Telling player to make bluff checks and not have them metagame

[Berserk Monk]

How, as a DM, do you get the players to make a bluff check and not have them be naturally be suspicious something's going down? And it's not just for bluffs: search, spot and listen apply too. You tell them to make a roll, and you know they're just thinking for an excuse to be on guard in game. I've thought of someways, but I don't think they'd fly by with most players or be too effective:

One idea I had was every time they had to make one of these rolls, I'd do something kind of subtle (flip a piece of paper, touch my nose, anything to signify the need for a roll, but not obvious).

The second method is that I wouldn't tell them to make these rolls. They can roll them anytime they want for any reason.

[Frosty]

You have their Bluff modifiers. Roll FOR them in secret. Or, sometimes just randomly ask them to roll for reason.

[sonofzeal]

Prerolling.

For tense dungeons, get them to preroll 20 Spot/Listen checks, then when one comes up just consult the list.

I also keep postcards with brief notes on each character, including their spot/listen, so I can roll any time.

The other options is to bluff yourself. Ask for rolls fairly frequently, even when there's nothing. That'll REALLY set them on edge.

[Kylarra]

Well, I'm not sure when you'd randomly be forcing your players to bluff, perhaps you meant sense motive?

[tyckspoon]

Assuming you mean Sense Motive, as players will usually volunteer to roll Bluff whenever they want to lie to somebody- write down the player's Take 10 value for any skills where you would rather the players not be immediately aware that they need to test it. Roll for whoever is lying to them/trying to sneak past them/whatever. If the Take 10 value wins, the NPC just isn't good enough to get past the PCs, and you tell them whatever the appropriate information is, even if it's just "you don't think this guy is being fully honest with you." If the NPC wins, then it's up to the players to determine whether or not they need to make an active check and try to roll higher.

Another method that works fairly well for at least Spot and Listen is to call for semi-random dummy checks. When the PCs get to a corridor intersection, call for a round of Listen. Tell 'em they hear nothing no matter what they roll- there wasn't anything there at the time. Ask for enough of those and they'll either get really paranoid and volunteer to make Spot/Listen checks all the time, which solves your problem, or they'll learn not to assign any special significance to you asking for an awareness check, which also solves your problem.

[Kylarra]

The problem with inducing paranoia is that now you should prepare for spending significant portions of gametime on various perception checks.

[sadi]

I do it two ways, both involve having their numbers. The first is to roll myself, the other is to just tell them to roll a 20. I never let players roll skills that failure has obvious results, unless I'm feeling evil and tell them to randomly roll checks.

[magellan]

Remove all those nonsensical social skills from the game
Roleplay conversations and have the players "sense motive" and "bluff", not the characters.

Be prepared that it is hard for players to catch you lieing. You already "lie" to them when you are playing a character (because you aren't actually that guy) So subtle things that would give you away IRL don't, because it isn't certain if they are part of your normal "performance" or not. So you gotta be blunt there.

Oh, and random rolls now and then never hurt anybody.

[Curmudgeon]

Remove all those nonsensical social skills from the game
Roleplay conversations and have the players "sense motive" and "bluff", not the characters.

So you're going to reward glib players and penalize those who can't think up convincing arguments on the fly? So why not have players act out the fights, and the winner is the one with the best moves? Then you could have the strong and graceful players be the winners, and remove all those nonsensical physical actions from the game.

It's a game system for a reason. Just because you happen to be comfortable in roleplaying social intrigue doesn't make that true for others. It's only "nonsensical" if you can't see the sense in it.

[Evilfeeds]

So you're going to reward glib players and penalize those who can't think up convincing arguments on the fly? So why not have players act out the fights, and the winner is the one with the best moves? Then you could have the strong and graceful players be the winners, and remove all those nonsensical physical actions from the game.

It's a game system for a reason. Just because you happen to be comfortable in roleplaying social intrigue doesn't make that true for others. It's only "nonsensical" if you can't see the sense in it.

Why bother roleplaying at all?

"You come across the dungeon of untimely deaths."
"My character does whatever he thinks is best. He has 18 intelligence."
"A band of kobolds passes by."
"My character acts appropriately. He has 14 wisdom."

