Constraining Bluff abuse

[Hiro Quester]

The bluff rules just give a modifier to the DC of a bluff. But +20 to Sense Motive to oppose a bluff that is “almost too incredible to consider” is easily beatable by a bard with high charisma, the +30 from Glibness, and a decent investment in the bluff skill.

The last time I played a Bard, with Glibness by bluff check was practically unbeatable. My DM just ended up overruling bluffs ("He totally believes that you believe what you are saying") in some cases because an unbeatable bluff could shut down an entire encounter.

Haley gives my favorite illustration (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html) of the awesome power/abuse of bluff. It probably should not be that powerful.

Rich Burlew gave a good modification of diplomacy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9606632&postcount=2) to constrain its power and abuse (especially in the hands of a bard).

The rules suggest distinguishing between when the bluff "is hard to believe, or the action that the target is asked to take goes against its self-interest, nature, personality, orders, or the like." The latter sounds a lot like the risk/reward scenario that Burlew is talking about for Diplomacy.

Has anyone come up with a way to constrain or guide bluff checks (so they are less like “alter reality” or a mini-wish), perhaps similar to Burlew's suggestions about diplomacy?

[Fizban]

I haven't made any full fixes, but I can link two threads I posted in here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?546242-Unbelievable-Lies-and-the-Liars-Who-Tell-Them) and here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?549605-Are-lack-of-skill-points-really-the-issue) about bluff. Or just quote myself:


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.


A rating of simple/complex/super complex for goals is useful for thinking about how to divide up the skills though. In the thread about free profession skills, I suggested making profession the planning, and craft the construction. Making something you already know about takes one skill, but planning/designing something you haven't made and don't have an example of takes a second skill. Inventing something completely unheard of could also require a knowledge skill to know the principles required to design it so you can craft it. Three skills to master: knowledge, design, and construction let you make anything make-able of that construction type.

-Manipulating people should also require three+ skills- the skill you use to directly mess with them (bluff, negotiate, threaten), and the 1-2 skills you use to figure out what to say and back up your words so they don't just ignore you (sense motive, gather info, forgery, basically anything outside the box)- the catch is that lots of people are pretty simple so you're usually allowed to guess your way past one of these and lots of DMs refuse to rule certain bluffs or requests of "helpful" friends impossible, so that's another requirement ignored. So instead of doing that, don't, and require an appropriate number of skills for more difficult/complex people.

In my ready tweaks and 'brew document I just have a note that if neccesary I might rebuild bluff similar to The Alexandrian's diplomacy (here (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/diplomacy.html)), which is itself quite similar to Rich's diplomacy, though I preferred the other for reasons I don't remember off the top of my head. I also cut the bonus on Glibness down to +10, and have a general reminder that bluff is not suggestion.


In my notes I have an idea for simply making diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate all work off the same "NPC attidute" system, basically the exact opposite of the usual idea (which is to remove that system entirely and juggle circumstance modifiers for bargaining).

Under that plan you first fix the starting NPC attitudes, which are pretty much whatever the DM says. Or based on a very raw check that can't be easily boosted, which is then assigned circumstance penalties, which results in a spread of probabilities matching whatever the DM wants- because just like the players get to decide how the PCs feel about things, the DM gets to decide how NPCs feel about things.

Then you can use skills: intimidate will make someone friendly until you go away, after which they dislike you. Bluff will make someone friendly (which expands what they're willing to do or believe), until they realize you lied them (including things such as not "paying up" after whatever reasonable time frame). And negotiate will let you ensure a deal goes through, warm them up to your friendly offer, but if you get them to take a deal that's not in their favor then once again their attitude will worsen for any future dealings. All the opposed checks use sense motive+level, because the more powerful you are, the more important you know you are, and the more you know people are going to try to get things out of you. Yes, this means a high level foe with maxed sense motive will be nigh-impossible to manipulate, because that's how it should be.

[King of Nowhere]

I cut the bonus to glibness to +5. There is absolutely nothing in my campaign world that boosts bluff over +6 (and diplomacy as well). And elaborate lies will require preparaation.

[Deophaun]

Keep in mind that "believes something that you want it to believe" is a different effect than "target reacts as you wish." Glibness is a buff to the former, but has no impact on the later.

[Seharvepernfan]

"He totally believes that you believe what you are saying"

I came here to say this.

[Hiro Quester]

In my ready tweaks and 'brew document I just have a note that if neccesary I might rebuild bluff similar to The Alexandrian's diplomacy (here (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/diplomacy.html)), which is itself quite similar to Rich's diplomacy, though I preferred the other for reasons I don't remember off the top of my head. I also cut the bonus on Glibness down to +10, and have a general reminder that bluff is not suggestion.


In my notes I have an idea for simply making diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate all work off the same "NPC attidute" system, basically the exact opposite of the usual idea (which is to remove that system entirely and juggle circumstance modifiers for bargaining).

Under that plan you first fix the starting NPC attitudes, which are pretty much whatever the DM says. Or based on a very raw check that can't be easily boosted, which is then assigned circumstance penalties, which results in a spread of probabilities matching whatever the DM wants- because just like the players get to decide how the PCs feel about things, the DM gets to decide how NPCs feel about things.

Then you can use skills: intimidate will make someone friendly until you go away, after which they dislike you. Bluff will make someone friendly (which expands what they're willing to do or believe), until they realize you lied them (including things such as not "paying up" after whatever reasonable time frame). And negotiate will let you ensure a deal goes through, warm them up to your friendly offer, but if you get them to take a deal that's not in their favor then once again their attitude will worsen for any future dealings. All the opposed checks use sense motive+level, because the more powerful you are, the more important you know you are, and the more you know people are going to try to get things out of you. Yes, this means a high level foe with maxed sense motive will be nigh-impossible to manipulate, because that's how it should be.

That is actually very helpful, Fizban. The rebuild by The Alexandrian tot you linked incorporates bluff and diplomacy together in to a similar set of rules, but a different skill to convince someone of something you believe (diplomacy) or something false (bluff). The different rules for Convince someone to believe something, Overcome Intransigence (get someone to listen) and Persuasion (get someone to accept a deal) are rather helpful.

I'll run this, and your comments, by my DM.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I came here to say this.

Thirded.

It's not RAW but sometimes RAW is wrong. This is one such case. Failing sense motive vs bluff means the guy who failed the sense motive check thinks the guy bluffing is being genuine. That's it. How he reacts to that belief is up to reason and circumstance.

[Fizban]

That is actually very helpful, Fizban. The rebuild by The Alexandrian tot you linked incorporates bluff and diplomacy together in to a similar set of rules, but a different skill to convince someone of something you believe (diplomacy) or something false (bluff). The different rules for Convince someone to believe something, Overcome Intransigence (get someone to listen) and Persuasion (get someone to accept a deal) are rather helpful.

I'll run this, and your comments, by my DM.
Ah, glad you found it useful. It's been so long since I last read it I'd forgotten that rebuild covered multiple things, guess I should go re-read it myself!