PDA

View Full Version : Telling the truth can be so difficult (General mechanic question)



Boci
2014-01-27, 12:03 PM
Plenty of RPGs have a separate abilities for persuading and lying. For example D&D 3 and 4 has diplomacy and bluff, whilst V:tM has subterfuge and leadership. Often this isn't a problem, as they are 2 different skills, but sometimes it can be weird when a player becomes much worse at a task if it involves the truth rather than a lie. Take the following:

A PC with a high bluff but low persuasion is part of a security detail of a politician who is an assassination target. There is a mole in the security detail and the PCs recon it is either Alex or James. The security detail has just arrived at a safe house and the PC gets confirmation from his party members that Alex is the mole. But can the PC convince everyone of this? This isn't in of itself a problem, as the PC has a low persuasion skill it would be expected that he would have a hard time making his case. But then what if he lied and claimed James was the mole. He has a really high bluff skill, so is he suddenly more likely to succeed, despite trying to do the same thing.

How would you explain such mechanics in game?

galan
2014-01-27, 12:36 PM
bluff let them believe *you* think james is the mole. You can still be wrong, but the target won't think you are lying to them- merely mistaken

Rhynn
2014-01-27, 01:15 PM
Both of those specific examples seem like poor ones. Diplomacy in D&D 3E is about changing NPCs' attitudes, not about "persuading"; I'd use Bluff to convince anyone of things, true or untrue. Also, been a while since I dabbled in V:tM, but "Leadership" sounds like you'd use it to... lead, not to persuade.

Generally, I think "convince" should be the same task/skill, regardless of whether it's the truth. A specific inability at lying should be modelled as a specific inability, an exception.

Kid Jake
2014-01-27, 01:23 PM
I kind of like the idea of a character that nobody believes unless he's lying :smallbiggrin:

Liar: "Alex is the mole, I have proof!"

Everybody: "Shut-up, Alex is a good guy."

*a little later*

Liar: "Alex is the mole AND wets the bed!"

Everybody: "Dogpile the soggy traitor!"

Red Fel
2014-01-27, 01:26 PM
I would flavor them as "direct" and "indirect" convincing.

Persuasion, in my mind, is my ability to tell you that something is true, in order that you will believe and act upon that truth.

Bluff, in my mind, is my ability to act in such a way as to give an impression that something is so, whether it is or not.

Examples of each:

Persuasion: "Listen. There are spies in the compound. We managed to capture one, but he took some kind of poison pill before we could interrogate him. You have to increase security." Here, I am directly pleading my case, offering evidence to support it, in hopes that someone will do what I'm asking them to do.

Bluff: "Okay." *furtive look* "I might have heard something, okay? It might just be a rumor. All I know is, who needs that much arsenic?" *looks around* "He's not here, is he? Is he listening in? I didn't say anything, okay? Hear me, Carl? I didn't say anything!" Here, I am implying something to be true, and acting in such a way that conveys my belief of its truth. I'm not directly pleading a case, nor laying out my arguments neatly, but rather I'm acting as one would if something were true.

That's just one interpretation, of course.

And if you think that list is bad, try looking at the skill list for Ironclaw. There are separate skills for Subterfuge, Carousing, Etiquette, Diplomacy, all sorts, depending on what class of person you're trying to communicate with, what you're trying to communicate, and how you're trying to communicate it.

Boci
2014-01-27, 01:54 PM
Both of those specific examples seem like poor ones. Diplomacy in D&D 3E is about changing NPCs' attitudes, not about "persuading"; I'd use Bluff to convince anyone of things, true or untrue. Also, been a while since I dabbled in V:tM, but "Leadership" sounds like you'd use it to... lead, not to persuade.

