Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Othello_Thorngage 11-06-07, 01:52 PM	i recently created an NPC who has very high charisma and is very "sly" he uses trickery and lies to get his way, and hes very good at it. so i was wondering how does bluffing to PCs work, by that i mean do i roll bluff checks and sense motive checks and tell them the lie if they fail and tell them that he is lying if they beat his check? for example: if there is a magic sword in a cave up north. and they ask him "were is the magic sword" and he dosent want to tell the truth would i roll a bluff check and sense motive checks for them and if they fail would he say "it is far south of hear" but if they beat his check, (wich would be nearly impossible because he has a really high bluff modifier) would i tell them that he is lying or somthing like that.:confused: :confused: :confused:
robot_flux 11-06-07, 02:21 PM	Don't roll anything. Just let the NPC say "it's in the far side" or where-ever. If the PCs believe he is lying (and the players suspect him of that), let them roll for sense motive against his bluff. Should they fail, you say "he talks with honesty to you" should the succees, you go something like "you suspect he might not tell you the whole truth" If you roll when it is "not necessary", the players can't help metagaming right there. Nope, it's impossible.
Othello_Thorngage 11-06-07, 02:32 PM	Thank you very much, that problem has been eating at me for several days now. i guess i do have a tendency to do unneccasary rolls.......:D :D :D
RobbyPants 11-06-07, 02:37 PM	That, and the skills section specifically mentions that you don't ever use social skills (like Bluff and Diplomacy) aginast PCs. They're exempt from those rules. Otherwise, you could build some type of Diplomacy-bot to change the PC's attitudes, effectively removing decision making from the players.
Othello_Thorngage 11-06-07, 02:45 PM	thanks alot to everyone who helped me with this subject.
Teydyn 11-06-07, 02:58 PM	you don't ever use social skills (like Bluff and Diplomacy) against PCs. So the lvl 1 Commoner with no Ranks in Bluff can always Bluff the lvl 20 Cleric with a Sense Motiv modifier of +40 because the GM is good at bluffing? Have the modifiers of your PCs at hand and roll it (both behind the screen). Just keep rolling when he doesnt lie, roll sometimes when they walk down a corridor and nothing is going to happen (well, YOU know that). Bluff is a special case. Dont Bluff to make the PCs do something they dont want to. Bluff to tell convincing lies.
Finarin Panjoro 11-06-07, 03:00 PM	Hold the phone. The rules only specifically prevent the use of Diplomacy against PCs. Diplomay explicitly applies only to NPCs, niether Intimidate or Bluff have that restriction. That being said I would never use Intimidate to force a PC to do something (that just wouldn't be fun and the player could rightly feel that I'm forcing their character to be a coward). But Bluff is another story. Sense Motive is a reactive opposed skill just like Spot or Listen. Whenever an NPC lies to the party they should automatically get a Sense Motive check (secretly rolled by the DM). IF the check beats the bluff then the DM tells them that the NPC is lying. IF the check doesn't beat the bluff then PCs can still choose not to believe the NPC. They are not required to believe him, they just don't know for sure that he's lying (like they would if the Sense Motive succeeded). Check: A Bluff check is opposed by the target’s Sense Motive check. See the accompanying table for examples of different kinds of bluffs and the modifier to the target’s Sense Motive check for each one. There doesn't seem to be much gray area here to me. If the NPC is bluffing (ie. trying to get them to believe something untrue) then that IS opposed by Sense Motive. Requiring the PC to ask for a Sense Motive check when being bluffed is like requiring him to ask for a Spot check just before an ambush occurs. What's the point of the skill if you have to know you're being bluffed in order to try and determine if you're being bluffed. Requiring a player to ask for a Sense Motive check is a sure-fire way to have them request one every time an NPC opens his mouth. Trust me this will slow down the game and get seriously annoying really fast. In many cases it is even possible to roll a PC's Sense Motive check in advance (if you know that an NPC is going to lie to them). Then you can just incorporate the result into the encounter as it is roleplayed.
albinomonkeyking 11-06-07, 03:12 PM	Diplomacy and Intimidate are the skills you don't use on PCs, as it will force them to play their character in a certain way. Aside from that, as was suggested I would have them roll a number of rolls (10-20) before the session. Those rolls are used for any checks that they won't 'know' if they fail it. So you will need to write down appropriate skills. That is for sense motive, spot, that sort of thing. If you ask a player to make a spot, unless you do it all the time, their character will suddenly be suspicious when he shouldn't be, the same for bluff. I highly advise you use this method.
