|
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For your example, this is situation where you need both Bluff and Diplomacy or Intimidate.
Okay, you convinced the guard you have a meeting with a local noble, that's all well and good. It does nothing on it's own, he believes you have a meeting, good for you, want a cookie? The guard probably doesn't change his opinion about the rogue (likely indifferent to suspicious or unfriendly).
You now need to convince him that it's a good idea to do so through diplomacy or convince him of the consequences he'll face if he doesn't through intimidate.
People always seem to think that a social situation is covered by a single skill check.
In this case, a bluff check can enable the character to at all have a chance to make a reasonable diplomacy or intimidate check. Without knowledge that has potential rewards or punishment for the guard, he has no reason to the rogue in. Even if the rogue uses diplomacy to make him friendly, it is valid for the guard to say "Well friend, I'd like to let you in but rules are rules. Come back tomorrow during the day and I'll be happen to let you in." Of course this depends on the guard and how dedicated he is to his job, it might also be different if the rogue tries to bribe his way in, 100gp to let him in is about as much gold the guard makes in a year.
Personally I've tried to apply the solutions from the Alexandrian here and here.
Think of it this way, if a player truthfully had ties to Julius Bilton (and doesn't need to use bluff) how does the guard react? He probably still doesn't let him in. You might use diplomacy to convince the guard to go ask the Noble Sir Bilton about the meeting. You might intimidate him in to letting you in too, saying the matter is too important to wait.
A good way to think of bluff is, how would people react if what the character said was actually the truth and didn't need to make a bluff roll. You don't automatically get people to do stuff just because you told them the truth.
Regardless, bluff doesn't let you bypass this part just because you successfully convinced the guard. It does however open up an option that didn't exist before.
The difference between diplomacy and bluff is this: diplomacy makes someone see things with your eyes and he is willingly doing whatever follows from this. You have convinced the other side, and that is not going to vanish overnight, unless your actions negate what you won by talking.
Bluffing on the other hand is basically lying to the other person to make him believe something for a short time. You overrode his rational reasoning, but that won't last long.
But lying and being convincing can get you where no amount of reasoning and smiling - aka diplomacy - will get you. You cannot get into an airforce base by diplomacy (except by taking the long way over the proper channels and convincing people), but you can bluff your way in in a minute, if you are prepared (say disguised as a general on a surprise inspection) and have the aptitude (= skill).
Just imagine those:
"Look, over there flies bicycle repair man!" - You can make the guard look for a moment, which may or may not suffice, and he won't forget what you said or did. In a fantasy world "Look, is that the tarrasque?" fits better of course.
Telling a guard "I bring a personal message from an unnamed lady for your lord.", when you know about his being connected with a married lady (and everyone suspects it) is much more believable. Still, the guard will probably tell his comrades about the visitor or ask when he left. He may tell his officer about it, who may ask the lord. If there are actually such couriers about and you impersonated one, the bluff may never come to light.
"I am to bring the chest of gold to the troops. Don't bother with an escort or wagon, I brought my own." That one will never fly with a quartermaster, mechant or banker, no matter how glib you are. Words will only get you so far.
"Meet me at the dark well at midnight, come alone, tell nobody about it and bring a heavy stone and some rope." is another one that will be hard to bring off. Well, might work, if the girl likes it kinky.
You can get a lot of examples from the movies, how bluff works. In the old Fantomas movie from the 60ies with Jean Marais (the first one), he bluffs a jeweller out of some of his better stuff. Arsene Lupin (also the old series) does the same occasionally, although he more often bluffs the police to affect an escape.James Bond tries occasionally a brazen attempt at bluffing, often unsuccessful (like when he impersonates an officer in the intro of Octopussy), sometimes it works (like when he convinces Tiffany that he is Peter Franks and the dead Franks is him). In X-Men 2 bluffs Mystique the guards in the base when she takes the colonel's shape to guard the entrance against a shapechanger. In a play of Gerhard Hauptmann, "Der Hauptmann von Köpenick", a shoemaker uses the omnipresence of the military in Prussia and disguises himself as a colonel, bluffing his way as he goes (that one works, since the shoemaker understands his fellow men).
You get almost always only a short-time benefit, it is often coupled with disguise in some form, and it is usually discovered by the bluffed ones after a while. Since bluffing is used mostly to prepetrate crimes, discovering the lie often rises the hue and cry.
It's possible for a good Bluff to preclude any other check. The trick is to identify what criteria will allow the NPC to rationalize the choice, and then convince then that those criteria apply.
