"Bluffing" the PCs? [Archive] - Wizards Community

"Bluffing" the PCs? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Cthulhu3125
06-15-06, 04:09 PM I'm considering dropping a few events in my campaign that are deliberately designed to mislead the PCs, more than anything to test whether they will make intelligent decisions (most of the time I get the feeling they are just sitting back and assuming that all relevant facts will come to them, and not doing any thought of their own. [Example at end of post so as not to digress]*).

How do you handle the PCs being lied to? Do you allow a PC sense motive check against the NPC's bluff skill? Do you ask the players to roll it, or roll it in secret? (to save them getting suspicious). What about an int 6 PC played by a canny player - while the player might realise that something's wrong, his character would not. What about an oblivious player running an int 22 mage?

My current thoughts are that it is the PC's responsibility to decide for themselves what they believe - rather than depending on a die roll to determine whether the PCs instantly see through an elaborate plot, the players should reason it through themselves (and good for them if they manage some good deduction).

To put this in context, one of my ideas is to have an unscrupulous merchant approach the PCs with rumours of a huge dungeon inhabited with ferocious beasts. He suggests that a raid would be profitable for them, and offers them equipment to help them on their quest. He promptly sells them bottles of brackish water labeled "Healing potion", and then leaves town while the PCs discover they have been directed to a cave full of senile kobolds.

- Either the PCs are granted a sense motive check, and if they succeed, the DM tells them "something doesn't seem right", or

- The PCs must rely on their own instincts, but would have no hint that the quest was likely to be bogus.

The latter option seems to go against an understanding that generally seems to exist between the players and the DM: The players expect that, if they are sent to kill a dragon, tha the dragon will be there. PCs are not used to being told deliberately wrong information. This could backfire if done once, because after the one quest the PCs might become paranoid.

Whilst the above is perfectly possible and consistent with the logic of the game world, does it seem unfair to do this to the PCs? Of course, the remainder of the plot is that they find the merchant and retrieve their gold (knowing my party, probably coup-de-grace him in his sleep as well. And burn his house). Could this be seen as abusing the position as DM to deliberately harm the party? (It's not as bad as having a dozen invisible, silent mages sneak into the PCs tent and cast quickened, maximised fireballs at them while they sleep, but still...)

*[The example]. This is why I want to try to catalyse my players into thinking a bit more. I think we spent about 20 minutes with the cleric discussing with another player how they should go about resurrecting their friend.

"We should res him"
"I only know rasie dead, he would lose a level"
"That sucks, we don't want the monk to lose a level"
"Yes"
"But we really should res him"
"Yes"
"But raise dead will make him lose a level"
"Yes... we don't really want that"
"Well, I guess we will have to find some other way to res him"
"Yes"
"Hmmmmm"
"Hmmmmmm"

Me, after about 10 minutes of weeping inside: "You know, you could pay a higher-level cleric to true res him"

Wisest of the wise WIS 18 cleric: "Oh yeah."
Sereno
06-15-06, 04:26 PM How do you handle the PCs being lied to? Do you allow a PC sense motive check against the NPC's bluff skill? Do you ask the players to roll it, or roll it in secret? (to save them getting suspicious). What about an int 6 PC played by a canny player - while the player might realise that something's wrong, his character would not. What about an oblivious player running an int 22 mage?

When I'm in the role of an NPC and I lie to the PCs, I just lie to the players.

If they think I'm lying they ask for a Sense Motive, "Usually, do I think the bartender is lying?" I'll role the Bluff where they can't see it and ask them what their Sense Motive is and answer their question as the dice indicate; anything from "you don't think he's lying" to "he's clearly bull :censored: ing you"

If they don't ask for the roll, they don't get one.

Anyone can be suspicious by nature (you don't have to be smart to be paranoid) and unless they've put a lot of ranks in Sense Motive, they'll never know for sure when they're being lied to.

As to your example, it it's obvious to me that the players are missing something that their PCs would not, I'll make a small suggestion, "Just 'cause you can't True Res. the monk doesn't mean *no one* can...." This is a game, after all, none of us would survive if we ever had to take the place of our characters! :)
KingMerv02
06-15-06, 04:35 PM When the PC's want to sense motive, I require them to ask. Otherwise, I'd be rolling after every NPC statement. Always roll bluff and sense motive checks in secret. If a PC rolled for himself and got a natural 1, he couldn't help but think the hunch he gets is wrong. It would be hard not to metagame in a situation like that. Best to keep it secret.

