Bluffing to tell the truth?

[Choco]

I can see that this will be coming up in my game shortly, so I just have to ask...

Say a PC tells a totally insane (but true) story to an NPC, the type of story that they obviously would not believe, at least at first. How would I handle that? I thought about a bluff/sense motive method, but the SRD implies that bluffing applies only to, well, bluffs. Is a diplomacy check the only way to handle this? No one in the party has any ranks of it, and I know that they have no chance in hell of convincing a noble in that case.

Any ideas?

thanks in advance for the help.

[lsfreak]

One of the DM's I've played with expanded Bluffing to include telling truths or changing immediate courses of action whenever the person would be resistant (especially party members, since Diplomacy is kind of... bad.) If you make your bluff check, then they belief the crazy thing you're saying, or you convince them that the course of action they're in the middle of doing isn't the best one (getting ready to charge the BBEG, when it's clear to you you're going to lose).

[JeminiZero]

It would technically be a Diplomacy check.

Bluff check doesn't quite work that way either, its a roll to convince the other guy that you believe what you are saying is true, he doesn't necessarily believe it is true on the whole (i.e. you might be drunk or insane).

I recall the story of some guy who used a bluff check to convince the king that he was toasted bread and rolled high, while the king rolled low. In such cases, the king now thinks that you believe he is a piece of toasted bread, but he knows he isn't one, so he'll just look at you like you're crazy.

As for letting your party convince the noble, what you could do is provide a handy piece of plot evidence to give them a bonus to diplomacy. You could also give them the option of submitting to zone of truth interrogation to help boost their cause.

[Choco]

You could also give them the option of submitting to zone of truth interrogation to help boost their cause.

Wow, this actually brings up another pressing question I had...

Is there any way for the interrogator to know that the subjects have either failed or purposely waived their will saves while entering a zone of truth?

Great suggestions so far!

[Keld Denar]

No, not really. The caster would know if the questionee failed the save, but not if they failed it on purpose or tried to resist it and failed.

He would know the result of the save, though, for sure. Its in the spell discription.

[Dr_Horrible]

They way I use it is this:

Person A says something to Person B.

If Person A is telling the truth, and Person B is likely to believe it, no roll.
If Person A is telling the truth, and Person B is unlikely to believe it, decide how likely it is on a d20 (take into account believeability, how good his sense motive is, ect), roll it.
If Person A is lieing, start using bluff vs Sense Motive.

[TheDarkOne]

Read the entry on bluff. Bluff works for convincing people of a certain piece of information regardless of whether it's true or not.

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.

edit:

Bluff check doesn't quite work that way either, its a roll to convince the other guy that you believe what you are saying is true, he doesn't necessarily believe it is true on the whole (i.e. you might be drunk or insane).

This is a position I have heard more than once, the quoted portion of the rules shows it's clearly not the case, and no where in the rules does it suggest that bluff merely convinces others that you believe what you're saying. I'm kind of curious where people got this idea. Maybe older editions described it like this and people just didn't read the new entry. (players who never played with older editions may have still had the bluff skill originally explained by someone who played with an older description and likewise never looked it up.)

[Dr_Horrible]

Read the entry on bluff. Bluff works for convincing people of a certain piece of information regardless of whether it's true or not.

Right, the point is it's not the only way. They could also believe it because it seems true.

[ericgrau]

(to TheDarkOne's post): That doesn't mean bluff applies to all situations where you might want to get someone to believe what you said. Use some common sense, and use bluff only when you want to bluff. I don't care if you think the rules should be taken so overly-literally that text under a certain section should apply even to unrelated matters. That's not just wrong, it simply shouldn't be done in any sane game. Otherwise you get stupid stuff like the toasted bread example.

The problem in the example in the first post is that what you're saying just plain doesn't make sense (even though it's true). No bluff or diplomacy should be able to convince the NPC of it any more than you can convince the king he is toasted bread. The PC must provide more solid evidence, or bribe/pay the NPC to work with them anyway, or try to get him to at least come along so you can show him or etc. They simply cannot convince the NPC as-is.

[TheDarkOne]

Right, the point is it's not the only way. They could also believe it because it seems true.

Yes they could. Although this is contained with in the skills description if you take into account the massive bonus you would get for convincing someone of an obviously true fact.

Also, my post wasn't directed at you, I was just answering the original post.

That doesn't mean bluff applies to all situations where you might want to get someone to believe what you said. Use some common sense, and use bluff only when you want to bluff. I don't care if you think the rules should be taken so overly-literally that text under a certain section should apply even to unrelated matters. That's not just wrong, it simply shouldn't be done in any sane game. Otherwise you get stupid stuff like the toasted bread example.

The problem in the example in the first post is that what your saying just plain doesn't make sense (even though it's true). No bluff or diplomacy should be able to convince the NPC of it any more than you can convince the king he is toasted bread. The PC must provide more solid evidence, or bribe/pay the NPC to work with them anyway or etc. They simply cannot convince the NPC as-is.

