Bluffing the Truth

[Al]

It occurred to me that Sense Motive can sniff out liars, but if someone is telling the truth, unless you play critical failure rules, everyone is going to believe them. Furthermore, if someone is lying and someone is telling the truth, the truthteller will always win out. So here's an interesting House Rule: Bluffing the Truth.

Bluffing the Truth

Strange things happen in fantasy worlds, and some people refuse to believe it even what is true. As such, it is sometimes necessary to convince people. The way this works: an incredible event is given a DC. Your Bluff check (or Diplomacy check*) is subtracted from the DC. The modified DC is the new DC for the listener's Sense Motive check. If he fails, he dismisses the claim as too incredible to be true (even though it is).

Sample DCs:
0: Everyday occurrences. Going to market, taking the dog for a walk etc. No one would doubt the veracity of such claims.
10: Out of the ordinary. Your son being kidnapped by goblins, a manticore being seen over the village. Some skeptics may find these claims dubious.
20: Unusual. This is a clearly unusual event. A dragon landing in the city centre, or the mayor turning out to be a vampire. Quite a few people will not believe the average storyteller.
30: Highly irregular. This is a real strain to believe. A visitation from a deity, a man giving birth, the entire population of a village turning into mushrooms. Most people will find your claims highly dubious.
40: Way out there. St. Cuthbert and Vecna descending and doing the can-can, Erythnul playing tiddlewinks and crying when he loses. Very few indeed will find these claims credible.

Of course, the DCs are the DM's call. These are just off-the-top-of-my-head examples.

Example: Bill the Farmer has found out that the harmless old woman who lived in the cottage is actually a disguised lich, and relates the tale to the mayor. The DM sets the DC at 25. The farmers makes a Diplomacy check and scores a 6. The mayor now has to make a Sense Motive check DC19. He rolls a 2, adding his Sense Motive of +6 to make a total of 8, falling far short. Dismissing Bill, he instructs him sternly to stay off the drink.

Truth vs. Lies

The skilled liar can pass his lies across even when opposed by someone telling the truth. This is treated as an opposed roll, but whoever is telling the truth gets a +10 circumstance bonus to his roll, and may use Diplomacy* in place of Bluff.

* In both cases, Diplomacy may be used as the character is not actually lying. Hence, Diplomacy (being the skill to represent eloquent speaking and putting one's case forward) can be used in place of a Bluff check if, and only if, the speaker is telling the truth (or what he perceives to be the truth.)

What do you think?

 

[Ace]

Very intriguing idea. Having a mechanic for "please believe me" is a nice idea.

I am definetly going to consider the rules for a bit.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

I like your idea of using Diplomacy for telling the truth. I had been thinking about the same matter and had the same instinct! Great minds ...

The mechanics that you propose are unusual. The idea of subtracting a check from a DC ... I might have to think about that.

I would prefer a system that simply uses the existing mechanics of the Diplomacy skill. Even if you are speaking with a bitter enemy, you could regard him as "indifferent" or even "friendly" for the purposes of whether he would be inclined to trust information that you provide. For example, Entreri is hostile toward Drizzt, but not necessarily mistrustful of Drizzt's words. Looking at it this way, you could then simply use the Diplomacy check to try to modify the NPC's disposition toward the PC in regard to a specific statement. If the NPC is "friendly", then he trusts a claim if it is reasonable or perhaps slightly unusual. If he is "helpful" then he will trust even an incredible claim.

 

[Al]

I would prefer a system that simply uses the existing mechanics of the Diplomacy skill. Even if you are speaking with a bitter enemy, you could regard him as "indifferent" or even "friendly" for the purposes of whether he would be inclined to trust information that you provide. For example, Entreri is hostile toward Drizzt, but not necessarily mistrustful of Drizzt's words. Looking at it this way, you could then simply use the Diplomacy check to try to modify the NPC's disposition toward the PC in regard to a specific statement. If the NPC is "friendly", then he trusts a claim if it is reasonable or perhaps slightly unusual. If he is "helpful" then he will trust even an incredible claim.

This is an interesting idea, but I wanted to add Sense Motive in somehow. Someone with a high Sense Motive can deduce whether someone is telling the truth even if it is incredible. Perhaps subtract the Sense Motive modifier (i.e. +X not d20+X) from the DC?

 

[candidus_cogitens]

This is an interesting idea, but I wanted to add Sense Motive in somehow. Someone with a high Sense Motive can deduce whether someone is telling the truth even if it is incredible. Perhaps subtract the Sense Motive modifier (i.e. +X not d20+X) from the DC?

I see your point. I LIKE that a lot. That way, the NPC's sense motive ability and your diplomacy ability are working together toward producing a successful communication of the truth.

I wish we could get some more brains working on this, because I still feel like we may not be hitting on the most elegant solution to the problem.