In OPs example, there is a class of person who is allowed through the gate after hours. They may include guards, nobles, diplomatic envoys or emissaries, people with special passes or a whole slew of other options. The very fact that there is a guard at the gate even willing to entertain conversation is evidence of that. If no one is allowed in ever for any reason, they'd just tell you to scram, if they were even posted there at all.
The trick isn't convincing the guard you have a need to pass through the gates, nor to make him want to let your though the gates in spite of orders, but that allowing you inside is in keeping with his orders. Think of it this way; if after hours access requires a pass, and you have one, showing it to the guard gives you access to the city, no roll required.
Diplomacy makes the guard want to let you in. Intimidate makes the guard let you in out of fear of the consequences of refusal. Bluff makes the guard think letting you in is the correct thing to do.
Anyway, I hope we shed some light on the problem of the OP :)
|
|
Thank you very much for your help!
With all your replies I'm inclined to indeed use Bluff as more like a RP/situation enabler than an ultimate thing like Claxon explained... The PCs bluff a target would just create opportunities that would enable him to make other checks, possibly even giving him some circumstance bonus, but still possibly requiring either a Diplomacy or Intimidate check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Guardsman, I am a courier bearing this satchel of diplomatic material to be delivered personally to the Duke. My carriage was waylaid by bandits, delaying my arrival by some three hours. The Duke must no doubt already be upset by the delay, so if you refuse to permit me entrance to the city at least give me your name so I can tell him who made him wait longer for this delivery."
"Guardsman, I am a courier bearing this satchel of diplomatic material to be delivered personally to the Duke. My carriage was waylaid by bandits, delaying my arrival by some three hours. The Duke must no doubt already be upset by the delay, so if you refuse to permit me entrance to the city at least give me your name so I can tell him who made him wait longer for this delivery."
"Sorry courier, the law is the law. No one may enter the city gate after nightfall. However, I can take the package and deliver it to the Duke on your behalf and you may enter in the morning."
(Now roll Diplomacy or Intimidate to get a better result than this)
"Guardsman, I am a courier bearing this satchel of diplomatic material to be delivered personally to the Duke. My carriage was waylaid by bandits, delaying my arrival by some three hours. The Duke must no doubt already be upset by the delay, so if you refuse to permit me entrance to the city at least give me your name so I can tell him who made him wait longer for this delivery.""Sorry courier, the law is the law. No one may enter the city gate after nightfall. However, I can take the package and deliver it to the Duke on your behalf and you may enter in the morning."
(Now roll Diplomacy or Intimidate to get a better result than this)
If no one is allowed in the city at all, why is there a guard outside the gate to talk to people?
If no one is allowed in the city at all, why is there a guard outside the gate to talk to people?
Who said the guard was outside the gate? He's there to guard it and make sure no one breaks in. He also tells people to come back tomorrow so they know when they are allowed to enter.
If no one is allowed in the city at all, why is there a guard outside the gate to talk to people?Who said the guard was outside the gate? He's there to guard it and make sure no one breaks in. He also tells people to come back tomorrow so they know when they are allowed to enter.
I can accept the conceit that there is a city that doesn't let anyone in after hours ever no exception, but then no amount of social checks would allow you to get in. It's not like Bluff won't work but Intimidate might.
I think all I'm trying to say is it IS possible to use just Bluff in certain situations, but it's not a magic win button. It's not just a "now you can use Diplomacy cause your Bluff worked" skill, either. Bluff CAN work on it's own, but it's better if you combine it with Disguise or Linguistics (for forgeries) or Knowledge(Local) or Profession(Solider). Because even if no one is allowed in ever, if you show up in a convincing outfit, say of a guard lieutenant, with a set of orders (fake ones, of course) and tell a plausible story based on facts the guard knows to be true, (say that the cantankerous Captain Rawls, commander of this sector, wants this report on the outlying garrisons ASAP), and actually act like a guard lieutenant, he might actually believe you and let you in. Because if all that were true, letting you in is the right thing to do. And digging up all that information and hatching the plan is more interesting and more fun, for everyone at the table, than going "I convince the guard to let me in by rolling Diplomacy."
My point wasn't that there is no exception, it was more bluff when used in concert with diplomacy or intimidate can turn a "no exception" situation into a "Maybe I do need to let him in". The example you provide where the person uses bluff, in conjunction with forged documents, real information, a disguise, and some clever ingenuity is a great example.
Bluff could work on it's own depending on the situation, but doesn't necessarily do so. It's a case by case basis.
I think we generally agree with one another.
Also, the "no one" wasn't really a hard no one but more of a "no one without clearance" but that isn't necessarily what a guard says because in his mind anyone with clearance is going to know that their clearance will let them through.