| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I treat it more as you believe that the bluffer believes what he's saying, but you can also consider the possibility that the bluffer might be mistaken.
But I don't tend to make PCs play by NPC rules anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a GM's call thing. I'm running a campaign right now with a player who specializes in bluff, and my ruling is that he can't just roll a bluff check. He has to actually role-play out telling a convincing story. If he can do that, I let him make the check. If not, I don't even let him try. So far it's worked out well, it rewards role play and prevents ridiculous situations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wording is vague enough to allow GM interpretation without issue.
It is NOT, however, mind control, at all.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I run bluff vs sense motive as sense motive lets you know whether someone is being sincere about their statements. So if someone comes up to you and says the sky is purple and their bluff beats your sense motive you believe that they believe the sky is purple. However, you're not stupid and you know the sky isn't purple.
Like Matthew says, it's mostly that the bluffer is being honest with a touch of "and they know what they're talking about." The second part is about the difference between being the guy with the tinfoil hat and someone I'd believe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We don't use the Giant Hunters Handbook, so it's a non-issue at our table. ;)
I'm really not a fan of forcing PCs to have their decisions made for them via a dice roll. Dice rolls are for determining the results of actions, not for influencing the decision process that goes into making those actions.
I treat a Bluff roll as the decision maker when a PC is bluffing but hasn't made a particularly compelling (or worse) bluff, or as a clue when I don't seem to be effectively conveying an NPC's attitude (ie: thinking a NPC is lying out of ignorance instead of maliciousness).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a GM's call thing. I'm running a campaign right now with a player who specializes in bluff, and my ruling is that he can't just roll a bluff check. He has to actually role-play out telling a convincing story. If he can do that, I let him make the check. If not, I don't even let him try. So far it's worked out well, it rewards role play and prevents ridiculous situations.
One of the main points of role playing games is to play a character that has skills and abilities you lack. What happens when someone without good social skills wants to play a charismatic social manipulator? Do you make someone who wants to climb a wall or use acrobatics perform similarly?
Requiring them to role play the situation is fine, but only allowing them to roll if they succeed in a skill they may not have is in my opinion poor role playing. What I do is to have them state what they are saying and then let them roll. If they succeed at the role that alone determines if they succeed. I adjust what they actually say depending on how well they succeed. A character should not get the benefits of a player’s skill. People complain when a player uses out of character knowledge so why is this any different.
The way I run it when someone successfully bluffs someone the other person will at least consider what the other person is saying is true. They are unsure enough that they will at least check to see if it is true. In the case where someone is saying the sky is purple they will at least glance up to see if the sky is purple. When they see that it is not they obviously don’t still believe it. If it they were telling the kings body guard the king was an imposter they would at least seek to confirm this. The person who was bluffed is not required to act on the situation unless it was a situation they would normally act on. Convincing someone the sword you have is magical is not going to make them buy it, unless they would normally buy a magic sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with most of what Mysteroius Stranger said. I don't make Fighters role-play their attack sequence and then say "Meh you didn't impress me, you don't get to attack this round" so I don't do the same to social skills.
The part I disagree with is that I believe Bluff can convince someone that the sky is purple even if they're looking right at it. To understand my reason, let's look at something more quantifiable than Bluff, let's look at Perception.
I have an 11th level character that has a 35 to perception. If we look at the perception chart, if my character rolls a 1 on a perception check he can hear a bow being drawn from the other side of a 1 foot think wall. Or, again if he rolls a 1, he could sense a creature burrowing underneath him while he was asleep. Now I don't know about you, but that seems pretty far into the realm of superhuman. If perception can do that, why not bluff?
Bluff says that if they lie is impossible, i.e. the sky is purple, then your opponent gets +20 to his sense motive. The chart also says that if you possess convincing proof, you get +10, but I also take that to mean if the opponent has convincing proof that you're lying, like seeing a blue sky, they get +10. So if your Bluff can beat your opponents sense motive check +30, then yes they believe the sky is purple. I mean is that really any more far fetched than being able to hear a bow being drawn through a foot thick wall?
