Bluff [Archive] - Wizards Community - Pages Merged by Solauren

Bluff [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
tynfid
04-14-04, 08:58 AM I play with 2 different groups. One group argues that skills like bluff can not be used on other PC's. The other group plays that they can (i.e. I have 0 ranks in bluff and my char has 13 so he is a better bluffer, so my char should be better at avoiding being cross questioned than me). Is there a definative ruling on this. I am not planning to change the way either group plays - but i would like to know the book and page number if any such ruling exists.

TIA

Tynfid
Bacon and Eggs
04-14-04, 09:11 AM As a DM, I tend to rule that it is not useable. So as to protect the feelings of the target players.

There is nothing from stoping another DM from allowing players to bluff other player. Dump alot of points into Sense Motive, quick!
tarkin
04-14-04, 10:55 AM Skills like Bluff etc. should be usable on PC's.

However the intended result should NOT be auto-done on success.

Example:

Intimidate:
You have scared the players. They now will attack using their most powerfull spells instead of going in normally.
Bacon and Eggs
04-14-04, 11:14 AM Originally posted by tynfid
One group argues that skills like bluff can not be used on other PC's. The other group plays that they can.

I thought this was PC to PC interaction. Perhaps I read too much into that.

Player 1: I Bluff player 2 and tell them to get me a drink
Player 2: Get your own drink
Player 1: Look I rolled a 24, you are doing it!

:embarrass
Krelios
04-14-04, 11:17 AM It depends on how well your players handle out of character information. We let PCs bluff or intimidate other PCs if they feel that it's really necessary, but we're mature enough to let it remain in game and we're all still friends. It rarely happens, and when it does I'm lucky that my players don't try to use the out-of-character knowledge that they've been bluffed in character. It's a story first and a game second--it's never a competition.
Vaelan
04-14-04, 11:32 AM I allow Bluff to be used against players, but not in a silly compulsion way.

If a PC trys to lie to another PC, they roll Bluff vs. Sense Motive. If the bluffer succeeds, it is not apparently they are lying and they sound sincere and believable, which means that if you are on good terms with this person, any doubt would likely be frowned upon as metagaming. If the bluffee succeeds, the bluffer has given off some sort of tell or is otherwise not believable.

Bluff and other social skills are not compulsions. If people would stop treating them as such, they could be used correctly.
Beamup
04-14-04, 11:49 AM Originally posted by Vaelan
Bluff and other social skills are not compulsions. If people would stop treating them as such, they could be used correctly.

Amen to that.
KismetRose
04-16-04, 03:42 AM I don't see why skills can't be used by a PC against the other PCs; it doesn't make logical sense, even if it makes emotional sense to some groups. The way I see it, what's good for the goose is good for the gander: skills, spells, items, weapons, anything that the players can use on NPCs can be used on the PCs.

There are often occassions when Bluff is used, because the group I run has a rogue with two paladins and a cleric. The rogue is mostly a scout/spy but sometimes she decides to grab a purse on a whim. She sometimes has to lie about what she's up to or what she's done. This breaks down to Bluff vs. Sense Motive rather nicely and none of my players have ever argued about such a die roll. Then again, my players don't get mad when they use social skills against each other - they're just skills, it's not like drawing weapons.
Mister Mayhem
04-16-04, 07:34 AM If you would allow one character to succesfully attack another due to the character having a high BAB and STR, then it is only fair that you allow one to bluff another due to having a high Bluff skill and CHA.
spasheridan
04-17-04, 01:38 AM The rules are fairly straightforward for the social skills. They don't work so great PC vs PC though. How, exactly, does the rogue who is always getting his but kicked by the monsters Intimidate the barbarian?? It just doesn't work, the characters KNOW whos tougher than who.

Diplomacy isn't a good one either, the PCs are friendly already. The PCs generally already take risks to help each other out. What more can you want?

Bluff is the only thing that you can use, but pretty much just to enforce out of character knowledge not getting into play.

DM: Ok thiefy boy, you swipe the ring before anyone enters the room.
Barb: I walk into the room. I look for that ring.
DM: You don't see it anywhere
Barb: Hey rogue, where is the ring?
Rogue: I don't know, maybe those goblins grabbed it
DM: OK, roll a bluff check vs sense motive guys.
Rogue:30
Babr: 5
DM: OK, Barbarian, you believe the rogue and think that some goblins must have stolen that ring.
Barb: Lets go get those chumps! No one steals my loot!
rmiller_nub
04-17-04, 01:52 AM Originally posted by spasheridan
The rules are fairly straightforward for the social skills. They don't work so great PC vs PC though. How, exactly, does the rogue who is always getting his but kicked by the monsters Intimidate the barbarian?? It just doesn't work, the characters KNOW whos tougher than who.

