Bluffing someone into a trap question

[wuwuwu]

So yesterday one of my fellow players came up with an interesting interpretation of the rules, and I was wondering what you guys think of it.

Basically, we were walking down the road and came to a fork in the road. The sign was too weathered to read, and none of us had a map so we didn't know which fork to take. An old man comes shambling out of the forest, tells us he overheard our discussion and tells us that the right branch goes to the town we want to get to. A sense motive check later, we're walking down the road again.

After a little bit of travel, we get ambushed by 4 dopplegangers, one of which turns out to be the old man. Okay, we're ready to fight.

Except the player. He was mad because he should have gotten a +10 to his sense motive, because the group was "put at significant risk" by the bluff. Him and the DM argued a little bit before everyone (except him) agreed that that bonus only applies when the target KNOWS about the significant risk, and it doesn't make sense otherwise.

So, what does the playground think? Should the +10 for risky bluffs apply when the risk is unknown? Any similar stories of rule-twisting?

PS: We won the fight fairly easily, anyways. And it was fun :smallamused:

[Diarmuid]

I'm pretty certain that the +10 is only intended if the risk is known.

IE - No, that Red Dragon is only an illusion, go ahead and take the treasure...

[Douglas]

That +10 and the various modifiers of other magnitude listed alongside it all represent how the bluffee's knowledge, beliefs, attitude, and values affect his reaction. It's not the difference between "I believe you" and "you're lying," but rather the difference between "I believe you" and "you seem to be honest, but I'm not confident enough about it to accept X known risk on that basis."

Information that the character doesn't have cannot affect the check.

[Yora]

The +10 bonus would apply if the players knew the path they would take sees frequent attacks by a gang of doppelgangers, but the old man tells them that they don't have to worry because they always attack only at night and it's still bright daylight.
And in that case, the bluff would be that it is safe to pass through the area where doppelgangers are. The claim that this path is the shortest route doesn't have anything to do with it.

[tyckspoon]

^what they said. You get those modifiers for bluffs when the guy is telling you "no, that apparently dangerous situation really isn't going to hurt" or "yeah, it'll be risky, but there's totally a worthwhile payoff on the other end." You don't get to claim that picking one path over another is a 'risky' situation based only on being annoyed that you got tricked by a doppleganger.

[Diarmuid]

No to mention, Sense Motive is probably something DM's should be rolling secretly anyway so the players dont know to try and twist around things when they see a 1 for their roll and get some answer they think is fishy.

[wuwuwu]

Good to know we aren't the only ones :smallbiggrin:

The sense motive was rolled secretly (our general thing is the DM rolls Sense Motive for us when he thinks it appropriate, and when we specifically ask for it), which is part of the reason he complained so much, I think. For all he knew, he could have been 1 off.

Thanks for the responses!

[Diarmuid]

But along those same lines, he could have been 16 off so the additional +10 could have been moot.

Long story short, your buddy was mad over a fight that your group won easily...he would have found something to complain about no matter what so dont sweat this one.