Phrennzy 11-06-07, 03:16 PM	Hold the phone. The rules only specifically prevent the use of Diplomacy against PCs. Diplomay explicitly applies only to NPCs, niether Intimidate or Bluff have that restriction. That being said I would never use Intimidate to force a PC to do something (that just wouldn't be fun and the player could rightly feel that I'm forcing their character to be a coward). But Bluff is another story. Sense Motive is a reactive opposed skill just like Spot or Listen. Whenever an NPC lies to the party they should automatically get a Sense Motive check (secretly rolled by the DM). IF the check beats the bluff then the DM tells them that the NPC is lying. IF the check doesn't beat the bluff then PCs can still choose not to believe the NPC. They are not required to believe him, they just don't know for sure that he's lying (like they would if the Sense Motive succeeded). There doesn't seem to be much gray area here to me. If the NPC is bluffing (ie. trying to get them to believe something untrue) then that IS opposed by Sense Motive. Requiring the PC to ask for a Sense Motive check when being bluffed is like requiring him to ask for a Spot check just before an ambush occurs. What's the point of the skill if you have to know you're being bluffed in order to try and determine if you're being bluffed. Requiring a player to ask for a Sense Motive check is a sure-fire way to have them request one every time an NPC opens his mouth. Trust me this will slow down the game and get seriously annoying really fast. In many cases it is even possible to roll a PC's Sense Motive check in advance (if you know that an NPC is going to lie to them). Then you can just incorporate the result into the encounter as it is roleplayed. Rather than rolling each time the NPC lies, couldn't you just assume the PC is taking 10 on the Sense Motive roll? That way there are no dice involved. If the PC decides to actively ask for a Sense Motive check, it can be rolled.
RobbyPants 11-06-07, 03:19 PM	I was wrong about the Bluff. Still, what I said about Diplomacy still stands. It does state that you can only use it to influence NPC attitudes. That is the way it could be abused against the PCs.
Finarin Panjoro 11-06-07, 04:23 PM	Rather than rolling each time the NPC lies, couldn't you just assume the PC is taking 10 on the Sense Motive roll? That way there are no dice involved. If the PC decides to actively ask for a Sense Motive check, it can be rolled. I actually tend to do it the other way around. I assume the NPC is taking 10 on the Bluff. I prefer for success or failure to be in the hands of the PC, even if I'm rolling for them. I actually do this for almost all opposed skill checks. It's no fun for a player to rejoice at rolling a 19 on their Spot check and then fail it because I rolled a 20 on my Hide. It's also more consistent since the players know that a high roll is always more likely to pay off. So IMC most opposed skill checks have a DC of 10+npc skill modifier. (This applies to things like Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen, Bluff, Sense Motive, Use Rope, Escape Artist, etc.) This also saves a lot of rolling on the DMs part and thus speeds up play.
BW0222 11-06-07, 08:21 PM	Folks, Although bluff doesn't state that it can't be used against PCs, it is unrealistic to expect that it can be. If the player doesn't beleive a story, and rolls low, it is unrealistic to expect the player will just accept that and roleplay believing it. More likely, the player will roleplay continuing to question the person, poke holes in his story, stay behind him when checking things out, have his weapons out, etc., etc. Unless you are willing to take control of the PC and make him react as you think he should, the player is going to claim free will and react trustingly. IMO, the DM should (secretly) role the dice and do his or her best to come up with a story/line based on the result. If the commoner gets a 4 on the bluff check, the story should be fairly see through. "Say there is an invisible dragon behind me, please give me 50gp or he is going to kill me." If he gets a 19, it should be pretty good. "Say, I'm terribly sorry, but I'm in real trouble here. My sister is about to get married and I'm here to buy some silk for her weeding dress. I was in the pub a little while ago, and was pick pocketted. I'm willing to give pay you back, could you please loan my the money. I'll even work carrying stuff, showing you around town, telling you wish taverns to stay out of and running errands for you." If a PC manages to beat him, toss in something which only that player noices. If the rolls are insane... and you don't feel you can roleplay say a 48 bluff check, then meta-game the result while saying out of character. A fairly well dressed man approaches you with a long tail about a secret treasure cave located in the Rarga Hills. You spend several minutes questioning him about how he came across the map and run into several groups of orcs as he approached the cave. He answers all your questions in detail, but wants 50gp for the map." i.e. don't go in character where you have to speak and answer individual questions. Player then don't have as much of a chance to not believe what he was saying or to counter with individual questions.