Its a game for a reason. Otherwise, you're just penalising the stupid players and rewarding players who can think tactically.

[kamikasei]

Evilfeeds, do you in fact think that rolls and modifiers have any place in the game or not? If they do have some place, why should they only apply to physical combat?

It seems to me that your attempt at reductio ad absurdum cannot be used as an argument against only the point Curmudgeon was making but demands to be applied to the entire game.

[Kurald Galain]

How, as a DM, do you get the players to make a bluff check and not have them be naturally be suspicious something's going down? And it's not just for bluffs: search, spot and listen apply too.

I use their "take ten" value; problem solved.

[Random832]

How, as a DM, do you get the players to make a bluff check and not have them be naturally be suspicious something's going down?

Wait, bluff? Isn't sense motive the relevant skill? (or is this a 4e thing?)

Anyway, there's text in the DMG2 that implies that players aren't even supposed to get to make a sense motive check at all if they would not have a reason to be suspicious in character. (The example is of a party member who is charmed and told to lie about the contents of the next room - the DM denies the sense motive check because this is a trusted friend and there's no reason to suspect they are lying)

[742]

well, pre-rolling sounds smart, roll 100 D20 for each character and print it out, then have a piece of paper with their modifiers on it. PC is lied to? you can do something similar for yourself, with either a sheet for specific NPCs (only you know what theyre likely to do so you can add modifiers in for some) or a big long page for you. in fact for the DM i see very little reason not to do this for combat too, at least as long as you dont get attached to your villians.

the let players bluff/sense motive/diplomacy themselves thing is dreadfully stupid, especially for bluff and sense motive, i guess i can sort of see it for diplomacy, and the skills already broken anyway. i have seen some exceptional lies, but they only work in the situation "wow! throw that in and ill take it for half price!" ok i havent ever actually seen that one in person, but its but far cleaner, less illegal, and less secret than the type of stuff i heard. you would never think it would work, and the DM already knows all sorts of stuff that the PCs dont. it also doesnt allow the more socially adept players to play thugs or the socially inept unless they purposely fail, or the less socially adept players to play james bond types. then theres the fact that most people just dont get that in character, and especially for the DM whos constantly switching from viewpoint to viewpoint. i could keep talking on the subject for an hour if i was bored, but im sure you see where im going here:
bluff/sense motive is possibly the least practical statistic to act out, except for possibly hit points/DR and maybe fly speed.

[Dhavaer]

Wait, bluff? Isn't sense motive the relevant skill? (or is this a 4e thing?)

Nope, 4e calls it insight instead of sense motive, but it's still a separate skill.

[Cyclocone]

Be prepared that it is hard for players to catch you lieing. You already "lie" to them when you are playing a character (because you aren't actually that guy) So subtle things that would give you away IRL don't, because it isn't certain if they are part of your normal "performance" or not. So you gotta be blunt there.

But PCs are always suspicious, that's the point of sense motive.

If you didn't have that mechanic, all conversation between PCs and NPCs would become drawn out and boring as the players atempt to twist your every word and get you to admit to their entirely fictitious suspicions.

With sense motive, you can just check to see if they're even allowed to notice something and then just go: "nopes, there's nothing suspicious going on here, at all. As far as you can tell, Asmodeus is being 100% honest."

And yeah, you can always just take 10 out of combat.

[erikun]

I can understand prerolling a spot check because the players shouldn't be hinted off that something is amiss, but a search or bluff check? "You didn't realize that you were actually telling the guard a lie to influence his actions, so it is a passive bluff check"?

Bluff is one of those skills where the player intentionally does something which calls for a check. I wouldn't necessarily give them all the modifiers, but it's kind of hard for them to not know when they're trying to influence someone. (Also, they can always ask for a sense motive roll to see if they succeeded.)

[kamikasei]

erikun, I think it's pretty well agreed at this point that the OP meant Sense Motive, not Bluff.

We also need to distinguish between cases where the player shouldn't know that he's attempting the check unless he succeeds (e.g. Spot) and where the player shouldn't know how well he's rolled even when he asked for the check (Sense Motive).

[Random832]

Or you could just get players who don't suck at separating IC vs OOC knowledge.

[kamikasei]

Or you could just get players who don't suck at separating IC vs OOC knowledge.