If you're still not convinced consider the real world example of a man who convinced an entire country all their problems were caused not by a war they just lost and the harsh treaty imposed on them, but by a group of religious people.
Bluff is not just convincing someone you are honest. That's not bluffing. When you bluff in Poker are you convincing your opponents that "you" believe your hand is good/bad, or making them believe that your hand is good/bad. Actually, why am I bothering with making an argument, lets just ask the Bluff skill.
If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true. Bluff checks are modified depending upon the believability of the lie. The following modifiers are applied to the roll of the creature attempting to tell the lie. Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).
True facts.
No matter what a player argues, the efficacy of a skill is determined by the GM.
Period.
Full stop.
When you bluff in Poker are you convincing your opponents that "you" believe your hand is good/bad, or making them believe that your hand is good/bad.
Unless you didn't look at your hand, or don't know the rules of Poker, those two bluffs are exactly equivalent.
Most of us here don't take RAW too seriously for Bluff. If you do, it leads to some pretty weird conclusions. For example, a good bluffer can convince you that they're innocent of a crime they committed, but can't convince you that they're innocent of a crime they were falsely accused of - the skill only works for fooling someone.
I agree with most of what Mysteroius Stranger said. I don't make Fighters role-play their attack sequence and then say "Meh you didn't impress me, you don't get to attack this round" so I don't do the same to social skills.
The part I disagree with is that I believe Bluff can convince someone that the sky is purple even if they're looking right at it. To understand my reason, let's look at something more quantifiable than Bluff, let's look at Perception.
I have an 11th level character that has a 35 to perception. If we look at the perception chart, if my character rolls a 1 on a perception check he can hear a bow being drawn from the other side of a 1 foot think wall. Or, again if he rolls a 1, he could sense a creature burrowing underneath him while he was asleep. Now I don't know about you, but that seems pretty far into the realm of superhuman. If perception can do that, why not bluff?
Bluff says that if they lie is impossible, i.e. the sky is purple, then your opponent gets +20 to his sense motive. The chart also says that if you possess convincing proof, you get +10, but I also take that to mean if the opponent has convincing proof that you're lying, like seeing a blue sky, they get +10. So if your Bluff can beat your opponents sense motive check +30, then yes they believe the sky is purple. I mean is that really any more far fetched than being able to hear a bow being drawn through a foot thick wall?
If you're still not convinced consider the real world example of a man who convinced an entire country all their problems were caused not by a war they just lost and the harsh treaty imposed on them, but by a group of religious people.
Bluff does not allow you to permanently alter a person’s perception. Just like perception does not allow you to continue to hear every move of the person behind the wall. Yes you made your perception roll so you heard him draw the bow; this does not mean you can continue to hear him. Each new situation requires the use of the skill. So the initial bluff roll convinced him the sky is purple, but now he is looking at it. If you stayed there and continued to bluff him then maybe you could keep him believing the sky is purple. Once you leave your bluff is no longer in effect, unless he has not had a chance to confirm it.
If you have the skill unlock for bluff that changes things.
When you bluff in Poker are you convincing your opponents that "you" believe your hand is good/bad, or making them believe that your hand is good/bad.Unless you didn't look at your hand, or don't know the rules of Poker, those two bluffs are exactly equivalent.
Most of us here don't take RAW too seriously for Bluff. If you do, it leads to some pretty weird conclusions. For example, a good bluffer can convince you that they're innocent of a crime they committed, but can't convince you that they're innocent of a crime they were falsely accused of - the skill only works for fooling someone.
I admit I don't play any kind of non-collectible card game (Seriously only 52 cards? Most of which are reprints?), but my understanding based on television is that convincing someone your hand is good and convincing someone your hand is bad are different strategies.
Regardless, the RAW is pretty clear about what bluff does. Also, what Mysterious Stranger said.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on what you mean by "mind control." Bluff, like Diplomacy, can function as a non-magical form of mind control in that it influences the attitudes, and therefore behavior, of others.
