Bluff, Sense Motive and Mystery [Archive] - Wizards Community

Bluff, Sense Motive and Mystery [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
PaladinKD
12-14-04, 12:28 PM Situation:
The party bard is conversing with a local member of the thieves' guild. The guild member is a lowlife who is informing the character of a really easy way into the BBEG's lair. This way bypasses the BBEG's most difficult defenses. (This guy actually works for the BBEG and is setting up the party for an ambush.) He has a +10 bluff and rolls a 10 for a 20 total.

Bard player: "I try a sense motive to see if I believe this guy."

DM: (Part 1) Rolls the bard's Sense Motive +8 (-5 for the bard "wanting to believe" as per the bluff modifiers) for a total of 18. "This guy seems legit. You may have just found the break you were looking for."

OR

DM: (Part 2) Rolls the bard's Sense Motive +8 (-5 for the bard "wanting to believe" as per the bluff modifiers) for a total of 22. "This guy's lying to you. You're not sure why, but it's definitely a scam."

________________________

Either of the two above DM examples remove a great deal of the stress from the situation. By a simple roll of the dice, the player is either assured that the guildsman is lying or assured that he's not. Granted, the player must still consider the possibility that the rogue bluffed him successfully, but by rights he should ignore such thoughts, since his character was "bluffed."

Without this mechanic the bluff would be left up to the player to ponder. This might not accurately differentiate between player and character abilities, but it would keep the mystery in the scene.

As a DM, it's sometimes hard to challenge the players with a good bluff or misdirection, when their characters have maxed ranks in sense motive, etc. I don't want to cheat the players out of their rightfully bought character abilities, but I also would like to retain the suspense and mystery.

Do other DM's face the same problems?
How do you play it in your games?
CrippleMrOnion
12-14-04, 12:43 PM This can indeed be a problem with the skills system. However, the system is designed in that way for a reason, and to vastly change any part of the system can lead to more problems.

That being said, the solution is pretty simple. A failed bluff can result not only thinking that someone is telling the truth when they are lying, but it can also result in thinking someone is lying when telling the truth.

To adjudicate this, I'd roll a d20 and set the DC for the "truth" using only the NPCs charisma score. Then, have the PC roll their SM check, reversing the circumstantial modifiers since the goal is to see if the situation is true, not if the situation is false. Only the DM can know which to do. If the PC fails to meet the DC, they'll believe that the NPC is lying.

For example, if the NPC truthfully tells the PC, "the mayor is looking for you to congratulate you on your recent successes," and the PC believes that this is a lie, you roll a d20. Say you get a 14, and the NPCs charisma mod is +1. The DC, then is 15. The PC rolls a SM check and adds their skill mod for a total of 15, plus, they want to believe that it's true, so instead of subtracting five, you add five, for a total of 20.

Another example, an NPC tells the PC that there's an ancient gold dragon living underneath his house in an oven. The PC wants a bluff check. You roll your d20, get a 15, and add the NPC's charisma for a total of 19. The PC has no ranks in SM, no wisdom modifier, and no skill focus. He rolls for a total of 9. Being a good PC, he may want to believe the NPC, so add five, but the situation is highly unlikely, so subtract 20. The PC's total, then, is -6. He believes that the NPC is lying. He then has to do what he sees fit; he could investigate anyway, suspecting a trap, or he could just leave.

If your player's don't like it, remind them that being wrong is a hazard of trying to discern the truth all the time, sometimes you're wrong, sometimes you're right.

For the same end result, you could just add the modifiers to the bluff DC instead of to the SM roll. Same difference.
PaladinKD
12-14-04, 01:22 PM CrippleMrOnion,
I think I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure. You seem to be using the word "bluff" where "sense motive" should go in some of your sentences... unless I'm mistaken.

Can you describe how my sample situation would be altered by your method?
Someone
12-14-04, 01:36 PM In this situation, it would be an opposed roll (the informant's bluff vs. the bards sense motive). And preferably, both rolls should be done out of sight of the players (so they don't know how well they did).

Only if the SM check succeds by 11 or more is the bluff seen as an outright lie. Success by less than that would come across as "too good to be true" or "this is too easy" but still believeable. Its the difference between "doesn't believe it" and "asks too much of the person"- going off to some unknown side door and not knowing what to expect, when they know exactly what to expect by going in the front door.
Kyy'Dakh
12-14-04, 01:36 PM One quick solution that comes to mind is to roll both the player's sense motive check and NPC's bluff check in secret. The players won't know what the actual result is: You just need to make sure your RL self makes a good bluff roll.
PenderGrass
12-14-04, 02:31 PM ....I don't want to cheat the players out of their rightfully bought character abilities, but I also would like to retain the suspense and mystery.

