Friendship is Dragons
Updates Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays
Page 1187 - Gin & Doctor, Part 7
Author Notes:
Notice: Guest comic submissions are still open until this arc is finished! Guidelines here.
(Pop-out)
13 Comments:
Of the opinion that succeeding in bluff doesn't convince someone you're telling the truth. Just that you convince them that you believe your telling the truth. So succeeding at making an outrageous claim is just convincing them that you yourself believe what you say is true, and therefore you're insane. Definite helps prevent abuse.
Eh. That's why its generally countered by Sense Motive. FoE runs a bit differently, but I generally don't see players specialize in Bluff as it is. So I'd let Bluff be 'The player is telling the complete truth'. Especially since the GM can use it too.
I've generally played it that a successful Bluff check doesn't even convince them you're telling the truth - just that they haven't caught you out in a lie.
Primarily, because of the reverse situation: PCs often don't have sky-high Sense Motive, and some antagonists have Bluff checks that most PCs won't be able to beat, even with the circumstance modifiers for tall claims. I don't think it'd be fair to tell the players they have to believe the NPC completely and must act accordingly because they can't beat the NPC's bluff check. Turning that around, there are times when I think a successful Bluff check is not necessarily enough to ensure that an NPC thinks you're telling the truth... but they will at least think you MIGHT be telling the truth and act accordingly.
Primarily, because of the reverse situation: PCs often don't have sky-high Sense Motive, and some antagonists have Bluff checks that most PCs won't be able to beat, even with the circumstance modifiers for tall claims. I don't think it'd be fair to tell the players they have to believe the NPC completely and must act accordingly because they can't beat the NPC's bluff check. Turning that around, there are times when I think a successful Bluff check is not necessarily enough to ensure that an NPC thinks you're telling the truth... but they will at least think you MIGHT be telling the truth and act accordingly.
Yeah, in those cases a successful Bluff check would probably cover it. But there is the potential even with those for the "you seem to be on the level, but..." approach to apply. Or "I can't tell HOW you're lying, but you're a (insert race subject to prejudice here) so I'm sure you're guilty of something".
Bluff and Sense Motive have essentially been replaced/folded into Deception and Insight in 5e, which is what I mostly play.
Also, I like to tailor results of contested dice rolls to the difference between the results. The bigger the difference, the bigger the success for the winner.
One of my players in a level 0 campaign (using my own house rules to make that work) is playing a con artist and he decided to sell a tall tale about a golden fish no one can catch to an experienced (i.e. level 4) rogue in a tavern. He rolls decently for Deception (something in the mid-teens if I recall correctly), but the Rogue rolls absolute crap for Insight - lower than 5 on the raw roll - and this level of disparity repeats *twice* (i.e. a difference of significantly more than 5 between them) as he continues his tall tale BS, so I decide that he's somehow found the world's most gullible Rogue as a mark.
Also, I like to tailor results of contested dice rolls to the difference between the results. The bigger the difference, the bigger the success for the winner.
One of my players in a level 0 campaign (using my own house rules to make that work) is playing a con artist and he decided to sell a tall tale about a golden fish no one can catch to an experienced (i.e. level 4) rogue in a tavern. He rolls decently for Deception (something in the mid-teens if I recall correctly), but the Rogue rolls absolute crap for Insight - lower than 5 on the raw roll - and this level of disparity repeats *twice* (i.e. a difference of significantly more than 5 between them) as he continues his tall tale BS, so I decide that he's somehow found the world's most gullible Rogue as a mark.
Using the gap as a success scale is a great idea. I may have to try that.
A slight tangent, but for negotiations I find opposed Persuasion rolls gets the right feel. Treat the back and forth like a social grapple.
A slight tangent, but for negotiations I find opposed Persuasion rolls gets the right feel. Treat the back and forth like a social grapple.
There are different styles of Bluff.
One is lying. Pretty straightforward. Most common is 'I'm totally supposed to be here doing this thing'.
Another is presenting strength when you have none. If you get any closer, I'll blow us all to the moon!
Another is 'Fast talk', where you blab away in an effort to confuse your target long enough to get past them - they realize the deception later, but by then it's too late.
It should be noted that the PLAYER may have a very different Bluff score than the CHARACTER. Thus, you shouldn't penalize someone who's not good at lying (or roleplay in general) just because they can't come up with a convincing lie. Their character, with eight ranks in Bluff, will be much better, and can come up with a plausible story. Contrariwise, if the PLAYER is a silver-tongued devil, they shouldn't be able to talk their way through things.
Works with other skill checks too. I had a character who was a skilled security expert. I gave the DM an overview of the sort of things I wanted, but then said "They're much better at this than I am, so assume the whole thing has been very well done by an expert in his field, and any holes in the plan have been dealt with adequately - my roll is a 36."
One is lying. Pretty straightforward. Most common is 'I'm totally supposed to be here doing this thing'.
Another is presenting strength when you have none. If you get any closer, I'll blow us all to the moon!
Another is 'Fast talk', where you blab away in an effort to confuse your target long enough to get past them - they realize the deception later, but by then it's too late.
It should be noted that the PLAYER may have a very different Bluff score than the CHARACTER. Thus, you shouldn't penalize someone who's not good at lying (or roleplay in general) just because they can't come up with a convincing lie. Their character, with eight ranks in Bluff, will be much better, and can come up with a plausible story. Contrariwise, if the PLAYER is a silver-tongued devil, they shouldn't be able to talk their way through things.
Works with other skill checks too. I had a character who was a skilled security expert. I gave the DM an overview of the sort of things I wanted, but then said "They're much better at this than I am, so assume the whole thing has been very well done by an expert in his field, and any holes in the plan have been dealt with adequately - my roll is a 36."
There actually is a Space Marine dropship in 40K called the Roc. It looks a bit like these.
You could say Gin is making sure that when the Roc's fall, not everyone dies in the first bit of this page.
Artist: Digo Dragon
Guest Author's Note: "So... yeah. The bigwings. They are not pegasuses. Neither are they truly rocs (though they use that as a nickname), but they've got the falling part down.
Gin is about to feel low, deflated, not standing tall..."