Pathfinder does suffer from a lackluster social mechanic, but alternative systems (Social Combat) tend to be too cumbersome for most games. Unless you're playing a heavy social interaction setting, then it might be just the thing.
Does Bluff make you a mindless automaton who blindly follows whatever lie he was convinced of? No.
But, like the Charm spell (don't debate this here! There are PLENTY of other threads on that hot button of a topic as it is!), exactly how these play out is widely variable based on the players and the GM involved.
Anzyr quoted the RAW text. Based on that, it does lend itself to abuse, and therefore "mind control" in nature.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No matter what a player argues, the efficacy of a skill is determined by the GM.
Why have game rules, then? Just play "mother, may I."
Period.
Question mark!
Full stop.
Still not convincing me. Additional punctuation is not support for an argument -- it's just additional punctuation.
In Burroughs' "Mars" books, John Carter or some Jeddak is always making statements and ending them with "I have spoken," to signal that the discussion is over. In every case, though, the speaker has a way of enforcing that -- usually, in the books, at the end of a sword. On the messageboards, though, that doesn't work, and, apropos to the topic at hand, punctuation does not increase your Bluff results nor provide any sort of mind control.
No matter what a player argues, the efficacy of a skill is determined by the GM.
Period.
Full stop.
The same can be said and applied to any situation, so why have a rules forum at all? All answers are "Whatever your GM says".
Once you leave your bluff is no longer in effect, unless he has not had a chance to confirm it.
I think we agree here, some situations may vary but generally this would be the case.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...my ruling is that he can't just roll a bluff check. He has to actually role-play out telling a convincing story. If he can do that, I let him make the check. If not, I don't even let him try. So far it's worked out well, it rewards role play and prevents ridiculous situations.
Do you also demand that the fighter players be able to cut down a tree quickly in order to demonstrate their character's ability to bypass DR?
I wouldn't have a player roleplay something he might not be good at in real life and have it affect his character's in-game abilities.
What I would ask, is that he give the table a general description of the lie. He doesn't have to sell "us" on the lie with good roleplay, he just has to get us all on the same page as to what he is intending to do and how his character is trying to go about it.
Kind of like how I don't make players write up a ten page contract when casting wish. I just ask them what they want, assume the character worded it fine, and tell them if the wish succeeded or failed (sometimes in advance).
Bluff is not just convincing someone you are honest. That's not bluffing. When you bluff in Poker are you convincing your opponents that "you" believe your hand is good/bad, or making them believe that your hand is good/bad. Actually, why am I bothering with making an argument, lets just ask the Bluff skill.
If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true. Bluff checks are modified depending upon the believability of the lie. The following modifiers are applied to the roll of the creature attempting to tell the lie. Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).True facts.
And frankly those are s&$$ty rules that make people think Bluff works like mind control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And frankly those are s+%+ty rules that make people think Bluff works like mind control.Bluff is not just convincing someone you are honest. That's not bluffing. When you bluff in Poker are you convincing your opponents that "you" believe your hand is good/bad, or making them believe that your hand is good/bad. Actually, why am I bothering with making an argument, lets just ask the Bluff skill.
If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true. Bluff checks are modified depending upon the believability of the lie. The following modifiers are applied to the roll of the creature attempting to tell the lie. Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).True facts.
It only works like "mind control" if you think people who Bluff in real life and succeed amounts to "mind control".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that people react very differently to being bluff depending on the situation and what they are being bluffed about.
Military base?
Bluffer - "Sir I forget my ID, the general knows me though and I'm here to bring him his lunch."
MP - "Stand right there and I'll call the general and sort this out. Try to cross into the base and I will shoot you."
No amount of bluff should overcome certain scenarios, IMO.
The problem is that people react very differently to being bluff depending on the situation and what they are being bluffed about.
Military base?
Bluffer - "Sir I forget my ID, the general knows me though and I'm here to bring him his lunch."