Quick, don't think about elephants.

[Random832]

Quick, don't think about elephants.

What's this have to do with what I said? They can think about stuff all they want - and not acting in a certain way based on information doesn't have the same problem as the "don't think about elephants" joke.

[kamikasei]

What's this have to do with what I said? They can think about stuff all they want - and not acting in a certain way based on information doesn't have the same problem as the "don't think about elephants" joke.

While, granted, if the players immediately take out their weapons and form a circle "just because, no reason" when they fail a spot check, that's a problem with the players... there is a lot to be said for being able to actually suprise the players, not just the characters, and sparing them the need to break immersion in the first place.

Or to put it another way: if your post was a response to the OP directly and his concern that "you know they're just thinking for an excuse to be on guard in game", you were correct; if it was addressing the discussion since, it was unduly dismissive of real concerns.

[blazinghand]

At the beginning of each session I record Spot, Listen and Sense Motive modifiers for all the PCs and roll certain checks behind the screen (spot or listen for example to see an opponent they haven't noticed yet, so as not to give it away). For elves and dwarves, I also record their Search check since it's suspicious to suddenly ask both the elf and the dwarf to roll Search checks as they walk down a corridor.

[Hawriel]

Dont give any overt clues like telling your player 'roll a sence motive/bluff check' when talking to the NPC. Instead Roll the NPCs bluff/cha against a target number based on believability. Use degrease of success or failer. Then alter how you portray the NPCs behavior. If he rolled very well portray the NPC as being very cool/sensere/confidant. If he rolled badly give him tells as he is trying to be cool/sensere/confidant. He my contradict himself, over complicated the lie, body language might be off. If the player(s) pick up on any shiftyness themselves then they can ask to roll a sence motive vs the NPCs bluff roll. If they dont well thats their problem.

[magellan]

So you're going to reward glib players and penalize those who can't think up convincing arguments on the fly? So why not have players act out the fights, and the winner is the one with the best moves? Then you could have the strong and graceful players be the winners, and remove all those nonsensical physical actions from the game.

It's a game system for a reason. Just because you happen to be comfortable in roleplaying social intrigue doesn't make that true for others. It's only "nonsensical" if you can't see the sense in it.

Simple actually: we don't have dragons and wizards at hand. We need to make that stuff up /abstract it. For social interaction: no reason, we can do that 100% lifelike at the table. And yes: Uncomfortable in social situations: your problem. But: It's good training to overcome those things. (public speaking is public speaking, if it's with 5 friends or with a hall of 500 strangers. RPing helps)

[kamikasei]

Simple actually: we don't have dragons and wizards at hand.

I don't see Curmudgeon mentioning dragons or wizards. I see him mentioning combat, which last I checked is something that is entirely possible in the real world.

[Random832]

Simple actually: we don't have dragons and wizards at hand. We need to make that stuff up /abstract it. For social interaction: no reason, we can do that 100% lifelike at the table.

then why is Charisma a stat?

[sofawall]

CORMAG the Barbarian is better at social skills with a 6 cha and no ranks than the bard with 20 cha and max ranks and skill boosting items and skill focus, just because CORMAG's player is a motivational speaker and the bard's is a grumpy lumberjack from the far north of Canada?

[magellan]

I don't see Curmudgeon mentioning dragons or wizards. I see him mentioning combat, which last I checked is something that is entirely possible in the real world.

That would limit us to small brawls with no. of players vs 1 DM. Wouldn't really be all that enjoyable (and considerably shorter)

@random
Nobody knows...

The Bard looks a whole lot different: he has no social skill ranks. Social skill ranks don't exist. Social skill boosting items don't exist either. (and 18 CHA doesn't happen that often with 4d6 drop lowest) Besides that: what is the problem with the situation?

[kamikasei]

Besides that: what is the problem with the situation?

It prevents anyone from effectively playing a character they can't perfectly act out, which is not really what roleplaying is about.

Game systems include rules for representing abilities the player doesn't have. That covers combat ability, utility skills, and yes, social skills. It also allows you to use those skills, not just to represent abilities you lack, but to bridge the gap between your character fully immersed in the world and you hearing brief descriptions at second hand.