But i'm honest! Bluff, diplomacy, and the unbelievable truth.

[Xhosant]

So, let us assume Bob has a date with Alice. He's got a habit of running late, and Alice will have no more of it, but he's determined to be there on time.

He sets off 2 hours early to make sure he's on time. But then something icky happens: he gets abducted by aliens on the way there. Long story short, he wakes up the next morning, realizing with terror just how late he's run this time. So he rushes to a furious Alice and, lacking a better idea, tells the truth.

How do you adjudicate this? Does he use diplomacy to "persuade" her he's honest? Does he use Bluff to make her believe it? As I get it, standard procedure would say she Senses Motive, comes negative and trusts him, but in our case (and others like it) Bob is lying until proven otherwise, not the other way around.

[neonchameleon]

To convince someone it's true with a circumstance modifier if he's known to be a horrible liar. To convince her to forgive him for being late diplomacy whether or not he's telling the truth or lying. What he wants to do is change her attitude either way and that's diplomacy not bluff.

[Deepbluediver]

It required some creative interpretation of the rules, but I've seen a Sense Motive check rolled against Diplomacy before.

After all, there are lots of things you can infer, imply, or ignore to get someone to believe what you want them to believe without ever telling an outright lie. And people can still disbelieve you even if you're telling the truth.


Assuming alien abductions happen often enough in your game world to be at all believable, I would say first have Alice roll a Sense motive check against DC 10+appropriate modifer(s) to decide if she believes Bob, then have Bob roll a Diplomacy check against a similar number to see if Alice forgives him.

Or just have them roll against each other, and then roleplay out various scenarious (believe a little, believe a lot, believe but still angry at, etc etc etc).

[Xhosant]

Let me clarify. The question is, if A tells a "Completely Unbelievable Truth" to "Complete Stranger B", what's the process?

[Deepbluediver]

Let me clarify. The question is, if A tells a "Completely Unbelievable Truth" to "Complete Stranger B", what's the process?

To quote the SRD-

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.

In other words, nothing to indicate that you only use Bluff to tell a lie. So I would say that "A" can make a Bluff check to convince B of his words, but being "Completely Unbelievable" the DC is so high that even on a roll of 20 he can't do it. (since you don't auto-suceed on skill checks).

[Zombimode]

Alice will get a Sense Motive check. If she beats DC 20, she will get that Bob is trustworthy this time.

Independently, Bob gets a Bluff check opposed by Alice' Sense Motive (she does NOT use the roll of the above check; this is a new check altogether). If Bob succeeds, Alice will believe that Bob is not lying.

If Bob fails, there are two cases:

1) Alice has failed the first Sense Motive check: Alice will notice, that Bob is trying to persuade her. She then will probably decided not to believe the Bob's story.

2) Alice has passed the first Sense Motive check: Alice will notice, that Bob is trying to persuade her. But she also thinks that Bob is trustworthy this time. She will then probably believe Bob's story.

[prufock]

In other words, nothing to indicate that you only use Bluff to tell a lie.

Except that it's called "bluff," which literally means to deceive?

I would make it a diplomacy check. He's trying to change her attitude by telling her the truth.

[Souju]

I'd split the difference and let the player use whichever one has the higher modifier.
Diplomacy is for attitude changes and "telling the truth," while bluff is for making someone believe something, usually something that isn't true.
To ALICE, it'd be perceived as a lie no matter if it's the truth or not. If the character is exceptionally good at bluffing, they can use this skill to convince her of the truth. If he's better at diplomacy, then he just straight up uses that.
Of course, the consequences for failure would be different: Failing the bluff check means she "knows" it's a lie, and it'd be increasingly difficult to prove it. Failing the diplomacy check means she still believes it's a lie, but also that you're crazypants because you actually BELIEVE you were abducted by aliens.
But again it can all be in how it's phrased, and I would give her two different sense motive checks, with circumstantial modifiers based on how outlandish the story is.
Though in my case, if the player's bluff skill is high enough, I'd tell them to NOT tell the truth, since the truth would have a higher potential DC, and telling her your car broke down and you had to get it towed and you left your phone in the tow truck would be more believable.

[Deepbluediver]

Except that it's called "bluff," which literally means to deceive?

I would make it a diplomacy check. He's trying to change her attitude by telling her the truth.

