When used in conversation, Bluff allows you to speak deceptively while making your words more plausible and avoiding your words becoming suspect by your audience. In other words, your audience takes your bluff at face value. Nor does it, in any way, compel or force your audience to think, act, or behave in a certain way. Even if your audience believes your bluff, they are still free to act however they wish, in favor or in spite of what you just told them.
It does not make the completely unbelievable believable. What exactly would be considered completely unbelievable is ultimately up to the DM since it is she who sets the DCs for bluff. But completely blatant lives, like trying to convince the average person that the sky is red and not blue, should at least have a nigh impossible DC set (unless, of course, you take other measure to make your bluff actually plausible, like making the sky appear red with illusions).
And finally, it is a common convention (though not a hard rules afaik) that social skills be used solely for PC-NPC interactions. PC-PC interactions are typically roleplayed out.
At the point this bluff happened we had just saved VTM's character from a slave train where he was chained up. The rest of the party had just met and none of us really know each other. I asked VTM if he had any recollection of his life before being captured into slavery? He said his memory was fuzzy and has no recollection of his past. At this point I decided to lie to him and tell him he was my servant before he was captured into slavery, he was running an errand I had sent him on when it happened. I at that time also said that every time I make a servant request from him I will have to roll a bluff check against his insight and if he ever wins then he will realise I was lieing all along and never have to be my servant again.
Fireclave said:
Bluff is not mind control.
It does not make the completely unbelievable believable. What exactly would be considered completely unbelievable is ultimately up to the DM since it is she who sets the DCs for bluff. .
This is a false statement, lets consult the players handbook shall we:
Definition of a bluff:
You can make what’s false appear to be true, what’s
outrageous seem plausible, and what’s suspicious seem
ordinary. You make a Bluff check to fast-talk a guard,
con a merchant, gamble, pass off a disguise or fake
documentation, and otherwise tell lies.
Your Bluff check is opposed by an observer’s Insight
check. Your check might be opposed by multiple
Insight checks, depending on how many observers
can see and hear you and care about what’s going on.
During a skill challenge, you might need to beat your
observers’ Insight checks multiple times to succeed at
bluffing them.
Bluff: Standard action in combat or part of a skill
challenge.
✦ Opposed Check: Bluff vs. Insight.
Based on this, I can only bluff to tell him to do things a normal servant could do, nothing like go jump in front of this fireball for me or something stupid like that
This is a false statement, lets consult the players handbook shall we
outrageous != completely unbelievable
suspicious != completely unbelievable
When I said completely unbelievable, I literally meant that; 100% beyond the (that particular audience's) ability to be believed. Something that's outrageous or suspicious can still be believable when in the right context, given the right packaging, and/or delivered in a manner that the listener is receptive to. [Random Example, particularly 2:53 on]
And what I said is completely true. The DCs for Bluff are up to the DM in this edition, and if the DM believes that an NPC simply can't or won't be deceived by your bluff, that is exactly what happens.
Though my main point was this:
Bluff is not mind control.
Everything else was said to merely expand on this point.
I really don't feel its that outlandish that I lied to a man with a semi-amnesia about his past and he believed me.
Ok fare enough, But given the exact scenario I described would you say that It was a legitimate bluff?
Given the scenario, I would agree that it would be a legitimate use of the bluff skill, but I still don't agree with your use of bluff in this situation.
By using bluff in this way, you are taking some degree of controll of vtm's character away. Also, such an action can strain the relationship between your two characters if vtm's character ever realizes the deciet and resent's your character for it. And such conflict could cause tension within the whole group. These are some of the main reason why I don't like PC-PC social skill checks, but I digress.
If vtm's fun with the game is not diminished by these consequences and both of you are cool with this course of events, then there's no problem. If not, I think it would be best to find a different way to express your manipulative bastardy. The most important thing is that everyone has fun, right?
That being said, I agree with everyone saying it takes away control of another player's character which not everyone likes. Personally, I'd say that if you do do this, you should allow the DM to let vtm's character realize you were lying to him fairly soon.
PCs have considerably greater freedom of choice and their actions aren't so arbitrarily decided upon. Therefore the Player decides if their character will be intimidated, will beleive that lie or thinks that someone was being polite or rude to them. For a bluff to work on a PC ir must also work on the Player. Such skills are very ineffective against PCs in general.
For example, a large ogre waving a very sharp and pointed weapon will either intimidate your PC or else make him only see "get your XP here" signs. No intimidation roll made by the ogre will effect PCs.
On the other hand, your party wizard might open his spellbook , stomp his staff upon the ground and spouting nonsense about cursing the Ogre and turning him into a frog, make an intimidation roll against the Ogre. This roll would determine how intimidating the Wizard could sound and lets the DM know how the Ogre would react.
