|
Hi guys! I'm a PBP player/GM in these boards for almost a year and more than once I've been in doubt about how Bluff really works when you tell a lie and the poor fellow buys it.
Just to explain a bit more, I'm a heavy 'by the books' GM so the vagueness in Bluff always bugged me in contrast with the clear rules for Diplomacy and Intimidate.
When we talk about the interaction between PCs and NPCs, the fundamental stone is the NPC's attitude and it somehow dictates his course of actions (obviously based on his story/personality). As a GM it is easy for us to determine the starting attitude of an NPC and, depending on the skills the PCs try to use, how this particular encounter will occur.
In this regard, both Diplomacy and Intimidate are pretty clear in their interaction:
Diplomacy: With this you can change the starting attitude of a NPC to a more beneficial one (again helping us to gauge for the NPC reaction) and also make requests to them, another pretty straightforward stuff.
Ex.: John the rogue walks into a walled city to talk to the guard (initial attitude indifferent) and asks him to let him in, even if it is already past the time for newcomers and the gate is closed (make a request). John fails to persuade the guard so he starts to compliment him, even offering him a couple extra coins (influence attitude), which he succeeds. With the guard more friendly, he asks again to let their friends in (make a request, now with a friendly guard) and after a coins everyone is out of the rain in a cozy tavern.
Intimidate: Ignoring the other combat uses, Intimidate is also another pretty clear skill (or almost). Since it specifies that the target becomes 'friendly' towards you. I must confess that from here on it is a bit vague, but I'm inclined to understand that you are basically using Intimidate as Diplomacy, even if much easier. I generally rule that you need one check to make them 'friendly' and then another checks to make him do as you wish (using the same modifiers as a diplomacy check).
Ex.: John the rogue walks into a walled city to talk to the guard (initial attitude indifferent) and threatens him to let him in, even if it is already past the time for newcomers and the gate is closed (intimidate). John succeeds and the guard fears him, even if he also fears the consequences of such act. John threatens the guard a bit more (making a request via intimidate) and the guard soon realizes that it is better to risk his chances with his commander than against this dangerous man in front of him.
Now, the problem with the Bluff skill is that it doesn't tell us anything about the consequences if a NPC believes in the player... there is no indication if the NPC's attitude changes or if he is more open or not to a request (I'm assuming the player wants something and is not lying for the sake of it).
Ex.: John the rogue walks into a walled city to talk to the guard (initial attitude indifferent) and tries to lie to him to let him in, even if it is already past the time for newcomers and the gate is closed (bluff). He tells the guard that he has a meeting with Julius Bilton, a local noble and succeeds. Even if the guard knows there is a noble with such a name and that it is unlikely that such powerful man would meet with such ragtag person, he believes the rogue.
Now what? The guard's orders are still pretty clear and he isn't allowed to let anyone in. Julius Bilton (the noble) might be a powerful man and going against his will might be a real problem for his career, but in this case would not an Intimidate be also required? If John decides to point out that helping the noble might be helpful for the guard, would not require a Diplomacy roll? Or is Bluff such a magical skill that you trample all the other skills/rules?
Does the NPC's attitude change while he believes the lie? Would the guard be friendly towards John while he believes the rogue will put him in a good word with the noble? And when he discovers he was fooled... would he become unfriendly?
My problem with Bluff is that it can be interpreted as both a ridiculously powerful skill (bypassing all other obstacles) or a really subpar one (requiring additional Diplomacy and Intimidate checks). I'm sorry if it was already explained in another thread but so far I've failed to find an answer for this.
This isn't a real answer, for that you should probably have this moved to the rules forums, but I think of bluff's vagueness as a feature, not a bug. A lie can serve many purposes and a succesful one can still have all kinds of different outcomes depending on the situation. Not having an exact answer how it works models that pretty well if you ask me. Not having an exact answer also allows you to stimy ruleslawyers who would otherwise try to abuse the skill to ridiculous ends.
Social skills are just tricky to adjudicate, even Diplomacy and Intimidate, because even if the roll goes well sometimes the results are just too implausible, or vice versa. Some DM fiat just seems to be required. Really, all you really need to do, in my opinion that is, is hash it out with your players so you're all at least on the same page in regards to how they'll function.
Some day, hopefully, social skills will make sense and not be such a hot tangled mess of rules conflicting with/sublimating/overruling roleplay and vice versa. Until that day make do by... using your real world social skills to work it out amongst yourselves!