This still is possible. Game Mechanically there would be a circumstance penalty imposed by the DM.
KismetRose
04-18-04, 03:46 AM How, exactly, does the rogue who is always getting his but kicked by the monsters Intimidate the barbarian?? It just doesn't work, the characters KNOW whos tougher than who.
This, I would argue, is situational. Intimidation is not just about who is tougher than who in a physical or ultimate sense, but about who is in the better situation - who has the advantage at the time. Intimidation isn't always a direct physical threat on someone's life; it can be very subtle: "You and I both know what happened to that captain. So you're not going to tell on me now, are you?" Now, the DM could rule for penalties or bonuses depending on the situation, but that would be up to the DM. Party members may not know each other as well as they think.
Diplomacy isn't a good one either, the PCs are friendly already. The PCs generally already take risks to help each other out. What more can you want?
Diplomacy isn't just about meeting and greeting. Diplomacy can be used to sway a team-mate to your point of view. While PCs generally take risks for one another, they may not always agree on the way things should be done. I've seen this used a lot in my own game, to good effect.
Phist
04-19-04, 12:27 AM You still have to make up a semi-belivable lie. Bluff is a measure of how well your character lied. If you get 1, he can barely say it because of the fit of give-away laughter he's in. If you're using Glibness and you get 43 you control everything down to your pupil dilation. You could fool a lie detector with that roll.
Thermanshs
04-21-04, 06:30 AM If a PC can bluff-->influence an NPC's actions so does the NPC.Also you needn't make a full representation of the dialog to show your PCs how they have fallen victims of one's bluff.Especially when talking about double digit bonuses at such skills,every attempt wouldn't even come close to what actually was told-->happened.
As you can't imitate the combat prowess of a 20th lvl fighter so can you represent how a superb bluffing works.
Slyde Shadowdart
04-21-04, 06:40 AM I dissallow it only in cases where I believe that my (sometimes way too sensitive about things that happen to their characters) players will start infighting and arguing over the proposed action.
AtmaWeapon
04-21-04, 06:41 AM By the rules, the bluff and intimidate skills do not work on PCs. PCs are allowed to believe what they choose.

I've not found this to be a problem in my games, but perhaps I am blessed. PCs often ask other PCs to roll bluff for them without me even prompting it, and will act (by thier own choice) on the whims of the dice.

If characters acting on out of character information is a problem in your game, I would suggest utilizing notes and 1-on-1's more often.
Thermanshs
04-21-04, 07:06 AM Originally posted by AtmaWeapon
By the rules, the bluff and intimidate skills do not work on PCs. PCs are allowed to believe what they choose.
=meta gaming

When I'm bluffing at my players(I'm a DM) and I AM able to represent a successful bluffing I express it in such a manner so as they can't recognise they're being bluffed.Otherwise I tell them that the bluffer's words don't have a steady flow,he bites his nails when speaking,he looks sweaty,he counterevidences something he stated before or I give key-clues to prove him wrong such as:
DM:He talks in a trembling voice looking tired his clothes full of mud
Bluffer:I hadn't been in the swamps last night.I was sleeping in my house and it's only 1 hour since I woke up
Players:Gotcha!
AtmaWeapon
04-21-04, 07:13 AM Originally posted by Thermanshs
=meta gaming

When I'm bluffing at my players(I'm a DM) and I AM able to represent a successful bluffing I express it in such a manner so as they can't recognise they're being bluffed.Otherwise I tell them that the bluffer's words don't have a steady flow,he bites his nails when speaking,he looks sweaty,he counterevidences something he stated before or I give key-clues to prove him wrong such as:
DM:He talks in a trembling voice looking tired his clothes full of mud
Bluffer:I hadn't been in the swamps last night.I was sleeping in my house and it's only 1 hour since I woke up
Players:Gotcha!

Right.. This is how things are supposed to work... I got the opinion that the thread was more about PCs using bluff on other PCs, rather then PCs vs. NPCs.

But it basically boils down to this: If you let PCs use bluff on PCs, the best liar basically ends up getting to control 2-3 people in the party through guile and deception.
Mister Mayhem
04-21-04, 07:28 AM Originally posted by AtmaWeapon
If you let PCs use bluff on PCs, the best liar basically ends up getting to control 2-3 people in the party through guile and deception.