Buff does apply in all situation where you want someone to believe what you say. What differs is that some things are so hard to convince others of that the DM just say "No, that's dumb".

In this specific case, it's possible that no character just speaking by him self without any sort of evidence would be unable to do it. I think it still applies though, you could, for example start out with a -80 penalty(arbitrary number) to try to convince people of the story. Any evidence the party can provide would decrease this penalty down to a range where the characters have a reasonable shot. You can also set it up that if the character collect enough evidence there's actually no chance of failing. I think it's a little silly in most cases for it to be completely binary, either no chance of success or no chance of failure, there should be a zone in between where it's possible, but not guaranteed to convince people of the story

[Worira]

What if the king actually is a piece of toasted bread, his soul swapped into it by a mischievous psion then the bread encased into a robotic suit sensitive to his inadvertent telepathic commands and the whole arrangement cloaked in a powerful illusion? What do you roll to convince him of it?

[Vexxation]

What if the king actually is a piece of toasted bread, his soul swapped into it by a mischievous psion then the bread encased into a robotic suit sensitive to his inadvertent telepathic commands and the whole arrangement cloaked in a powerful illusion? What do you roll to convince him of it?

A Caster Level check for Greater Dispel Magic/Psionics on the king, to unveil the illusion!

Then, in a very Fry-like manner, you commit regicide.

[Calinero]

I disbelieve the illusion.

Anyways. Would a sense motive check here work? For the listener to sense that the player is being sincere?

[ericgrau]

That makes a lot of sense, but I don't know what the DC would be. It should be some fixed amount though, rather than an opposed check. A high roll only tells you that he probably isn't faking it, since that'd beat an opposed bluff check if there was one. The sense motive DC to tell if someone is "acting funny" is 20 (for example, only saying something b/c of mob pressure) . You could use that as a baseline and adjust from there if needed.

TheDarkOne: I think we're only disagreeing about semantics, and not much else. In the end the game is played the same way. Oh well.

[Baalthazaq]

Your players could lie and purposely fail.

I want to tell the king we are untrustworthy. I choose to fail. :P

It's almost as bad as "I want to roll to see if I get the guards attention" "Erm... ok.. diplomacy I guess" "I choose to fail" "Ok... you don't catch their attention" "Cool! I slip by them unnoticed".

[Rhiannon87]

I'd say don't bother with having the party bluff at all, just have the NPC roll a sense motive. If the NPC rolls low, he doesn't believe them; if he rolls high, he does. I've had a similar incident in my game, and that's how we handled it. The NPC in question got a middling result, and thought that if nothing else the party believed that what they were saying was true, and brought them in to talk to someone higher up. (Who then cast Zone of Truth and everything was straightened out.)

[Telonius]

What if the king actually is a piece of toasted bread, his soul swapped into it by a mischievous psion then the bread encased into a robotic suit sensitive to his inadvertent telepathic commands and the whole arrangement cloaked in a powerful illusion? What do you roll to convince him of it?

I keep a separate plane prepared for just such an event: the Logical Paradise of Cartesia (Lawful Neutral aligned). The denizens of this plane (typically wizards with the Geometer prestige class) make it their sole purpose to hunt down and destroy monsters such as this. They also have a strike force prepared to destroy any wizard who tries to create a Wall of Iron that exceeds Kord's encumbrance.

[Doug Lampert]

Wow, this actually brings up another pressing question I had...

Is there any way for the interrogator to know that the subjects have either failed or purposely waived their will saves while entering a zone of truth?

Great suggestions so far!

Detect Thoughts.

Interogation when you're serious should involve:
1) Detect magic and then keep removing items and taking down spells until you don't detect anything. Note that Magic Aura works on OBJECTS, not creatures, there's nothing in core that will conceal an aura on a creature, and everything in core that will allow you to beat what's coming is an active spell effect on the character being interogated (notably changing someone's memories has a Permanent duration, not instant, take the spell down and they change back).

2) Detect Thoughts. If this fails the target is under a Mind Blank or something similar and the DM house ruled that the spell is undetectable even though the description only says it makes you undetectable, not spells on you. So take that down and try again.

3) Zone of truth. Since the target of the Detect thoughts spell ALWAYS knows if he made a successful save so does the person with detect thoughts, even if you can lie without thinking about the fact that its a lie, you can't do so under this combination.

4) Ask away.

5) Profit.

Note that this procedure won't actually stop someone from sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "I'm not listening" when you try to ask your question or simply refusing to answer (although detect thoughts may pull out the answer if they hear the question and automatically think about the answer).

DougL

[Eldariel]

It's actually a difficult matter to try to convince someone of something they're unlikely to believe, but is ultimately true because them having a high sense motive should actually help you accomplish that - if they sense motive you, they should figure out that no matter how outlandish, you are telling the truth.