From the PHB:
Diplomacy: Use this skill to persuade the chamberlain to let you see the king, to negotiate peace between feuding barbarian tribes, or to convince the ogre mages that have captured you that they should ransom you back to your friends instead of twisting your limbs off one by one. Diplomacy includes etiquette, social grace, tact, subtlety, and a way with words. A skilled character knows the formal and informal rules of conduct, social expectations, proper forms of address, and so on. This skill represents the ability to give others the right impression of oneself, to negotiate effectively, and to influence others.

Bluff: Check: A Bluff check is opposed by the target’s Sense Motive check. (No reference is ever made to bluff being used for non-misleading purposes.)

Fair enough about vampire, I didn't have a character sheet handy and was going off memory.


Generally, I think "convince" should be the same task/skill, regardless of whether it's the truth. A specific inability at lying should be modelled as a specific inability, an exception.

I agree, that's just not how the rules are always presented.


I would flavor them as "direct" and "indirect" convincing.

Persuasion, in my mind, is my ability to tell you that something is true, in order that you will believe and act upon that truth.

Bluff, in my mind, is my ability to act in such a way as to give an impression that something is so, whether it is or not.

This looks like it could be a more useful distinction. What sort of situations then would you imagine in which you would be able to to use one but not the other?

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-27, 01:55 PM
"You can't be telling the truth; you're being too straightforward!"

erikun
2014-01-27, 02:02 PM
The problem you're running into is that the deception skills (bluff/subterfuge) aren't supposed to be about convincing a target that what you say is the truth. They're supposed to be about hiding the fact that you are lying about the truth. If a character needs to roll diplomacy/leadership to convince an NPC about the actual truth of the matter, then they should be rolling bluff/subterfuge in addition to diplomacy/leadership to convince the NPC about the lie - they not only need to convince the NPC to take action, but also that what they're saying is honest. If the character could convince the NPC of a lie with just a bluff/subterfuge roll, then that assumes that the character would be believable anyway and just needs to hide their dishonestly - if the character was telling the truth, then no roll would be required.

Of course, the issue occurs when the game system forgets the "convincing the NPC" roll and just allows the deception roll to work at convincing the NPC to take action as well. This results in silliness such as, say, it being easier to convince someone that they're unconciously suicidal and had just poisoned themselves and so need to take an antidote (lie) rather than that they just ate poisoned bread and need to take an antidote (truth).

Red Fel
2014-01-27, 02:52 PM
This looks like it could be a more useful distinction. What sort of situations then would you imagine in which you would be able to to use one but not the other?

Well...

The problem you're running into is that the deception skills (bluff/subterfuge) aren't supposed to be about convincing a target that what you say is the truth. They're supposed to be about hiding the fact that you are lying about the truth.

This. Bluff isn't about persuading someone that they should believe you, it's about concealing your actual motives. Consider, for example, that in D&D, Bluff is used as part of a Feint maneuver. Bluff is almost universally opposed by a Sense Motive check.

That's the point. Persuasion, at least inasmuch as you're trying to persuade someone of the truth, isn't an opposed action; perhaps they'll use the equivalent of Sense Motive to decide whether you're speaking honestly or not. It doesn't take as much to convince someone of your truthfulness when you're speaking the truth; convincing them to act upon it is different. That's where your Persuasion skill comes into its own - not only getting someone to believe you, but getting them to do something about it.

Bluff, by contrast, isn't about getting someone to act; it's about getting them to ignore what your real motives are. Consider this language from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm):

A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell.
This tells us two things. First, it means the target reacts the way we want them to. In most cases, that means not questioning the motives of our words or actions. They won't assume that a lie is a lie; they won't assume that a feint is a feint; they will react the way we would like them to react.

However, look at the second sentence: Bluff is not a suggestion spell. It doesn't make people believe things; it simply makes them not question your motives. In essence, this plays out as follows.

Persuasion:
- PC: Bob is a spy, and you should stop him.
- NPC: Hmm. That's what you say. Even if it's true, why should I do it?
OR
- NPC: A spy, you say? Sound the alert! Let's get that Bob!

