Unbelievable Lies and the Liars Who Tell Them

[DRD1812]

RPGs are full of dumb lies. I'm talking the truly unbelievable stuff like the examples listed over here (http://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/charm-anything). Do you like these "it's amusing so I'll allow it" type of Bluff/Deception checks in your games? Do you simply set the DC sky-high? Auto-fail the liar? How do you like to handle it when you GM?

[BWR]

Depends on the game. If I run something like Toon, then there is good reason to go for the outlandish, impossible, obviously false bluffs.
In a super serious game they will just make things worse. In most D&D games they will often be ignored or make things worse. Still, it's important to note that tons of people IRL believe astoundingly stupid, obviously wrong things and get fooled all the time, so not every NPC will be hard to fool and may accept just about anything with a good enough result on the part of the PC. A middle ground may be someone who isn't entirely convinced but is distracted enough to go along with the bluff for now or simply decide it isn't worth the effort to go against.

[Fouredged Sword]

I use the "believes you believe." Reading. All bluff does is convince the other guy you are telling the truth as you see it.

[daremetoidareyo]

I think that I am the seductomancer in my group. But I eventually mess up and have to fight. At least people get their buffs up before I run out of dumb lies.

As a DM I'm pretty forgiving on this front and sort of scale the effect of this resource expenditure to what can be done with Sorcerer casting. Assuming that they have the diplomacy, sense motive, Bluff, and usually forgery. I also use the Giant in the playgrounds diplomacy fix

[DRD1812]

I also use the Giant in the playgrounds diplomacy fix

I'm not familiar. Have you got a link?

[Goaty14]

I'm not familiar. Have you got a link? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2)

Found one, it's on your quote.

[Segev]

In college, one of the long-time GMs was running a Mekton Zeta game set in one of those future-kingdoms where nobility and monarchy are a thing again. We were there to try to infiltrate the palace and steal some plans or something; I honestly forget what. We were, essentially, from the enemy kingdom and on a desperation mission as our kingdom was losing.

We botch the infiltration entirely, setting off every alarm in the palace. About the only thing that's gone RIGHT is that we managed to steal some tabards from the first guard squad that came across us. Having all but given up, we're in the shuttle bay trying to pick a shuttle to attempt to break into (our own ride being overrun by enemy guards by now on the other side of the palace), when we run into the Queen and her personal bodyguard, who probably could turn us inside-out by himself if he wanted to.

That's when our party face remembers what we're wearing. "Your Majesty!" he calls out in an earnest and relieved voice. "We thought you'd been captured! They're here to kidnap you! Hurry, come with us!"

He rolls. And explodes three times on the bluff check, for an astronomically high score in this particular system.

"No!" she declares, our hearts sinking. "We'll take my personal shuttle," she continues, as we try to hide our relief.

Mentioning that the infiltrators have stolen uniforms, we manage to turn her bodyguard against the next two patrols we find on the way to her personal bay, whereupon she gives her personal code to unseal it and orders us to begin launch procedures. It's not until we're already in gun range of our own support fleet that she or her bodyguard realize they've been had.

[DRD1812]

It's not until we're already in gun range of our own support fleet that she or her bodyguard realize they've been had.

Well don't end there, man! What happened next!?

[P.F.]

Well don't end there, man! What happened next!?

Can't believe you bought that outrageous yarn!

[Dr_Dinosaur]

I use the "believes you believe." Reading. All bluff does is convince the other guy you are telling the truth as you see it.

I take it your players don’t invest in such a useless skill much these days? I certainly wouldn’t.

[P.F.]

I take it your players don’t invest in such a useless skill much these days? I certainly wouldn’t.

Because if it's not gamebreakingly absurd it's worthless? For most normal bluffs it works normally:

PC: He went that way! Quick! He's getting away!
Guard: I believe that you believe that he's getting away, and will admit to not being entirely clear on exactly what the intruder was supposed to look like anyway. I guess I'll go around that corner and try to catch him.

Truly ridiculous bluffs, however, start to break down:

PC: I'm the real king! That other king is an imposter! I demand that you open this gate immediately!
Guard: ... Of course, ... your, um, your majesty. I believe that you believe that. I can't open the gate for you, but would you like me to have one of my associates escort you to a nice safe cell?

