PDA

View Full Version : How to hide a Back-Story?



Tech Boy
2010-11-10, 05:32 PM
Hello Playground goers.

I have a question for all of those who wish to answer.
I have just entered a campaign with a group of friends, and my best friend and I are connected characters. We have a past in which we fight against monarchies, as revolutionaries. Well, we killed a public official and fled the nation. Now we have been laying low for a few months, making a shop and selling woodworked and alchemical goods.

Now we are in our party.
We have a cover story for our back story.
Does anyone have any tips on making sure this fake story gets past?

In short, tips on lying to the party during RP, making ridiculously high bluff checks, and making sure they don't have any questions later on.

Thanks for the help.

Tech Boy.

Kaje
2010-11-10, 05:37 PM
Are you trying to hide this from the players as well, or just the characters?

Tech Boy
2010-11-10, 05:38 PM
Are you trying to hide this from the players as well, or just the characters?

Both. We want only the DM to know.

DragonOfUndeath
2010-11-10, 05:50 PM
just come up with another back-story as your cover-story. if you wan't to drop clues you aren't who you say you are then just 'slip-up' in RP

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-10, 05:54 PM
Generally speaking, if you don't talk about your past people aren't going to be interested in it - in a RPG anyhow :smalltongue:

If you must act secretly, don't do it at the table. Email the DM between sessions with secret plans and discuss things with your conspirator between sessions.

For the lulz, come up with some apparent in-jokes between the two of you which actually function as coded commands. When it is eventually revealed that those "jokes" were part of a deeper subterfuge, it will be awesome.

mikau013
2010-11-10, 06:54 PM
I'd actually put clues in your cover story that something isn't right.

Because otherwise it results in either: nothing happens with it or the dm will make something happen which suprises your fellow players.

I find it more fun if they already suspect something is up and try to find out themselves somehow - :)

Psyren
2010-11-10, 09:46 PM
Just a note: rolling Bluff whenever someone asks you about your past is kind of a giveaway that you're hiding something, even if you succeed.

The Glyphstone
2010-11-10, 09:50 PM
Just a note: rolling Bluff whenever someone asks you about your past is kind of a giveaway that you're hiding something, even if you succeed.

Thus, you mix in rolling Bluff checks and telling the truth anyways.:smallcool:

Jack_Simth
2010-11-10, 09:59 PM
Thus, you mix in rolling Bluff checks and telling the truth anyways.:smallcool:
Still demonstrates you're hiding something.

What you do is roll a largish number of bluff checks in advance (while witnessed by the DM), and right down the results. The DM crosses off a bluff check each time, and rolls secretly for the Sense Motive as appropriate, behind the screen.

The Glyphstone
2010-11-10, 10:10 PM
Still demonstrates you're hiding something.

What you do is roll a largish number of bluff checks in advance (while witnessed by the DM), and right down the results. The DM crosses off a bluff check each time, and rolls secretly for the Sense Motive as appropriate, behind the screen.

Not when it's patently obvious that you aren't hiding anything. I'm talking about 'rolling Bluff' for things like 'are you awake' or 'are your shoes untied' - roll Bluff constantly, even for nonsensical things, until they stop assuming a Bluff means you might be lying.

Jack_Simth
2010-11-10, 10:29 PM
Not when it's patently obvious that you aren't hiding anything. I'm talking about 'rolling Bluff' for things like 'are you awake' or 'are your shoes untied' - roll Bluff constantly, even for nonsensical things, until they stop assuming a Bluff means you might be lying.
You misunderstand.

It doesn't demonstrate that you're hiding something about the specific question.

It demonstrates that you're hiding something in general.

The mere fact that you're using a strategy that causes people to be unable to tell OOC when you're being specifically deceptive vs. other players strongly implies that you've got something you'll be wanting to hide from other players, even if it avoids giving away exactly what's hidden.

Psyren
2010-11-10, 10:29 PM
Not when it's patently obvious that you aren't hiding anything. I'm talking about 'rolling Bluff' for things like 'are you awake' or 'are your shoes untied' - roll Bluff constantly, even for nonsensical things, until they stop assuming a Bluff means you might be lying.

Jack is still right though - the fact that you're doing it means you want to hide something (later if not now), unless you get into that habit for every character you play.

The Glyphstone
2010-11-10, 10:36 PM
Jack is still right though - the fact that you're doing it means you want to hide something (later if not now), unless you get into that habit for every character you play.