And if you don't allow PCs to use Bluff - and by extension, Sense Motive - on each other, then you are merely allowing the best IRL liar to "control" 2-3 people in the party through guile and deception. Even if he used his CHA as a dump stat and didn't take any ranks in bluff.

Although I think in both cases "control" is abit strong. Influence, maybe.
Bedevere
04-21-04, 08:47 AM As a DM, I've always let my players use social skills whenever they want, on each other.

They rarely take them up, simply because they know that once a dice is rolled, I expect them to follow its result. They know enough to act according to their relative ranks in the appropriate skills, even if not touching the dice, but either person in a discussion has the right to get their dice bag to do the talking.

I always felt this way allows for both good RP, and realistic use of stats in social exchanges. My players seem to agree as well.
Phist
04-21-04, 11:22 AM Bluff isn't control. If I'm a shopkeeper, and one of the PCs convinces me that one of my swords is actually his, I'll still say "Yeah, well, go f***** yourself"
Bacon and Eggs
04-21-04, 12:01 PM Fillet?

Anyhow. Back to the allowing PC's to attack each other as well and having the dice resolve that is fine*. As long as there is a very good reason behind it. Because when PC's arbitrarily attack each other in a duel to the death it almost spells game over.

Another note, I have not had an issue arise like PC vs. PC in about a decade now.
KismetRose
04-21-04, 06:56 PM Originally posted by AtmaWeapon
By the rules, the bluff and intimidate skills do not work on PCs. PCs are allowed to believe what they choose.
I have to ask where it says this because my curiosity has gotten the better of me. I don't recall seeing anything remotely like that in the core books but that doesn't mean it's not there. Could you enlighten me?
KismetRose
04-21-04, 07:05 PM Originally posted by AtmaWeapon
Right.. This is how things are supposed to work... I got the opinion that the thread was more about PCs using bluff on other PCs, rather then PCs vs. NPCs.

