Bluff vs. Sense Motive

[InVinoVeritas]

In my opinion, this is why it's important to make sure that your manipulator doesn't care if the PCs see through your lies or not.

For example, from my campaign:

Mogson meets up with the Rose Company, leading them to Alek's cell. "So... Darian's not coming? I--no, I won't ask. Not my place, not my concern."

The cell door is opened. Inside, the cell grows white. Alek lounges on the floor, atop a fluffy white cottony pillow. The floor beneath him, and the walls nearby are streaked with white, as if a lily-colored lichen advances from Alek, growing slowly. Mogson shakes his head and quickly excuses himself again.

Alek speaks. "Ah! Gentlemen! Please, come in, pull up a chair and sit down!" Of course, there are no chairs in the cell. There should not even be the pillow, or the white. "What? Oh, Darian is not joining us? Oh, dear, I suppose he needs to be with Marionette right now. I must admit, it's an interesting choice. For most people, Marionette isn't their favorite. Sasha's a clever seductress, and Kitten's always eager to please, but Marionette usually wants to be left alone."


* * *

THUNK.


* * *

"Ah, well, I'm sure she's in good hands."

With a pause he adds, "Oh, by the way, Torhan, how is Sasha? Are you keeping your love down here, where others won't see it?"

 

[CanadienneBacon]

First off, successfully lying is easier than successfully detecting lying when it's said in the real world, so I would expect it to be similar in both cases.

I'm not so sure that's true. That successfully lying is easier than successfully detecting lying in the real world, I mean. It is pretty hard to pull off a lie when you're up against someone trained in questioning techniques. You don't even need torture to be able to tell when someone's lying. Heck, I think most folks suspect deep down that they're being lied to even without having been "trained" to be able to tell. You'll think I've flipped my lid, no doubt, but the reason I know that it's not very hard to detect a lie in the real world is that I used to be in the Army and was trained as a 97E Korean linguist. 97E in Army jargon means Interrogator.

It really isn't that hard to detect when someone's lying. :\ Telling a successful lie, on the other hand, is (IMO) VERY hard.

Edit: Sorry, didn't mean to get all "real world" on yous guys. Since when does the real world have anything much to do with D&D!

 

[InVinoVeritas]

I'm not so sure that's true. That successfully lying is easier than successfully detecting lying in the real world, I mean. It is pretty hard to pull off a lie when you're up against someone trained in questioning techniques. You don't even need torture to be able to tell when someone's lying. Heck, I think most folks suspect deep down that they're being lied to even without having been "trained" to be able to tell. You'll think I've flipped my lid, no doubt, but the reason I know that it's not very hard to detect a lie in the real world is that I used to be in the Army and was trained as a 97E Korean linguist. 97E in Army jargon means Interrogator.

It really isn't that hard to detect when someone's lying. :\ Telling a successful lie, on the other hand, is (IMO) VERY hard.

Edit: Sorry, didn't mean to get all "real world" on yous guys. Since when does the real world have anything much to do with D&D!

Good point; let me rephrase that. It's easier to successfully lie untrained than to successfully detect a lie untrained; there have been studies using the standard "college student" that prove that, and studies that prove that lie detection training is very effective (I've seen the Army study done attached to the college student study).

But you've got a good point--training changes all that. It pretty much nullifies what I've said earlier.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I'm not so sure that's true. That successfully lying is easier than successfully detecting lying in the real world, I mean. It is pretty hard to pull off a lie when you're up against someone trained in questioning techniques.

The interaction is part of that, right? Whether you are up against an Army interrogator or a hostile lawyer. In either case, they have some skill at listening and some skill at asking the right questions to trip you up. At least, that would be my guess.

That probably should be modeled in the game in some way. If you're at court listening to the foreign ambassador give his report to the king, you might suspect he's lying. You'd be a whole lot more confident if you could cross-examine him, but perhaps that's just not possible without causing a diplomatic incident.

 

[CanadienneBacon]

But you've got a good point--training changes all that. It pretty much nullifies what I've said earlier.

Well, thanks for not chewing me a new one! I always worry that I'll come across as a complete idiot when I tell people what I used to do.

I think, for game purposes, most courtiers would probably count as having "training." Heck, they'd probably be WAY better at lie-detecting than a real world individual trained to do the same. After all, a courtier's life probably depends a great deal on who is feeding them what sack of garbage at any given juncture.

 

[balterkn]

Is that PHB or UA? I don't find any reference to it in the SRD. I'd use that vs. my progressive -2 circ penalty. A static adjustment to a roll is so much easier to keep track of. That's been the biggest downside of my method, another step in my bookkeeping phase.

Feint

Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff check opposed by a Sense Motive check by your target. The target may add his base attack bonus to this Sense Motive check. If your Bluff check result exceeds your target’s Sense Motive check result, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

3rd sentence, adding BAB to oppose a feint is part of the SRD.