Bluffing in 4e (or 3.5 for that matter)

[DizzyD]

I got into an argument with a friend of mine about the bluff skill. We are playing brothers in a 4e campaign. My character is a tiefling rouge drug addict (the campaign has allot to do with drugs) and he is a tiefling pali devoted to riding the city of drugs. We are going on a trip, not sure where yet but he asked to check my bags, he knows that I’m and addict (this is all out of character discussion at this point). So I said I would use a thievery check to hide the drugs I had on me, which happen to be so new he probably wouldn’t know what they were anyways other than a drug. I suggested to him that even if he found them I could use my bluff and say it was something for a back ache that my nanny (who happens to be a nurse at a nearby hospital) gave me. He responded with something like “that wouldn’t work,” and we went back and forth arguing over whether it would work or not… now I pass it on to you guys.
My argument: he has never seen this drug in his life. If you found a pill on the floor would you automatically know it was an illegal drug?
His argument: I’m his brother and he knows I’m an addict. (If anything it would give him a plus to his check against my bluff but it would not make it impossible for me to lie to him)

I also asked whether there were any penalties involved for bluffing to someone that knows you well and they said there was none.

[fractic]

This is how bluff is supposed to work. If you can beat his insight/sense motive check he is convinced you're telling the truth. Of course he should probably get some circumstance modifiers to his insight check.

[Saph]

Short answer: DM's call.

Long answer: It depends on the situation, the edition, exactly how you're choosing to run Bluff, whether you're even allowing Bluff to work against PCs in the first place . . . and it's still the DM's call.

Personally I'd just say roll Bluff v Insight and be done with it rather than have the argument go back and forth as to which side would get a bonus.

- Saph

[Mewtarthio]

There would most definately be a "hard to believe" bonus attatched to the Sense Motive, anywhere from +5 to +10 depending on the DM's ruling. However, you do get to make a Bluff check.

[Crow]

I don't think a die roll should be able to tell a person what their character is thinking. Bluff is different from tricking a character with an illusion or something. I think he's justified in saying that it wouldn't work.

Otherwise he could easily roll an Intimidate check or something to get you to fess up.

As always, the "social" skills are best suited for use on NPC's, not the players.

[TwystidMynd]

I don't think a die roll should be able to tell a person what their character is thinking. Bluff is different from tricking a character with an illusion or something. I think he's justified in saying that it wouldn't work.

Otherwise he could easily roll an Intimidate check or something to get you to fess up.

As always, the "social" skills are best suited for use on NPC's, not the players.

As a rule, I agree with this. Skills are meant to be used when interacting with the DM. PC interaction is usually carried out by RPing.

In my games, when someone is trying to RP with my characters, and a relevant skill-check can be made, we will attempt it, and the following RPing will be made keeping the results of the check in mind. If the actual results of the RP match up with the results on the die, then great; if they don't, then oh well. That's just me, my friends, and how we play... YMMV.

[fractic]

I agree that diplomacy shouldn't be used on PC but bluff is a different story. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to lie to your party members at all.

[Riffington]

If he's your brother, you should get the circumstance bonus rather than him.
People are always eager to delude themselves about their family's drug habits.

/doctor

[DizzyD]

I agree that diplomacy shouldn't be used on PC but bluff is a different story. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to lie to your party members at all.

I aggree. I think lying to Players should be very possible. Removing that would suck for the rollplaying of my character.

[Crow]

You can still lie to your fellow party members, but just like in real life, they don't have to believe you. It requires some cooperation as a group (as would just using the bluff skill). In this situation, I think the character's brother is justified. If I were in that situation I wouldn't care what my drug addict brother said, I still wouldn't believe him.

[fractic]

You can still lie to your fellow party members, but just like in real life, they don't have to believe you.

Except that unlike in real life there is OoC knowledge that makes lying impossible

If I were in that situation I wouldn't care what my drug addict brother said, I still wouldn't believe him.

What if you've misplaced some money and your brother claims he didn't take it? This is what circumstance modifiers are for.