If you really want to work up some master/servant angle, than ask the player about it away from the table. Maybe they'll play ball just because the think its an interesting character hook.
To tell the player that their character HAS to believe that they're your servant just because you rolled high on a skill check is just silly, and sets a precedent for other skill check situations of PC vs. PC. Suppose the fighter wants a bigger share of the loot and has a massive intimidate modifier. What's to stop them from tossing it around? "You can't fight back, I clearly rolled a 20, with my modifiers you're much to afraid to take a stand so I'll just take all that gold over there, and I'll take the wand to even though I can't use it, might be handy for a tooth pick."
But that does NOT mean he has to act like one.
It does not make him subservient, or docile, or obedient toward the warlock. Just because you are told you used to be a plumber does not mean you have the urge to go fix pipes. He can act as he wishes, and the warlock's lie is going to face problems down the road.
as far as:
Suppose the fighter wants a bigger share of the loot and has a massive intimidate modifier. What's to stop them from tossing it around? "You can't fight back, I clearly rolled a 20, with my modifiers you're much to afraid to take a stand so I'll just take all that gold over there, and I'll take the wand to even though I can't use it, might be handy for a tooth pick."
Thats just stupid, I'm not trying to ruin the game for anyone or make the game any less fun. Like I said I wouldn't try and make his character do anything that a normal servant wouldn't do. In the past 3 sessions I've only asked him to do one thing also.
yeah maybe he is convinced that he used to be your servant. If you want to him to continue being your servant you will need more than a bluff check to convince him to keep doing your bidding.
I mentioned that in my first post that every subsequent request will require a bluff check and if ever I should fail he would realize I was lieing all along.
Bluff (and the other social skills) are not mind control. You can't force another character to act, what to do, or whether he believes you or not; these choices and actions are always up to the individual player/character.
Social skills should only be used for PC-NPC interactions.
You can lie about his past all you want, but no bluff should be rolled, he gets to decide whether or not he believes. It doesn't sound like vtm enjoys whats going on so I'd say he should probably not believe it anymore.
Also, If your Bluffing him this way did vtm get an Insight roll against your bluff, or did you just roll against a static DC and automatically win(due to your insane mod)? Fair is fair after all.
Social skills should only be used for PC-NPC interactions.
You can lie about his past all you want, but no bluff should be rolled, he gets to decide whether or not he believes. It doesn't sound like vtm enjoys whats going on so I'd say he should probably not believe it anymore.
Also, If your Bluffing him this way did vtm get an Insight roll against your bluff, or did you just roll against a static DC and automatically win(due to your insane mod)? Fair is fair after all.
I am not my character, I simply control him. I will never be able to lie nearly as well as my character does, nor can I shoot burst of fire out of my hands.
In the same way that if I wanted to shoot a burst of fire from my hands at another PC I would roll some dice, if I want to use my incredible lying ability on another PC I will roll some dice.
Of course he gets an insight roll, he gets an insight roll anytime and every time I ask anything of him. If ever I should fail its all over.
Plus I'm not controlling him, I'm just directing him, giving him orders. Did we all forget that I saved him from being on a slave train?! I didn't bust up that train for no good reason! I wanted my servant back! ;)
Or, thinking of Inspector Clouseau and Kato from the "Pink Panther" movies, he might get a false (or genuine!) memory about your PC ordering him to keep him on his toes by making random attempts on his life.
That said, I don't think it's a bad idea, but it's going to require a good deal of cooperation from the other player, and gods help your PC when he finds out!
For example, a large ogre waving a very sharp and pointed weapon will either intimidate your PC or else make him only see "get your XP here" signs. No intimidation roll made by the ogre will effect PCs.
On the other hand, your party wizard might open his spellbook , stomp his staff upon the ground and spouting nonsense about cursing the Ogre and turning him into a frog, make an intimidation roll against the Ogre. This roll would determine how intimidating the Wizard could sound and lets the DM know how the Ogre would react.
I disagree with this opinion, purely because it then makes the skill Intimidate unusable for npc's (and it can be a viable way to do things). It can't change the person's perspective on the ogre's scariness, frankly, because of the artifact of there being a player playing a character. It can, however, leave the character shaken (-1 to attacks, or defenses) or in some other way make it difficult to do things. I believe there are rules for this somewhere, but I don't remember where. Or the DM can just wing it.
It doesn't have to change the player's mind, just the character's attitude.
Remember, there are hefty modifiers to the intimidatee's defenses when the Intimidate skill is used (+10 for hostile, +5 for no shared language). This alone makes the Intimidate skill difficult to use, because it's a fairly substantial Will defense that has to be hit.