BTW the ability to sense lies is Wisdom based, not Intelligence based. The smartest people in the world can be duped into believing the dumbest things.
Stumm_Dolch
06-15-06, 04:46 PM Bluff, Disguise, Forgery, (some)knowledge, search(when it involves traps or other sensitive results), sense motive and some survival checks should be made by the gm for the PCs. Sure it may slow down the game just a bit, but most of these instances involve the between the action points of the game.

Doing so WILL result in a better overall sense of true role playing because the characters see their faults as a negative response, instead of a 1-5 on a d20. It's SO much more fun when a rogue says to the paladin "Nah man, looks safe to me (and really thinks it is) after a miserably failed search check on that series of carvings on the floor of the entrance to the really really dark corridor.
theblindman
06-15-06, 04:52 PM DMs have two great powers that are very often over-looked - 1) they can control the flow of events and actions in combat; 2) they can control the flow of information to the players.

This basically means that you don't always have to roll a die to see if the characters can figure it out. When the duplicitous merchant is giving the heroes directions to the "dragon" cave, you can just turn to the high-intelligence, maxed ranks in knowledge (local), wizard and say, "while he's speaking, you remember a story you heard recently in a bar about a group of adventurers wiping out a dragon nest in that area last month." Or you can roll dice to see if he knows, it doesn't really make a huge difference either way. But there are always other ways to check this kind of information - gather information checks, to see if the locals know anything about a dragon's cave nearby (they're fairly noticeable, I would think); or if he gives them a map, a forgery check to identify that it is in fact not 50 years old, but was just drawn yesterday; or a knowledge (nature) check to recognize that the area would make an odd habitat for kobolds; or a knowledge (arcana) check to recognize that the area would make an odd habitat for dragons. Or whatever baddies he says happen to reside in the dungeon. Anybody with these skills should get an automatic chance to second-guess said merchant.