Well, the point is to desensitize the other players to where they ignore the fact that you're making bluff checks. I'll agree that it's simpler to just do pre-rolling, but even for a first-time character, enough checks of 'rolling bluff' when asked if the sky is blue (or similar things) will trigger, in all but the most paranoid of players, the reaction of 'oh, he rolls a Bluff check every time someone asks him a question'. Once they don't even bother rolling Sense Motive again, then you start actually Bluffing.

Psyren
2010-11-10, 10:42 PM
Isn't that metagaming though? Sense Motive is kind of "always on," like Listen. Even if the player gets desensitized to bluff rolls, his character should still have the same chance of noticing something is off.

Jack_Simth
2010-11-10, 10:51 PM
Isn't that metagaming though? Sense Motive is kind of "always on," like Listen. Even if the player gets desensitized to bluff rolls, his character should still have the same chance of noticing something is off.So's figuring out a guy is secretive by his rolling bluff checks.

And unless you're doing this for every character from X point on out, you're still giving away that you've got a secretive character - desensitization or not.

The Glyphstone
2010-11-10, 10:55 PM
So's figuring out a guy is secretive by his rolling bluff checks.

And unless you're doing this for every character from X point on out, you're still giving away that you've got a secretive character - desensitization or not.

I thought the premise of the game was that everyone had secrets and secret backstories, and were only sharing them with the DM. So it's already OOC knowledge that characters for this game are secretive....unless there's real-life Bluff checks being made, and each player thinks he/she is the only one with a 'cover backstory'.

Psyren
2010-11-10, 10:56 PM
So's figuring out a guy is secretive by his rolling bluff checks.

Indeed, but come on. You'd have to be VERY dedicated to roleplaying not to let that OOC knowledge color your character's actions. It's like if someone sat down at the table and said "my character is evil, but you guys don't know, okay?" Or more simply "don't think about a pink elephant!"

It's much better not to tempt anyone and keep things under the table, imo.

Jack_Simth
2010-11-10, 11:25 PM
Indeed, but come on. You'd have to be VERY dedicated to roleplaying not to let that OOC knowledge color your character's actions. It's like if someone sat down at the table and said "my character is evil, but you guys don't know, okay?" Or more simply "don't think about a pink elephant!"A little off-topic, but I solve the 'pink elephant' bit by picturing a plaid elephant whenever someone says that. And the DM *always* has this problem, of necessity. If you are able to DM, you can avoid this, quite readily. It's not actually hard, even.
It's much better not to tempt anyone and keep things under the table, imo.Yep. And for that, rolling bluff checks in the open defeats the purpose. Thus pre-rolling them, and giving them to the DM to strike off as needed.

I thought the premise of the game was that everyone had secrets and secret backstories, and were only sharing them with the DM. So it's already OOC knowledge that characters for this game are secretive....unless there's real-life Bluff checks being made, and each player thinks he/she is the only one with a 'cover backstory'.
The OP is a little vauge on that point - to me, it looks like there's two people in the party, with a shared backstory they're avoiding getting out to the rest of the party.

Psyren
2010-11-10, 11:29 PM
A little off-topic, but I solve the 'pink elephant' bit by picturing a plaid elephant whenever someone says that. And the DM *always* has this problem, of necessity. If you are able to DM, you can avoid this, quite readily. It's not actually hard, even.

How does the DM have this problem? They're never in-character... unless you mean a DMPC? In which case, they already know whatever the overarching plot needs them to know.

JonRG
2010-11-10, 11:57 PM
Just a note: rolling Bluff whenever someone asks you about your past is kind of a giveaway that you're hiding something, even if you succeed.

Well, the OP could either provide misleading answers about his past (not outright lies) or just have the DM make the checks in secret. The other players wouldn't even notice anything afoot, unless one of them has *really* good Sense Motive.

Psyren
2010-11-11, 12:00 AM
Well, the OP could either provide misleading answers about his past (not outright lies) or just have the DM make the checks in secret. The other players wouldn't even notice anything afoot, unless one of them has *really* good Sense Motive.

I'm fine with either of those. I just think the following:

"So, where did you say you were from?"
*roll*
"A small farm in the wilderness!"
"...okay..."

Is silly.

Lev
2010-11-11, 12:00 AM
Pretend that your character is skitzo and make 2 different characters in one, that way you wont have to lie when you explain Tom2's backstory when they ask about Tom1.

valadil
2010-11-11, 12:16 AM
Just a note: rolling Bluff whenever someone asks you about your past is kind of a giveaway that you're hiding something, even if you succeed.