I mentioned that in my first post that every subsequent request will require a bluff check and if ever I should fail he would realize I was lieing all along.
The thing is that your Bluff check will in no way force the player to do your bidding. He is a PC and his player can play his character as he feels he should do. He cannot be forced into an action by a simple bluff check.
Even if his character beleives you, doesn't mean he has to obey you or be your servent in any way, whatsoever. While a bluff check might work on an NPC, it does nothing whatsoever to a PC.
The player can decide his PC "has enough with being the slave and servant to others, and refuses to obey anyone" or he could even decide that you are "just another slaver" and thus his enemy and you should die a horrible death at his hands. Or he could convince himself that since you went to such extremes to rescue him, that he must be a very valuable and well paid slave, and at the the end of the day present your character with a very large bill for his services.
And a PC can simply choose not to believe. Incite can be gleaned through careful observation and consideration, therefore a PC can in this situation "Take 20" as it were on his incite roll until he has come to the conclusion that you are telling a lie. Regardless of how truthful it may or may not be, remember that people often refuse to beleive the truth, therefore refusing to beleive a lie, no matter how well told, is just as easy.
I disagree with this opinion, purely because it then makes the skill Intimidate unusable for npc's (and it can be a viable way to do things). It can't change the person's perspective on the ogre's scariness, frankly, because of the artifact of there being a player playing a character. It can, however, leave the character shaken (-1 to attacks, or defenses) or in some other way make it difficult to do things. I believe there are rules for this somewhere, but I don't remember where. Or the DM can just wing it.
It changes the way the Ogre is being described by the DM.
"A large fat, dumb looking Ogre waves his weapon"
is an Ogre that clearly failed the intimidate roll.
"The Huge, viscious looking Ogre, pulls out his razor sharp sword, waves it in the air, his mouth opens revealing his wicked, sharp teeth as he lets out a mighty roar that seems to make the earth shake"
is an Ogre with a very good intimidate roll.
Intimidate rolls by NPCs and Monsters can change how the PCs measure how threatning or dangerous a situation is and be used by them in making a decision on how to act. "lets run away from the scary Ogre and regroup first fellas" But it doesn't force them into an action. It can be a good tool for the DM to let the party assess a situation and to let them know how much danger they are in.
Your surrounded by guards, all of whom are heavily armed and clearly you don't stand a chance against them, as the leader demands your surrender. You are really in a bind here and can't see a way out.
Similairly: "The merchant tells you this sword is a very powerful weapon that will smite your foes, the sword looks really cool and feels powerful, but the merchant seems a little shifty." this is an example of an NPC who failrs their bluff check in selling a cursed sword to a PC. A Player is given information, from these skills, but still decides how they will react to it.
Chesbrough: We are sympathetic to your plight, and we would like to help. However, this is a very dangerous task, and we can only accept this quest provided you pay us each two thousand gold when we return with the head of the Kyton.
High Priest of the Silver Flame: Actually, no. You don't need the money that badly. Wouldn't you prefer to do it for free?
Chesbrough: Sounds good. Let's roll.
Let's flip it around. From now on, NPCs are going to use bluff on you, and if they beat you, you're forced to go along.
Chesbrough: We are sympathetic to your plight, and we would like to help. However, this is a very dangerous task, and we can only accept this quest provided you pay us each two thousand gold when we return with the head of the Kyton.
High Priest of the Silver Flame: Actually, no. You don't need the money that badly. Wouldn't you prefer to do it for free?
Chesbrough: Sounds good. Let's roll.
that's not really lying, that's more jedi mind control. Not quite the same as here's the truth about your past.
BTW, I'm of the opinion that someone who just escapes slavery wouldn't be so keen to believe that he is after all someone's servant.
that's not really lying, that's more jedi mind control. Not quite the same as here's the truth about your past.
Chesbrough: Polish my boots VTM
VTM: You know I don't like working for you and now that we're on this adventure I think I'll have equal input into decisions and take and equal share of the loot.
Chesbrough: [Bluff] No you don't want to do that you are my servant
Its really the same difference
Chesbrough: Polish my boots VTM
VTM: You know I don't like working for you and now that we're on this adventure I think I'll have equal input into decisions and take and equal share of the loot.
Chesbrough: [Bluff] No you don't want to do that you are my servant
Its really the same difference
I already stated that I'm not trying to ruin the game for anyone, I'm just making it more... hilarious.
I already stated that I'm not trying to ruin the game for anyone, I'm just making it more... hilarious.
I would hazard a guess thats it is only more hilarious for you or the OP would not have bothered to make a post in the first place.