Using a Bluff-check would make the opposite - a guy who's really good at reading other people and figuring out if they're telling the truth or lying would believe they're lying even though they're telling the truth, and a guy who can't really read other people at all and knows it and is thus suspicious of everyone believes you almost automatically and is convinced easily.


Some sort of a diplomacy roll indeed serves best here, but granting bonuses dependent on how good the respondent's sense motive is would make sense. Really, I'd make it a roll vs. set DC or inverse sense motive where the DC to succeed is "25 - the target's sense motive bonus" or some such.

[Chronos]

Note that Magic Aura works on OBJECTS, not creatures, there's nothing in core that will conceal an aura on a creature, and everything in core that will allow you to beat what's coming is an active spell effect on the character being interogated

Ring of Mind Shielding with Magic Aura cast on it is not an active spell effect on the character. The interrogator will know that something's up when the Detect Thoughts fails, but won't necessarily know what it is.

[Izmir Stinger]

I would make getting someone to believe an unbelievable story a strait CHA check. Not everything has to be a skill check, there are rules for Ability checks for a reason.

[Doug Lampert]

Ring of Mind Shielding with Magic Aura cast on it is not an active spell effect on the character. The interrogator will know that something's up when the Detect Thoughts fails, but won't necessarily know what it is.

How does a ring of <spell> work?

Why it casts the <spell> on the character wearing the ring. I'm not detecting the ring.

I'm detecting the mindshield on the character not the ring's ability to cast mindshield, the spell isn't the ring's enchantment, it's the effect of the ring's enchantment. That the ring's aura is undetectable doesn't make the spells it casts undetectable, anymore than a MindShield cast from a staff would be undetectable if it were cast from a staff with Magic Aura on it.

Of course even if the GM agrees with you that the mindshield from a ring is undetectable the interogator still knows it's failing, and the point of this isn't to force out the truth (nothing used forces anyone to say anything), it's to allow an interogator to be confident of his results, if the detect thoughts fails he knows to keep working.

DougL

[Eldariel]

I would make getting someone to believe an unbelievable story a strait CHA check. Not everything has to be a skill check, there are rules for Ability checks for a reason.

This is so similar to a standard skill check that I feel using a completely different mechanic makes no sense. I mean, this clearly feels like DIplomacy.

[Rasilak]

I'd have the players roll diplomacy and the noble roll sense motive. If either succeeds, he buys it.

[lsfreak]

This is so similar to a standard skill check that I feel using a completely different mechanic makes no sense. I mean, this clearly feels like DIplomacy.

The biggest problem with this, however, is that the king may very well already be Helpful towards the character - it's just that he's making a completely ludicrous statement. Being Helpful doesn't mean you believe everything they say.

By RAW, it's a Bluff. "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."

That said, I don't think RAW covers it all.

[Eldariel]

The biggest problem with this, however, is that the king may very well already be Helpful towards the character - it's just that he's making a completely ludicrous statement. Being Helpful doesn't mean you believe everything they say.

By RAW, it's a Bluff. "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."

That said, I don't think RAW covers it all.

There's no reason not to allow Diplomacy to be used for things other than changing attitude though - hell, I don't even model attitudes in my game with such strict terms and it works just fine with Diplomacy simply acting as "Speechcraft".

[lesser_minion]

The way bluff is pitted against Sense Motive suggests that the main trick to bluff is actually minimising the signs that you are lying. If you're telling the truth, it isn't an issue.

In this case, you would want the DC 20 "Hunch" application of Sense Motive, which allows you to ascertain, among other things, that an individual is trustworthy (or, in this case I guess, not lying even though this sounds like an incredible fabrication).

I think the examples given at the top of the Bluff skill imply that it should be used only for lying - there are the non-social uses, but these are all geared towards deception and misdirection.

Also, Ring of Mind Shielding can be concealed from magical detection. It doesn't cast a spell on the wearer (few rings do), it just says "wearer is immune to X,Y,Z".

However, before interrogating somebody, you would strip-search them and make them wear new clothing.

[hamishspence]

Bluff has to do with deception- but it doesn't have to involve misstatements of fact.

Captain Carrot in Discworld novel Men At Arms gets an exceptionally got example of this- bluffing the Head of the Fools Guild into letting them in, with the threat of having to carry out and order. What he carefully fails to mention is that the order would involve turning around and going away.

Bluffing with The Truth can work. Especially if the actual intent is for them to fail to believe it- the classic Sarcastic Confession, for example.

[Choco]

hmmm, after reading all this I think ima just go the easy route and have the noble roll a Sense Motive. If he doesn't roll high enough, the players will just have to bring him evidence or show him what they are talking about, he at least trusts them that much already.

[LibraryOgre]

4e handles it by having an Insight check of X+character level be performed by others to see if they realize he's telling what he thinks is the truth.