MP - "Stand right there and I'll call the general and sort this out. Try to cross into the base and I will shoot you."No amount of bluff should overcome certain scenarios, IMO.
That's why there's the very loose: "Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion)."
I don't feel that your example is one of "something so improbable" it has no chance to succeed, but that's me. Hence table variation.
See my example represents something else to me.
The MP is successfully fooled by the bluffer, to the end that he is going to call the general. But his training as a soldier and understanding of the rules for how people are allowed in and out of a military base dictates that no one is getting in without proper identification or authorization. This isn't an example of impossible to me, because the bluff succeeded. But the reaction of the solider isn't to just let him in. It isn't mind control, the bluffer doesn't get to control how the soldier reacts.
If the bluff failed the MP would respond by saying "I don't think you know the general, and I don't see you carrying anything that looks like a lunch with you. Get out of here before I shoot you. Actually, you were trying to break into a military base. Stand right there, you're under arrest."
*grabs the popcorn and finds a comfy seat*
Bluffs you into thinking the popcorn is actually maggots, and takes the bowl and *disposes* it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See my example represents something else to me.
The MP is successfully fooled by the bluffer, to the end that he is going to call the general. But his training as a soldier and understanding of the rules for how people are allowed in and out of a military base dictates that no one is getting in without proper identification or authorization. This isn't an example of impossible to me, because the bluff succeeded. But the reaction of the solider isn't to just let him in. It isn't mind control, the bluffer doesn't get to control how the soldier reacts.
Oh, I agree. It's just a good example of how there's going to be a wide range of GM actions/reactions, and why such Skills can't be standardized by rules. Same goes for the $!@&ing Charm spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It only works like "mind control" if you think people who Bluff in real life and succeed amounts to "mind control".
This is a slap in the face to all bluff builds. Why can't bluffers have nice things?
It works like mind control because magic.
In a world with elves and dragons and wizards and fireballs and all kinds of other magic, if casters can have Dominate Person, then non-casters can have Bluff. Saying otherwise means Paizo hates non-casters.
Nothing you can say will convince me otherwise.
/sarcasm
Spoiler:Everything I said in in this post except this disclaimer is sarcasm and doesn't express my true opinions. Any resemblance to game mechanics, real or imaginary, is purely coincidental.
Are you serious?
;)
So, here are the rules
Bluff checks are modified depending upon the believability of the lie. The following modifiers are applied to the roll of the creature attempting to tell the lie. Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).
Depending on the GM's call, convincing someone the sky is purple, when it's blue,could be worth a -1000 circumstance penalty, or it could be impossible.
But let's say it's possible and feasible. As a GM, I try to be game. If you do convince someone of something contrary to their own reason and senses, you might be able get them to do strange things, because they are confused. But nowhere in Bluff does it say it causes the target to entirely lose their judgment. Even if I'm convinced you're the lost Earl of Duke, I'm not going to risk my job based on my own certitude. I think the soldier example is a good one.
Have you watched The Road to El Dorado? The roguish protagonists completely convince the high priest and most of the population they are gods. But it doesn't stop the high priest from thinking there should be some sacrifices or something, for propriety's sake.
Asking someone to explain their Bluff isn't penalizing. I'm not asking the player to "act." I just want to know plausible the Bluff is, to set appropriate penalties and decide if the attempt can even succeed.
Lets say the person rolled a check to tell another one the sky is on fire and the world is ending, both are indoors and cant see any of that , now that would be a -20 check , since that would be impossible , if even then it is a success , then the target believes the sky is on fire and the world is ending.
Ofc when he goes outside and everything is normal , he will stop believing the lie.
And ofc , if the GM believes a lie is completely impossible , then you might not get a check.
Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).
It's a GM's call thing. I'm running a campaign right now with a player who specializes in bluff, and my ruling is that he can't just roll a bluff check. He has to actually role-play out telling a convincing story. If he can do that, I let him make the check. If not, I don't even let him try. So far it's worked out well, it rewards role play and prevents ridiculous situations.