Do other DM's face the same problems?
How do you play it in your games?
Good idea that - not wanting to cheat your Players out of their fairly bought Skills, Spells or Feats.

If you look at the wording in your first answer - wherein you use 'seems' and 'may' - but in the other answer you give very definitive answers.

Get more in the habit of answering everything with a general leaning towards the result.

Use the variant out of the DMG for Variable Success and Failures.

Practice how you describe things.

Observe yourself for signs of how you may be giving away information with nervous tics or certain tones, the more you watch yourself in the mirror the better you will be able to bluff any of your Players to the point where they have no idea how their die roll went.

Then the fun really begins. :dragon:

****
CrippleMrOnion
12-14-04, 02:32 PM I'm not suggesting a way to alter the bluff/sense motive interaction, I'm suggesting a way to make it less reliable and thus more 'realistic.' If you succeed, you know that the person is probably lying, and, if you succeed by enough, you know for a fact their lying. However, there's no penalty for doing SM over and over and over--not as a redo, that's not allowed, but just SMing everything that's said.

My method introduces a new mechanic into the game to make it possible for people who SM all the time to accidentally mistake a true statement for a lie, which certainly happens in the real world and would happen more to someone who constantly assumed everyone was lying (i.e., someone who SMed all the time).

I may have interposed bluff and SM... I'll check my old post. It doesn't change the SM/bluff dynamic, it just complicates it.
Dash Branaghan
12-14-04, 02:41 PM I deal with degrees of success and failure. Going back to your examples above, where the SM check fails or passes by only two, my response would be akin to:

Fail by two: He appears to be telling the truth; perhaps there might be something in it for him if you succeed.

Pass by two: He appears to be sincere about it. A little too sincere. If he's telling you the truth, he's not telling you all of it.

The failure or pass determines the comment warranted. If the failure is by five or more, then I just let them believe him. If they beat it by five or more, I let them know there is a bluff somewhere in there, but I never let them know what the bluff is specifically. So if we go to your example at the top, if the SM wins by five+ then...

"He might be telling you the truth, but it is edited. He's holding something back, or he might even be lying."

The joy of this is that the PCs will then have to figure out what he is saying all over again...loads of RP fun for me as the DM.

This still maintains the spirit of the pass/fail skill check, but allows for a greater sense of control over the degree of pass/fail.

Dash
alecthemad
12-14-04, 02:50 PM First, I just allow one check per conversation, none of this rolling all the time crap. It really interrupts the flow of role play.

Second, always roll the NPC's and the PC's checks yourself and hidden. Always state the result as if the character has full confidence in the answer. "He is definitely misleading you somehow." or "You are confident that he is not telling you any fibs."

That hidden check and confident/definite will still leave the players with an uncertainty about the result. They don't know what the NPC rolled or what they themselves rolled so the true answer could be quite different.

If multiple characters insist on rolling then do a seperate check for each character vs the NPC. Give the NPC a new roll for each PC. In this fashion they can't logically eliminate the false results as the NPC has different rolls each time.

If they complain about multiple rolls for the NPC give the example a DM running a game sometimes he focuses on different people during that talk. That represents his multiple roles as the point when speaks or looks directly to that character (even if the character is not actually participating) he is trying to convince that person.

An alternative is to only let one person assist the main character in the conversation giving that character +2 on his check. Allow no other checks.

edit: removed quote that had nothing to do with content of my post.
CrippleMrOnion
12-14-04, 02:56 PM I'm not sure why I was quoted in the above article, but assuming that the later statements were somehow argumentative to mine, I'll rebut here.

I'm not suggesting a ton of die rolling, just each time PC requests it. If it were to become a nuisance, then, like suggested, you can limit the rolls. I play with games who don't abuse these types of mechanics and don't want to interfere with the game. If your players are more immature, you may want to limit their rolls.

I also let the PCs roll on their own because I trust the PCs not to metagame. Once again, this relies on your PCs being honest, mature, dedicated gamers, not little punks with dice. If your PCs can't handle differentiating between in and out of game knowledge, then you absolutely MUST roll for them. I let my PCs roll their own spot, listen, SM, search, saves, etc. I'm lucky to have the players I've had, though, I admit.
PaladinKD
12-14-04, 03:48 PM Thanks for everyone's thoughts on this matter. What I'm taking away from this is the following...

