PDA

View Full Version : Bluff Fix



imp_fireball
2009-03-14, 07:40 PM
Rich Burlew originally offered a fix for diplomacy (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) and so I've chosen to add my own fix for bluff to correspond with role playing, much in the same tradition.

Bluffing depends on two big factors that offer modifiers to the actual DC. Relationship, and conditional modifiers. In addition to the GM's ability to warp checks (ie. transform a diplomacy into an intimidate) depending on what a character says, so too can a character provoke checks from themselves without their knowing (ie. bluffing while performing).

Also, bluff always applies to specifics. For example: You can convince a target that you are right about a superstition however convincing a stranger that you are a friend of the king may provoke further checks later on if the stranger is given more time to observe you and/or inform others of your presence. 'Suspicious actions' can also provoke immediate checks as well, at GM discretion. All of this should be taken into consideration.

Relationship

Relationship can depend on the level of intimacy the bluffer has with its target, however it can also depend on what the target knows about the bluffer. The target could hear from others that the bluffer has been known to lie very frequently. Further more, the target always has the option to simply assume that the bluffer is immediately lying, unless the bluffer makes a particularly high check for the circumstance (at GM discretion).

Also consider that relationship modifiers can be affected by a target's personality (which can in turn be affected by mental attribute scores), always at GM discretion.

Relationship in association with Bluff

-5 Optimistic about Bluffer: The target has been informed of the bluffer's 'friendly nature' or simply thinks well of them for the deeds they have done, etc. Often times, the bluffer may need to create a false impression upon others before the word 'gets out' and they can be given the opportunity distill their will upon the greater population. The target could also be a cohort of the bluffer with a very high level of loyalty.

-2 Good regard for Bluffer (Positive): The target might reflect your race or religion in a positive light and/or has had good experiences in the past with others like you.

+0 Indifferent: The target is a complete stranger or the closest thing to it. Perhaps they know of you but have an entirely neutral opinion towards you, despite any negative rumors that have surfaced.

+2 Bad regard for Bluffer (Negative): The target might be biased towards your race/culture/religion. Or perhaps rotten rumors have surfaced about you.

+5 Cautious of Bluffer: Assuming the target decides to test your capacity for truth (they always have the option of completely ignoring you), they are cautious. Perhaps rumors have continually surfaced about you and about your personal nature (you lie often, ie.) that puts you in a negative light with the target.

+10 Scornful of Bluffer: The target is very aware of your nature. Perhaps your kind are a hated enemy or at war with the target's people/creed/religion/culture/etc. If the target is not already unfriendly/hostile with you coupled by them choosing to test your capacity for truth, then this modifier would often apply to their sense motive check.

Relationship can also instantly change based on the bluffer's tone and attitude towards the target for that specific bluff but not over all; at GM discretion (say, the target doesn't mind).

---------------------------
Conditional Modifiers in association with Bluff

Conditional modifiers are entirely at GM discretion. They could depend on the circumstance (target is a guard that has been told not to listen to strangers; a battlefield in which you abandon the target when the target knows that your abandonment will kill them), the generally un-trusting nature of the target (target personality and perception of world), and other such things of that sort.

There's is no fixed list for conditional modifiers, as they usually fall into the scope of what is not based entirely on what the player says and the relationship of the target towards the player. Conditional modifiers also can apply when sense motive checks from the target are provoked accidentally by the player.

Ie. The player tells the target that they are heading to the guest hall (when the target knows all general routes throughout the palace) and instead head towards the direction that is the bathroom while the target is watching. If the target chooses to question where they are going out loud, the bluffer could apologize and explain that they forgot where the guest hall is so as to reprimand themselves (higher believability opposed by conditional modifier). If the bluffer insists that they must head in the direction of the bathroom even after the target questions them, this could also present a negative conditional modifier.

