So here's what happened- We were on a vampire hunt, trying to save a young woman who ran off, marching through these woods. We had discovered that the woods were cursed or enchanted to always be night, and so a good place for vampires to chill out. In fact, we had seen a few already and killed them. We'd walked for about two hours. Suddenly, we happen upon a merchant's wagon. He brings up that it's always night, we bring up the fact that there are vampires everywhere, he asks for us to spend the night (or sleep for eight hours) with him, for protection. I, as neutral good, suggest he keep moving. It's a two hour trip, and it's better than sleeping in the permenantly dark woods next to hordes of the undead. Then I mention to the party that we have things to do- Namely, save the girl who is in said spooky forest with said hordes. The DM made a roll and said that it had been a natural 20 on a bluff check, and that we were forced to believe it when the NPC said that the other stuff could wait. Then he deemed that the entire party must go to sleep, with no watch or guard whatsoever.
My question is this- Even if there is a nat 20, or even if a bluff check succeeds, do player characters need to follow the actions of what they supposedly believe? If a player believes via bluff check that the barrel of a gunslinger's musket is actually a lollypop, does he have to wrap his lips around it? What about things that are clearly obvious? Can a bluff check really fool a group of people into sleeping outside for eight hours in vampire territory, when there are also other alternative courses of action, like taking two hours to simply not be there? Can a bluff check force doublethink of this nature, where we are both there to "protect" this guy, but are also advised that we should ALL sleep, while surrounded with danger?
Skills don't automatically succeed on natural 20s. Are you applying the bluff modifiers correctly?
The lie is impossible imposes -20.
Like Cheapy said -- and just because you might believe he's that stupid you simply believe he's that stupid and really means it. It does not change your suggestion or make you have to do anything else.
Look at it this way I walk up to you in the middle of these woods and say, "I'm really tired and want to take an 8 hour rest here when I could just travel 2 more hours and be out, will you protect me while I sleep?"
Sure I might look really tired, and you might believe I'm really really tired... but that doesn't mean you'll agree to something so stupid.
Skills don't automatically succeed on natural 20s. Are you applying the bluff modifiers correctly?
The lie is impossible imposes -20.
We're going to assume the opposed sense motive still failed.
As for Abraham, thanks for the good description of what goes on. That sounds about right for most things. However, part of the bluff was that our current objective could wait. This is where, to me, it gets tricky. Does it still follow the rule of "I believe that he believes that"?, since he is trying to convice us to believe what he believes? And hypothetically, let's add another variable- What if the merchant knew of our objective or sent us on it in the first place, or was heavily invested in it, or otherwise had some kind of sway to the effect that the other stuff to do wasn't relevant?
A 'natural' 20 Bluff in this case would just make your sense motive checks reasonably hard. Not force you to do anything. That would be a magical charm effect, against which you would have a saving throw to avoid.
And you don't need to make a check to Detect Stupid on behalf of the merchant. He's clearly crazy.
He's trying to get you to leave a quest and help him -- that's not lying that's persuasion. Persuading you to leave your current objective and help him with his is a diplomacy check -- which explicitly doesn't work on PCs.
All in all it looks like a hack job done by the GM who doesn't want to admit he didn't think before he threw this out there.
Are you sure he really rolled a natural 20? Sounds fishy.
Ah, thanks. The DM is new, and doesn't really get the rules. I knew it was a hack job, because soon after he referred to an ambush as a "punishment". I was more asking for other relevent situations in which an NPC might attempt to convince a player of something that was obviously a bad idea. But, knowing now that that would be diplomacy, and that diplomacy doesn't work on players, it seems that situation is all but irrelevant.
Roughly, to make sure I've got this, bluff checks can attempt to alter our perception of facts we don't know yet, but an NPC can't change a players opinion without enchantment spells. Correct?
I was always under the impression that a NPCs social skill checks could not force a PC to do anything.
So, yes, correct.
|
From a role playing perspective it might have been worthwhile to play it straight. My current character can't sense motives to save his life. He basically goes through a life where the last person he talked to is always telling the truth.
You should feel free to challenge your dm regarding the modifiers he put on the roll. A natural 20 on the roll does not help if a -20 modifier applies.
Finally, you might want to find some websites discussing adventure design and send the links to your DM. It might help him a lot. I think Evil Lincoln or Abe always seem to know the right websites.
Karkon- I was Roleplaying the same way. I'm a Neutral Good dwarf ranger who is essentially a well-meaning idiot. He will often make small talk with enemies in the middle of battle, compliment them on their technique and what not. However, it seemed that finding the lost little girl is more important than sleeping in vampireland for eight hours.
Yeah I could see maybe detouring long enough to get him out but not resting with him.
The term 'punishment' is also very worrying in this situation.
Did he back up this claim with supposed evidence? Such as, "I escorted that girl to safety earlier today and can take you to her after we rest" or somesuch? Really his Bluff check would be to convince your character that he thought that you spending the night with him wasn't a problem and that rescuing the maiden could wait; just because you believe that he believes this doesn't mean you have to agree with him. Your character can consider the source. If a random peasant was bluffing you that the king was really a shapechanged poodle, only the most gullible of characters is likely to agree with him, regardless of his Bluff check; the same story from the king's archwizard, however, seems much more reasonable.
Either way, I agree with Hyla - I think that it's pretty explicit that NPCs can't force people to take actions with social skill checks.
A tangential question, however - can Intimidate be used to demoralize a PC?
Bluff is to lie convincingly. It doesn't have anything to do with being believed.
For example: I am a bad NPC running a slavery ring out of the back of my shop. I employ Joe, an NPC who does not know about this ring and simply run the shop. The players come in, corner Joe, and demand to know about the slavery ring. He says he has no idea. Players roll sense motive, getting a natural 20, and I don't roll anything because Joe is telling the truth (and is too scared to try diplomacy).
Just because the players believe Joe doesn't mean they will have to give up on the search and assume the store isn't running a slavery ring. It simply means Joe is unknowing or very good at lying.
Now, the bigger problem is about meta-gaming. It is hard to get players to realize that they are not their characters. Characters may be tricked or lied to while the players clearly know what is going on here. This goes both ways, of course, as you may have heard the "my character has an 18 intelligence but I sure don't" argument sometimes used when GMs introduce puzzles into a game.
I'll often have players make wisdom (common sense) or intelligence (smart idea) checks to either say "your character does X anyway" or "your character realizes Y". Not too often, mind you, but it is a good way nudge players into playing the characters, not themselves.
|
|
Nobody can force you to play your PC a particular way. It's your PC. Unless there's magical control involved, and you failed a saving throw, you decide what they do. Even if you believe the NPC is telling the truth because of his bluff skill, that doesn't mean you're forced to act on that information.
There's no natural 20 auto-successes on skill checks, just attacks and saves - FYI. Like other people said, if that beats your sense motive that just means you don't think the guy is lying, and have to RP your PCs like he's honest. Someone can be honest and either crazy or a fool, so just because you believe he believes he's got the better judgement on what you should do doesn't mean you have to agree. Someone can tell you honestly he's sure the gun isn't loaded, doesn't mean you got to point it at your head and pull the trigger if he says it's ok. Even if you know for a fact that he's not trying to trick you, he can still be wrong.