This is something you should talk to your GM about. Even though it's metagaming, the other players WILL get suspicious if you roll bluff checks whenever you talk about your past. Instead I think you should set something up with your GM. When you lie to the PCs, he'll roll dice behind the screen. Possibly even well after you've told the bluff. If another party member does well on their sense motive, then the GM should go ahead and tell them. Basically you want to make sure that there's no signal of a failed sense motive check.

As far as your past goes, don't be too eager to talk about it. If everyone else is the son of a farmer from a mountain town, your 4 minute monlogue will arouse suspicion. You should come up with plenty of detail of course, just limit how much you offer up.

Psyx
2010-11-11, 05:39 AM
Just don't talk about your past. Or talk about the period BEFORE you were revolutionaries. Essentially; there's only a year or two of your life that you have to exclude, and nobody is going to notice.

CalamaroJoe
2010-11-11, 06:01 AM
The situation seems a bit obscure to me.

When one tells a lie to fellow players, are you all used to make opposed checks? Is the liar that says "this is a lie, let's roll"? Or is the DM that must know that the piece of information is a lie and so makes secret checks? (and if it is so, how does he/she know that is a lie?)

I'm really not used to PvP situations, so maybe I'm not getting the point. Can't you just say: "my background is cover-story" and the others: "uh, ok."?

panaikhan
2010-11-11, 08:28 AM
I'm lucky if any of my players have a back-story, much less a cover-story for their back-story.

The last time I insisted on back-stories, 5 out of the 8 were derived from the following:

While out hunting/patrolling/visiting relatives (strike out as appropriate), my village/settlement/city (strike out as appropriate) was wiped out by (insert humanoid race here).

Ravens_cry
2010-11-11, 08:47 AM
I am pretty bad at writing back stories, but I always have some story, at least in my head, some motivation,something they want to accomplish. I like to play minor nobility, a younger child usually, who has some stake in the world, but also a reason to want to go out in the world. I mean, look at the prices in the PHB, you have to be pretty high class just to afford the stuff. Still, a peasant who receives the call from a god would make an AWESOME Paladin or Cleric character, in my view.
If I ever get the chance to play Evil, I am going for a Aasimar rogue/assassin who poses as a cleric of some holy god, even to the other players. Mine are the hands of a healer, my child, now let me get out my prayer bead garret while looking at you fondly for 3 rounds.

WinceRind
2010-11-11, 09:35 AM
I honestly don't understand why you'd need bluff when it comes to telling a false story to your companions.

Maybe I misinterpret the skill, but consider this situation.

2 strangers meet. They exchange names. Stranger 1 says "Hi, my name is Tom".
Stranger 2 says "Why hello there, my name is Bob", while his real name is in fact not Bob at all - it's, uh, Vincent. I see no reason why stranger 2 should make a bluff roll for it, and even less reason for stranger 1 to roll sense motive - such basics of communication like telling one's name is really not something you can question. Telling your past, as long as you're trying to make it sound realistic and are with a total stranger, shouldn't require a bluff check in my opinion.

Meh.

Shadowleaf
2010-11-11, 10:04 AM
I honestly don't understand why you'd need bluff when it comes to telling a false story to your companions.

Maybe I misinterpret the skill, but consider this situation.

2 strangers meet. They exchange names. Stranger 1 says "Hi, my name is Tom".
Stranger 2 says "Why hello there, my name is Bob", while his real name is in fact not Bob at all - it's, uh, Vincent. I see no reason why stranger 2 should make a bluff roll for it, and even less reason for stranger 1 to roll sense motive - such basics of communication like telling one's name is really not something you can question. Telling your past, as long as you're trying to make it sound realistic and are with a total stranger, shouldn't require a bluff check in my opinion.

Meh.
Your body reacts a certain way when you lie. There are some telling signs you can be trained to pick up (skill points), and sometimes you can just feel it in your gut (Wis mod).
Have you never experienced listening to a story, and just thinking "Heck no, that's obviously not how it happened"? That's you making your Sense Motive check (or failing it horribly).

As for the rolls: Ask the DM to roll Bluff vs Sense Motive, and tell the other player if he makes the roll. You don't know if the other guy believes your lie or not. Even though you can generally feel if a person believes you or not, Sense Motive on a Sense Motive seems a bit redundant.