Finally, there's the circumstance of the target not worrying about the actions of the bluffer unless what they bluff about is of some degree of importance to the target (provoking the target to give it some thought and ergo test the bluffer's capacity for truth). The bluffer could also fail a bluff check against the target and then continue bluffing about a similar subject (the same subject might be automatic failure), thus allowing for a negative conditional modifier to their next check. Even if the target fails to perceive that both subjects/scenarios/statements are similar, the negative modifier could still apply. Any of these checks can instead be turned into a complex bluff skill check.

Usually, a check provoked when the character is telling the truth is a diplomacy check, but if the relationship is poor than a sense motive from the target can be rolled to 'save' against it. The target does not believe the truth teller if the diplomacy check fails.

Later on, if further evidence for the truth is presented, further checks can be provoked at GM discretion (with conditional modifiers as appropriate). Any of this can also be a complex skill check, although circumstance demands that the players do not know about it right away (however the GM could always secretly roll the complex skill check to determine if any checks succeed during potential roleplaying in the future).

A bluffer cannot continuously bluff the target(s) about the same story (no further checks), unless the target(s) perceive it as something different.

Bluffing Masses

When bluffing a crowd of targets (and suppose they are all listening to the bluffer), the highest sense motive check in the crowd is used. If the bluff succeeds, the GM rolls a percentage die to see what percentage of listeners believed the bluffer. However much the sense motive check failed according to the bluff is then applied as a bonus to this percentage based on the crowd number. A successful bluff check always means that at least one person in the crowd will believe the bluffer, rounded up.

Ie. A bluffer bluffs a crowd of 4 about free pudding (assuming that free pudding is 'important' to the crowd, or the crowd voluntarily tests the subject/scenario/statement for truth) and succeeds against the highest sense motive by 2. The GM then adds 50% (2/4) to the percentage check. Originally the percentage rolled was 38, but by adding 50, then that becomes 88%. Rounding up, the GM determines that everyone in the crowd believed the bluffer's story. If at least one person didn't believe the bluff, they can proceed to convince the others about the fib, applying modifiers at GM discretion.

If the check fails, then that applies as a negative towards the GM's percentage check.

Peer Pressure

If a majority of a group of creatures in a community believe (or don't believe) a bluff, then they can pressure others into thinking the same way. The character with the highest charisma in the group can make a charisma check (that can be aided by the charisma checks of others as aid another) against the opposing highest wisdom (that can be aided by the wisdom checks of others as aid another), or sense motive of a single character. If one side wins, then the amount 'convinced' is determined by the same rules for bluffing masses.

The time it takes to 'disperse pressure' is at GM discretion and roughly the same time as it might take for rumors to surface within a region.

Some GM's might instead create a system of opposed bluff checks for the purpose of small scale propaganda composed by leaders from both sides.

Immersing themselves in a 'peer pressure' environment can apply conditional modifiers to the sense motive DC of an individual to not be pressured depending on the amount of time spent in such an environment.

Alternatively, a system similar to that used in large scale 3.5 conflict can be used.

---------------
That's all for now. Criticize and object, but try to keep it on-topic and constructive, please.

Baron Corm
2009-03-15, 09:32 PM
There should be a list for conditional modifiers. Just do what Rich did, in the article you said you are emulating. List some degrees of plausibility, assign them modifiers, and give an example. With that guideline, the DM can decide where a particular attempt falls.

The "Peer Pressure" section, being Diplomacy-based, doesn't really belong tacked on the end of a Bluff article, and doesn't really need the specific references to Bluff. It could apply to any number of situations. I also think it should factor Intimidate in somehow.

You should try to cut down on walls of texts before posting, keeping in mind that we actually have to read all of that. The preview button helps. I only read about 1/10th of what you wrote, to be honest. If you could say all that you needed to say in 1/10th of the words then you would get a lot more of your points across.

imp_fireball
2009-03-15, 11:38 PM
I fixed the peer pressure element and changed it to charisma opposed by wisdom.

Please consider that being intimidated or diplomified to death is different from getting someone to believe you. A character can be intimidated without believing what the bully is saying, and can enjoy the company of another even though they lose most debates.