But it basically boils down to this: If you let PCs use bluff on PCs, the best liar basically ends up getting to control 2-3 people in the party through guile and deception.
Bluff is a matter of temporary influence and does not always involve telling people what to do and how to do it, so much as what to believe for the moment and why. If someone is going to try to control a group, they can use many other means to do it - bribing, magic, threat of force, superior numbers and so on. If you don't let PCs use Bluff on one another, where do you draw the line on what PCs can and cannot use on one another? And how can you justify all of the stuff the PCs can use on the NPCs at the drop of a hat that they can't use on the PCs? How to make it fair?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tynfid 04-14-04, 08:58 AM	I play with 2 different groups. One group argues that skills like bluff can not be used on other PC's. The other group plays that they can (i.e. I have 0 ranks in bluff and my char has 13 so he is a better bluffer, so my char should be better at avoiding being cross questioned than me). Is there a definative ruling on this. I am not planning to change the way either group plays - but i would like to know the book and page number if any such ruling exists. TIA Tynfid
Bacon and Eggs 04-14-04, 09:11 AM	As a DM, I tend to rule that it is not useable. So as to protect the feelings of the target players. There is nothing from stoping another DM from allowing players to bluff other player. Dump alot of points into Sense Motive, quick!
tarkin 04-14-04, 10:55 AM	Skills like Bluff etc. should be usable on PC's. However the intended result should NOT be auto-done on success. Example: Intimidate: You have scared the players. They now will attack using their most powerfull spells instead of going in normally.
Bacon and Eggs 04-14-04, 11:14 AM	Originally posted by tynfid One group argues that skills like bluff can not be used on other PC's. The other group plays that they can. I thought this was PC to PC interaction. Perhaps I read too much into that. Player 1: I Bluff player 2 and tell them to get me a drink Player 2: Get your own drink Player 1: Look I rolled a 24, you are doing it! :embarrass
Krelios 04-14-04, 11:17 AM	It depends on how well your players handle out of character information. We let PCs bluff or intimidate other PCs if they feel that it's really necessary, but we're mature enough to let it remain in game and we're all still friends. It rarely happens, and when it does I'm lucky that my players don't try to use the out-of-character knowledge that they've been bluffed in character. It's a story first and a game second--it's never a competition.
Vaelan 04-14-04, 11:32 AM	I allow Bluff to be used against players, but not in a silly compulsion way. If a PC trys to lie to another PC, they roll Bluff vs. Sense Motive. If the bluffer succeeds, it is not apparently they are lying and they sound sincere and believable, which means that if you are on good terms with this person, any doubt would likely be frowned upon as metagaming. If the bluffee succeeds, the bluffer has given off some sort of tell or is otherwise not believable. Bluff and other social skills are not compulsions. If people would stop treating them as such, they could be used correctly.
Beamup 04-14-04, 11:49 AM	Originally posted by Vaelan Bluff and other social skills are not compulsions. If people would stop treating them as such, they could be used correctly. Amen to that.
KismetRose 04-16-04, 03:42 AM	I don't see why skills can't be used by a PC against the other PCs; it doesn't make logical sense, even if it makes emotional sense to some groups. The way I see it, what's good for the goose is good for the gander: skills, spells, items, weapons, anything that the players can use on NPCs can be used on the PCs. There are often occassions when Bluff is used, because the group I run has a rogue with two paladins and a cleric. The rogue is mostly a scout/spy but sometimes she decides to grab a purse on a whim. She sometimes has to lie about what she's up to or what she's done. This breaks down to Bluff vs. Sense Motive rather nicely and none of my players have ever argued about such a die roll. Then again, my players don't get mad when they use social skills against each other - they're just skills, it's not like drawing weapons.
Mister Mayhem 04-16-04, 07:34 AM	If you would allow one character to succesfully attack another due to the character having a high BAB and STR, then it is only fair that you allow one to bluff another due to having a high Bluff skill and CHA.
spasheridan 04-17-04, 01:38 AM	The rules are fairly straightforward for the social skills. They don't work so great PC vs PC though. How, exactly, does the rogue who is always getting his but kicked by the monsters Intimidate the barbarian?? It just doesn't work, the characters KNOW whos tougher than who. Diplomacy isn't a good one either, the PCs are friendly already. The PCs generally already take risks to help each other out. What more can you want? Bluff is the only thing that you can use, but pretty much just to enforce out of character knowledge not getting into play. DM: Ok thiefy boy, you swipe the ring before anyone enters the room. Barb: I walk into the room. I look for that ring. DM: You don't see it anywhere Barb: Hey rogue, where is the ring? Rogue: I don't know, maybe those goblins grabbed it DM: OK, roll a bluff check vs sense motive guys. Rogue:30 Babr: 5 DM: OK, Barbarian, you believe the rogue and think that some goblins must have stolen that ring. Barb: Lets go get those chumps! No one steals my loot!
rmiller_nub 04-17-04, 01:52 AM	Originally posted by spasheridan The rules are fairly straightforward for the social skills. They don't work so great PC vs PC though. How, exactly, does the rogue who is always getting his but kicked by the monsters Intimidate the barbarian?? It just doesn't work, the characters KNOW whos tougher than who. This still is possible. Game Mechanically there would be a circumstance penalty imposed by the DM.
KismetRose 04-18-04, 03:46 AM	How, exactly, does the rogue who is always getting his but kicked by the monsters Intimidate the barbarian?? It just doesn't work, the characters KNOW whos tougher than who. This, I would argue, is situational. Intimidation is not just about who is tougher than who in a physical or ultimate sense, but about who is in the better situation - who has the advantage at the time. Intimidation isn't always a direct physical threat on someone's life; it can be very subtle: "You and I both know what happened to that captain. So you're not going to tell on me now, are you?" Now, the DM could rule for penalties or bonuses depending on the situation, but that would be up to the DM. Party members may not know each other as well as they think. Diplomacy isn't a good one either, the PCs are friendly already. The PCs generally already take risks to help each other out. What more can you want? Diplomacy isn't just about meeting and greeting. Diplomacy can be used to sway a team-mate to your point of view. While PCs generally take risks for one another, they may not always agree on the way things should be done. I've seen this used a lot in my own game, to good effect.
