d20 modern will save?

[takyris]

And SR is?

FX-specific.

My example didn't involve PCs not getting tricked or fooled. They believe what the NPC told them, unless there's cues to say otherwise. They just might not agree that attacking is a good idea. They don't have to do what they're told, but they're supposed to believe what they're told.

Our viewpoints may not be as far apart as we thought, then. That jives with me to a certain extent.

Where I disagree with you is what the Bluff is. Sense Motive is not meant to serve as a lie detector -- the fact that the Investigator gets a special class talent that lets him use it as such should imply that it is not such by default.

If Sense Motive is not a lie-detector, than it stands to reason that a Bluff is not just a lie. A Bluff is an attempt to get the opponent to do something you want them to do. It may incorporate lying (in fact, it almost always incorporates lying), but the lying all by itself is not the bluff.

In fact, the SRD (for D&D, which is the one I have the link to lying around) reads:

"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." (It adds that a Bluff isn't a suggestion spell, so you can't convince somebody that their weapon is superheating in their hand or that the pool of acid is a warm spring of soothing water.) You seem to be going strictly with the tail-end of that description and ignoring the first part.

Saying "They believe that what the person is saying is true, but they decide not to attack," doesn't work for me. If my bluff was "I try to bluff them into thinking that this is a great time to attack," (to steer away from "I try to bluff them into attacking", which smacks of mind-control), what is a successful result worth if, even though the PCs are informed that they've failed the Sense Motive check and thus believe that now is an excellent time to attack, they choose not to do so?

If the situation was reversed, and a charismatic PC tried to do this to NPCs (goad them into attacking), and he succeeded on the bluff check, and I said, "You succeeded. The thugs think that you're worth attacking, and that this would be a great time to attack you... but they choose not to do so anyway," I suspect that I'd hear cries of GM suckiness from my refusal to actually follow up on the result of the roll.

(And if attacking is really a stupid idea, that's what the old -20 for "Exceedingly hard to convince target" is for.)

The "it's different because they're the PCs" argument just doesn't fly with me -- if only because I've had players in my group specifically tell me that they didn't want different sets of rules for PCs and NPCs.

 

[Nuclear Platypus]

Will save vs pain? Or is that concentration?

A evil DM might have some (hungry?) form of (eat) subliminal message (more) that had (sugar) to be resisted.

Shiny objects? I can think of a few people that are easily distracted. What were we talking about again?

Actually I can't think of many since concentration would take care of most.

 

[DwelleroftheDeep]

Actually the frightful presence feat forces will saves and isn't FX, so there is at least one thing to use the will save for.

 

[pawsplay]

Mostly fear effects. So far less often. Anywhere that Iron Will crops up as a prerequisite, cross it out and write in the name of a feat that gives you +1 to Will saves and +2 to Intimidate instead.