But who cares how others feel as long as you get your jollies?
I would hazard a guess thats it is only more hilarious for you or the OP would not have bothered to make a post in the first place.
But who cares how others feel as long as you get your jollies?
Me and the other 6 people playing :D
And seriously does any body understand that the only thing I've made him do is cary around a festering head!
Me and the other 6 people playing :D
And seriously does any body understand that the only thing I've made him do is cary around a festering head!
Oh, we understand it, but thats not the point of the story. The point of the story is that you, with the aid of a braindead DM, are willfully ruining the fun of another player in the group, and that is, dare I say, badwrongfun.
More fun for you =/= more fun for all
Oh, we understand it, but thats not the point of the story. The point of the story is that you, with the aid of a braindead DM, are willfully ruining the fun of another player in the group, and that is, dare I say, badwrongfun.
More fun for you =/= more fun for all
Ok, once you explain how me making him carry around a festering severed head is ruining the fun of DnD for him then I will agree.
In the mean time, I'm going to tell you this thread is over and to stop replying.
I rolled a 29 on that bluff, let me know what your insight roll is to see if you believe me ;)
Ok, once you explain how me making him carry around a festering severed head is ruining the fun of DnD for him then I will agree.
In the mean time, I'm going to tell you this thread is over and to stop replying.
I rolled a 29 on that bluff, let me know what your insight roll is to see if you believe me ;)
Sorry, in the games we adults run, PCs dont get to use bluff on other PCs so I am immune.
And for proof, I will point to the injured party, the OP.
In our game we have a warlock trained in bluffing, is it acceptable for this warlock to convince another player that he/she is a servant through bluffing? it seems like it's pushing the rules a little too far
Doesnt sound like someone that is happy about the situ and having a ball because of it.
Once again, just because you're having fun don't presume everyone else is too.
I know you won't agree, but that doesnt make me any less right.
Ok, once you explain how me making him carry around a festering severed head is ruining the fun of DnD for him then I will agree.
In the mean time, I'm going to tell you this thread is over and to stop replying.
I rolled a 29 on that bluff, let me know what your insight roll is to see if you believe me ;)
So VTM posted this thread because he thought the scenario was so awesome, right?
And for your six people who think it's cool, I counted thirteen in this thread that disagree. You lose.
So VTM posted this thread because he thought the scenario was so awesome, right?
And for your six people who think it's cool, I counted thirteen in this thread that disagree. You lose.
Who said anything about it being "cool". I said it was funny, and I was correct, because a room full of people laughing = something funny happened.
If you really must know, I did this bluff for a reason. VTM missed the first D&D session we had (thats why he was in the slave train when the rest of us were in the party already). I wanted everybody to be creative and to get flavorful with their characters, lots of back story etc. I knew he had just made a character without much thought put into it so the first thing I did was inquire about his past, since he had none I made him pay for that aspect by lying to him. Yeah he believes I was his master in his past as a result but so what? All he has to do is get creative, role play, make it fun. And that's all i was trying to do, make the game more fun. Just because I was his master in the past doesn't mean ****. Heres how I would have handled the situation:
Vulgar: [bluff] I was your master before you were captured
Valis:[failed insight roll] Oh really? What were the payment arrangements for my services?
Vulgar: [bluff] X money for a months worth of servitude.
Valis:[failed insight roll] Hmm I don't think that will cut it anymore, if you want my services they will cost you X.
Vulgar: meh, I don't want to pay that.
Boy that was tough to get around, I had to actually think what my character would think in that situation and RP it out. Not just whine because I don't like whats going on.
I also highly doubt he would backstab a member of the party that saved his life, I doubt that would go over well with the rest of the party members.
Me and the other 6 people playing :D
And seriously does any body understand that the only thing I've made him do is cary around a festering head!
The only thing you've done!?!
Does it occur to you that being deceived and played the fool to carry around a festering head is a grievious and unforgivable insult?
Who said anything about it being "cool". I said it was funny, and I was correct, because a room full of people laughing = something funny happened.
Have you talked to him about it? He hasn't posted in this thread since making it, but if I knew that another player at the table felt upset about something my character had done and posted a thread about it online, I'd talk to him and see what could be done.
That being said, what you've done seems fine to me. From what you posted, you understand that Bluff is not mind control, and that he's free to react how he thinks his character should.
Chesbrough picture this: Someone gives you a swirly and then hangs you on a coat hook by your underwear. Does the people laughing at you as it happens make it alright? All you had to do was stand up to the bully.
D&D is a place to have fun and pretend your a fantastical character running around slaying dragons. There is no room for bullies because seriously we'd all have to give ourselves noogies.
