Too strange to be true.

[frogglesmash]

So here's the situation: A who looks down on his luck approaches our party of adventurers. This man claims that he is an elven prince who's been separated from his family, and more importantly, his inheritance. He goes to ask the party for a small donation of 5,000 gold coins. He claims that this money will be used to pay for transport and bodyguards in an attempt to reunite him with his family (and wealth) and that if they make this donation he will make sure to repay them tenfold.
The story told by the elf is incredibly unlikely, and more likely than not that the elf is actually a con artist of some sort, however if against all the odds he is telling the truth our party of adventurers need only role a sense motive check against a DC of 0 and herein lies

The Problem: The fact that the aforementioned elf can convince the players that such an unlikely story is true simply because it happens to be true seems incredibly unrealistic to me, after all the party has no way of checking the veracity of the tale beyond judging the teller.

The Question: How would you model someone trying to prove they're telling the truth when they actually are telling the truth in terms of game mechanics?

[Jormengand]

This is why games I create usually roll a persuade skill against a flat DC. Alter bluff so that it works when you're telling the truth, but you roll bluff, your "Opponent" rolls sense motive and you add the scores against a flat DC.

[frogglesmash]

This is why games I create usually roll a persuade skill against a flat DC. Alter bluff so that it works when you're telling the truth, but you roll bluff, your "Opponent" rolls sense motive and you add the scores against a flat DC.

I'm not sure if I understand, could give an example?

[BowStreetRunner]

If the story teller isn't bluffing then the correct usage of Sense Motive (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/senseMotive.htm) would be to 'get the feeling that someone is trustworthy' as shown under the Hunch rule. That is a DC 20. In this case, if they fail then they would doubt his story while if they succeed they would believe he is sincere.


Hunch
This use of the skill involves making a gut assessment of the social situation. You can get the feeling from another’s behavior that something is wrong, such as when you’re talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy.

[Thurbane]

An Elf running the Nigerian Prince scam? I love it!

[Seclora]

Demonstrate evidence.
A signet ring or embroidered handkerchief(highly used and dirty, but still recognizable) identifiable with a Knowledge(nobility) check, DC based on the notoriety of the kingdom, or even just a straight Knowledge(Nobility) check to know that said kingdom exists and has recently experienced the loss/disappearance of a prince.

Demonstrate Knowledge
Have the 'prince' relate something that they would consider to be irrefutable proof that he was royalty, tell them something they know to be true, but would not be common knowledge among the non-elite. Even if they don't believe he's a real prince, it may interest them enough to take the bait.

Demonstrate Prissy Elven Nobility.
Princess and the Pea style!



Me, as a Lawful Good type PC, I'd skip money and offer my assistance as his escort and aid his quest pro-bono(obviously, still pro-loot-taken-from-my-foe...no :smalltongue:). If he starts getting edgy and insists on 'not being a bother' or claims to already have offers lined up, tell him I'm afraid I cannot offer him cash and give him a free casting of[minor spell with non expensive component] to aid his way, best of luck on your quest.
Hopefully, he's the real deal and accepts my offer. We have wacky fun adventures, and I get to marry his sister or win a boat!

[Jergmo]

An Elf running the Nigerian Prince scam? I love it!

http://mmii.info/icons/feenix007/ff_8bitThief.gif

[frogglesmash]

Demonstrate evidence.
A signet ring or embroidered handkerchief(highly used and dirty, but still recognizable) identifiable with a Knowledge(nobility) check, DC based on the notoriety of the kingdom, or even just a straight Knowledge(Nobility) check to know that said kingdom exists and has recently experienced the loss/disappearance of a prince.

Demonstrate Knowledge
Have the 'prince' relate something that they would consider to be irrefutable proof that he was royalty, tell them something they know to be true, but would not be common knowledge among the non-elite. Even if they don't believe he's a real prince, it may interest them enough to take the bait.

Demonstrate Prissy Elven Nobility.
Princess and the Pea style!



