How do you convince someone of the truth

[MoonZar]

To convince someone of which is not true, you make a bluff check opposed by the opponent's sense motive, right?

But what if you telling the truth? Presumably, the 'target' still makes a sense motive check, but what is the DC, and can the truth teller do anything to help?


glass.

I would think this diplomacy...

Bluff is lying to achieve a goal
diplomacy is the art of using manner and protocol to achieve a goal

 

[glass]

Just a reminder before this debate--which I've participated in far too often --gets too far: the OP never said anything about using skills PC vs PC. That is a part of Lhorgrim's reply in Post #2. So unless glass is interested in that aspect of things, it'd probably be best not to turn his thread into a discussion of it, rather than what he put in his OP.

Thank you, milord.


glass.

 

[glass]

Thanks for all the suggestions guys.

I think diplomacy might be the way to go, but I think I would allow bluff to work too, as I don't want the situation where a it is easier to convince an character of an outrageous lie than a perfectly reasonable truth.

I still think the Sense Motive roll needs to be made, even if it was not used, otherwise the players would know an NPC was lying as soon as I called for a Sense Motive check.

Thinking about this as I type, how about this:

1. The DM sets a DC based on how believable the truth is.
2. The speaker rolls a Diplomacy (or Bluff) check.
3. The listener rolls a Sense Motive check.
4. If either beats the DC, the speaker appears to be telling the truth.

What do you think?


glass.

 

[glass]

I put down the dice and use the Role Playing part of the game for this.

The trouble is, if I put down the dice, I could no more represent a +30 bluff rogue with pure RP than I could a +30 attack barbarian.


glass.

 

[billd91]

Thanks for all the suggestions guys.

I think diplomacy might be the way to go, but I think I would allow bluff to work too, as I don't want the situation where a it is easier to convince an character of an outrageous lie than a perfectly reasonable truth.

I still think the Sense Motive roll needs to be made, even if it was not used, otherwise the players would know an NPC was lying as soon as I called for a Sense Motive check.

Thinking about this as I type, how about this:

1. The DM sets a DC based on how believable the truth is.
2. The speaker rolls a Diplomacy (or Bluff) check.
3. The listener rolls a Sense Motive check.
4. If either beats the DC, the speaker appears to be telling the truth.

What do you think?


glass.

So basically you want the speaking PC to make a roll to determine if he appears sincere about the topic at hand. And the listening PC makes a sense motive roll to determine how well he can read the other PC and determine if he's sincere.
I still think you can dispense with the speaking PC's diplomacy roll. Since he's telling the truth in this case, he's definitely going to be sincere. My main caveat above was the case in which the character has significant bluff ability and determining a way for the listening PC to determine if the PC truly is sincere or just appears to be sincere because he's a practiced liar.

 

[Crothian]

The trouble is, if I put down the dice, I could no more represent a +30 bluff rogue with pure RP than I could a +30 attack barbarian.


glass.

Not true. First off though if you are telling the truth that is not bluffing. But even if you were bluffing and wanted to remove dice from it the DM can take into consideration your insanely high skill with his responses. A DM needs to be able to incorperate the characters strengths in a role playing situation and not have it solely depend on the players ability.

 

[IcyCool]

You'd be amazed what some good positive reinforcement and examples of a different style of game play can actually do. But Montana is way out of my gaming area at the moment.

Maybe, it just seems that no matter what I try, I wind up playing a tactical wargame rather than roleplaying D&D. I'd switch groups, but I don't know of anyone else in the area. It's not as if I don't have fun, I just don't have as much fun as I used to.

I suppose I could advertise ...

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Thinking about this as I type, how about this:

1. The DM sets a DC based on how believable the truth is.
2. The speaker rolls a Diplomacy (or Bluff) check.
3. The listener rolls a Sense Motive check.
4. If either beats the DC, the speaker appears to be telling the truth.

What do you think?

This looks good, but I'm still a bit puzzled by the Sense Motive check. This is a check rolled by the listener, who in this situation would be an NPC, correct? If that's the case, then what's the point of rolling it? It serves no purpose. The only reason I can see to roll it would be if you roll out in the open, and you didn't want your players to know you weren't rolling a die. In which case it's still not necessary that you actually make a Sense Motive check, but rather that you just roll a d20 while they're rolling their Diplomacy/Bluff.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

But even if you were bluffing and wanted to remove dice from it the DM can take into consideration your insanely high skill with his responses. A DM needs to be able to incorperate the characters strengths in a role playing situation and not have it solely depend on the players ability.

Removing the dice from a social situation cheats the socially-oriented character, as surely as if the dice were removed from combat and the DM just told the barbarian if he hit, "taking into account" his +30 attack bonus. I'm not sure why so many DMs believe that dice are incompatible with roleplay, but I patently disagree.

The way I do it is simple. No die rolls are asked for at first. We roleplay the situation, and when we get to a point where the PC's intent is abundantly clear, I call for a roll, then modify it with a circumstance bonus depending on how the conversation went. While RPing the player never knows if I'm going to call for Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, or something else. He just has a conversation, tries to accomplish his goal, and at some point knows I'm going to ask for a roll.

But I will ask for a roll, so high social skill ranks are important, and some NPCs will be more difficult to "defeat" with certain skills than with others, and overall as well.

Players like to roll dice, and players like to play characters who can do things they can't. Why should the in-game social aspect allow for any less of either than the combat aspect?

 

[Mallus]

Players like to roll dice, and players like to play characters who can do things they can't. Why should the in-game social aspect allow for any less of either than the combat aspect?

Well the simple answer is "Because we can act out trying to bullsh*t each other at the gaming table. Trying to act out lethal violence would get us hurt and/or arrested."

The more complex answer is: "You're right, players want to manifest a whole host of talents they don't (and can't) posess IRL. But social situations are tricky. These can be performed by the player. But if you reduce all social interaction to a die roll, then you cheat the players out of the enjoyment of being clever. Consider if combat tactics were abstracted to the point a player made a single "tactics roll" and the DM automatically performed the optimal action for the character. Not much fun, eh?

The best solution is to use your best judgment and consider both rolls and roleplay. Know when to allow a players really brilliant deception trump the die roll, or when to let a fumbling mishmash of words (and a natural 20) save the group from the King's Hangman.