[Crake]

I take it your players don’t invest in such a useless skill much these days? I certainly wouldn’t.

That's a hyperbole if I ever saw one. The trick to making a good bluff believable is to have more than just the words backing it up. If you try to enter the noble's district wearing rags, claiming that you're a noble, then you'll probably get turned away no matter how good your bluff check is, but if you go there dressed in noble's attire, they'll likely let you in. It's about backing up your lie with substance.

Personally, I think the "believes you believe" line of thought is the most reasonable interpretation of bluff, it makes the bluff skill requre a bit more forethought rather than just "i roll a dice, he believes me". It also makes glibness not so ridiculous.

[Ellrin]

I mean, I suppose theoretically you shouldn't be able to get anyone to believe a bluff that they wouldn't believe if it were actually true--"I'm telling you there's a massive space goat on the other side of the sun that will consume the Earth in four days!", without some serious supporting evidence, would probably get laughed at regardless of whether it were true or an amazingly convincingly told lie.

That said, allowing those sorts of lies to fly with sufficiently high Bluff checks and sufficiently low Sense Motive checks tends to make for better after-the-fact stories.

And an argument could be made that part of an amazing Bluff check in conjunction with an completely out there lie is fabricating the evidence--or talking fast enough to make people think you have the evidence long enough to get them to do what you want, at least.

[Segev]

Well don't end there, man! What happened next!?
The session ended, and I wasn't there for the next one. Sadly, the GM didn't continue much beyond this point. I forget if it was the end of semester or if players just started not showing up. (We had a lot of that when I was in college, partially because so many games ran. Man, that was a nice problem to have.) But what I recall from others' tellings was that the Queen, having been taken prisoner, was also a recurring character for the one or two sessions it went after that. I think it royally screwed up his intended plot, which might be part of why it didn't proceed.

Because if it's not gamebreakingly absurd it's worthless? For most normal bluffs it works normally:

PC: He went that way! Quick! He's getting away!
Guard: I believe that you believe that he's getting away, and will admit to not being entirely clear on exactly what the intruder was supposed to look like anyway. I guess I'll go around that corner and try to catch him.

Truly ridiculous bluffs, however, start to break down:

PC: I'm the real king! That other king is an imposter! I demand that you open this gate immediately!
Guard: ... Of course, ... your, um, your majesty. I believe that you believe that. I can't open the gate for you, but would you like me to have one of my associates escort you to a nice safe cell?


That's a hyperbole if I ever saw one. The trick to making a good bluff believable is to have more than just the words backing it up. If you try to enter the noble's district wearing rags, claiming that you're a noble, then you'll probably get turned away no matter how good your bluff check is, but if you go there dressed in noble's attire, they'll likely let you in. It's about backing up your lie with substance.

Personally, I think the "believes you believe" line of thought is the most reasonable interpretation of bluff, it makes the bluff skill requre a bit more forethought rather than just "i roll a dice, he believes me". It also makes glibness not so ridiculous.

In Patrick Rothfuss's Kingkiller Chronicle, the main character (Kvoth) at one point, poverty-stricken after losing all his meager possessions and barely getting to a city, strips himself naked from his rags, and marches into town with his best "noble bearing." Being a trained actor, he's good at it. He strolls right into a high-class tailor's, and starts playing up the outraged, entitled noble brat who has never had to worry about money. He expresses his ire at the bandit problem in this region, and demands suitable clothing for his meeting with the local nobility where he will insist they recompense him.

He pulls off his bluff so well that nobody even questions that this is a nobleman who absolutely will be able to pay when he gets in touch with his support structure, and that the only reason he came there first was because striding naked into a common merchant's shop is more acceptable than striding naked into the King's court.

So truly ridiculous bluffs can be done. The "I believe that you believe" line can be one way to go, but recall that it's possible to sell "and I'm neither crazy nor wrong" with a good bluff, too.

"I'm the real King! The man on the throne is a wizard who swapped bodies with me!" done with sufficient bluff skill may well be believable, at LEAST enough to get the mark to be willing to suspect it and try to test for it.

[Fouredged Sword]

Bluff does one thing, convince the target that you are not a lier. The naked "noble" is making lies about things one can reasonably believe one you accept the person saying them is not a liar. "You believe the person believs they will pay you shortly". "You believe he honestly is upset about bandits."

