Use of Bluff, Diplomacy, and really wierd truths. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Use of Bluff, Diplomacy, and really wierd truths. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Slightly_Unscrewed
03-17-07, 06:18 PM Right. I was thinking and it struck me: If the truth is really bizzare, sometimes people are more inclined to believe a more plausible lie than a really strange truth. So how could this be represented in game terms? I was thinking that when a PC or tells a extremely strange truth (e.g. something that would land in the +20 section of the bluff chart were it a lie) the PC must make an easy (DC 5 or so) bluff or diplomacy check to convince whoever he's telling that he is not lying. What do you guys think?
Ozzymandias
03-17-07, 06:39 PM I ran a short game wherein the players had to deal with a community that had been overrun by a nest of medium-sized monstrous spiders (it's from an issue of Dungeon, in case anyone wants a reference point). During a conversation with the town's leaders, one of the PCs caught a piece of information that sounded strange to him. He (the player) started talking about the natural life-cycle of spiders, and how your average farmer would probably know that cycle, and with this information how they might be able to determine whether or not the nest was preparing to hatch eggs. I thought for a moment and decided that the individuals he was speaking to, who were sailors before settling down in this village in the middle of nowhere, would be confused. Since they were also the bad guys of the adventure, I figured they'd be suspicious of anything the PCs had to say, in general, and asked the player to roll a Bluff check.

Naturally he was confused. He wasn't bluffing - he was stating a fact, one that should have been common knowledge, enough so that even his character would know it without having to resort to something as esoteric as having ranks in Profession (Farmer). He even offered a reason that sailors would know the life-cycle of spiders, thus helping to validate his conversation that much more.

The issue was not that he was lying to them, though: it was that they thought he was lying to them. I suppose I could have used a different skill; diplomacy, or maybe a sense motive check on the part of the NPCs. Either way, it worked out in the end for the players, but the point is that a GM often has to throw out fly interpretations of the rules, and, I feel, once a ruling has been made it shouldn't be changed. But that also depends on the dynamics of the group you're working with.

In answer to your question: If it fits the situation, go with it. Perhaps a DC of 5 is a little too easy; 10 seems a good benchmark. But what about the NPCs? What if they made sense motive checks to see if they could tell if the PC is lying or not? What about Intelligence or Wisdom checks (if an actual skill doesn't seem to fit)?

Hope this has been of some help.
kgauck
03-17-07, 06:41 PM I think the best way to handle this is to use Sense Motive only of the first check is a failure.

I tell an outlandish truth and make a DC 25 Diplomacy check.
If I succeed, I am believed.

If I fail, others make a DC 10 or 15 Sense Motive check.

If they don't sense I am being sincere (they fail) they think I'm a nut or a liar.

If they pass the Sense Motive check and detect that I am sincere, then they may not believe the story (the original Diplomacy check failed) but they believe that I think its true ("Someone convinced this poor sap that the Sword of Arcanus was now in the hands of a Dark Lich lord. Someone tell him I have the deed to yon castle! Ha ha.") or they still find the story too incredible to believe, but find me credible. ("Its unbelievable that the Sword of Arcanus has been found... and by no less than a Lich, but why would this guy lie about it, he seems convinced its true. I wonder...")
Mystyc
03-18-07, 01:34 AM I would start with a DC 5 Sense Motive check. (This is based in the DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid drawing false conclusions from Decipher Script and in the thresholds for getting wrong information when someone Bluffs a secret message.) This is also low enough that everyone can just take 10 on it on a daily basis in order to get by in life.

I would then use the same modifiers as Bluff uses for the outlandishness of the truth -- in this case, probably +10 for it being hard to believe. If any of the NPCs makes the DC 15 Sense Motive check, they understand that the PC is telling the truth (or at least the truth as he sees it).
Geogoose
03-18-07, 01:53 AM I like Mystyc's response here. The PC shouldn't need to roll a bluff to tell the truth, that just seems odd. The guards should pass a fairly easy sense motive check for common stuff, circumstance mods if it seems outlandish even if the truth.

Even though an NPC may think a PC is being honest, he might still not believe the story at the DM's discretion. They could decide the PC's were honestly retelling them a wrong fact, they were mistaken, or they were decieved or deluded by a third party.

In the case of the sailors they might sense the PC is not trying to decieve them, but say something like, "I know you may think spiders do that mister, but I'll have to see it for myself to believe it. Take your stories elsewhere."
bobothechimp
03-18-07, 02:56 AM The first line of the description of bluff.

"You make the outrageous or untrue seem plausible..."

Keyword: Outrageous. I'd say it is a bluff check.
Bedevere
03-18-07, 06:24 AM I'd say no bluff check at all.

Sense motive check, dc20, to sense someones general mood.

Seems close enough to me, and why should being an experienced liar help with telling the truth? ;)
This keeps things simple enough, and leaves it so that only the listener being experienced with distinguishing lies from truth helps.
FrostHammer
03-18-07, 02:36 PM The NPC rolls sense motive. If he succeeds, he knows the PC's intent. If he fails by 5 or more, he infers a false intent.