I was trying to be as rules-literal as I could. Ignoring the name of the skill (which you could also probably replace with "Convince" and not change much) is there anything in the text of the description on how you actually USE it, that mandates it only applies to untrue statements?

I'm normally more of a RAI instead of a RAW king of person, but the poster clarified his initial statement into a very specific scenario.

Edit: There's also no complex negotiation involved here, and Bob isn't trying to improve Alice's attitude (at least not at first). So it doesn't seem like it has to be Diplomacy either. If you want to fully play out the various scenarios, then a Diplomacy check could conceivably come up at some point, but not in regards to convincing some one of the truth (except for the synergy bonus).

[Kornaki]

Having Alice roll sense motive against a fixed DC doesn't really make sense to me... if her sense motive is really low, she won't believe Bob is telling the truth if he was actually captured by aliens, but if he wasn't and is making it all up with a bluff, she will believe him?

[Xhosant]

The logic behind a Sense Motive from Alice is that she notes how Bob seems purely honest.

Thing about bluff is, it is the effort of making something seem real. In other words, appearing honest. What if you already are?

My guess is, have Alice roll a sense motive check to see if Bob is honest, paired with some measure of her faith in her sense motive skill (is she sure that, if he seems honest, he must be?) Maybe a will save affected by sense motive ranks or something along this.
At the same time, have Bob both bluff and diplomatize (does it even come in verb form?), to seem honest and be persuasive, against an equal DC.

If a roll of Bob or the Sense motive is 1, it's a failure. If Bob wins either roll or Alice wins both (unless a critical failure) he's believed. Otherwise, it's a fail.

Or, for a simpler method, sum Bob's bluff/diplomacy check (whichever he opts to use) and Alice's Sense Motive (since Bob tries to come through honest and Alice tries to figure the truth, so they work together) against the truth's normally-impossible DC (as if an attempted lie).

Thoughts?

[Deepbluediver]

Thoughts?

Summing skill-bonuses is and odd way of doing things, although I can sort-of see where you're coming from.


I would just do Bluff vs. Sense Motive first, to see if Alice thinks Bob is being truthful, and then maybe make opposed Diplomacy rolls to see how she reacts.

That way, you might end up with a situation where Alice thinks Bob is being honest, but doesn't necessarily believe what he is telling her. Basically, Alice trusts that Bob believes he was abducted by aliens, but thinks that in reality he really just got drunk or high and doesn't really remember what happened. (this is the sort of outcome I might expect if he wins the Bluff check, but loses on the Diplomacy)

[Trekkin]

Except that it's called "bluff," which literally means to deceive?

I would make it a diplomacy check. He's trying to change her attitude by telling her the truth.

Bluff only being used for lies has caused a lot of grief for my players in the past, largely because of precisely this situation, and it occurred to me a while back that it's greatly exacerbated, if not caused by, everyone in the game being a perambulating polygraph. People don't disbelieve things because they're untrue. They disbelieve them because they disagree with what they already believe. Bluff, then, is just trying to convince people to disregard whatever makes them think a statement is untrue, probably in favor of new evidence (fabricated or otherwise).

If you read bluff as skill at being believed when you otherwise wouldn't be, it fills in some holes in the skill list.

In this case, I'd have Bob roll both checks, and give him a significant bonus on his Diplomacy check if he succeeds on his Bluff check.

[Frosty]

Or, for a simpler method, sum Bob's bluff/diplomacy check (whichever he opts to use) and Alice's Sense Motive (since Bob tries to come through honest and Alice tries to figure the truth, so they work together) against the truth's normally-impossible DC (as if an attempted lie).

Thoughts?

This is exactly how do I do it, except I'd only use Diplomacy for Bob.

Diplomacy is Bob trying to speak well WITHOUT lying. Sense Motive is how well Alice can see for herself that Bob isn't showing telltale signs of lying (inflections. Nervous ticks. Other facial indicators. Hand wringing, etc).

So, if Bob is good at speaking, and Alice is good at reading people, she can tell that Bob is not lying.

[Xhosant]

I would just do Bluff vs. Sense Motive first, to see if Alice thinks Bob is being truthful [...]