We've gone over the rules there is nothing explicitly wrong with your actions and the bluff check could be roleplayed away.
The only thing that is important is whether or not your hurting VTM's playing experience because if you are there is no justification. If you aren't play on and have a good time. Everyone.
You say that VTM could have stopped it all he had to do was stand up to you.
Chesbrough picture this: Someone gives you a swirly and then hangs you on a coat hook by your underwear. Does the people laughing at you as it happens make it alright? All you had to do was stand up to the bully.
D&D is a place to have fun and pretend your a fantastical character running around slaying dragons. There is no room for bullies because seriously we'd all have to give ourselves noogies.
We've gone over the rules there is nothing explicitly wrong with your actions and the bluff check could be roleplayed away.
The only thing that is important is whether or not your hurting VTM's playing experience because if you are there is no justification. If you aren't play on and have a good time. Everyone.
I was trying to get him to role play. We are a group of friends in our mid 20's... were not 12 year olds on the playground.
I was trying to get him to role play. We are a group of friends in our mid 20's... were not 12 year olds on the playground.
Which makes this sort of elitist power-playing all the more inexcusable.
If you want your so-called friend to roleplay, you should offer to help him with motivations, personality choices, and mutually-beneficial interactions. Or even better, you should ask your friend if he wants to roleplay more! If not, leave him the hell alone and accept him for the player he is, not the player you want.
What you've described sounds no different from one child punching a smaller child in the face, then claiming he was just trying to teach the kid how to fight. Even if such an altruistic motivation were true, there are better ways to go about it. All this kind of behaviour does is discourage and cow your so-called friend while making you feel superior for dominating him with your l33t roleplay skills.
How does having to carry around a festering head on your orders ruin the fun for him? I rather doubt it's in the idiom he pictured for his character, for one. You've just shown him that, because you rolled a die better than he did, his character isn't his to control. Instead of teaching him roleplay skills, you're punishing him for not having them. You've got him doing the D&D adventurer equivalent of wearing your dirty jock on his head, and what's more, everyone laughed at him for it! Golly, that sounds like such a good time! Where do I sign up?!
If I were in the habit of telling people how to run their own game I'd tell you to try playing a D&D that's a cooperative team experience, out-of-character as well as in-character, rather than what is apparently something akin to a hazing with dice. Since I'm not in that habit, I'll instead suggest that in the name of clarity you stop referring to this person as your friend; while it might be accurate that he is yours, such a casual use of the term might give people the mistaken impression that you are his.
Which makes this sort of elitist power-playing all the more inexcusable.
If you want your so-called friend to roleplay, you should offer to help him with motivations, personality choices, and mutually-beneficial interactions. Or even better, you should ask your friend if he wants to roleplay more! If not, leave him the hell alone and accept him for the player he is, not the player you want.
What you've described sounds no different from one child punching a smaller child in the face, then claiming he was just trying to teach the kid how to fight. Even if such an altruistic motivation were true, there are better ways to go about it. All this kind of behaviour does is discourage and cow your so-called friend while making you feel superior for dominating him with your l33t roleplay skills.
How does having to carry around a festering head on your orders ruin the fun for him? I rather doubt it's in the idiom he pictured for his character, for one. You've just shown him that, because you rolled a die better than he did, his character isn't his to control. Instead of teaching him roleplay skills, you're punishing him for not having them. You've got him doing the D&D adventurer equivalent of wearing your dirty jock on his head, and what's more, everyone laughed at him for it! Golly, that sounds like such a good time! Where do I sign up?!
If I were in the habit of telling people how to run their own game I'd tell you to try playing a D&D that's a cooperative team experience, out-of-character as well as in-character, rather than what is apparently something akin to a hazing with dice. Since I'm not in that habit, I'll instead suggest that in the name of clarity you stop referring to this person as your friend; while it might be accurate that he is yours, such a casual use of the term might give people the mistaken impression that you are his.
Well said
Which makes this sort of elitist power-playing all the more inexcusable.
If you want your so-called friend to roleplay, you should offer to help him with motivations, personality choices, and mutually-beneficial interactions. Or even better, you should ask your friend if he wants to roleplay more! If not, leave him the hell alone and accept him for the player he is, not the player you want.
What you've described sounds no different from one child punching a smaller child in the face, then claiming he was just trying to teach the kid how to fight. Even if such an altruistic motivation were true, there are better ways to go about it. All this kind of behaviour does is discourage and cow your so-called friend while making you feel superior for dominating him with your l33t roleplay skills.