Me, as a Lawful Good type PC, I'd skip money and offer my assistance as his escort and aid his quest pro-bono(obviously, still pro-loot-taken-from-my-foe...no :smalltongue:). If he starts getting edgy and insists on 'not being a bother' or claims to already have offers lined up, tell him I'm afraid I cannot offer him cash and give him a free casting of[minor spell with non expensive component] to aid his way, best of luck on your quest.
Hopefully, he's the real deal and accepts my offer. We have wacky fun adventures, and I get to marry his sister or win a boat!

While this is all good advice for the aforementioned scenario, I'm actually looking for a way to handle any similar situation should it arise in my campaigns.

[Seclora]

While this is all good advice for the aforementioned scenario, I'm actually looking for a way to handle any similar situation should it arise in my campaigns.

You mean how to deal with proving yourself truthful when you are, or random Elven Nobles?
Me, I'm not overly keen on blood splatter so I find that a well placed Destruction or Slime Wave is the most...

You want to know how people argue that they are telling the truth, look at a courtroom.
Present Tangible Evidence, have players make appropriate skill checks to identify it as the real deal, or even to confirm the story.
Present Intangible evidence(knowledge usually, but incorporeal items are a thing) that would prove you to be telling the truth to one who shares that knowledge.
Demonstrate Character, show people that you're not inclined towards dishonesty. Have friends vouch for you(works if you're lying too).
Mechanically, this is all skill based. Players roll Sense Motive, either they roll well and you tell them he's telling the truth(and refuse to believe you most likely), or they roll poorly and you tell them they find him suspicious(which they clearly already do or the check wouldn't have been made). You present them opportunities to make additional rolls: Knowledge(relevant field), Appraise, more Sense Motive, Perform(Tea Ceremony) whatever skill you pick that'll build your case, make them roll it.
There's also Zone of catching people who didn't cast Glibbness(truth), and Discern person who didn't cast Glibbness(lies), if you want Divination support. Maybe your party has a few of the Q&A type Divinations, always a great way of getting answers.

You might also set up that there is a [thing you want players to do/be interested in] before you actually arrive at the [thing/activity] so that they are less surprised and less inclined to call Scam! on your prompt. Use this one judiciously, foreshadowing is not to be taken lightly.

[Jormengand]

I'm not sure if I understand, could give an example?

What I mean is roll a check where both the truth-teller's bluff bonus and the listener's sense motive bonus stack against a set DC based on how unlikely it is.

[TheifofZ]

What I mean is roll a check where both the truth-teller's bluff bonus and the listener's sense motive bonus stack against a set DC based on how unlikely it is.

That seems more like Diplomacy than bluff, in this case, as bluff is used with deception, whereas diplomacy is the tool of persuasion.

Of course, you, as the DM, wouldn't have to tell them which skill the NPC half of the roll is using, but that's on you.

[Jormengand]

That seems more like Diplomacy than bluff, in this case, as bluff is used with deception, whereas diplomacy is the tool of persuasion.

Of course, you, as the DM, wouldn't have to tell them which skill the NPC half of the roll is using, but that's on you.

Bluff is a skill used to convince people that things are true, and diplomacy is used to make them like you more: the former seems more appropriate despite the name.

[Killer Angel]

The problem with bluff, is that it works only for a limited amount of time.

[TheifofZ]

Bluff is a skill used to convince people that things are true, and diplomacy is used to make them like you more: the former seems more appropriate despite the name.
Technically, bluff is specifically used to make people believe that the falsehood that is being presented to them is true instead, while Diplomacy is used to make people see your side of an argument, as well as be friends with you.
But I think this one is also going down as personal preference; there aren't actually any hard rules about that anywhere at all, after all.

[nedz]

An Elf running the Nigerian Prince scam? I love it!

Surely it should be:
You receive an unsolicited sending from an Elven Prince you have never heard of ...

[Enran]

Here's the thing: That Sense Motive check will tell you that he's telling the truth as he knows it but it'll say nothing about whether he believes what he says on account of being a crazy coot. Especially in a world with this much mind-affecting magic flying around (but also in the real world), taking every near-impossible thing you hear at face value just because the speaker truly believes what they're saying is entirely ludicrous.

Also, as mentioned, that check DC should be higher than 0.