And a lie about being a transformed king won't sit you on the throne, it will get you put in a secluded and safe cell while the court wizard checks you for magic. After all, you ether ARE the king transformed or much more likely some victim of foul sorcery sent to cause chaos.

[atemu1234]

Let's see... in my last Starfinder game I was playing an Envoy with a decent bluff check. I convinced the military group hiring us that we were going to deliver an eldritch abomination to him in return for a million credits apiece. The eldritch abomination which I had made friends with and used diplomacy to convince to teleport back to our ship when we got paid and we'd drop him off on a planet of his choosing. Really, he wasn't such a bad guy. He just wanted to track down his brother.

[Crake]

The session ended, and I wasn't there for the next one. Sadly, the GM didn't continue much beyond this point. I forget if it was the end of semester or if players just started not showing up. (We had a lot of that when I was in college, partially because so many games ran. Man, that was a nice problem to have.) But what I recall from others' tellings was that the Queen, having been taken prisoner, was also a recurring character for the one or two sessions it went after that. I think it royally screwed up his intended plot, which might be part of why it didn't proceed.




In Patrick Rothfuss's Kingkiller Chronicle, the main character (Kvoth) at one point, poverty-stricken after losing all his meager possessions and barely getting to a city, strips himself naked from his rags, and marches into town with his best "noble bearing." Being a trained actor, he's good at it. He strolls right into a high-class tailor's, and starts playing up the outraged, entitled noble brat who has never had to worry about money. He expresses his ire at the bandit problem in this region, and demands suitable clothing for his meeting with the local nobility where he will insist they recompense him.

He pulls off his bluff so well that nobody even questions that this is a nobleman who absolutely will be able to pay when he gets in touch with his support structure, and that the only reason he came there first was because striding naked into a common merchant's shop is more acceptable than striding naked into the King's court.

So truly ridiculous bluffs can be done. The "I believe that you believe" line can be one way to go, but recall that it's possible to sell "and I'm neither crazy nor wrong" with a good bluff, too.

"I'm the real King! The man on the throne is a wizard who swapped bodies with me!" done with sufficient bluff skill may well be believable, at LEAST enough to get the mark to be willing to suspect it and try to test for it.

I definitely agree that a good bluff can instill doubt, hence the DCs for outrageous bluffs existing, but at the same time, you'd need some proof, for example, if the queen asked about a certain event, and you couldn't answer truthfully, then your bluff instantly falls apart.

[johnbragg]

My philosophy is that everything in a D&D-verse is magic. So, say, a 30 Bluff Check can jedi-mind-trick/ fast-talk your opposition into believing something ridiculous--at least temporarily. Nobody would argue with a spell effect that did the same thing. Skills are just another way a character interacts with the world--and in D&D, every interaction with the world is magical.

[vasilidor]

In one campaign I was a player in, the bard of the group used his outrageous bluff skill combined with prestidigitation to convince someone that the boots they were wearing were possessed by an evil spirit. as a DM I honestly do not think anyone has ever bothered trying to bluff any of my npcs, it is quite disconcerting now that i think about it.

[Segev]

In a system with somewhat deeper social mechanics, replacing "bluff" with something like "sincerity" might go a long way. Sincerity lets you convince somebody that you believe what you're saying. That you feel how you present yourself as feeling.

"Rhetoric" might be needed to actually present a convincing argument on a logical front. To give reasons why your listeners should believe that you're correct.

By removing "bluff" from the equation, we also resolve the question of how you convince somebody of a true but hard to believe thing. Again, you'd use rhetoric to persuade that the thing you know to be true is true. Sincerity to persuade that you mean what you say and aren't trying to trick anybody.

Still have the problem of dealing with you genuinely being sincere, though. When it's opposed by "sense motive" or other "read this person accurately" skills, it makes sense if failure to overcome their roll means they can tell when your sincerity is false. But what about when you really are sincere? High rolls for sincerity should still be meaningful, as should high rolls for detecting sincerity. If you're being genuinely sincere, higher "sense motive" should make it easier for the guy to tell you are doing so. But higher sincerity should also still help.