How does having to carry around a festering head on your orders ruin the fun for him? I rather doubt it's in the idiom he pictured for his character, for one. You've just shown him that, because you rolled a die better than he did, his character isn't his to control. Instead of teaching him roleplay skills, you're punishing him for not having them. You've got him doing the D&D adventurer equivalent of wearing your dirty jock on his head, and what's more, everyone laughed at him for it! Golly, that sounds like such a good time! Where do I sign up?!
If I were in the habit of telling people how to run their own game I'd tell you to try playing a D&D that's a cooperative team experience, out-of-character as well as in-character, rather than what is apparently something akin to a hazing with dice. Since I'm not in that habit, I'll instead suggest that in the name of clarity you stop referring to this person as your friend; while it might be accurate that he is yours, such a casual use of the term might give people the mistaken impression that you are his.
I have to agree with the above, You used a ROLL-Playing rule to get your friend to role play it sounds like.
Which makes this sort of elitist power-playing all the more inexcusable.
If you want your so-called friend to roleplay, you should offer to help him with motivations, personality choices, and mutually-beneficial interactions. Or even better, you should ask your friend if he wants to roleplay more! If not, leave him the hell alone and accept him for the player he is, not the player you want.
What you've described sounds no different from one child punching a smaller child in the face, then claiming he was just trying to teach the kid how to fight. Even if such an altruistic motivation were true, there are better ways to go about it. All this kind of behaviour does is discourage and cow your so-called friend while making you feel superior for dominating him with your l33t roleplay skills.
How does having to carry around a festering head on your orders ruin the fun for him? I rather doubt it's in the idiom he pictured for his character, for one. You've just shown him that, because you rolled a die better than he did, his character isn't his to control. Instead of teaching him roleplay skills, you're punishing him for not having them. You've got him doing the D&D adventurer equivalent of wearing your dirty jock on his head, and what's more, everyone laughed at him for it! Golly, that sounds like such a good time! Where do I sign up?!
If I were in the habit of telling people how to run their own game I'd tell you to try playing a D&D that's a cooperative team experience, out-of-character as well as in-character, rather than what is apparently something akin to a hazing with dice. Since I'm not in that habit, I'll instead suggest that in the name of clarity you stop referring to this person as your friend; while it might be accurate that he is yours, such a casual use of the term might give people the mistaken impression that you are his.
Not only his friend, but his best friend. I know it may seem out of this world to you that a friend might put another friend at the butt of a joke, but things like this happen when you have friends. You'll figure it out someway.
Not only his friend, but his best friend. I know it may seem out of this world to you that a friend might put another friend at the butt of a joke, but things like this happen when you have friends. You'll figure it out someway.
*sighs*
Ah well. Can't teach those who won't listen. Maybe when you're old and alone, people long since having gotten tired of putting up with you, you'll be willing to rethink your behaviour. I honestly hope so, for your sake.
Not only his friend, but his best friend. I know it may seem out of this world to you that a friend might put another friend at the butt of a joke, but things like this happen when you have friends. You'll figure it out someway.
The very existence of this thread indicates that your best friend does not find it funny. At which point any friend worthy of the name will respect that and back off.
Pulling stuff like this on another character is best done with the player's permission and agreement. Stuff like that can be amusing, but other players have the right to refuse it in their hobby.
Bluff allows you to tell a lie without getting caught. It has no bearing on how much the victim will actually believe, regardless of how genuine you may seem.
This is important to remember. Bluff allows you to say something without the other person knowing whether or not you are lying, have alterior motives; etc, but that doesn't mean that the other person automatically believes you. I had a player in 3E game once try to bluff a kobold chieftain into believe that the player's character (who was a half-orc) was the chieftain's long lost brother. The player rolled exceptionally well on his bluff check (he insisted on being allowed to make the roll even though I told him that there was no possible way that the kobold would believe it), but the kobold still did not believe the player's character.
I was trying to get him to role play. We are a group of friends in our mid 20's... were not 12 year olds on the playground.
Not only his friend, but his best friend. I know it may seem out of this world to you that a friend might put another friend at the butt of a joke, but things like this happen when you have friends. You'll figure it out someway.
Have you talked to him yet? I asked this earlier, but you still haven't answered. If he says he's fine with it, then you have no problem. However, the fact that he created this thread indicates to me that he didn't like being bluffed, or that he believes that being bluffed means you have control over his actions.
This is important to remember. Bluff allows you to say something without the other person knowing whether or not you are lying, have alterior motives; etc, but that doesn't mean that the other person automatically believes you. I had a player in 3E game once try to bluff a kobold chieftain into believe that the player's character (who was a half-orc) was the chieftain's long lost brother. The player rolled exceptionally well on his bluff check (he insisted on being allowed to make the roll even though I told him that there was no possible way that the kobold would believe it), but the kobold still did not believe the player's character.
well According to the players handbook with a bluff you can "make what’s false appear to be true, what’s outrageous seem plausible, and what’s suspicious seem ordinary"
I personally feel like the other player was in the right in that scenario, however you were the DM so the final say was up to you.