Personally i would have gladly gotten up and left your game at that point , nothing pisses me more than those that mix roleplay with CHAR skills rolls.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as someone who's bluffed their way onto more than one military base in more than one country without proper identification, it is absolutely possible. There were times that the guard post was warned ahead of time that someone was going to try to bluff their way past, and was still able to do it.
Why are we so selective in this game? Why do we accept magic missiles, and elves being able to hear a bow being drawn through a wall, but we can't accept someone can convince someone else of a lie? We can't accept that some characters have reflexes so quick, that even if you're ready for them, they can act before you (the whole readying out of combat debate) but we accept that a Rapier made of of a special material can poke through an iron bar. Why is one so acceptable, but the other so far from the realm of possibility that we feel the need to dismiss it? I don't get it.
"You can ask an audience to believe the impossible, but not the improbable."
Thats what it boils down to (regarding Bluff and believing Magic Missiles and Dragons).
No matter what a player argues, the efficacy of a skill is determined by the GM.Why have game rules, then? Just play "mother, may I."
Period.Question mark!
Full stop.Still not convincing me. Additional punctuation is not support for an argument -- it's just additional punctuation.
In Burroughs' "Mars" books, John Carter or some Jeddak is always making statements and ending them with "I have spoken," to signal that the discussion is over. In every case, though, the speaker has a way of enforcing that -- usually, in the books, at the end of a sword. On the messageboards, though, that doesn't work, and, apropos to the topic at hand, punctuation does not increase your Bluff results nor provide any sort of mind control.
Are you saying then that players choose NPCs initial reactions to an approaching PC?
That the player chooses which modifiers are applied to skills?
The players determine whether or not the person they are approaching is drunk, or wants to believe them?
Because that is what I was referring to.
GMs are there to help build a world that everyone participates in. Players control one character, the GM gets everything else.
At least, that's how we do it at my table.
The GM can be nice and decide that the guard you are trying to Bluff was drinking on the job.
The player doesn't choose that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No matter what a player argues, the efficacy of a skill is determined by the GM.
Are you saying then that players choose NPCs initial reactions to an approaching PC?
That the player chooses which modifiers are applied to skills?
The players determine whether or not the person they are approaching is drunk, or wants to believe them?
Are you saying that a DC 20 jump check might randomly fail to clear a 5-ft.-wide pit, because the DM happens to feel like it?
That a DC 20 Diplomacy check makes the PC's best friend hate him or her, because the DM was too lazy to come up with a scenario in which the outcome doesn't hinge on an easy check?That a DC 50 Perception check fails to detect a guy in a bear suit riding directly past them on a unicycle while blaring "We Are The Champions" on a boom box... because the DM doesn't want them to notice him?
Because that's what "The efficacy of a skill is determined by the GM. Period. Full Stop" means.
No matter what a player argues, the efficacy of a skill is determined by the GM.
Are you saying then that players choose NPCs initial reactions to an approaching PC?
That the player chooses which modifiers are applied to skills?
The players determine whether or not the person they are approaching is drunk, or wants to believe them?Are you saying that a DC 20 jump check might randomly fail to clear a 5-ft.-wide pit, because you happen to feel like it?
That a DC 20 Diplomacy check makes the PC's best friend hate him or her, just because you want them to?
That a DC 50 Perception check fails to detect an attempt to use Stealth in plain sight that only scores a 1?Because that's what "The efficacy of a skill is determined by the GM. Period. Full Stop" means.
As my previous post showed, you are way off the mark i was trying to target.
GM decides modifiers such as drunkeness. Not player.
Jumping and perceiving things can have modifiers to them that the player doesn't control.
The GM does.
The GM runs the game.
The players play it.
If the GM decides the BBEG has invisibility on him, then he gets to modify Perception rolls by 20, or 40.
The GM decides that.
Not the player.
So when I stated that the GM decides the efficacy of the skill, look at what I have written as examples, and realize that yes, GMs do, in fact, get a say in how the game runs.
As my previous post showed, you are way off the mark i was trying to target.