[Crow]

Except that unlike in real life there is OoC knowledge that makes lying impossible

Like I said, it requires some cooperation among the group, but no more so than using the bluff skill on them. They'll still have the ooc knowledge one way or the other.

What if you've misplaced some money and your brother claims he didn't take it?

That'd have to be a big circumstance modifier...and until I found it, I'd probably still suspect him. (It doesn't help that I work in law enforcement )

[DizzyD]

It seems like this is getting no were. how bout this.

How would it work mechanically?

and in a seperate statement how do you think it should work if you don't like the mechanics of it?

[fractic]

That'd have to be a big circumstance modifier...and until I found it, I'd probably still suspect him. (It doesn't help that I work in law enforcement )

Just because I said you misplaced money and your brother claims he didn't take it, you immediatly jumped to suspecting him. I never said your money was stolen let alone by your brother. Your reaction is perfectly understandable because I posted that in this topic. But it shows the advantage of an objective mechanism for lying.

[edit]:

How would it work mechanically?

Drug addict roles bluff and his brother roles insight. Brother gets a good circumstance modifier (lets say +10) because the lie is rather obvious. If the bluff check is still the highest then he is believed.

[Crow]

Just because I said you misplaced money and your brother claims he didn't take it, you immediatly jumped to suspecting him. I never said your money was stolen let alone by your brother. Your reaction is perfectly understandable because I posted that in this topic. But it shows the advantage of an objective mechanism for lying.

You asked a loaded question: By telling me outright that my drug-addict brother says he didn't take it, it implies that I've already asked him about it, and by extension implies pre-existing suspicion. If he saw me looking around the house and asked me what I was looking for, and then volunteers that he didn't take it (without me asking if he did), then that certainly looks suspicious as well.

[fractic]

You asked a loaded question

Of course I did that was the point.

By telling me outright that my drug-addict brother says he didn't take it, it implies that I've already asked him about it, and by extension implies pre-existing suspicion. If he saw me looking around the house and asked me what I was looking for, and then volunteers that he didn't take it (without me asking if he did), then that certainly looks suspicious as well.

Wow those sound so much like good reasons for circumstance modifiers.

Also, just because you didn't make your insight and believe him this time it doesn't mean your character immediately stops being suspicious.

[Telonius]

In 3.5 rules, this would have been a Bluff vs. Sense Motive. I would give a +5 to the brother's Sense Motive check, for the bluff being a little hard to believe. (Because if it's really just a painkiller, why would you be hiding it?)

I'd also give him some situational modifiers. These are totally DM's call, but I think it would be reasonable for them to apply. +2 for being your brother (most people can usually tell when family is BSing them), and another +2 for knowing about your previous addiction (anything pill-related is going to immediately raise suspicion). So, a total of +9 to his sense motive.

If you beat his roll, he believes you. If you don't, he doesn't.

[Crow]

Wow those sound so much like good reasons for circumstance modifiers.

Yes, and a good enough reason to flat out not believe him either.

Also, just because you didn't make your insight and believe him this time it doesn't mean your character immediately stops being suspicious.

The bottom line is that unless you have the player's cooperation, it's not going to make a difference whether you roll the dice or not. Using game mechanics to enforce a character's thoughts is not ok with all groups. Obviously it's not ok with the OP's friend. My advice is to talk to the friend and work something out of character so that everyone is cooperating, rather than running the game in an adversarial manner.

[Burley]

Hi, I'm playing the part of the Brother in this campaign. Tiefling Paladin who has commited his life to not only cleansing the streets of his city, but to cleansing his brother's body of these horrid drugs. (Also, adopted daughter who was born with a drug addiction, but not relevant now.)
The reason I'm on this trip is that my church asked me to act as bodyguard, and I asked my brother to come along on the pilgrimage as a chance for me to reach out and clean him up. I'm not sure (in character and out of character) if he's coming with alterior motives, but we both know full-well why I invited him.
If I see a drug and it belongs to him, I don't see how, even with the most ungodly rolls in his favor, I could think that he wasn't using them to get high, when I'm trying to run him through a sort of rehab session.