Ah well. Can't teach those who won't listen. Maybe when you're old and alone, people long since having gotten tired of putting up with you, you'll be willing to rethink your behaviour. I honestly hope so, for your sake.
I wish I could attach a video to this of me laughing my ass off. The idea that you could teach me anything about social interaction that I don't already know is preposterous. I'm not some unintelligent *******. I have a good sense of humor and more friends than numbers can count. The fact that you even made that comment in relation to what this thread is actually about says leaps and bounds about who you are.
Have you talked to him yet? I asked this earlier, but you still haven't answered. If he says he's fine with it, then you have no problem. However, the fact that he created this thread indicates to me that he didn't like being bluffed, or that he believes that being bluffed means you have control over his actions.
Of course, this was weeks ago, I've already sold him off to a paladin who then released him. This thread was created because he didn't think it was even possible.
well According to the players handbook with a bluff you can "make what’s false appear to be true, what’s outrageous seem plausible, and what’s suspicious seem ordinary"
I personally feel like the other player was in the right in that scenario, however you were the DM so the final say was up to you.
However the Bluff goes against the PC's self interest, nature and personality. And thus would find it hard to beleive they were a lowly servant doing mundane work. Why?
Self Interest: Servitude and Slavery goes against one's Freedom. Being a lowly servant, carrying a stinking bag with a rotting head in it is low and demeaning.
Nature: Even with his forgoten memory, the PC in question is an adventurer. Someone who is confident, brave, even heroic and probably rebelious. This is a person who commands and answers to noone. Outspoken, proud and daring.
A servant doesn't look others in the eyes, but the PC stares down enemies dangerous monsters. A servant is meak and unasuming, the PC is proud and haughty. A servant is weak and cowardly, the PC is brave and heroic. A servant obeys and grovels, the PC commands and holds his head up high.
Personality: Same as above, even if he beleived he was a servant, he would likely say "What I was your servant? Well that may have been true once, but I am a free man now and obey noone" Nature and personality is decided by the player who is free to say "there is no way in hell my PC would ever do that"
Bluff is not a spell, While Bluff could convince someone (onbviously with memory loss) that they used to be a servant, it would not induce them to obey their former master. As above it goes against their self interest, nature and personality.
Just as convincing a person that their shoes are untied might make them look down, they will instantly see that their shoes are tied and that is the end of the bluff. So to for the PC, you may convince they they were your servant but the simple fact that the "servant" in question has no training or skill in servitude, but is fully trained in whatever class he is. It would be extraordinary to convince a towering powerful seasoned warrior that he was only a simple mundane servant, ignore the armor and sword that he carries and knows how to use so well.
And although you have a +15 to your Bluff, the modifiers in this case should work against you. To make him beleive he is a servant on an ongoing basis when it goes against his self interest, nature and personaility would be outrageous indeed, so the victim should be getting the proper modifier to his insight roll, he should be getting a +15 to +20 to his roll at least. More if you are asking him to do demeaning tasks (such as carrying a severed head in a bag, that has got to smell nasty)
Of course, this was weeks ago, I've already sold him off to a paladin who then released him. This thread was created because he didn't think it was even possible.
Well sounds to me that he is probably assuming things about the rules that you know are untrue. Maybe you should look into that and make sure he knows how the rules operate ?
It seems like he belives he HAS to obey your PC's orders because of the bluff.
I'm not going to verbally forum flog you for pulling a joke on your friends PC...Seriously I have been through worse pranks with my good friends during play, and pretty bad ones in RL to boot :D
I think those that because of this topic, assume that you are some kind of raging schoolyard bully are assuming too much methinks.
But with the amount of "I'm not having fun in this group, what should I do?" topics, where acctual bullying has been a problem, that has probably shown up over the years I don't really blame them for doing so either.
I have likely seen two or three just in the short time I've been a member.
However if you want to encourage more RP from your friend this might be a poor way to go about it. As mentioned you are punishing lack of it rather than helping create it. And if you are abusing his lack of rules-knowledge to do so, it defenetly not helping in any way at all.
I seriously doubt any sane DM would allow a bluff to pursuade someone of a completly different species that they are related.
But I certainly would allow a bluff roll PC vs PC in some scenarios. Especially to settle matters where the player knows the truth, but the PC does not, and the player is refusing to belive what is being said in character just like that. (Over the years my group has become much better at avoiding metagaming though) but I would never allow a bluff to force a PC to act against his free will.