Wouldn't that mean that a high Sense Motive conceals the truth? In other words, if Alice is so great at getting a feel for people that she can immediately tell who is honest and who is not, and even has a lie detector for a good circumstance bonus, Bob's honest statement is doomed to be found a lie. That would be ranks in paranoia, not sense motive :P

That way, you might end up with a situation where Alice thinks Bob is being honest, but doesn't necessarily believe what he is telling her.

Spectacular point, i entirely missed this possibility. Also, i agree with Trekkin's comment, makes perfect sense.

So, merging the 2: Roll a bluff and a diplomacy, plus Alice's Sense against a fixed DC (just how impossible the truth is, or it's would-be bluff DC). Bluff+Sense is for honesty, diplomacy for truth. Both rolls are first compared against the DC to give a substantial "synergy" boost to the other check. Then the boosted results are compared to the DC for actual result. So, if you seem to believe something unbelievable (bluff+sense success) Alice gives it a second thought (diplomacy bonus). If it seems possible (diplomacy success) you might actually be honest (bluff+sense bonus).

So, if the roll is 2 short for bluff but success for diplomacy, and the bonus is 5, the bluff is also a success. But if both are 2 short, we're looking at a failure (there is no "feedback" with each bonus securing the other).

[DonEsteban]

There are two points to consider here, which depend on each other, but are not the same:
1) Does Alice believe Bob?
2) Does Bob manage to change Alice's attitude (from hostile or unfriendly to friendly or helpful).

You seem to focus on the first one, but let's not forget the second. Neither Diplomacy nor Bluff directly apply to 1. Clearly, you can't do a Bluff check for Bob opposed by Alice's Sense Motive, because that would mean either that the higher Alice's Sense Motive is the harder it is to convince her of the truth or that the higher Bob's Bluff skill is, the harder it is for him to convince her.

If you're only interested in answering 1), RAW say that with a DC 20 Sense Motive check ("Hunch") "you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy."

But I think the "Hunch" rule is not very good and I don't remember us ever using it. So I would suggest something different. Let's say the modifier for convincing someone of an alien abduction without proof is +20.

So I would use a Sense Motive check for Alice against DC 30 (take 10 + alien abduction modifier) simplified by Bob's Bluff or Diplomacy skill modifier.

Or a Bluff check (I'd allow substituting Diplomacy in this particular case) against DC 30 (take 10 + alien abduction modifier) simplified by Alice's Sense Motive skill, which is the exact same thing.

For answering 2), a simple Diplomacy check modified by alien abduction modifier seems in order. If you use Diplomacy by the book at all.

[Xhosant]

[...]Sense Motive check simplified by Bob's Bluff or Diplomacy skill modifier.

Covers Alice and Bob having the same target, so this is much simpler and more elegant than my way. I'll use this to replace the check-sum part.

[Deepbluediver]

Wouldn't that mean that a high Sense Motive conceals the truth? In other words, if Alice is so great at getting a feel for people that she can immediately tell who is honest and who is not, and even has a lie detector for a good circumstance bonus, Bob's honest statement is doomed to be found a lie. That would be ranks in paranoia, not sense motive :P

In short, no. Read what I quoted from the SRD very carefully, and or go check the original for yourself if you like.

Nowhere that I can find in the Bluff skill does it say that you can't be telling the truth when you use it. It only make 2 definitive statements with regards to your situation.

1) A succesful Bluff check means some one believes what you are telling them.
2) It is opposed by Sense Motive.

Clearly, you can't do a Bluff check for Bob opposed by Alice's Sense Motive, because that would mean either that the higher Alice's Sense Motive is the harder it is to convince her of the truth or that the higher Bob's Bluff skill is, the harder it is for him to convince her.

I'm sorry, but I think you are misinterpreting the Bluff rules here. As I've stated, going by the RAW, Bluff need not have anything to do with truth or falsehood. It is simply getting some one to believe what you want them to belive.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, please link it so that I can enlighten myself.

Now, if you or the OP want to change the rules to suit your purposes, go ahead. But I have yet to read anything that would require or mandate doing so.

In the case where a target really WANTS to believe what you are telling them (or simply doesn't care), I think you could rule that you don't need to make opposing Bluff/Sense Motive checks, because that's just roleplaying. If I make a statement like "I'm going to the store to buy some milk" most people wouldn't bother to question it becuase they don't really care one way or the other, and it has no effect on them. If some one had reason to suspect I was lying though, they could make a Sense Motive check, and I would have to make a Bluff check in response to back up my assertions.

