So i've always had this mild problem with bluff, if I as the game master tell the players a lie, i must make secret roles to see if they are convinced of the lie or i must have them roll. If i don't make these bluff checks the players know what to believe and what not to believe. Beyond that, because bluff is a skill it forces characters who don't have skill points in bluff to be truthful, even when they have evidence it can be damning to lie. It detracts from roleplay in a way that is difficult to circumvent. so i've thought of changing the rules of bluff a little bit.
I believe it would be easier to label this term as "convince" for these reasons:
When no counter evidence is present, Convince is not rolled.
Example: you and your armored companions are walking down the road carrying a banner for the royal guard. You are not a part of the royal guard but unless anyone could tell otherwise (say an officer of the guard) everyone would believe that you are a Guard
example 2: You don't trust the king, and after he sent you on a mission to kill Bobby you return and tell him he is dead. In truth you smuggled Bobby out of the kingdom.
When you are telling the truth but counter evidence is presented against you, convince is rolled against opposing convince check.
Example: You return to tell the king that your mission is complete, but he received a message earlier that informed him you had betrayed him.
When telling the truth but a character doesn't believe you for some reason other than a lie told by another. Roll convince check opposed by sense motive, where sense motive is subtracted from the roll instead of added.
Example: You disguise as beggars and leave all your possessions behind, but you need the help of an allied guardsmen who doesn't know you personally, you must convince him that you are a his ally and not some beggar off the street.
These rules can work for disguise as well, by clever planning and avoiding being exposed the players can avoid rolls which otherwise inhibit them from roleplaying as effectively as they would want.
This would also work for NPCs. You can implant a spy into the players ranks without the fear of losing a bluff check. This has the added bonus of allowing the players to be as paranoid or trusting as they want. If you have 6 players and they all pass a bluff check they would feel more comfortable with that player as an ally but if they never are allowed to make that check then they would be more paranoid- possibly snoop through the personal lives of their NPC allies in order to see if they are who they say they are. this would add an enormous amount of depth to roleplay in my opinion.
I feel that this is a way that many GMs are subcontiously running bluff but i wanted to hammer out some more clear rules for my players so that they. Do these rules look like they would work? And do you have any suggestions?
|
I'm not sure this is really that necessary to house rule.
Let's take your examples:
You and your armored companions are walking down the road carrying a banner for the royal guard. RAW: There's no reason for a bluff check here, and the player's disguise check would be opposed only by people familiar with the royal guard. So let's look at the bonuses:
A Fighter with Cha 0 can take a 10, he can then gain a +5 bonus for "Minor details only", he can also gain a +2 bonus for "specialized equipment", for a total of 17. Most commoners, or peasantfolk would be taking 10 on their Perception, with a bonus of +0, maybe +4 for "Recognize on sight". So riding through the streets our hero has no problem.
But then he comes across the guards at the palace gates, now these guys are no chumps: +4 Perception, plus "recognize on sight" means +8 if they take 10 they'll see through your flimsy disguise. Better do some fast talking.
In the second example. You are Valeros again, once again with your +0 bluff bonus. You smuggled Bobby out of the country, and come back to speak with the king.
"Bobby is dead m'lord, as you ordered." (Bluff +5, the target wants to believe you, Valeros could take 10, but decides to chance the roll for a better result
The king is taking 10 on Sense Motive, and doesn't quite believe Valeros' tale, and asks him for proof:
"If Bobby is dead as you claim, then where is his head?"
At which point Lem finally decides to pipe up, weaving a tale of an epic battle, over a pit of acid and with waves of caustic skeletons. Ultimately Bobby fell into the pit of acid. Lem, is a much more adept liar than Valeros and prepared for this moment with a random skeleton and a gold tooth he had a smith in Bludsberg create. He drops the acid burned skull on the table. Lem's got +7 bluff, gets +10 for convincing proof and -5 because the lie is unlikely for a total of +13. .
The King has a +10 bonus to sense motive, . The king still isn't convinced, but Sense Motive isn't magic. He asks the PCs to guest in the palace as a reward .
Then the GM makes a note that the King sends someone to verify the story and word will return in 1d6+2 days.
The party can't really refuse the King's invitation without appearing rude or suspicious and kindly accept.
As a GM, I have little trouble running the rules as written, just remember that Bluff and Sense Motive aren't magic, and a suspicious character isn't immediately going to call someone out as a liar, but they might become suspicious or distrustful of the PC's word. Just remember: Take 10 is a perfectly valid strategy for characters with high ranks in Bluff. Most non-essential NPCs will be taking 10 on their own checks too because they won't be trying for super successes on their day-to-day tasks. I just try to make it clear what the bonuses and penalties are to the player's checks before they roll or declare.