So maybe there needs to be a general "suspicion" stat, possibly calculated for each individual. That is, if Guardsman Gary is supposed to be watching the gates and keeping the riffraff out of the party, he might view the well-dressed and beautiful elven bard with less suspicion than he does the mud-covered orc in full, battered armor, when both try to persuade him that they really are expected at the party within.

Oscar the Orc has to overcome a higher suspicion-based DC with his sincerity check to convince Gary that he really does believe he's invited than Betty the Bard would have to, because Gary is more suspicious of the orc than the elf. If Gary has a "read people" skill he's rolling, he'd add it to his suspicion score to set the DCs Oscar and Betty have to overcome if Oscar and Betty are fibbing. On the other hand, if they're telling the truth - if they're really sincere - Gary would subtract his "read people" result from his suspicion scores to establish those DCs for each of them. This is because their skill at sincerity combined with his skill at reading people work together to help him come to the truth despite his suspicions.

Heck, suspicion scores might be calculated based on specific things. Gary is more likely to believe Oscar if he's claiming to be there to deliver a threat from some gang, based on it fitting Gary's expectations from an orc. He is also more likely to buy Oscar's sincerity in making a threat on Gary's person than he is to buy it coming from the beautiful elven bard.

There's a good amount of depth that could be made out of mechanics to modify suspicion scores before driving points of sincerity home.

[Luccan]

With the right preparation behind it (disguises both magical and mundane, a copy of the kings signet ring, etc.) you should be able to make the "I'm the real king" bluff work. For at least a minute or two. In the face of obvious proof you're lying, they shouldn't believe you for a second, but a well thought out and prepared bluff shouldn't be rejected solely on how ridiculous the claim may be.

That said, if you're going to let skills do ridiculous things anyway, perhaps a high enough Bluff truly convinces a person you're correct. At that point, it's a kind of auditory hypnosis. I might also allow these effects when the bluffer is under the influence of magic and spells like Glibness, which are inherently magical buffs to your ability to lie.

[Fouredged Sword]

I do allow thr non-magical suggestion epic use. I fluff it as people acting before their brain catches up with their body.

[Fizban]

The problem with Bluff is that it's a skill that tries to replace roleplaying with a roll, which is fine- and then people try to use it to replace playing the game as well.

I'm fairly certain that the first thing a liar learns, is what lies they can get away with. If the player gives a plausible lie, a simple Bluff, then no problem.

Some people are simply impervious to certain lies: no guard whose job it is to guard the important thing is going to just roll over if you say you're the king. Even if they do fully believe you, they still have their orders, and the response of "Even if disobeying you will get me punished, I'll get punished if I do this thing anyway, so I'm not going to" is perfectly valid. And that's assuming a gullible guard, while most simply won't believe you're anything more than a madman.

If you want to perform an extraordinary bluff, you must perform more than an ordinary bluff check. Supporting evidence or extraordinary circumstances can turn an impossible lie into a possible (though not necessarily plausible) one- but you don't get that from just making up a ridiculously elaborate lie. This is where playing the game comes in, as there are tons of ways to turn useless lies into useful Bluffs, but people like to lead with the "lol bluff +infinity I win" card, which isn't actually a card. This is where your Forgery, Disguise, Sleight of Hand, Gather Information, etc come in, along with other espionage skills or Skills. Bluff doesn't invalidate these skills, it should actually require them to work beyond the basic level.

As for coming up with possible lies for situations that only merit a quick bluff, if the player doesn't want to come up with one they can just roll the check and the DM can skip past it or use whatever plausible bluff they had in mind for why the check was succeed-able in the first place. They could also pro or retro-actively determine a situation where a bluff coincidentally happens to be plausible due to circumstances you're unaware of- "Oh, you must be the X I just heard about!" bit. But that's not a normal bluff, it's very much the DM throwing a bone to keep the game from focusing on a drawn-out setup.

[Jormengand]

If you want to perform an extraordinary bluff

The thing is, if you want to perform an extraordinarily good attack, you really do just roll extraordinarily well on your normal attack roll. If you want to climb something exceptionally hard-to-climb, there's still no reason to involve other skills. It's only bluff, diplomacy, intimidate and very occasionally gather information where people call for a degree of out-of-character bluffing/diplomatic/intimidation skill analogous to arm-wrestling your DM to roll a strength check.