1. "Honesty" rolls.
Knowing that Sense Motive rolls might mean mistaking a truth for a lie will add some of the mystery back in I think.

2. Use degrees of success and failure.
This will be a big help I think, and I'll definitely start trying to impliment this more often.

3. Roll both rolls in private.
I do this already and despite thoughts on the maturity of players, this just keeps the suspense IMO. I trust my players, I would just rather them not be so sure that something isn't lurking in the dark simply because they rolled a 42 on their listen and a 38 on their spot.

Once again thanks, and keep any new ideas coming.
OmiKapSi
12-14-04, 05:37 PM A couple of things I've considered doing: (to be honest, I have yet to implement either of these much, since they just don't seem to come up much in the games that I run.)

Die roll inversion: At certain key points, I'll inform the player that I may invert their die roll, and note the situation and whether or not I'm inverting the roll. Inverting a roll is simply subtracting the result of the roll from 21. This means that a player only knows if their skill check was 'average' or really good/really poor, and reduces metagaming. Thus, they have to rely on my description more than whether or not they got a 'good/bad roll'. And afterwards they can find out how the numbers went.

This means that they will be less likely to mistrust someone I've just told them is telling the truth, since the die roll was a 3.

As for sense motive when someone is telling the truth:
I make a diplomacy check for the PC/NPC who is making the statement (NPCs can be untrusting too). However, the diplomacy modifier is subtracted from the die roll, not added. Condional modifiers, similar to the standard bluff modifiers, are applied to the DC. Then the sense motive check is made, using the modified DC.

This covers those situations where someone is trying to tell someone else something that is true, but the other person just doesn't want to accept it.

I usually look at Bluff as telling lies well, and Diplomacy as representing truth well. Sense Motive is used to determine which skill is being used. :) Note that it's possible for someone to believe that you believe what you are saying, but also decide that you have been mislead.

As for the other aspect, in terms of building intensity, only to have it all go away with a roll of a die, I never have problems with this. My players never trust me to tell them everything. This is an attitude that I encourage. :devil:
Nom
12-14-04, 09:20 PM My techniques:

Firstly, distinguish between the situation where a subject is trying to convince you that they are telling the truth (Bluff) and simply making a statement. Note that the hearer cannot tell the difference between these two without a Sense Motive check.

If the subject is merely making a statement, the Sense Motive DC is 10, and a success will reveal "you're pretty sure he's telling the truth". Beating DC 15 will result in more confidence and perhaps some additional nuances. Failing will result in "you can't tell", unless it's a failure by more than 5 in which case I will provide misinformation.

If the subject is attempting to present themselves as truthful then Bluff is used, regardless of whether they are telling the truth or lying. Again, a Sense Motive check is compared to the Bluff check DC.

For a lying subject:
DC +5: You're pretty sure he's lying (insert extra info).
DC: Something doesn't sit right.
DC -5: He seems to be telling the truth.
less: He's being completely genuine with you.

For a truthful subject:
DC +5: He's trying too hard, but (insert extra info).
DC: Something doesn't sit right.
DC -5: He seems to be telling the truth.
less: He's being completely genuine with you.

My rationale is that a subject that's trying to be convincing can actually be less convincing than one who is simply being honest - a pleading subject can actually come off looking like as a scammer.

Note: in the above, 'truth' and 'lying' are defined relative to the subject. A subject may make a statement that is totally false in an absolute sense, but if he believes it to be true then he is "telling the truth".

Note that Bluff is about convincing people that you're genuine. If you actually want to convince them to do something of any reasonable duration, you need to use Diplomacy to sway their attitude. I typically give Diplomacy checks a static DC based on circumstances and personality (ie not opposed checks), though in negotiations I'll use an opposed Diplomacy check to see who gets the best 'deal' for their side.

When used by NPCs against PCs, I use the results of diplomacy checks to alter the PCs perceptions. For example, he seems friendly vs he seems uncouth.

Some examples of Buff and Diplomacy:
High bluff, high diplomacy: Genuine, good leader or friend.
High bluff, low diplomacy: Genuine but not a good leader or negotiator.
Low bluff, high diplomacy: Straighforward (lies badly), but good leader or friend.
Low bluff, low diplomacy: Straightforward, poor leader / negotiator.