And as I pointed out, you missed that target by a substantial margin.
If you're going to get all dictatorial and snarky with the punctuation, at least say what you mean beforehand.
As my previous post showed, you are way off the mark i was trying to target.And as I pointed out, you missed that target by a substantial margin.
To disagree with my statement means you think that GMs do NOT get to decide on modifiers for a skill.
Is THAT what you are saying?
Do GMs simply apply rules and not get to make choices in their own game?
The guards are drunk only if the players wish it so?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM decides the BBEG has invisibility on him, then he gets to modify Perception rolls by 20, or 40.
The GM decides that.
Maybe in your games. In my games, the BBEG's stat block indicates whether he has the ability to be invisible, and the written game rules decide what the invisibility modifier to Stealth is. Not me.
Do GMs simply apply rules and not get to make choices in their own game?
To a much greater extent than you imply.
The guards are drunk only if the players wish it so?
If up until now the guards have been stanuch teetotallers who never touch a drop, but they're magically drunk now for no in-game reason, just because you (the DM) feel like it? Frankly, that's an equally terrible way to run a game.
Maybe in your games. In my games, the BBEG's stat block indicates whether he has the ability to be invisible, and the written game rules decide what the invisibility modifier to Stealth is. Not me.If the GM decides the BBEG has invisibility on him, then he gets to modify Perception rolls by 20, or 40.
The GM decides that.
...you only use published materials?
You haven't made your own NPC before? Chosen to have him cast Invisibility?
Do you have other players deciding the actions of your NPCs?
Do you run games? If so, how are you 'running' it if you aren't making any decisions?
GMs, like players, have options. They can CHOOSE to have the BBEG use Invisibility. Or Fireball.
Your hands aren't tied. You can do whatever you like.
Generally sticking to the rules is a good idea, but within that framework, making a challenging and fun game for the players usually involves thinking on your feet, being creative and having fun.
Making choices.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as someone who's bluffed their way onto more than one military base in more than one country without proper identification, it is absolutely possible. There were times that the guard post was warned ahead of time that someone was going to try to bluff their way past, and was still able to do it.
Why are we so selective in this game? Why do we accept magic missiles, and elves being able to hear a bow being drawn through a wall, but we can't accept someone can convince someone else of a lie? We can't accept that some characters have reflexes so quick, that even if you're ready for them, they can act before you (the whole readying out of combat debate) but we accept that a Rapier made of of a special material can poke through an iron bar. Why is one so acceptable, but the other so far from the realm of possibility that we feel the need to dismiss it? I don't get it.
I was going to post something, but this this better. I'll just post this.
To disagree with my statement means you think that GMs do NOT get to decide on modifiers for a skill.
Is THAT what you are saying?
Example: An NPC with 4 ranks in Perception as a class skill has a Wisdom of 12 and Skill Focus (Perception). His Perception bonus is +11. I didn't decider that. The game rules did. If there are situational modifiers (e.g., trying to notice something 100 feet away), the rules spell out those modifiers, too. I don't.
Example: An NPC with 4 ranks in Perception as a class skill has a Wisdom of 12 and Skill Focus (Perception). His Perception bonus is +11. I didn't decider that. The game rules did. If there are situational modifiers (e.g., trying to notice something 100 feet away), the rules spell out those modifiers, too. I don't.To disagree with my statement means you think that GMs do NOT get to decide on modifiers for a skill.
Is THAT what you are saying?
The person sneaking up on him can try to stay out of sight.
They could use Invisibility to help. Or not.
They have choices.
You choose whether or not they use it.
At no point did I say to ignore the rules. That assumption came from you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...you only use published materials?
You haven't made your own NPC before? Chosen to have him cast Invisibility?
Hardly ever. But if I wrote the NPC as a 1st level fighter, and I chose his gear (using correct WBL) and neglected to choose a potion of invisibility -- then guess what? When the PCs encounter him, he hasn't made himself invisible. Period. Full stop. Exclamation mark. Number 11. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Rocks fall, everyone dies.