Question about the Bluff skill

[HuskyBoi]

So I got into a chat with a friend some time back about the bluff skill in 3.5, Pathfinder, and roleplaying games at large. We wondered whether it represents subjective falsehood, or objective- essentially, in what situation should one use it?

For example, what if the character believes himself to be telling the truth, but objectively it's false? A rogue succesfully persaudes the captain of the guard that he (the rogue) is a visiting noble from the land of Deceptia. If the guard then attempts to introduce the visiting noble to the king's court, should he use Bluff? There's a rogue archetype in pathfinder (I forget which) that suggests this to be the case, but I wonder what people think?

Even more perplexingly, what if the characer believes himself to be lying, but objectively the story is true?

Imagine the villainous grand vizier (is there any other kind?) wants the king to leave the city for whatever reason, and he attempts to persuade the king a demon army is gathering to storm the city, and the king and his family should evacuate. Unknown to him however, a demon army actually is gathering, and will attack in three days. The Vizier believes himself to be lying, but by pure coincidence he actually isn't. Is that a use of the Bluff skill?

And if not, how would you, as a DM, handle it?

Just a matter of small curiosity, but I thought I'd present it to the lovely people of this forum for brainscratching and discussion. :smallsmile:

[DonEsteban]

Bluff doesn't define what a bluff actually is, but from my understanding of the English language it requires a conscious decision to try to deceive someone.

Said guard is not pretending anything, so he would not make a Bluff check. However, I would require a Bluff check from you upon being introduced to the king, albeit at a high bonus (maybe +10). A new Bluff check would be required if there is further evidence that you are not actually from Deceptia or if you talk to the king yourself. But probably with a small bonus, because you were already introduced as envoy by the captain.

Likewise, said grand vizier (there is indeed only one kind) would have to make a Bluff check, because he wants to deceive the king. It would come at a bonus if there was some kind of evidence that there is an actual army and the king has a way of knowing this.

[BWR]

So I got into a chat with a friend some time back about the bluff skill in 3.5, Pathfinder, and roleplaying games at large. We wondered whether it represents subjective falsehood, or objective- essentially, in what situation should one use it?


Bluff is one of those annoying skills that works ok with a few assumptions but falls apart under close inspection. Technically, if you believe what you are saying to be true, you don't need to roll. No rules mention how to handle convincing people you are telling the truth, though I gather most people use Diplomacy for that.

I treat it like this: any time you try to deceive someone, regardless of the objective truth, you must roll a Bluff roll. Lying by omission, previcarations, telling things that are technically true, damned lies, statistics, etc.

I am tempted to change Bluff to something like L5R's Sincerity skill: the point of the skill is to convince someone that you believe what you say, whether it's true or false. Of course it breaks down when you start thinking about how to determine DCs. Flat DC? How does Sense Motive fit in? - you use SM to tell if someone's lying but if you're telling the truth people with a high SM suddenly never believe you no matter how true it is or you will want the lowest modifier possible because if you fail the target can tell whether or not you're concealing something.

[Lorsa]

Bluff can't be used to measure objective truth. Otherwise you could use the skill system to discover all objective truths, however secret or not, about the universe. It will always depend on what the person trying to bluff believes to be the truth.

It could technically also work in a situation where you ARE telling the truth but the other party don't believe you. So in some cases you'd have to use Bluff even when you are telling the truth. Diplomacy is something I would use to convince the other party that you are a truthful person in general and thus avoid using bluff altogether.

[Segev]

Without trying to re-write the d20 skill system entirely, here's what I'd do if you replaced Bluff with Sincerity and you had a situation where you needed to persuade somebody you really believed what you were saying because you actually believe it:

The DM sets a DC based on the believability of the claim in general. You roll Sincerity, and the guy you're trying to convince of your honesty rolls Sense Motive.

If either of you beat the DC, the end result is that he believes you believe what you're saying.
If you beat it and he didn't, he believes you because you're that convincing.
If he beats it and you didn't, he believes you because he can see right through you, and you happen to be telling the truth.
If you both beat it, then one of the above two is true depending on who rolled higher than the other.
If neither of you beat it, it is a straight contested roll:
If you beat his roll, you convince him not because he sees to the heart of the matter, but because you're better at persuasion than he is at seeing through what's being presented as fact.
If he beats your roll, he doesn't believe you. He doesn't buy the story because his Sense Motive isn't good enough to see past the unbelievability of your claims, and your persuasive skills are just not up to bypassing his default Bull-detector.


This has the oddity that there is only one case where he actually doesn't believe you, but this is quite feasible; it is generally easier to persuade someone if you genuinely believe it, yourself. The flat DC set by the DM establishes just how hard it is to convince ANYBODY in general of this claim. It may also serve as a penalty to any contested version of your roll (see the Bluff skill's suggested adjustments).

[erikun]

This recent thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=327864) covered much a similar topic, and I think that my post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16876052&postcount=8) (if I may be so vain) covers your answer pretty well.

That is, Bluff is used to hide a deception on your part, so that they people you are talking to do not realize you are being deceptive. Diplomancy is used to convince someone to do what you want them to do, if they wouldn't do so normally. If you are lying and trying to convince someone to do something they normally wouldn't, then you should need to roll both Bluff and Diplomancy - Bluff to hide your deception, and Diplomancy to convince them to act. If you are telling the truth, then you don't need to roll any equivalent to Bluff; you would "automatically succeed" as there isn't any deception to find.

The key isn't if your are telling the literal truth, but if you are trying to be deceptive. The guard in your example does not need to roll Bluff; they are telling the king what they understand to be true, and so are not being deceptive. The vizier in your example does need to roll Bluff; they are being deceptive, even if they do not realize that there is truth to what they are saying.

[Rainshine]

Bluff is nearly always an opposed check. Diplomacy is usually against a DC.
I run it, if the PC is being deliberately deceptive, they will roll bluff.

To use your example, the rogue could just go and tell the guard that the guard should take the rogue to see the king. That's a Diplomacy check to me. Call it DC 35, because he doesn't know who you are. Now, instead of that, you come up and say you're a noble, that you have evidence of a plot against the king. Now you roll a pair of Bluff checks, and if you beat his Sense Motive, get a +5 for each one on your diplomacy roll.

[Kane0]

In our group bluff is used to decieve, whereas diplomacy is used to convince. There have been many occasions where both are necessary in one conversation.

[HuskyBoi]

OK, a whole bunch of interesting thoughts and answers, cheers folks! I do like the definition that bluff is far more about your attempt to 'conceal' truth than it is about what is or isn't technically true- the intent of the speaker in that case, is most important. Of course it's all part of the big DM-judgement-requiring-grey-area that most skills, heck most roleplaying games generally, operate in, but that's why we have people run these stories and not computers...

Cheers folks, all been handy and interesting! :smallbiggrin:

[Airk]

It's subjective truth, as written, and that's pretty obvious. There's nothing inherently wrong with Bluff either.

The problem is actually with DIPLOMACY - namely, that, as written, it doesn't really form the 'counterpart' to bluff that it gets used for. Other systems solve this issue by -having- a skill that is the flipside of the 'lying' skill. (Mouse Guard, for example, uses Deception and Persuade.)

The fix is to either:
A) Change 'bluff' to mean "Anytime you are trying to persuade anyone of anything, this is the skill you roll"
OR
B) Change Diplomacy to include "Persuading someone of something with compelling arguments rather than deception."