[Telonius]

If he's your brother, you should get the circumstance bonus rather than him.
People are always eager to delude themselves about their family's drug habits.

/doctor

Generally, I'd agree with this, but we're talking about a Paladin who (as the OP said) already knows that he's an addict. And it's a sibling, not a mother, father, or spouse. I'm picturing the cop who busts his own brother for possession. He might have a hard time believing him afterwards.

EDIT ... and confirmed.

I'm not sure (in character and out of character) if he's coming with alterior motives, but we both know full-well why I invited him.
If I see a drug and it belongs to him, I don't see how, even with the most ungodly rolls in his favor, I could think that he wasn't using them to get high, when I'm trying to run him through a sort of rehab session.

Possible bluff... "My nanny prescribed this to me. She said that it's a new kind of painkiller. Sometimes it hurts ... really bad ... and I know I want to just make that pain go away. I know you want me to be strong, and tough it out without it, but I'm just not as strong as you are. I'm sorry, I just didn't want you to think less of me for needing some extra help. I'm afraid if I don't use this, I might be tempted to go back to the other stuff. Really, bro, I'm trying."

That is the sort of bluff that could conceivably work in the short term. But for your own character, I would assume you'd be on a "trust but verify" setting. If he beats your check, believe him in the short term, and don't confiscate it. But then verify with the nanny.

[DizzyD]

I'd also give him some situational modifiers. These are totally DM's call, but I think it would be reasonable for them to apply. +2 for being your brother (most people can usually tell when family is BSing them), and another +2 for knowing about your previous addiction (anything pill-related is going to immediately raise suspicion). So, a total of +9 to his sense motive.

If you beat his roll, he believes you. If you don't, he doesn't.

I like this.... and I've agreed with most of you on a situational mod. I understand he know I have a problem there for it would be harder to convince him otherwise.

It seems like there is a clear cut solution to this now. There is a roll, DM's choice on mods, but there is defenatly a roll...

EDIT:
And yet I'm shut down again. I undersatnd your point of hard to believe... but there has to be a mechanic for it. Thats why there is a big book of rules, changable only by the GM. I guess we could just ask the GM, but I'm interested in futher opinions...

[fractic]

The bottom line is that unless you have the player's cooperation, it's not going to make a difference whether you roll the dice or not. Using game mechanics to enforce a character's thoughts is not ok with all groups. Obviously it's not ok with the OP's friend. My advice is to talk to the friend and work something out of character so that everyone is cooperating, rather than running the game in an adversarial manner.

I'll admid that if everybody can agree to not need bluff then it's fine not to use it. But if both parties have vastly different opinions (such as is the case in the OP's story) going OoC and talk it out is just going to drag out the game while there is a perfectly good resolution mechanism. And when it comes to lying I think that such conflicts hardly rare.

[Fiendish_Dire_Moose]

I am all to familiar with this situation. Only whereas you're playing D&D, my brother actually IS a drug addict.
When your relatives are drug addicts you never fully trust them, ever. You always keep an eye on them, and you always suspect them of a misdeed.

Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate were not meant to be used against each other. So what you do, is you make it into a skill challenge. The addict needs to perform 6 successfull Bluff checks (accomidated by convincing roleplaying) before receiving two failures, against the paly's Will defense+half your bluff modifier.
The paly gets the bonus because well, he's your brother. He knows your lies, thus he will be able to see through them better

[Dervag]

In 3.5 rules, this would have been a Bluff vs. Sense Motive. I would give a +5 to the brother's Sense Motive check, for the bluff being a little hard to believe. (Because if it's really just a painkiller, why would you be hiding it?)

I'd also give him some situational modifiers. These are totally DM's call, but I think it would be reasonable for them to apply. +2 for being your brother (most people can usually tell when family is BSing them), and another +2 for knowing about your previous addiction (anything pill-related is going to immediately raise suspicion). So, a total of +9 to his sense motive.