Similarly, D&D 3.5 is a game where you can balance on clouds and climb a perfectly flat wall. If you want impossible bluffs actually to be impossible, then I don't know that you should be playing it.

[Crake]

The thing is, if you want to perform an extraordinarily good attack, you really do just roll extraordinarily well on your normal attack roll. If you want to climb something exceptionally hard-to-climb, there's still no reason to involve other skills. It's only bluff, diplomacy, intimidate and very occasionally gather information where people call for a degree of out-of-character bluffing/diplomatic/intimidation skill analogous to arm-wrestling your DM to roll a strength check.

Similarly, D&D 3.5 is a game where you can balance on clouds and climb a perfectly flat wall. If you want impossible bluffs actually to be impossible, then I don't know that you should be playing it.

Except nothing Fizban said at all implied any requirement of out of character anything. All of those extra things he mentioned? They were all in character things that went along with an exceptional bluff.

[Jormengand]

Except nothing Fizban said at all implied any requirement of out of character anything. All of those extra things he mentioned? They were all in character things that went along with an exceptional bluff.

But you don't need to take jump or balance checks to climb walls either, even if balance is essential to climbing.

[Crake]

But you don't need to take jump or balance checks to climb walls either, even if balance is essential to climbing.

Correct, you don't need the other social skills to bluff either, but the same way that if you want to navigate a mountain range, you will need jump and balance, if you want to weave an extravagantly unbelievable tale, you need the others, because an extravagantly unbelievable tale is more than just a single bluff.

[PersonMan]

Some people are simply impervious to certain lies: no guard whose job it is to guard the important thing is going to just roll over if you say you're the king. Even if they do fully believe you, they still have their orders, and the response of "Even if disobeying you will get me punished, I'll get punished if I do this thing anyway, so I'm not going to" is perfectly valid. And that's assuming a gullible guard, while most simply won't believe you're anything more than a madman.

Agreed, though I'd probably keep it more general to avoid quibbling over specific examples - something like "Something out of a system's functionality is less likely to be convincing", where the system in question is whatever power structure the Bluff-ee is in.

"Let me in, you fool, I'm [some important aristocrat] on a mission from the King himself! Any delays could threaten the completion of my duties, and will result in immediate punishment!"

Works just fine in a kingdom where the King does actually send people on important do-it-now quests, and will torture/execute/otherwise severely punish people for not immediately falling in line. This kind of bluff (and probably connected intimidation) works very well in this sort of system.

On the other hand, if it's a strictly regimented, ordered matter to gain access to whatever is being guarded, and the guards are drilled to deny anyone without proper authorization, which consists of one or two very specific things - you're probably going to fail. Your bluff doesn't work, because that's not how things are done.

[Fizban]

The thing is, if you want to perform an extraordinarily good attack, you really do just roll extraordinarily well on your normal attack roll.
As expected, but no. f you want to perform an extraordinarily good attack, you use a variety of things depending on cheese level, including but not limited to setting up a full rather than standard attack, two handed weapons, powerful build, rage, Power Attack, True Strike, pounce, and/or various other bonuses and reroll abilities. Killing something with attack rolls almost always requires more than one roll along with a bevy of equipment and actual playing of the game, and when Bluff is run correctly its no different.

You don't climb a mountain with a single climb check- in fact, you barely climb anything with a single climb check, and for any serious distance you'd best have climbing ropes set up unless you succeed on a 1, lest something distract from taking 10 and you fall. Balance isn't involved much for a sheer cliff face, but jump certainly can be, if you've ever seen people jumping to new handholds rather than climbing all the way around. Of course the comparison is false to begin with, as one person's climb check is rarely capable of negating an obstacle for the entire party, the way people want bluff to.


It's not hard to figure out when a simple bluff is appropriate. Is this the kind of scene where you'd expect a bluff to succeed? If you've set a scene like those in other stories where the protagonists can bluff their way past in a few seconds, they can just roll bluff. If not, then bluff won't work until the PCs have set the scene to support it.

[Jormengand]

Again: if you don't like the idea of people making people believe stuff that defies all common logic with a simple bluff, maybe a game where people can climb completely flat walls, hide people behind nothing at all and balance on clouds isn't for you.