Bluff:
- PC: *giving the impression that Bob is a spy*
- NPC: Well, I have no reason to doubt you; you seem honest enough. Still, that's a bit far-fetched.

In the former case, my Persuasion is a direct attempt to get the NPC to arrest Bob for being a spy. In the latter case, I'm simply trying to convey that Bob is a spy; my Bluff check ensures that the NPC doesn't see through me. Whether he acts on this information or not, however, is beyond my control.

The question about the appropriate situation, then, is resolved as follows:
- If you are trying to get a target to believe and act on information (such as persuading a guard that someone should be arrested, or warning the king about an assassination attempt), use Persuasion.
- If you are trying to get a target to react to your words or actions as you would want them to react (such as not doubting your honesty, blocking a perceived strike, or interpreting a possible secret message), use Bluff.

At least, that's where my twisted little mind goes.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-27, 04:43 PM
He has a really high bluff skill, so is he suddenly more likely to succeed, despite trying to do the same thing.

How would you explain such mechanics in game?

If the PC is telling the truth, I might have the politician make a DC 20 Sense motive check (for "get a hunch"). If he succeeds, he believes the PC is telling the truth. If he fails, he does not trust the PC.

ReaderAt2046
2014-01-27, 08:39 PM
The problem you're running into is that the deception skills (bluff/subterfuge) aren't supposed to be about convincing a target that what you say is the truth. They're supposed to be about hiding the fact that you are lying about the truth. If a character needs to roll diplomacy/leadership to convince an NPC about the actual truth of the matter, then they should be rolling bluff/subterfuge in addition to diplomacy/leadership to convince the NPC about the lie - they not only need to convince the NPC to take action, but also that what they're saying is honest. If the character could convince the NPC of a lie with just a bluff/subterfuge roll, then that assumes that the character would be believable anyway and just needs to hide their dishonestly - if the character was telling the truth, then no roll would be required.

Of course, the issue occurs when the game system forgets the "convincing the NPC" roll and just allows the deception roll to work at convincing the NPC to take action as well. This results in silliness such as, say, it being easier to convince someone that they're unconciously suicidal and had just poisoned themselves and so need to take an antidote (lie) rather than that they just ate poisoned bread and need to take an antidote (truth).

This is probably the best distinction between the two skills.

Erik Vale
2014-01-27, 09:17 PM
Well, when telling the truth, there's no need to roll bluff, your not lying.

They roll their sense motive to see if your lying. They succeed [DC 0, your forgoing your roll], and tell your telling the truth.

There, you have just used your low bluff skill to convince someone of something true.

Edit: But yes, this is a huge disparity in plenty of sytems.

TuggyNE
2014-01-27, 09:32 PM
"You can't be telling the truth; you're being too straightforward!"

This explains the wacky behavior of pretty much all sitcoms ever (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FawltyTowersPlot), doesn't it?

Sith_Happens
2014-01-28, 02:08 AM
This explains the wacky behavior of pretty much all sitcoms ever (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FawltyTowersPlot), doesn't it?

I especially like the part where North Korea paints a bunch of rocks black and claims they're coal instead of using the actual coal they have practically arbitrary amounts of.

BWR
2014-01-28, 04:14 AM
Certain editions of L5R addressed this problem with the Sincerity skill. You use it to convince people you are telling the truth, whether you are lying or actually telling the truth.

Boci
2014-01-29, 08:01 PM
So people if I read it right, the preferred solution is to require a persuasion roll to convince people that Alex (the right person) is the mole, but it would require first a bluff and then a persuasion roll to convince people that James (the wrong person) is the mole. Did I get that right?

Red Fel
2014-01-29, 09:13 PM
So people if I read it right, the preferred solution is to require a persuasion roll to convince people that Alex (the right person) is the mole, but it would require first a bluff and then a persuasion roll to convince people that James (the wrong person) is the mole. Did I get that right?

In essence, yes. The Persuasion roll is what gets them to believe and act on what you're saying; the Bluff roll simply keeps them from realizing you're full of it.