Now, since your PC is telling the truth here, if your NPC fails the sense motive by 5 or more, then and only then does your PC need to roll either Bluff OR Diplomacy, whichever one is better. If your PC succeeds, then he has convinced the NPC that he is honest. If he succeeds by more than a certain amount (determined by how out there the truth is), then he has also convinced the NPC that what he is right.
Slightly_Unscrewed
03-18-07, 03:16 PM Sounds good guys. Thanks for the suggestions.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Slightly_Unscrewed 03-17-07, 06:18 PM	Right. I was thinking and it struck me: If the truth is really bizzare, sometimes people are more inclined to believe a more plausible lie than a really strange truth. So how could this be represented in game terms? I was thinking that when a PC or tells a extremely strange truth (e.g. something that would land in the +20 section of the bluff chart were it a lie) the PC must make an easy (DC 5 or so) bluff or diplomacy check to convince whoever he's telling that he is not lying. What do you guys think?
Ozzymandias 03-17-07, 06:39 PM	I ran a short game wherein the players had to deal with a community that had been overrun by a nest of medium-sized monstrous spiders (it's from an issue of Dungeon, in case anyone wants a reference point). During a conversation with the town's leaders, one of the PCs caught a piece of information that sounded strange to him. He (the player) started talking about the natural life-cycle of spiders, and how your average farmer would probably know that cycle, and with this information how they might be able to determine whether or not the nest was preparing to hatch eggs. I thought for a moment and decided that the individuals he was speaking to, who were sailors before settling down in this village in the middle of nowhere, would be confused. Since they were also the bad guys of the adventure, I figured they'd be suspicious of anything the PCs had to say, in general, and asked the player to roll a Bluff check. Naturally he was confused. He wasn't bluffing - he was stating a fact, one that should have been common knowledge, enough so that even his character would know it without having to resort to something as esoteric as having ranks in Profession (Farmer). He even offered a reason that sailors would know the life-cycle of spiders, thus helping to validate his conversation that much more. The issue was not that he was lying to them, though: it was that they thought he was lying to them. I suppose I could have used a different skill; diplomacy, or maybe a sense motive check on the part of the NPCs. Either way, it worked out in the end for the players, but the point is that a GM often has to throw out fly interpretations of the rules, and, I feel, once a ruling has been made it shouldn't be changed. But that also depends on the dynamics of the group you're working with. In answer to your question: If it fits the situation, go with it. Perhaps a DC of 5 is a little too easy; 10 seems a good benchmark. But what about the NPCs? What if they made sense motive checks to see if they could tell if the PC is lying or not? What about Intelligence or Wisdom checks (if an actual skill doesn't seem to fit)? Hope this has been of some help.
kgauck 03-17-07, 06:41 PM	I think the best way to handle this is to use Sense Motive only of the first check is a failure. I tell an outlandish truth and make a DC 25 Diplomacy check. If I succeed, I am believed. If I fail, others make a DC 10 or 15 Sense Motive check. If they don't sense I am being sincere (they fail) they think I'm a nut or a liar. If they pass the Sense Motive check and detect that I am sincere, then they may not believe the story (the original Diplomacy check failed) but they believe that I think its true ("Someone convinced this poor sap that the Sword of Arcanus was now in the hands of a Dark Lich lord. Someone tell him I have the deed to yon castle! Ha ha.") or they still find the story too incredible to believe, but find me credible. ("Its unbelievable that the Sword of Arcanus has been found... and by no less than a Lich, but why would this guy lie about it, he seems convinced its true. I wonder...")
Mystyc 03-18-07, 01:34 AM	I would start with a DC 5 Sense Motive check. (This is based in the DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid drawing false conclusions from Decipher Script and in the thresholds for getting wrong information when someone Bluffs a secret message.) This is also low enough that everyone can just take 10 on it on a daily basis in order to get by in life. I would then use the same modifiers as Bluff uses for the outlandishness of the truth -- in this case, probably +10 for it being hard to believe. If any of the NPCs makes the DC 15 Sense Motive check, they understand that the PC is telling the truth (or at least the truth as he sees it).
Geogoose 03-18-07, 01:53 AM	I like Mystyc's response here. The PC shouldn't need to roll a bluff to tell the truth, that just seems odd. The guards should pass a fairly easy sense motive check for common stuff, circumstance mods if it seems outlandish even if the truth. Even though an NPC may think a PC is being honest, he might still not believe the story at the DM's discretion. They could decide the PC's were honestly retelling them a wrong fact, they were mistaken, or they were decieved or deluded by a third party. In the case of the sailors they might sense the PC is not trying to decieve them, but say something like, "I know you may think spiders do that mister, but I'll have to see it for myself to believe it. Take your stories elsewhere."
bobothechimp 03-18-07, 02:56 AM	The first line of the description of bluff. "You make the outrageous or untrue seem plausible..." Keyword: Outrageous. I'd say it is a bluff check.
Bedevere 03-18-07, 06:24 AM	I'd say no bluff check at all. Sense motive check, dc20, to sense someones general mood. Seems close enough to me, and why should being an experienced liar help with telling the truth? ;) This keeps things simple enough, and leaves it so that only the listener being experienced with distinguishing lies from truth helps.
FrostHammer 03-18-07, 02:36 PM	The NPC rolls sense motive. If he succeeds, he knows the PC's intent. If he fails by 5 or more, he infers a false intent. Now, since your PC is telling the truth here, if your NPC fails the sense motive by 5 or more, then and only then does your PC need to roll either Bluff OR Diplomacy, whichever one is better. If your PC succeeds, then he has convinced the NPC that he is honest. If he succeeds by more than a certain amount (determined by how out there the truth is), then he has also convinced the NPC that what he is right.
Slightly_Unscrewed 03-18-07, 03:16 PM	Sounds good guys. Thanks for the suggestions.