How often to roll a bluff check?

[Y47]

It's my first time GM-ing, and one of my players has a PC with a background she wants kept hidden. Whenever her character lies, i secretly roll a bluff check for her, and a sense motive check for whoever is listening, including NPCs.

one NPC succeeded and confronted her about her story away from the rest of the party, and proceeds to interrogate her about the truth. she went ahead and told a new lie, "you're right, i'm actually here for such and such". the NPC goes on to ask questions about the new story.

so my question is, as the story gets more elaborate and detailed (specific names etc.), how many times should i roll a bluff check? it seems to me that if you keep making stuff up, it shouldn't be just one check for a entire conversation, one side of which is total falsehood.

where do you draw the line? a check for each incorrect fact? per period of time lying? for the entire conversation? every time the PC has to make something up on the spot?

appreciate any thought or experience in this matter... thanks!

[kikidmonkey]

i would do it like this:

for each conversation roll a bluff.
in each conversation, the more lies added to it, the harder the roll to bluff

so if in one conversation that stated that they were secretly the king, can eat 100 eggs in one sitting, killed a dragon with just a toothbrush, and got a 17 in 18 rounds of golf, that would be one (extremely difficult) roll.

if each item came up during a different conversation, then each would be rolled separately.

[Gnomezrule]

I tend to force a roll when:

1- I need a second to think.
2- The character is really lieing.
3- The player has bluff in mind but doesn't know how the banter of the situation should go.

If the actual rp is solid and the lie is easy to believe I may ask for them to roll but the dc is reduced.

[Abraham spalding]

I am in fact rolling one right now.

[Y47]

thanks for the quick responses!

kiki:
that makes good sense, but i'm having trouble integrating it with the RP. i mean, this is more or less what's happened so far: she claims she's here looking for a lost ship (lie number 1). i rolled the check, the NPC bought the lie, so he logically asked "what's the ship's name?" and now she made one up (it was "rising seamen", btw :D).
so the way the conversation goes greatly depends on whether or not the NPC is buying into the whole deal - i can't really roll per conversation, because it would really change how it goes.

gnomez:
1 - when YOU need to think, or the player?
2 - is that per lie, or per overall story? (see above).

[RMcD]

Y47 wrote:

thanks for the quick responses!

kiki:
that makes good sense, but i'm having trouble integrating it with the RP. i mean, this is more or less what's happened so far: she claims she's here looking for a lost ship (lie number 1). i rolled the check, the NPC bought the lie, so he logically asked "what's the ship's name?" and now she made one up (it was "rising seamen", btw :D).
so the way the conversation goes greatly depends on whether or not the NPC is buying into the whole deal - i can't really roll per conversation, because it would really change how it goes.

gnomez:
1 - when YOU need to think, or the player?
2 - is that per lie, or per overall story? (see above).

If you believed there was a ship, why would you start doubting if it was called Rising Seamen, I mean, unless it was called F+!+ you Mr guy who is asking me about this ship name on a Tuesday, I can't see why you'd ever need a bluff check.

It's stupid that a high enough bluff roll could make them believe it was actually called "This is all a lie I don't have a ship"

[Coriat]

Here's how I handle it:

If a new detail doesn't substantially impact the believability of the lie, then there's no need for either a new roll or an adjustment, it's all part of the overall story. If I already believe you're a former investment banker instead of an ex-con, then I'm not likely to call BS because you say your boss's name was Michael, that's just fluff.

If a new detail does substantially alter the believability of the overall story ("So you're from Osirion, huh? What's that like?" "Oh, well, I never got to see the country much, you see, as the secret love child of the Ruby Pharaoh I was always kept in the palace till I ran away...") then I prefer to adjust the result of the original roll using one of the modifiers given in the Bluff skill (outlandish, -10, in this case), rather than call for new rolls. YMMV. This does mean that a doubted story can be rescued by improvising some "convincing proof", or a perfectly good lie can be sabotaged by getting too outlandish and ambitious as the story goes on. However, if a new detail substantially changes the story I suppose you could call for a new roll too.

If you get caught lying and try to get out of it with a completely different lie ("Okay, yeah, you got me, I'm not an investment banker... I was lying because I'm an undercover financial crimes specialist from the NYPD!"), that's a new Bluff check at -10 as per the Bluff entry in the Core Rulebook.

[Gnomezrule]

1- If I as GM need a moment to think and in general I know what they are planning and I need a moment to think I will make the player roll. My thinking is if the screw the roll I only have to think about failure. If they roll spectacularly I only have to deal with success.

2- It is the flagrance of the lie. If there are stolen goods on a cart and a guard asks what's on the cart and the bluffer says, "Just some trade goods we are hoping to sell aways west (and they are on the road that could take them west)." The bluff told is pretty reasonable and unless the guard has other reasons to be wary likely an auto success. If the wagon fits the description of a missing caravan wagon and a barrel uncovered in the back bears the brand of a recently robbed merchant and the well dressed bard says "Nothing to see here we're just lowly farmers heading home." Here there a number of things out of order.

[Avatar-1]

I don't think bluff checks should be "sentence-based", that's annoying and it can unnecessarily penalise the player.

The thing is, the whole conversation is essentially "the lie". So you don't keep making new rolls, though you might adjust the DC as the conversation goes on. From there, the rules for the DCs are in the rulebook in the table under the bluff skill.

Generally adjusting the DC should be a bit of a last resort because it's a bit of a hassle to do so - but the situation might call for it, depending on when in the conversation the roll occurred. With practise, you'll know better when to ask for the roll.

[Gnomezrule]

Yeah I wasn't basing it on a single sentence. It just how I balance clever players who rp bluffs well verses high cha characters who don't always play it swave.

If the players solve the puzzle no need to disable it.

[Y47]

i think coriat got his finger on it, at least to my tastes...

thanks everyone!