Bluffing with PCs [Archive] - Wizards Community

Bluffing with PCs [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Korlall
10-18-07, 12:45 AM The skills Bluff and Sense motive are mainly used with a NPC in which the PC want to Bluff out some NPC.
So if they want the guard to believe they INDEED invited to the ballroom, they use bluff skill against the guard sense motive...

What if an NPC hires the PCs to get an item back from some merchant claiming that emrchant stole it from him (which would be false)...

Does I make the NPC use Bluff versus the PC Sense Motive ??? I guess yes... the thing if If the PCs fail to uncover the bluff, players still know that this is a lie... I know that character don't know what the players are knowing... but thiss, the feeling about knowning it is still bad. I want the players to be surprised to discover it... and not "finally, our characters discovered what we players figured out 2 hours ago..."
Am I better to personnaly try out to bluff the players and not the NPC bluffing the PCs ?
And what if a PC try to Bluff out another PC ???

I had the idea of letting the conversation go on and if some player go with "I feel bad about this guy", I just make the Bluff and Sense Motive secretly, then annonce if the character belive or not... that is, since the player cannot see if he beated the bluff rolls, telling him "you don't feel that this dude is lying" could mean he didn't beated the roll or he did beated it but there was no lie at all....

What you guys think ?
Kouk
10-18-07, 12:55 AM Normally, I have a player call for his own Sense Motive check, which signifies he is doubting what is being said. Then he rolls a Sense Motive, I roll a Bluff check (regardless of whether a lie was being told) and if their roll beats a genuine Bluff then I tell them they don't trust the guy. If they fail their roll or it wasn't a lie, then they didn't find reason to disbelieve him. I let a single roll apply to most of a conversation to minimize rolls unless the players want to keep at it.

The choice is basically a preference though, whether you want to call for Sense Motive checks, or always roll for Bluffs even when there are no lies being told, etc.

Personally, I don't want to roll every time I have an NPC talk to them (which would be either an actual Bluff roll or just a roll that I always make so the players are not automatically suspicious) so I have the players call for opposed checks when they think something is fishy. Try to RP your lies as best you can, and that can cause the players to ask for Sense Motive.
I find this simplest and the least rolling.

Some people prefer to roll Bluffs in advance for each NPC, and then secretly roll a Sense Motive check for the players and then just "inform" the player when he thinks something is wrong.
Nor'Morgwae
10-18-07, 01:06 AM If your players are okay with it then I would just use 10+their sense motive bonus as the DC for the NPC's bluff check. This keeps things moving and you don't have to tip your hand to the players every time he bluffs.

If they don't like this solution then at the beginning of each session or encounter (depending on how much bluffing usually occurs) have each player roll 5 sense motive checks and record them. Then, when you need the sense motive rolls, they are right their and you don't have to roll as many dice (which can clue the players into the fact that something is amiss).

I know DMs who do the latter with a lot of secret rolls.
Charlym_Zuardan
10-18-07, 04:03 PM i agree with letting the players call thier own sense motive checks. if they arent suspicious to begin with, then they wont be focusing on the NPC's body language, tone of voice, etc. as intently as they would be if they suspect him of lying. So if they are just having a normal conversation and dont ask to roll a sense motive, i dont make any mention of the NPC's credibility or lack therof.
Phrennzy
10-18-07, 04:24 PM And if they do call for a Sense Motive, roll a Bluff check secretly regardless of who they are using Sense Motive on.

PC:"How much for your bread?"
Merchant: "This bread is so delicious and warm! 1 cp."
PC: I sense motive.
DM: Rolls the Sense Motive/Bluff, knowing the merchant tells the truth - the rolls don't matter: "He seems to be trustworthy."
PC: "I will buy one bread."

Little Boy: "Mister! Help! My little sister fell in the well!"
PC: I sense motive.
DM Rolls, knowing the little boy is a doppleganger. PC fails sense motive: "He seems to be trustworthy."
PC: "Lead the way!"