[Segev]

There are, too, real-world reports of people so good at fast-talking that they can get people to just hand them their wallets after a few minutes of conversation. Not because they've persuaded the person on a conscious level that giving them their wallet is a good idea, but because they're playing on distraction and social cues to get the reaction they want without the mark consciously thinking about it. I think you can find youtube video of it, though I'm too lazy to bother right now. And, of course, any video is arguably staged, so it's hard to use it as 100% proof.

Still, if it's even marginally believable that such things could happen in the real world, a sufficient bluff check could arguably believably achieve similarly outrageous results. Maybe you don't overtly convince the guard to let you past. Instead, you've got him so discombobulated or distracted looking for what you're "up to" that when you shake hands and part ways casually he doesn't even notice that he's let you by. Maybe you achieve this by inverting, at least momentarily, whether he's letting you in or out, so you "give up" and "go back in" as he takes a minute or so to realize, wait, you went the wrong way.

[Pope Scarface]

Again: if you don't like the idea of people making people believe stuff that defies all common logic with a simple bluff, maybe a game where people can climb completely flat walls, hide people behind nothing at all and balance on clouds isn't for you.

Not really worth repeating since it was just as much of a false equivalency the second time as the first to assert something like this, as well as literally adding nothing to the conversation because you already said this.

[Jormengand]

Not really worth repeating since it was just as much of a false equivalency the second time as the first to assert something like this, as well as literally adding nothing to the conversation because you already said this.

You can't just shout fallacy names at people until they go away. You have to explain why "Skill checks can do overtly impossible things in 3.5, so skill checks can do overtly impossible things in 3.5" is a false equivalency.

[Fizban]

The irony is strong.

The false equivalence has already been shown, you're just ignoring it with your most recent "example" of climbing a completely flat wall. Which is not a single check, but a series of checks based on the distance required, with increasing penalties for failure that require an even higher skill and prepared equipment to avoid.

Oh, and it's also against the rules,


A perfectly smooth, flat, vertical surface cannot be climbed.

Unless one involves the Epic Level Handbook, which (as always) you simply assume is a mandatory part of the game. Even with the ELH, Balancing on clouds is DC 120, Climbing a perfectly smooth vertical surface is DC 70, and Bluffing someone so hard they just do exactly what you say because skill check (for a single round) is Sense Motive +50. None of these results can be achieved by non-epic characters short of a couple specific spells (Glibness) that violate the base skill rules and have nothing to do with how the skills themselves work. Even rolling a 20 vs a 1, you need a skill modifier of +30 to break past impossible lies and into Suggestion territory, and that's the easiest one available. Climbing the smooth surface without a climb speed requires a check for every 7.5' you want to move. How high was that wall?

You're using the "a 9th level spell can do this so any spell can" argument, except replacing 9th level spells with ridiculously char-op'd skill results and/or actual spells. So both of those are wrong. Meanwhile hiding behind nothing requires supernatural effects except in the possible edge case of a particular version of Hide in Plain Sight is marked as both Ex and not requiring any particular terrain or lighting, so that one's wrong too.

*A specialized 10th level character with a +10 bluff item (assuming there's a printed one) can land the 20 vs 1 suggestion bluff, at around the same level domination magic appears, the point at which bluffing your way past something should no longer be viable anyway. Against someone with an actual Sense Motive rank they're still doomed, and as always an encounter bypassed without significant risk or resources spent no longer qualifies as an encounter. A creature with a climb speed still needs a total +52 (then +8 from climb speed and auto-take 10) in order to climb a perfectly smooth surface.


If a table actually has characters rolling skill checks high enough to hit epic DCs, then they're probably past the point where a 1 round bluff is going to invalidate anything, and sure the DM should probably have some results for them. That is literally the whole reason they wrote epic skill DCs into the ELH, for epic characters that make epic skill checks. These are not normal characters and have no bearing on the rest of the system. The vast majority of people getting the "lol sure you rolled a 20" result are not hitting these DCs, I'm pretty dang certain. That, or the other disconnect of only considering specialized characters of 10th+ level with highly statistically improbable rolls when they talk about "the game."

[Jormengand]

I mean, sure, some bluffs have outrageously high DCs and rolling a 20 doesn't automatically pass. That doesn't magically mean that you need gather information to roll a bluff check or some crap.

[Crake]

{Scrubbed}