Phist 04-19-04, 12:27 AM	You still have to make up a semi-belivable lie. Bluff is a measure of how well your character lied. If you get 1, he can barely say it because of the fit of give-away laughter he's in. If you're using Glibness and you get 43 you control everything down to your pupil dilation. You could fool a lie detector with that roll.
Thermanshs 04-21-04, 06:30 AM	If a PC can bluff-->influence an NPC's actions so does the NPC.Also you needn't make a full representation of the dialog to show your PCs how they have fallen victims of one's bluff.Especially when talking about double digit bonuses at such skills,every attempt wouldn't even come close to what actually was told-->happened. As you can't imitate the combat prowess of a 20th lvl fighter so can you represent how a superb bluffing works.
Slyde Shadowdart 04-21-04, 06:40 AM	I dissallow it only in cases where I believe that my (sometimes way too sensitive about things that happen to their characters) players will start infighting and arguing over the proposed action.
AtmaWeapon 04-21-04, 06:41 AM	By the rules, the bluff and intimidate skills do not work on PCs. PCs are allowed to believe what they choose. I've not found this to be a problem in my games, but perhaps I am blessed. PCs often ask other PCs to roll bluff for them without me even prompting it, and will act (by thier own choice) on the whims of the dice. If characters acting on out of character information is a problem in your game, I would suggest utilizing notes and 1-on-1's more often.
Thermanshs 04-21-04, 07:06 AM	Originally posted by AtmaWeapon By the rules, the bluff and intimidate skills do not work on PCs. PCs are allowed to believe what they choose. =meta gaming When I'm bluffing at my players(I'm a DM) and I AM able to represent a successful bluffing I express it in such a manner so as they can't recognise they're being bluffed.Otherwise I tell them that the bluffer's words don't have a steady flow,he bites his nails when speaking,he looks sweaty,he counterevidences something he stated before or I give key-clues to prove him wrong such as: DM:He talks in a trembling voice looking tired his clothes full of mud Bluffer:I hadn't been in the swamps last night.I was sleeping in my house and it's only 1 hour since I woke up Players:Gotcha!
AtmaWeapon 04-21-04, 07:13 AM	Originally posted by Thermanshs =meta gaming When I'm bluffing at my players(I'm a DM) and I AM able to represent a successful bluffing I express it in such a manner so as they can't recognise they're being bluffed.Otherwise I tell them that the bluffer's words don't have a steady flow,he bites his nails when speaking,he looks sweaty,he counterevidences something he stated before or I give key-clues to prove him wrong such as: DM:He talks in a trembling voice looking tired his clothes full of mud Bluffer:I hadn't been in the swamps last night.I was sleeping in my house and it's only 1 hour since I woke up Players:Gotcha! Right.. This is how things are supposed to work... I got the opinion that the thread was more about PCs using bluff on other PCs, rather then PCs vs. NPCs. But it basically boils down to this: If you let PCs use bluff on PCs, the best liar basically ends up getting to control 2-3 people in the party through guile and deception.
Mister Mayhem 04-21-04, 07:28 AM	Originally posted by AtmaWeapon If you let PCs use bluff on PCs, the best liar basically ends up getting to control 2-3 people in the party through guile and deception. And if you don't allow PCs to use Bluff - and by extension, Sense Motive - on each other, then you are merely allowing the best IRL liar to "control" 2-3 people in the party through guile and deception. Even if he used his CHA as a dump stat and didn't take any ranks in bluff. Although I think in both cases "control" is abit strong. Influence, maybe.
Bedevere 04-21-04, 08:47 AM	As a DM, I've always let my players use social skills whenever they want, on each other. They rarely take them up, simply because they know that once a dice is rolled, I expect them to follow its result. They know enough to act according to their relative ranks in the appropriate skills, even if not touching the dice, but either person in a discussion has the right to get their dice bag to do the talking. I always felt this way allows for both good RP, and realistic use of stats in social exchanges. My players seem to agree as well.
Phist 04-21-04, 11:22 AM	Bluff isn't control. If I'm a shopkeeper, and one of the PCs convinces me that one of my swords is actually his, I'll still say "Yeah, well, go f***** yourself"
Bacon and Eggs 04-21-04, 12:01 PM	Fillet? Anyhow. Back to the allowing PC's to attack each other as well and having the dice resolve that is fine*. As long as there is a very good reason behind it. Because when PC's arbitrarily attack each other in a duel to the death it almost spells game over. Another note, I have not had an issue arise like PC vs. PC in about a decade now.
KismetRose 04-21-04, 06:56 PM	Originally posted by AtmaWeapon By the rules, the bluff and intimidate skills do not work on PCs. PCs are allowed to believe what they choose. I have to ask where it says this because my curiosity has gotten the better of me. I don't recall seeing anything remotely like that in the core books but that doesn't mean it's not there. Could you enlighten me?
KismetRose 04-21-04, 07:05 PM	Originally posted by AtmaWeapon Right.. This is how things are supposed to work... I got the opinion that the thread was more about PCs using bluff on other PCs, rather then PCs vs. NPCs. But it basically boils down to this: If you let PCs use bluff on PCs, the best liar basically ends up getting to control 2-3 people in the party through guile and deception. Bluff is a matter of temporary influence and does not always involve telling people what to do and how to do it, so much as what to believe for the moment and why. If someone is going to try to control a group, they can use many other means to do it - bribing, magic, threat of force, superior numbers and so on. If you don't let PCs use Bluff on one another, where do you draw the line on what PCs can and cannot use on one another? And how can you justify all of the stuff the PCs can use on the NPCs at the drop of a hat that they can't use on the PCs? How to make it fair?