albinomonkeyking 11-06-07, 10:47 PM	Folks, Although bluff doesn't state that it can't be used against PCs, it is unrealistic to expect that it can be. If the player doesn't beleive a story, and rolls low, it is unrealistic to expect the player will just accept that and roleplay believing it. More likely, the player will roleplay continuing to question the person, poke holes in his story, stay behind him when checking things out, have his weapons out, etc., etc. Unless you are willing to take control of the PC and make him react as you think he should, the player is going to claim free will and react trustingly. IMO, the DM should (secretly) role the dice and do his or her best to come up with a story/line based on the result. If the commoner gets a 4 on the bluff check, the story should be fairly see through. "Say there is an invisible dragon behind me, please give me 50gp or he is going to kill me." If he gets a 19, it should be pretty good. "Say, I'm terribly sorry, but I'm in real trouble here. My sister is about to get married and I'm here to buy some silk for her weeding dress. I was in the pub a little while ago, and was pick pocketted. I'm willing to give pay you back, could you please loan my the money. I'll even work carrying stuff, showing you around town, telling you wish taverns to stay out of and running errands for you." If a PC manages to beat him, toss in something which only that player noices. If the rolls are insane... and you don't feel you can roleplay say a 48 bluff check, then meta-game the result while saying out of character. A fairly well dressed man approaches you with a long tail about a secret treasure cave located in the Rarga Hills. You spend several minutes questioning him about how he came across the map and run into several groups of orcs as he approached the cave. He answers all your questions in detail, but wants 50gp for the map." i.e. don't go in character where you have to speak and answer individual questions. Player then don't have as much of a chance to not believe what he was saying or to counter with individual questions. Well, of course. I keep the mechanics aspect in for PC use (i.e., the PCs want to bluff someone but aren't that good at making up lies, that's fine). When I am playing an NPC I have them lie and roll accordingly. If the players don't believe it no matter the result (and it isn't because of metagaming) then I accept it. Despite what the skill descriptions say, I play in a world where individuals are still ruled by their tendencies. A hardcore racist innkeeper won't give in to the diplomacy of the orc and vice-versa with players. Although, with a good enough bluff and diplomacy and good roleplaying I allow most things that aren't explained simply by, 'I have a mind-affecting diplomacy'.
BW0222 11-07-07, 03:55 AM	albinomonkeyking, Well, of course. I keep the mechanics aspect in for PC use (i.e., the PCs want to bluff someone but aren't that good at making up lies, that's fine). Agreed. If the PCs are good at roleplaying you let them roleplay their results. Good players should roleplay a bad job if they roll low and a good job if they roll high. Give them XP based on it. However, at some point when they get 30, 40, or 50+ on the die roll, most folks can't roleplay a Churchhill or Lincon speach of the tops of their heads. When I am playing an NPC I have them lie and roll accordingly. If the players don't believe it no matter the result (and it isn't because of metagaming) then I accept it. You can reward XP to those who do roleplay their failures well. However, you could also, roll for them secretly (so they are much less certain that they failed), or metagame it (such that you aren't speaking in character and relying on your ability to spin such a good tale). Despite what the skill descriptions say, I play in a world where individuals are still ruled by their tendencies. A hardcore racist innkeeper won't give in to the diplomacy of the orc and vice-versa with players. Although, with a good enough bluff and diplomacy and good roleplaying I allow most things that aren't explained simply by, 'I have a mind-affecting diplomacy'. No need. The dice won't give you those kind of results as long as your follow the rules. First, you need a minute to make a normal diplomacy check (or at least a full round at -20). Nothing says a racist has to let you talk for a minute. He can yell at you, walk way, order you out, stop listening, attack, etc. Second, the DM is always free to impose a circumstance penalty. A -10, on top of the rushed check. Third, the DM can always rule that such behavior is making him move from unfriendly to hostile by itself. For example: PC: "Sir, I hear that..." Racist: "I hate half-orcs. Get out now." PC: "Well, I know I'm a ..." Racist: "You have three seconds." PC: "Ok, but you know..." Racist: "Three" PC: "But..." Racist: "Two" PC: "Say all we..." Racist: "One" Out of character... the racist is unfriendly. The PC is talking. The racist wants the PCs out. The racist goes from unfriendly to hostile because they PC isn't getting out. They PC doesn't get a diplomacy check, since the racist isn't listening to him, giving him time to talk, and is continuously interupting (counting down). PC doesn't get a one minute (or even a six seconds) to complete his action. Even if he did get six seconds, the check is at -20 (rushed), with a -10 circumstance bonus since the PC is a half-orc, and the racist is hostile. If the PC manages a 50 or something (less the 30), he gets the racist back to unfriendly -- i.e. still asking him to leave, but not attacking. Which is just exactly where he started. The rules already make folks immune to bluff or diplomacy if you simple don't listen to them.