But yes, players generally don't second-guess information. The only way to have them start is to throw something wonky at them, like in your example. But don't do it too often, or they'll get paranoid. That's a very dangerous trap, that slows down the game immensely.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Cthulhu3125 06-15-06, 04:09 PM	I'm considering dropping a few events in my campaign that are deliberately designed to mislead the PCs, more than anything to test whether they will make intelligent decisions (most of the time I get the feeling they are just sitting back and assuming that all relevant facts will come to them, and not doing any thought of their own. [Example at end of post so as not to digress]). How do you handle the PCs being lied to? Do you allow a PC sense motive check against the NPC's bluff skill? Do you ask the players to roll it, or roll it in secret? (to save them getting suspicious). What about an int 6 PC played by a canny player - while the player might realise that something's wrong, his character would not. What about an oblivious player running an int 22 mage? My current thoughts are that it is the PC's responsibility to decide for themselves what they believe - rather than depending on a die roll to determine whether the PCs instantly see through an elaborate plot, the players should reason it through themselves (and good for them if they manage some good deduction). To put this in context, one of my ideas is to have an unscrupulous merchant approach the PCs with rumours of a huge dungeon inhabited with ferocious beasts. He suggests that a raid would be profitable for them, and offers them equipment to help them on their quest. He promptly sells them bottles of brackish water labeled "Healing potion", and then leaves town while the PCs discover they have been directed to a cave full of senile kobolds. - Either the PCs are granted a sense motive check, and if they succeed, the DM tells them "something doesn't seem right", or - The PCs must rely on their own instincts, but would have no hint that the quest was likely to be bogus. The latter option seems to go against an understanding that generally seems to exist between the players and the DM: The players expect that, if they are sent to kill a dragon, tha the dragon will be there. PCs are not used to being told deliberately wrong information. This could backfire if done once, because after the one quest the PCs might become paranoid. Whilst the above is perfectly possible and consistent with the logic of the game world, does it seem unfair to do this to the PCs? Of course, the remainder of the plot is that they find the merchant and retrieve their gold (knowing my party, probably coup-de-grace him in his sleep as well. And burn his house). Could this be seen as abusing the position as DM to deliberately harm the party? (It's not as bad as having a dozen invisible, silent mages sneak into the PCs tent and cast quickened, maximised fireballs at them while they sleep, but still...) [The example]. This is why I want to try to catalyse my players into thinking a bit more. I think we spent about 20 minutes with the cleric discussing with another player how they should go about resurrecting their friend. "We should res him" "I only know rasie dead, he would lose a level" "That sucks, we don't want the monk to lose a level" "Yes" "But we really should res him" "Yes" "But raise dead will make him lose a level" "Yes... we don't really want that" "Well, I guess we will have to find some other way to res him" "Yes" "Hmmmmm" "Hmmmmmm" Me, after about 10 minutes of weeping inside: "You know, you could pay a higher-level cleric to true res him" Wisest of the wise WIS 18 cleric: "Oh yeah."
Sereno 06-15-06, 04:26 PM	How do you handle the PCs being lied to? Do you allow a PC sense motive check against the NPC's bluff skill? Do you ask the players to roll it, or roll it in secret? (to save them getting suspicious). What about an int 6 PC played by a canny player - while the player might realise that something's wrong, his character would not. What about an oblivious player running an int 22 mage? When I'm in the role of an NPC and I lie to the PCs, I just lie to the players. If they think I'm lying they ask for a Sense Motive, "Usually, do I think the bartender is lying?" I'll role the Bluff where they can't see it and ask them what their Sense Motive is and answer their question as the dice indicate; anything from "you don't think he's lying" to "he's clearly bull :censored: ing you" If they don't ask for the roll, they don't get one. Anyone can be suspicious by nature (you don't have to be smart to be paranoid) and unless they've put a lot of ranks in Sense Motive, they'll never know for sure when they're being lied to. As to your example, it it's obvious to me that the players are missing something that their PCs would not, I'll make a small suggestion, "Just 'cause you can't True Res. the monk doesn't mean no one can...." This is a game, after all, none of us would survive if we ever had to take the place of our characters! :)
KingMerv02 06-15-06, 04:35 PM	When the PC's want to sense motive, I require them to ask. Otherwise, I'd be rolling after every NPC statement. Always roll bluff and sense motive checks in secret. If a PC rolled for himself and got a natural 1, he couldn't help but think the hunch he gets is wrong. It would be hard not to metagame in a situation like that. Best to keep it secret. BTW the ability to sense lies is Wisdom based, not Intelligence based. The smartest people in the world can be duped into believing the dumbest things.
Stumm_Dolch 06-15-06, 04:46 PM	Bluff, Disguise, Forgery, (some)knowledge, search(when it involves traps or other sensitive results), sense motive and some survival checks should be made by the gm for the PCs. Sure it may slow down the game just a bit, but most of these instances involve the between the action points of the game. Doing so WILL result in a better overall sense of true role playing because the characters see their faults as a negative response, instead of a 1-5 on a d20. It's SO much more fun when a rogue says to the paladin "Nah man, looks safe to me (and really thinks it is) after a miserably failed search check on that series of carvings on the floor of the entrance to the really really dark corridor.
theblindman 06-15-06, 04:52 PM	DMs have two great powers that are very often over-looked - 1) they can control the flow of events and actions in combat; 2) they can control the flow of information to the players. This basically means that you don't always have to roll a die to see if the characters can figure it out. When the duplicitous merchant is giving the heroes directions to the "dragon" cave, you can just turn to the high-intelligence, maxed ranks in knowledge (local), wizard and say, "while he's speaking, you remember a story you heard recently in a bar about a group of adventurers wiping out a dragon nest in that area last month." Or you can roll dice to see if he knows, it doesn't really make a huge difference either way. But there are always other ways to check this kind of information - gather information checks, to see if the locals know anything about a dragon's cave nearby (they're fairly noticeable, I would think); or if he gives them a map, a forgery check to identify that it is in fact not 50 years old, but was just drawn yesterday; or a knowledge (nature) check to recognize that the area would make an odd habitat for kobolds; or a knowledge (arcana) check to recognize that the area would make an odd habitat for dragons. Or whatever baddies he says happen to reside in the dungeon. Anybody with these skills should get an automatic chance to second-guess said merchant. But yes, players generally don't second-guess information. The only way to have them start is to throw something wonky at them, like in your example. But don't do it too often, or they'll get paranoid. That's a very dangerous trap, that slows down the game immensely.