince the peasantry of the story, it is also likely that something tragically untoward could have happenned that makes it worse. The use of proscribed magic for instance. In this way the characters of the party become complicit in far greater crimes, even if innocent bystanders. Perhaps now a judge inst enough, the royal mage council will want to hear about this, but it takes them a month or more to hear every lunatic case that comes up. Finally remember a bluff check requires someone is listenning. Ever try to convince a cop of something they dont want to hear? it might not be your bong, your roomate might have admitted it wasnt yours, but his. Still you are arrested because the cops dont care. And no help from the peasantry (your neighbors) is going to change that. I am reminded of a module i played long ago in 2nd edition, where there was a massive illusion taking place that made the guards appear as zombies and the zombies appear as people. When it was over, our successful party had killed almost half the village guard, since we had a fabulous archer and we were awoken in the night by screams. We killed as many zombies as possible. Naturally the arrows sticking out of the guards' corpses were ours, and there was no way we were going to talk our way out of that one, bluff or not, evidence trumps whine anyday.
jaelis 03-12-07, 08:47 PM	Bluff checks are not charm spells, and neither is telling the truth. It's just being able to lie well. If you try to bluff someone and they beat your check, then they can tell you're lying. If you beat their check, then they can't tell. But that doesn't mean they automatically believe you, it just means they can't tell you're lying. How they react would depend on the situation. In the case you describe, the authorities would probably assume you were either a good liar, or else that you were schizophrenic or something and you were telling the truth as you perceived it. Of course, a little bit of divination magic would straighten everything right out, but that's another question.
Steevo 03-13-07, 01:36 AM	Bluff checks are not charm spells, and neither is telling the truth. It's just being able to lie well. I agree. Just because you're telling the truth doesn't mean the guards will go "Hey, he didn't have to roll a bluff check, I guess we'll let him go." I mean, even if the guards believed the PC (in my game world,) they'd probably still lock him up and then get him to describe his real body. Then once they've got both people, they can sort of the whole body-swapping thing once and for all. Diplomacy is probably the most appropriate skill to use when a PC is trying to convince someone of the truth (no matter how ridiculous it might sound.) Either that or have the guards make a Sense Motive check against a static DC based on how credible the story is. In the latter case, I would probably apply the PC's CHA score as a circumstance modifier to that roll to account for his likability swaying the guard's opinion. Possibly apply some other circumstance modifiers for hard evidence, reputations of those involved, etc, etc.
runestar 03-13-07, 02:11 AM	I remember a funny scenario from ages past. What if there was an elemental made out of poop outdoors and you were trying to convince people that it was true? "I am not kidding! There really is a dung elemental outside..." I would probably just make it a subset of bluff. Either way, you are trying to get people to believe in something they normally would not believe. The execution should be more or less the same.:)