[DonEsteban]

Just to make sure we're on the same page here:

I would just do Bluff vs. Sense Motive first, to see if Alice thinks Bob is being truthful [...]

So if Alice has a higher Sense Motive skill, it would be more difficult to convince her of the truth, right? But that doesn't make sense and even if this was be a "correct" application of the rules I wouldn't care because rules must make sense.

[Jay R]

Permit a naive question from somebody who has never read or played anything from 3E on. I assume that this question has a straightforward answer based on the rules; I just don't know what it is.

What is the point of a Sense Motive check here? Alice knows Bob's motive, beyond any possibility of error: he wants her to forgive him for being late. Whether the story he's telling is true or false has nothing to do with the motive for telling it.

Does the Sense Motive check do something other than sense his motive?

[Deepbluediver]

So if Alice has a higher Sense Motive skill, it would be more difficult to convince her of the truth, right? But that doesn't make sense and even if this was be a "correct" application of the rules I wouldn't care because rules must make sense.

As I've said, the Bluff skill does not necessarily mean "lie" and the Sense Motive skill is not necessarily the same as "detect truth".

The assumption here is that Alice doesn't believe Bob. If you wanted to give Bob's Bluff check a circumstance bonus because he is in fact being truthful, then go ahead. But the question we are asking is not "Is Bob telling the truth?", it's "Does Alice believe him?" And using a strict, by the books interpretion, it seems that requires an opposed Bluff and Sense Motive roll.


Now, if you want to change the rules, go ahead. I admit there are tons of silly or contradictory issues, but changing the rules so they are easier to interpret doesn't make me wrong about the RAW. I've cited my reasons and my evidence, and as far as I can tell all you have is your opinion.


Edit: If it still seems odd, try renaming the Skills "Convince" and "Doubt" in your mind, since that's basically what they are being used for in this instance.

[DonEsteban]

Well, if it means anything to you: I think your interpretation of the rules is completely correct, it just doesn't make much sense to me. For me, Sense Motive is a measure of someone's capability to pick up what someone is up to, even if it's contradictory to their obvious behaviour. I use it on many occasions that are not covered by any rule.

And my opinion is: change the rules. ;-)

Permit a naive question from somebody who has never read or played anything from 3E on. I assume that this question has a straightforward answer based on the rules; I just don't know what it is.
[...]
Does the Sense Motive check do something other than sense his motive?

Yes, almost all the time :-) You rarely do a Sense Motive check to sense someone's motive. It's a rules term and it's used to oppose someone's Bluff check or determine that "something is up".

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/senseMotive.htm

[Xhosant]

2) It is opposed by Sense Motive.

This is just RAW. Sense motive figures if you're honest. In our case, it should synergise with bluff (hey, we decided it's bluff in the first place)

If I make a statement like "I'm going to the store to buy some milk" most people wouldn't bother to question it

That's when passive checks come in. Imagine me saying "I, uh... I think i'm going to, uh, buy milk. yes, that's it, i'm off for milk, nothing suspicious about that" (hypothetical bluff 1) there's really no need for you to TRY to see something's off. But that's besides the point.

[Ozfer]

snip

I like this explanation.

[tomandtish]

When the rules call for the opposed Bluff/Sense Motive check, that usually applies when someone is trying to convince someone they are being honest when they aren't (that is, the Bluffer want the Sense Motive to fail). This is a situation where I would only make one check depending on who the PC is. This is an unusual situation because while Bob is trying to convince someone that he is telling the truth (which he actually is), the truth is (presumably) extremely unbelievable for most people in this world (apparently).

If Bob's the PC, I have him roll a Bluff check. He's trying to convince someone that he's telling a truth, but one so out there that it appears the default assumption is going to be he's telling a lie.

If Alice is the PC I have her roll a Sense Motive check. We're going to decide if her read of Bob indicates whether or not he seems to be telling the truth AS HE SEES IT.

Modifiers include Bob's previous actions when he's been late before (has he lied? Told the truth? Blown it off?), Alice's own views on abduction, just how angry she is to begin with, probably an inherent penalty for the improbability of his story.