Bluff is about convincing people you are truthful, and can also be used to fake them out. Diplomacy is about getting people on-side and loyal. A successful Bluff check can make someone do what you want for the 20 seconds it takes you to achieve your goal. A successful Diplomacy check can make them your ally for life.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
PaladinKD 12-14-04, 12:28 PM	Situation: The party bard is conversing with a local member of the thieves' guild. The guild member is a lowlife who is informing the character of a really easy way into the BBEG's lair. This way bypasses the BBEG's most difficult defenses. (This guy actually works for the BBEG and is setting up the party for an ambush.) He has a +10 bluff and rolls a 10 for a 20 total. Bard player: "I try a sense motive to see if I believe this guy." DM: (Part 1) Rolls the bard's Sense Motive +8 (-5 for the bard "wanting to believe" as per the bluff modifiers) for a total of 18. "This guy seems legit. You may have just found the break you were looking for." OR DM: (Part 2) Rolls the bard's Sense Motive +8 (-5 for the bard "wanting to believe" as per the bluff modifiers) for a total of 22. "This guy's lying to you. You're not sure why, but it's definitely a scam." ________________________ Either of the two above DM examples remove a great deal of the stress from the situation. By a simple roll of the dice, the player is either assured that the guildsman is lying or assured that he's not. Granted, the player must still consider the possibility that the rogue bluffed him successfully, but by rights he should ignore such thoughts, since his character was "bluffed." Without this mechanic the bluff would be left up to the player to ponder. This might not accurately differentiate between player and character abilities, but it would keep the mystery in the scene. As a DM, it's sometimes hard to challenge the players with a good bluff or misdirection, when their characters have maxed ranks in sense motive, etc. I don't want to cheat the players out of their rightfully bought character abilities, but I also would like to retain the suspense and mystery. Do other DM's face the same problems? How do you play it in your games?
CrippleMrOnion 12-14-04, 12:43 PM	This can indeed be a problem with the skills system. However, the system is designed in that way for a reason, and to vastly change any part of the system can lead to more problems. That being said, the solution is pretty simple. A failed bluff can result not only thinking that someone is telling the truth when they are lying, but it can also result in thinking someone is lying when telling the truth. To adjudicate this, I'd roll a d20 and set the DC for the "truth" using only the NPCs charisma score. Then, have the PC roll their SM check, reversing the circumstantial modifiers since the goal is to see if the situation is true, not if the situation is false. Only the DM can know which to do. If the PC fails to meet the DC, they'll believe that the NPC is lying. For example, if the NPC truthfully tells the PC, "the mayor is looking for you to congratulate you on your recent successes," and the PC believes that this is a lie, you roll a d20. Say you get a 14, and the NPCs charisma mod is +1. The DC, then is 15. The PC rolls a SM check and adds their skill mod for a total of 15, plus, they want to believe that it's true, so instead of subtracting five, you add five, for a total of 20. Another example, an NPC tells the PC that there's an ancient gold dragon living underneath his house in an oven. The PC wants a bluff check. You roll your d20, get a 15, and add the NPC's charisma for a total of 19. The PC has no ranks in SM, no wisdom modifier, and no skill focus. He rolls for a total of 9. Being a good PC, he may want to believe the NPC, so add five, but the situation is highly unlikely, so subtract 20. The PC's total, then, is -6. He believes that the NPC is lying. He then has to do what he sees fit; he could investigate anyway, suspecting a trap, or he could just leave. If your player's don't like it, remind them that being wrong is a hazard of trying to discern the truth all the time, sometimes you're wrong, sometimes you're right. For the same end result, you could just add the modifiers to the bluff DC instead of to the SM roll. Same difference.
PaladinKD 12-14-04, 01:22 PM	CrippleMrOnion, I think I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure. You seem to be using the word "bluff" where "sense motive" should go in some of your sentences... unless I'm mistaken. Can you describe how my sample situation would be altered by your method?
Someone 12-14-04, 01:36 PM	In this situation, it would be an opposed roll (the informant's bluff vs. the bards sense motive). And preferably, both rolls should be done out of sight of the players (so they don't know how well they did). Only if the SM check succeds by 11 or more is the bluff seen as an outright lie. Success by less than that would come across as "too good to be true" or "this is too easy" but still believeable. Its the difference between "doesn't believe it" and "asks too much of the person"- going off to some unknown side door and not knowing what to expect, when they know exactly what to expect by going in the front door.
Kyy'Dakh 12-14-04, 01:36 PM	One quick solution that comes to mind is to roll both the player's sense motive check and NPC's bluff check in secret. The players won't know what the actual result is: You just need to make sure your RL self makes a good bluff roll.