If you beat his roll, he believes you. If you don't, he doesn't.

Sounds about right. I might quibble about the precise value of the modifiers, but those are DM's choice anyway.

I am all to familiar with this situation. Only whereas you're playing D&D, my brother actually IS a drug addict.
When your relatives are drug addicts you never fully trust them, ever. You always keep an eye on them, and you always suspect them of a misdeed.

Depends on the person. Some people are enablers. You, apparently, are not. This paladin apparently isn't, either.

Diplomacy, and Intimidate were not meant to be used against each other. So what you do, is you make it into a skill challenge. The addict needs to perform 6 successfull Bluff checks (accomidated by convincing roleplaying) before receiving two failures, against the paly's Will defense+half your bluff modifier.
The paly gets the bonus because well, he's your brother. He knows your lies, thus he will be able to see through them better

Hmm.

Interesting. On the other hand, Sense Motive and Bluff were meant to be used against each other. So that's probably the best bet in this situation.

[Burley]

I'll admid that if everybody can agree to not need bluff then it's fine not to use it. But if both parties have vastly different opinions (such as is the case in the OP's story) going OoC and talk it out is just going to drag out the game while there is a perfectly good resolution mechanism.

I don't agree with this. Going out of character and talking is usually the best way to resolve a conflict, especially when the conflict is about the rules. Using a rule/mechanic to justify that same rule/mechanic isn't a valid justification.

I think the example given below could work, but... We'll have to see how it is played out. I know our DM doesn't care for PC vs. PC fights, so, he may not want to do skill checks against other PCs.
In my personal opinion, if one PC can, non-magically, change what another PC think, does, or believes, then the first player is controlling the second player's character. This isn't fun.

[AstralFire]

I don't agree with this. Going out of character and talking is usually the best way to resolve a conflict, especially when the conflict is about the rules. Using a rule/mechanic to justify that same rule/mechanic isn't a valid justification.

I think the example given below could work, but... We'll have to see how it is played out. I know our DM doesn't care for PC vs. PC fights, so, he may not want to do skill checks against other PCs.
In my personal opinion, if one PC can, non-magically, change what another PC think, does, or believes, then the first player is controlling the second player's character. This isn't fun.

What makes doing it magically any better? 'sides, tricking the character isn't the same as going "YOU NOW BELIEVE YOUR HAND IS A GIANT JUICY BURGER. MAKE WITH THE HONEY MUSTARD AND THE EATING."

[DizzyD]

The paly gets the bonus because well, he's your brother. He knows your lies, thus he will be able to see through them better

I dont like that Idea.... half my modseems kinda steep. I'm a rouge, I'm good at lying for a reason, trained even. whether your aquainted to me or not shouldnt matter that much. The fact that I'm an addict throws it off a bit but not half my mod.

and wouldn't making it a skill check include dishing out xp?

[chiasaur11]

I don't agree with this. Going out of character and talking is usually the best way to resolve a conflict, especially when the conflict is about the rules. Using a rule/mechanic to justify that same rule/mechanic isn't a valid justification.

I think the example given below could work, but... We'll have to see how it is played out. I know our DM doesn't care for PC vs. PC fights, so, he may not want to do skill checks against other PCs.
In my personal opinion, if one PC can, non-magically, change what another PC think, does, or believes, then the first player is controlling the second player's character. This isn't fun.

So, you're against bluffing about the results of your Bluff check to justify a bluff check?

And, more on topic, agreed.

[fractic]

and wouldn't making it a skill check include dishing out xp?

I assume you mean skill challenge. Skill challenges normally aren't rewareded with xp. However some good roleplaying could lead to roleplaying xp.

[Gralamin]

I assume you mean skill challenge. Skill challenges normally aren't rewareded with xp. However some good roleplaying could lead to roleplaying xp.

You mean Skill checks aren't rewarded with xp. Skill Challenges tend to be.