Regardless of which one rolled, success simply means that Alice is convinced that Bob is telling the truth as he saw it (that is, he believes he was abducted). It does not guarantee Alice will believe that this is what happened, but simply that Alice believes Bob believes it. Alice may decide that Bob is high, suffering from severe delusions, the victim of an extremely elaborate hoax, etc. Or she may believe him.

Failure means that Alice believes Bob is lying. She may be misreading Bob's visual cues, the story is just too fantastic for her to accept (even as a delusion or drugs), or she's so angry at Bob that she can't accept any explanation but that he's lying.

Once you've decided whether or not she believes him, Diplomacy would be used to modify whatever reaction she now has, whether it's beating him with a 2x4 for his outrageous lie or quietly humoring him while calling for the van driven by the men with white coats.

[Deepbluediver]

And my opinion is: change the rules. ;-)

Well, their yah go. For example, IMO, Bluff should be based on Wisdom instead of Charisma
and so long as I'm complaining about things I don't like: the synergy rules.

Yes, almost all the time :-) You rarely do a Sense Motive check to sense someone's motive. It's a rules term and it's used to oppose someone's Bluff check or determine that "something is up".

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/senseMotive.htm

Agreed. Sense Motive is one of those skills that seems to exist almost soley to oppose another skill. Sort of like the relationship between Use Rope and Escape artist.

As I said, I HAVE seen Sense Motive used in response to a Diplomacy check, but it was an on-the-spot ruling by the DM for a character who believed his target was being factually correct, but hiding something.

This is just RAW. Sense motive figures if you're honest. In our case, it should synergise with bluff (hey, we decided it's bluff in the first place)

Like I said, you can do whatever makes you happy. But if that's your rational, I'd probably do something like this: have Bob make a Perform (oratory) check against DC 25-30 (base 10+unbelievable penalty) to see how well he conveys the information/tells the story. If he does well and beats the check, Alice gets a bonus to her subsequent Sense Motive roll, and a penalty if he does badly. Alice makes her Sense Motive roll against a similar DC, to see if she can discern the truth of Bob's words. Subsequent Diplomacy checks will tell us how well Alice takes it.

But none of that is really supported in the rules and either way, they are likely to fail because (as you pointed out) the story is nigh-unbelievable.

That's when passive checks come in. Imagine me saying "I, uh... I think i'm going to, uh, buy milk. yes, that's it, i'm off for milk, nothing suspicious about that" (hypothetical bluff 1) there's really no need for you to TRY to see something's off. But that's besides the point.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of so-called "passive" checks; otherwise I'd be making Balance rolls to walk down the street and Tumble checks to get out of bed in the morning (standing up from a prone position)

[Kid Jake]

I'd make it an unopposed Sense Motive check.

I'd set it for a DC of 10 against a neutral target telling the truth. +2 for his tendency to be late, +5 for his unbelievable story. If she can hit a DC17 she doesn't let his past behavior or outrageous story cloud her judgement and sees that he thinks he's telling the truth.

[Xhosant]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of so-called "passive" checks; otherwise I'd be making Balance rolls to walk down the street and Tumble checks to get out of bed in the morning (standing up from a prone position)

You ARE making them. They're just auto-successes, because the task is trivial. And how about passive spot checks? How will you avoid stepping on poo without actively paying attention only to the floor?

[prufock]

I was trying to be as rules-literal as I could. Ignoring the name of the skill (which you could also probably replace with "Convince" and not change much) is there anything in the text of the description on how you actually USE it, that mandates it only applies to untrue statements?

I agree that RAW there is no reason it can't be, but it's hard to argue intent on the part of designers. It was said half tongue-in-cheek, but I really think bluff should be used for, well, bluffing.

In truth, he could change her attitude without her believing him, even. But I think the exercise is in having her attitude revert back to seeing him as trustworthy.

However, in some situations where he doesn't care about the person's attitude, he just wants to say "this is true." Bluff still doesn't make sense to me, because success on the part of the target's sense motive check means they continue to believe the untruth. It's like "I am too wise to be swayed to the truth?" Then again, RAW doesn't always make sense, either.

[Jay R]

Yes, almost all the time :-) You rarely do a Sense Motive check to sense someone's motive. It's a rules term and it's used to oppose someone's Bluff check or determine that "something is up".

Ah. Thank you. I couldn't tell if it was a misapplied check, or a check whose name can be misleading.