Demon: "Release me and I will show you the treasure room before I depart."
PC: I sense motive.
DM: Rolls - PC fails sense motive. "He seems trustworthy."
PC: "Lead the way!" When he turns, I hit him.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Korlall 10-18-07, 12:45 AM	The skills Bluff and Sense motive are mainly used with a NPC in which the PC want to Bluff out some NPC. So if they want the guard to believe they INDEED invited to the ballroom, they use bluff skill against the guard sense motive... What if an NPC hires the PCs to get an item back from some merchant claiming that emrchant stole it from him (which would be false)... Does I make the NPC use Bluff versus the PC Sense Motive ??? I guess yes... the thing if If the PCs fail to uncover the bluff, players still know that this is a lie... I know that character don't know what the players are knowing... but thiss, the feeling about knowning it is still bad. I want the players to be surprised to discover it... and not "finally, our characters discovered what we players figured out 2 hours ago..." Am I better to personnaly try out to bluff the players and not the NPC bluffing the PCs ? And what if a PC try to Bluff out another PC ??? I had the idea of letting the conversation go on and if some player go with "I feel bad about this guy", I just make the Bluff and Sense Motive secretly, then annonce if the character belive or not... that is, since the player cannot see if he beated the bluff rolls, telling him "you don't feel that this dude is lying" could mean he didn't beated the roll or he did beated it but there was no lie at all.... What you guys think ?
Kouk 10-18-07, 12:55 AM	Normally, I have a player call for his own Sense Motive check, which signifies he is doubting what is being said. Then he rolls a Sense Motive, I roll a Bluff check (regardless of whether a lie was being told) and if their roll beats a genuine Bluff then I tell them they don't trust the guy. If they fail their roll or it wasn't a lie, then they didn't find reason to disbelieve him. I let a single roll apply to most of a conversation to minimize rolls unless the players want to keep at it. The choice is basically a preference though, whether you want to call for Sense Motive checks, or always roll for Bluffs even when there are no lies being told, etc. Personally, I don't want to roll every time I have an NPC talk to them (which would be either an actual Bluff roll or just a roll that I always make so the players are not automatically suspicious) so I have the players call for opposed checks when they think something is fishy. Try to RP your lies as best you can, and that can cause the players to ask for Sense Motive. I find this simplest and the least rolling. Some people prefer to roll Bluffs in advance for each NPC, and then secretly roll a Sense Motive check for the players and then just "inform" the player when he thinks something is wrong.
Nor'Morgwae 10-18-07, 01:06 AM	If your players are okay with it then I would just use 10+their sense motive bonus as the DC for the NPC's bluff check. This keeps things moving and you don't have to tip your hand to the players every time he bluffs. If they don't like this solution then at the beginning of each session or encounter (depending on how much bluffing usually occurs) have each player roll 5 sense motive checks and record them. Then, when you need the sense motive rolls, they are right their and you don't have to roll as many dice (which can clue the players into the fact that something is amiss). I know DMs who do the latter with a lot of secret rolls.
Charlym_Zuardan 10-18-07, 04:03 PM	i agree with letting the players call thier own sense motive checks. if they arent suspicious to begin with, then they wont be focusing on the NPC's body language, tone of voice, etc. as intently as they would be if they suspect him of lying. So if they are just having a normal conversation and dont ask to roll a sense motive, i dont make any mention of the NPC's credibility or lack therof.
Phrennzy 10-18-07, 04:24 PM	And if they do call for a Sense Motive, roll a Bluff check secretly regardless of who they are using Sense Motive on. PC:"How much for your bread?" Merchant: "This bread is so delicious and warm! 1 cp." PC: I sense motive. DM: Rolls the Sense Motive/Bluff, knowing the merchant tells the truth - the rolls don't matter: "He seems to be trustworthy." PC: "I will buy one bread." Little Boy: "Mister! Help! My little sister fell in the well!" PC: I sense motive. DM Rolls, knowing the little boy is a doppleganger. PC fails sense motive: "He seems to be trustworthy." PC: "Lead the way!" Demon: "Release me and I will show you the treasure room before I depart." PC: I sense motive. DM: Rolls - PC fails sense motive. "He seems trustworthy." PC: "Lead the way!" When he turns, I hit him.