Finarin Panjoro 11-07-07, 09:54 AM	Bluff never forces a PC to believe anything, nor does it force an NPC to react in a specific way. It is not a charm spell. If an NPC successfully bluffs a PC the only thing that means is that the PC doesn't know for certain that he's lying. The PC can react anyway that they want to what was said including not believing him anyway. A failed Sense Motive check does not mandate that you believe what was said (the Bluff) it just means you don't know you're being lied too. A successful Sense Motive check has me tell the player "He's lying to you about XYZ". A failed Sense Motive check means I don't tell the player anything, they just react to what was said by the NPC however they want. If they ask if the NPC is lying then on a failed Sense Motive check the answer is "you can't tell." not, "you believe him." Whether they believe him or not is entirely up to the PCs. Likewise a successfully bluffed NPC may not react the way the PC wants him to even if he does believe the bluff. I may bluff a guard into believing that I'm on a secret mission for the king and that I need to speak with him. I might then request that he let me enter the castle to do so (this would be a Diplomacy check I think), but rather than let me pass he may summon the king to the gate or take me under guard to the king rather than just letting me stroll through like I hoped.
Finarin Panjoro 11-07-07, 10:36 AM	Here's an example of how I use Bluff and Sense Motive when the PCs are being bluffed. This is an actual example from one of our recent games. The PCs were sent to buy a map for the Captain of their ship. They were supposed to meet the seller at a temple at a specific time for the sale. The seller never showed. After waiting an hour they decided to leave. They noticed they were being followed by someone from the temple. They headed into an alley to try to confront their pursuer. However before they had the chance to confront him their pursuer was knifed in the back by a third party. This third party then approached the players and tried to sell them the map. He bluffed (check result: 16) that the man he had killed was trying to get the map and that the price had gone up because of the danger involved. I rolled a Sense Motive for the players ahead of time (Sense Motive result 20) so I immediately stated "He's lying about the man trying to get the map". The player's asked "What makes you think this man wanted the map?" The man replied "There was an attempt on my life yesterday and this fellow was with them (Bluff result: 12)" He then approached the corpse and started searching him ,he tried to plant a dagger on the body (Sleight of Hand result: 8) and raised it to show to the PCs as proof. They got a 16 on their Sense Motive and a 22 on their Spot check, so I said "He's lying about being attacked yesterday and about this man being involved, as he's searching the body you see him plant a dagger which he then takes out and shows to you as though he found it on the body". At this point the sorceror decided she'd had enough. We rolled initiative, she won, and successfully cast Charm Person on the Seller. Once charmed they won the opposed charisma check to get him to explain what was going on. He had hired the dead man to follow the players so that he could make it appear that the map was being sought after by others, then he murdered him, just to drive the price up. The chaotic good PCs had heard enough and toasted the guy on the spot. Note that I never told the players how to react. Had their Sense Motive checks failed the scene would have played out nearly the same way except that I would not have included the sentences that revealed that he was lying (the two sentences in italics). Most likely the players would have believed him and bought the map at a higher price. But not necessarily. The players might still have noticed him planting the dagger on the dead guy (if they failed all the Sense Motive checks, but made the Spot check). That might have been enough to bring the sorceror to the conclusion that she wanted more info and led to the same outcome. That is how I use Bluff against PCs.