PenderGrass 12-14-04, 02:31 PM	....I don't want to cheat the players out of their rightfully bought character abilities, but I also would like to retain the suspense and mystery. Do other DM's face the same problems? How do you play it in your games? Good idea that - not wanting to cheat your Players out of their fairly bought Skills, Spells or Feats. If you look at the wording in your first answer - wherein you use 'seems' and 'may' - but in the other answer you give very definitive answers. Get more in the habit of answering everything with a general leaning towards the result. Use the variant out of the DMG for Variable Success and Failures. Practice how you describe things. Observe yourself for signs of how you may be giving away information with nervous tics or certain tones, the more you watch yourself in the mirror the better you will be able to bluff any of your Players to the point where they have no idea how their die roll went. Then the fun really begins. :dragon: ****
CrippleMrOnion 12-14-04, 02:32 PM	I'm not suggesting a way to alter the bluff/sense motive interaction, I'm suggesting a way to make it less reliable and thus more 'realistic.' If you succeed, you know that the person is probably lying, and, if you succeed by enough, you know for a fact their lying. However, there's no penalty for doing SM over and over and over--not as a redo, that's not allowed, but just SMing everything that's said. My method introduces a new mechanic into the game to make it possible for people who SM all the time to accidentally mistake a true statement for a lie, which certainly happens in the real world and would happen more to someone who constantly assumed everyone was lying (i.e., someone who SMed all the time). I may have interposed bluff and SM... I'll check my old post. It doesn't change the SM/bluff dynamic, it just complicates it.
Dash Branaghan 12-14-04, 02:41 PM	I deal with degrees of success and failure. Going back to your examples above, where the SM check fails or passes by only two, my response would be akin to: Fail by two: He appears to be telling the truth; perhaps there might be something in it for him if you succeed. Pass by two: He appears to be sincere about it. A little too sincere. If he's telling you the truth, he's not telling you all of it. The failure or pass determines the comment warranted. If the failure is by five or more, then I just let them believe him. If they beat it by five or more, I let them know there is a bluff somewhere in there, but I never let them know what the bluff is specifically. So if we go to your example at the top, if the SM wins by five+ then... "He might be telling you the truth, but it is edited. He's holding something back, or he might even be lying." The joy of this is that the PCs will then have to figure out what he is saying all over again...loads of RP fun for me as the DM. This still maintains the spirit of the pass/fail skill check, but allows for a greater sense of control over the degree of pass/fail. Dash
alecthemad 12-14-04, 02:50 PM	First, I just allow one check per conversation, none of this rolling all the time crap. It really interrupts the flow of role play. Second, always roll the NPC's and the PC's checks yourself and hidden. Always state the result as if the character has full confidence in the answer. "He is definitely misleading you somehow." or "You are confident that he is not telling you any fibs." That hidden check and confident/definite will still leave the players with an uncertainty about the result. They don't know what the NPC rolled or what they themselves rolled so the true answer could be quite different. If multiple characters insist on rolling then do a seperate check for each character vs the NPC. Give the NPC a new roll for each PC. In this fashion they can't logically eliminate the false results as the NPC has different rolls each time. If they complain about multiple rolls for the NPC give the example a DM running a game sometimes he focuses on different people during that talk. That represents his multiple roles as the point when speaks or looks directly to that character (even if the character is not actually participating) he is trying to convince that person. An alternative is to only let one person assist the main character in the conversation giving that character +2 on his check. Allow no other checks. edit: removed quote that had nothing to do with content of my post.
CrippleMrOnion 12-14-04, 02:56 PM	I'm not sure why I was quoted in the above article, but assuming that the later statements were somehow argumentative to mine, I'll rebut here. I'm not suggesting a ton of die rolling, just each time PC requests it. If it were to become a nuisance, then, like suggested, you can limit the rolls. I play with games who don't abuse these types of mechanics and don't want to interfere with the game. If your players are more immature, you may want to limit their rolls. I also let the PCs roll on their own because I trust the PCs not to metagame. Once again, this relies on your PCs being honest, mature, dedicated gamers, not little punks with dice. If your PCs can't handle differentiating between in and out of game knowledge, then you absolutely MUST roll for them. I let my PCs roll their own spot, listen, SM, search, saves, etc. I'm lucky to have the players I've had, though, I admit.