EccentricCircle
2010-11-11, 11:11 AM
The Way i've always handeled bluff/ sense motive is for the bluffing character to roleplay what their character is saying as they usually would if no deception were involved.
then if another character reckons that it might be a lie they can essentially challenge them and roll a sense motive check. the lying character then roles their bluff check. this means that determining whether a sense motive vs bluff situation should occur lies solely with the suspicious character. the challenged character always rolls a bluff check even if they were not in fact lying. so that can't give anything away.
the DM should know whether the statement was true or not (or be able to find out) and tells the challenging character what they think based on the success of failure of their roll.

having secret backstories can be very fun, although you have to let some stuff slip (quite deliberately), as if none of the other characters suspect that there is something amis then you might as well not have anything to hide.

Jack_Simth
2010-11-11, 01:07 PM
How does the DM have this problem? They're never in-character... unless you mean a DMPC? In which case, they already know whatever the overarching plot needs them to know.

The DM has lots of knowledge about everything - he's the referee, he has to. However, he's also running all opponents to the party. He knows the player's worst saves, he knows if any of them have a particular vulnerability, he knows exactly what defenses the players are using (or at least, he should).

Many, many, many of the opponents, however, won't know all these things. If every spellcasting opponent 'just happens' to have prepared Lightning-based attacks against a party that's got Resistance-30 against Fire, Cold, Sonic, and Acid, it breaks believability. If he suddenly uses targeted attacks only, forgoing reflex save spells, when the party Hexblade picks up a Ring of Evasion, it breaks believability. And so on. There's a lot of OOC Knowledge the DM has that's not IC for the critters he's running.

Psyren
2010-11-11, 01:15 PM
The DM has lots of knowledge about everything - he's the referee, he has to. However, he's also running all opponents to the party. He knows the player's worst saves, he knows if any of them have a particular vulnerability, he knows exactly what defenses the players are using (or at least, he should).

Many, many, many of the opponents, however, won't know all these things. If every spellcasting opponent 'just happens' to have prepared Lightning-based attacks against a party that's got Resistance-30 against Fire, Cold, Sonic, and Acid, it breaks believability. If he suddenly uses targeted attacks only, forgoing reflex save spells, when the party Hexblade picks up a Ring of Evasion, it breaks believability. And so on. There's a lot of OOC Knowledge the DM has that's not IC for the critters he's running.

That's different though. It's the DM's job to know the party's weaknesses in order to challenge them (and their strengths to let them shine.) Obviously he should not abuse this knowledge, but neither should he neglect it entirely. He therefore has a reason to know OOC knowledge, because the DM has an OOC role to play in the game.

That does not apply to the situation being described here. There is no benefit to OOC knowledge about your character being available to the other members of the party.The best case scenario you can hope for is that they develop localized amnesia, so as not to alter their character's behavior towards you even subconsciously.

John Campbell
2010-11-11, 01:22 PM
The last time I insisted on back-stories, 5 out of the 8 were derived from the following:

While out hunting/patrolling/visiting relatives (strike out as appropriate), my village/settlement/city (strike out as appropriate) was wiped out by (insert humanoid race here).
My current character's backstory is actually the flip side of that. I spent the last few years riding with my orc clan, wiping out villages while all the PC-class inhabitants were away, but got bored with that and decided to go raid some different parts of the world.

(Like all of those rangers that were away visiting their sick aunts in Quirm when my clan razed their villages, though, I've got favored enemy (orc). Killing villagers is easy, doesn't require any bonuses... but a +2 bonus to hit and damage against orcs is a useful tool for advancement in orcish society.)


The Way i've always handeled bluff/ sense motive is for the bluffing character to roleplay what their character is saying as they usually would if no deception were involved.
then if another character reckons that it might be a lie they can essentially challenge them and roll a sense motive check. the lying character then roles their bluff check. this means that determining whether a sense motive vs bluff situation should occur lies solely with the suspicious character. the challenged character always rolls a bluff check even if they were not in fact lying. so that can't give anything away.
the DM should know whether the statement was true or not (or be able to find out) and tells the challenging character what they think based on the success of failure of their roll.
This is pretty much how we do it, though with the added caveat that the DM makes the rolls in secret so that the Sense Motive result can't be metagamed.

Of course, the last character I had who had reason to keep his background secret had a Bluff modifier so high that it was mathematically impossible for any of the other characters to beat it with a Sense Motive, so we didn't even bother rolling. 3.x's terrible skill system makes it pretty easy to do this, if you get Bluff as a class skill.

Sipex
2010-11-11, 01:27 PM
In my games players don't roll social checks against each other, I find that usually resolves it.