[bean illus]

As i see it Sense Motive doesn't discern truth, just motive. So truth could still be evil motive, and less truth give a good motive

[Silva Stormrage]

I usually just end up having the PC's roll their sense motive then tell them "He seems trustworthy" or some such. Then usually the PC's panic over wether the Elf's bluff check is just really high or that he is actually trustworthy. It has its own issues obviously and can slow the game down but thats generally how I deal with it.

[LooseCannoneer]

This is why my current DM changed Bluff to Convince. It has all of the same mechanical functions, yet it makes more sense for truth-telling purposes.

[Hrugner]

Sometimes characters simply shouldn't be asked to take things on faith and work out some way to otherwise determine if the NPC is being genuine. The players should be able to roll a knowledge check based on the NPC (in this case nobility) and see if the story satisfies them intellectually as well as emotionally. Likewise, should the Nigerivarian prince be a false one, he should be able to make the required knowledge checks to support the facts of his backstory.

Between disguise and spot to detect a physical impostor, competing knowledge checks(the genuine article should be able to take 20 on his life story) to sort through the relevant facts, and bluff and sense motive to assess motive and trustworthiness, I think the players aught to be able to have the ability to determine the truth if the dice are with them.

[Fouredged Sword]

Mechanically, the DC to sense that someone is being untrustworthy or not is fixed at 20.

No amount of bluff will make is harder to tell if someone is being dishonest.

If your player rolls a 20+ on his sense motive, you are supposed to tell him "You have a hunch that this person is X" where X is something like "an impostor" or "Dishonest" or "Trustworthy"

The problem is that this makes it nearly impossible to lie past level 10 without applying 2nd order lies. You must assume that everyone knows when you are being dishonest and supply them with an incorrect and harmless reason for your dishonesty.

[Segev]

I tend to have it handled thusly: if the players doubt an NPC's veracity, I have them roll Sense Motive. If the NPC is, in fact, lying, and the Sense Motive check beats the Bluff check, I tell the player that his character finds the NPC to be hiding something, if not flat-out fibbing. If it does not, I tell the player that his PC thinks the NPC seems sincere.

If the NPC is not lying, the player gets the truth no matter his roll: the PC thinks the NPC is sincere.

There's no amount of skill at reading people that will overcome your own "this story smells fishy" internal radar. If, however, you rolled really well on Sense Motive, you probably trust your instincts. Unless you suspect this guy of being that good of a liar.

[dascarletm]

Mechanically, the DC to sense that someone is being untrustworthy or not is fixed at 20.

No amount of bluff will make is harder to tell if someone is being dishonest.

If your player rolls a 20+ on his sense motive, you are supposed to tell him "You have a hunch that this person is X" where X is something like "an impostor" or "Dishonest" or "Trustworthy"

The problem is that this makes it nearly impossible to lie past level 10 without applying 2nd order lies. You must assume that everyone knows when you are being dishonest and supply them with an incorrect and harmless reason for your dishonesty.
actually...

A Bluff check is opposed by the target’s Sense Motive check.

so while you can spend 1 minute attempting to get a hunch you make an opposed roll to know if what they say specifically is false or not.

[Absol197]

What I would do is combine the "Hunch" use of Sense Motive with the modifiers to Bluff for telling outrageous stories (as a modifier to the DC, rather than to the Sense Motive check). Start with the base DC of 20 for a hunch, then modify based on how believable the "story" is. With your Nigerian Elf-Prince, it would probably be a +20 to the DC because of how difficult it would be to believe, giving a base DC of 40.

However, presenting evidence, giving knowledge, or other methods of proof would decrease the DC and/or allow for other skills besides Sense Motive to work, and I might allow the character to make a Diplomacy check to lower the DC as well. Say, lowering the DC by the amount his check result is over 20. Of course, most people wouldn't be willing to stick around to hear his tale for long, so he'd probably be talking the Diplomacy penalty for rushing the check (-10 for attempting Diplomacy in 1 round, right?), meaning that even though it's true, our poor elf is unlikely to have anyone believe him.

That would be how i would model it, mechanically. And of course, belief isn't a pass/fail thing: even if the party fails the Sense Motive check, if they get within 10 then they feel that there's a possibility it might be true, and if they get within 5, they think it might be a high probability. But they wouldn't be certain he's telling the truth without hitting the full DC.

And this would work for just about any similar situation, too.