Bluff allows you to tell a lie without getting caught. It has no bearing on how much the victim will actually believe, regardless of how genuine you may seem.
How's that work?
"I don't believe anything that you're saying...but I'm sure you're not lying.
"hmm, you make a good point. So before I was made into a slave I was your servant, and you sent me on some mission, and I did it, and I got captured and was turned into a slave? I suppose that sounds believable...you know though, I don't really feel like being your servant anymore. So, I'm going to quit, and find a new job as say... [Insert VTM's Class Here] and help out on adventures and stuff"
Or conversely
"So I'm your servant then? Sure I suppose. What was that? Get you coffee? No. I might be your servant but you got me captured so I ain't getting you anything. You want something, get it yourself!"
You can believe you WERE his servant and still decide to NOT be his servant if that is your characters wish. I mean, he was a slave for awhile, why would he want to be rescued from this and basically go straight back into it? I see no reason why this isn't a fair solution. The bluff was successful. Too bad it doesn't control your character =D
How's that work?
"I don't believe anything that you're saying...but I'm sure you're not lying.
Actually, it's more "I may have failed an insight test or he may just have no idea what he's really talking about or he may be right", as all three are valid versions of what an insight check resulting in "he's not lying" may mean.
1. The person is drugged to the point where they will beleive you no matter what or have a much harder time "sensing the motive".In the case, it would basically be mind control not bluffing so much though.
2. the player is extremely dumb.
Either way the bluff skill you could be a horible bluffer in both cases.
How's that work?
"I don't believe anything that you're saying...but I'm sure you're not lying.
I'd think it'd work as such:
"I don't believe anything that you're saying... but I believe that you believe it." A successful Bluff check on something unbelievable doesn't mean that they suddenly think something strange is true -- it means that they think your PC is confused, has been lied to himself, is simply crazy, or is in possession of some secret truth, depending on the target's nature and the nature of the bluff. In the original case, the amnesiac would think that the other PC _believed_ that he was a servant -- possibly because the amnesiac had actually been a servant, or perhaps as some sort of elaborate con that the amnesiac had been running, or because the _real_ servant was the amnesiac's long-lost twin.
In the case of bluffing that you're a kobold's brother, I'd think you'd likely convince the kobold that you're simply crazy and that he should take advantage of his 'brother' by suggesting that the PC share the wealth with his 'family.'
There is something that must be pointed out here to VTM.
"So I'm your servant then? Sure I suppose. What was that? Get you coffee? No. I might be your servant but you got me captured so I ain't getting you anything. You want something, get it yourself!"
This. Bluff does not in any way (nor does anything in 4E) grant a player control of another player's actions. All it does is recreate the imagined space.
Basically what you had was a situation where you were playing a character who is a heroically professional con-artist. He can sell stories that would usually be considered silly. Fine. However, that doesn't mean people act according to your wishes or expectations. For example, say you played in a game where there was a 1000 year old prophecy that the antichrist figure is going to appear in 1000 years and that if he is not destroyed before he reaches adulthood, he will end the world in armageddon. Now lets say you are pick-pocketed on the street by a little beggar child who gets away from you. You find him later at the market with his poor father. Caring nothing for the dirty little brat, you approach the father with a story bearing "proof" that this child is the antichrist. Your bluff of 29 beats the superstitious peasant father's insight of 5 by a mile.
You make your case easily. However, this does not mean that the father will accept this. Oh sure, he believes your story, that it's possible. However, he loves his son anyway and while he may be mortally afraid of him for the rest of his life, it might be in his best interests to force himself to deny what he actually thinks is the truth: that he is the father of the antichrist.
Or maybe he executes his child, or sacrifices him to a god or something. It depends on the character who, in this case, is being played by the DM; not you. In the end, all you have done is altered the environment that the NPC believes he lives in. Whereas before he lived in a world where his son is innocent, now he lives in a world where it seems that his son could be the coming antichrist. What he does is up to his player.
To return to the original situation, how the player plays his character is up to him. The only thing that has changed is that he has been convinced that you could be his past master. If he has chosen to roleplay his character as a person who seeks to find his old master and become a faithful servant again, then it should be a barrel of laughs and entirely fun for him to play his character as your restored servant. If he is playing a character who has had a taste of freedom and feels a desire to defy his old master, well, that's his choice.
Make sense?
-- John M.
I've been in plenty of games as a player where someone had to work against everyone else or just try and get their way.
It's gets old after the first time.
The important thing is to talk to the other player and make sure that he's not taking it as an insult and that you're not just doing it to be a jerk. Just remember Bluff=! mind control. It just convinces them (with a successful check) of a reasonably possible fact.