You're also trying to move a story forward. If your party is being particularly inventive, thorough and roleplaying their character well, it can be worth them 'getting away' with it. Just like it can be very interesting to let them roll their bluff, declare what the opponent needs to see through the ruse and roll the die for all to see. Adds tension. That is part of the charm of DM ing, deciding on ways of immersing and entertaining your group, and it has more to do with fun than mechanics.
I do see your point though. In real life we don't really question whether people are telling the truth, especially when it's something we're not invested in. Its only when we are seeking the particulars that a lie might be reveled. Take ten seems like the way to go in these matters. Would reveal obvious lies, and only when the character is concentrating would rolls have to be made.
I remember in another game system, is basically has it like this.
first of all it was under diplomacy
+20 to convince if it is obviously true to the person.
+10 to convince if what they can sense says that it is probably true.
+0 to convince if the character can't tell one way or the other.
-10 to convince if what they can sense says that is it probably untrue.
-20 to convince if it is obviously false to the person.
basically this was made for requests and was in response to your reasoning, such as letting you pass a check point because you were supposed to. you rolled this regardless of how true you were being, if you had a sealed envelope with the kings seal on it, and were flanked by royal soldiers, you'd probably get to pass on a take 10. however, say you were on your way and were attacked by bandits, your guards killed and you had to survive on your own in the woods for a few days, so you show up looking like some vagabond with a dirtied envelope with a broken seal, you better be convincing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In real life we don't really question whether people are telling the truth
In person, it almost always jumps out at me when people are lying, often just by looking at their faces. As a result, I assume always-active "passive checks" for Sense Motive (10 + bonus) are in effect whenever someone Bluffs. People trained in Bluff get very good with their poker faces, and get a passive Bluff check even when not actively trying.
Beyond that, because bluff is a skill it forces characters who don't have skill points in bluff to be truthful, even when they have evidence it can be damning to lie.
I believe this is "working as designed." If you don't have points in the Bluff skill and you're not naturally charismatic, you're not a very good liar -- which means that people can tell when you're trying to lie and react accordingly.
I use the take 10 rules for NPC's Sense Motive, which means that the vast majority of lies will go unspotted unless you're particularly poor at lying, represented by low charisma and few-if-any skill ranks. (Remember that the average NPC has a Sense Motive score of +0, so a single bonus point will allow you to take 10 and bluff the average passer-by.)
As for carrying the king's banner,.... there's a surprising amount of stuff you might have to get right in order to pull that off. Do the king's men wear uniforms? Do the king's men have a height requirement? While Princess Leia is far from an average NPC, the question "aren't you a little short for a stormtrooper?" is a good one that could easily trip you up, and one that anyone who has seen the king's guard would know. But the banner -- assuming it were genuine, or a good forgery -- would be good for a substantial bonus that would give you at least the +1 and probably more.
I do see your point though. In real life we don't really question whether people are telling the truth, especially when it's something we're not invested in. Its only when we are seeking the particulars that a lie might be reveled. Take ten seems like the way to go in these matters. Would reveal obvious lies, and only when the character is concentrating would rolls have to be made.
Really? Because I feel like its fairly common for people to lie and others to question their words. It happens all the time. And sure there is circumstances of implicate trust, but those are covered by the potential modifiers a dm can apply to a situation.
To the OP I am not really sure of the issue. When someone has no reason to believe you are lieing those are circumstancial modifiers, which can go as high as you want them to be. A police officer telling me that the street I am looking for while lost is 3 blocks east gets a large bonus to his bluff if he's lieing, I want to believe him, he's in a position of authority (I put this in the same category as convincing proof), and theres some circumstantial bonuses to his bluff in that I'm annoyed that I'm lost, and I dont have a reason to doubt him, for like a +20 to his bluff total. Maybe the worlds best interogator might notice the tick in his eye that gives away his lie, but me a normal person, heads east none the wiser.
If the need for secret rolls is the issue, i'd suggest the following: Keep a list of the bonuses each player has on relavent skills (sense motive, perception, etc) and then have each player roll 20 d20 rolls at the start of the session. When the time comes for secret rolls, just use those rolls, and have some of your own for npcs. That way no dice have been rolled, but there is still the possibility of deception at every turn because the players know you have those d20 rolls lieing about.