PaladinKD 12-14-04, 03:48 PM	Thanks for everyone's thoughts on this matter. What I'm taking away from this is the following... 1. "Honesty" rolls. Knowing that Sense Motive rolls might mean mistaking a truth for a lie will add some of the mystery back in I think. 2. Use degrees of success and failure. This will be a big help I think, and I'll definitely start trying to impliment this more often. 3. Roll both rolls in private. I do this already and despite thoughts on the maturity of players, this just keeps the suspense IMO. I trust my players, I would just rather them not be so sure that something isn't lurking in the dark simply because they rolled a 42 on their listen and a 38 on their spot. Once again thanks, and keep any new ideas coming.
OmiKapSi 12-14-04, 05:37 PM	A couple of things I've considered doing: (to be honest, I have yet to implement either of these much, since they just don't seem to come up much in the games that I run.) Die roll inversion: At certain key points, I'll inform the player that I may invert their die roll, and note the situation and whether or not I'm inverting the roll. Inverting a roll is simply subtracting the result of the roll from 21. This means that a player only knows if their skill check was 'average' or really good/really poor, and reduces metagaming. Thus, they have to rely on my description more than whether or not they got a 'good/bad roll'. And afterwards they can find out how the numbers went. This means that they will be less likely to mistrust someone I've just told them is telling the truth, since the die roll was a 3. As for sense motive when someone is telling the truth: I make a diplomacy check for the PC/NPC who is making the statement (NPCs can be untrusting too). However, the diplomacy modifier is subtracted from the die roll, not added. Condional modifiers, similar to the standard bluff modifiers, are applied to the DC. Then the sense motive check is made, using the modified DC. This covers those situations where someone is trying to tell someone else something that is true, but the other person just doesn't want to accept it. I usually look at Bluff as telling lies well, and Diplomacy as representing truth well. Sense Motive is used to determine which skill is being used. :) Note that it's possible for someone to believe that you believe what you are saying, but also decide that you have been mislead. As for the other aspect, in terms of building intensity, only to have it all go away with a roll of a die, I never have problems with this. My players never trust me to tell them everything. This is an attitude that I encourage. :devil:
Nom 12-14-04, 09:20 PM	My techniques: Firstly, distinguish between the situation where a subject is trying to convince you that they are telling the truth (Bluff) and simply making a statement. Note that the hearer cannot tell the difference between these two without a Sense Motive check. If the subject is merely making a statement, the Sense Motive DC is 10, and a success will reveal "you're pretty sure he's telling the truth". Beating DC 15 will result in more confidence and perhaps some additional nuances. Failing will result in "you can't tell", unless it's a failure by more than 5 in which case I will provide misinformation. If the subject is attempting to present themselves as truthful then Bluff is used, regardless of whether they are telling the truth or lying. Again, a Sense Motive check is compared to the Bluff check DC. For a lying subject: DC +5: You're pretty sure he's lying (insert extra info). DC: Something doesn't sit right. DC -5: He seems to be telling the truth. less: He's being completely genuine with you. For a truthful subject: DC +5: He's trying too hard, but (insert extra info). DC: Something doesn't sit right. DC -5: He seems to be telling the truth. less: He's being completely genuine with you. My rationale is that a subject that's trying to be convincing can actually be less convincing than one who is simply being honest - a pleading subject can actually come off looking like as a scammer. Note: in the above, 'truth' and 'lying' are defined relative to the subject. A subject may make a statement that is totally false in an absolute sense, but if he believes it to be true then he is "telling the truth". Note that Bluff is about convincing people that you're genuine. If you actually want to convince them to do something of any reasonable duration, you need to use Diplomacy to sway their attitude. I typically give Diplomacy checks a static DC based on circumstances and personality (ie not opposed checks), though in negotiations I'll use an opposed Diplomacy check to see who gets the best 'deal' for their side. When used by NPCs against PCs, I use the results of diplomacy checks to alter the PCs perceptions. For example, he seems friendly vs he seems uncouth. Some examples of Buff and Diplomacy: High bluff, high diplomacy: Genuine, good leader or friend. High bluff, low diplomacy: Genuine but not a good leader or negotiator. Low bluff, high diplomacy: Straighforward (lies badly), but good leader or friend. Low bluff, low diplomacy: Straightforward, poor leader / negotiator. Bluff is about convincing people you are truthful, and can also be used to fake them out. Diplomacy is about getting people on-side and loyal. A successful Bluff check can make someone do what you want for the 20 seconds it takes you to achieve your goal. A successful Diplomacy check can make them your ally for life.