How to rule out convincing people of something?

[Dargoth Soulfrost]

What checks do I need to make to convince people of something?
Bluff is for telling lies, while this is not the lies but the truth (or at least you are sure that this is the truth). Diplomacy is for making people more friendly towards you, which doesn't mean they should believe every word you say.
I'm asking you for an advice on how to rule out these kinds of situations.

1. You've learned something really unbelievable (like the founder of the great empire, king So-and-So being not a great hero adored by everyone, but actually a sneaky rogue who just happened to get his dirty hands on a huge sum of money and buy some land) and want to share it with everyone. But guess what, noone believes you. What do you roll?

2. You've found out that the chief of the village is an evil doppelganger in disguise and you want to kil him, but he gathers villagers around him, and they all think he is a true village chief. You have to convince him in the opposite, or else you will have to slay them all, too. Well, I guess he is doing Bluff checks, that's quite obvious, but what checks should you make?

3. You've learned some part of the truth, and your opponent has learned some other part of the truth, but the conclusions you came too are completely opposite. And may be none of them are true. But you want to convince some third party that you are right and your opponent is wrong. How do you do that?

 

[DLichen]

Diplomacy is probably the defacto skill you should be using here, flat DC against a difficulty to persuade somebody to come over to your side.

From the PHB:

You can influence others with your tact, subtlety,
and social grace. Make a Diplomacy check to change
opinions, to inspire good will, to haggle with a patron,
to demonstrate proper etiquette and decorum, or to
negotiate a deal in good faith.

1. Diplomacy against DC

2. Chief makes Bluff against DC - players can use bluff or diplomacy to raise DC by making villagers more distrustful

3. Opposed diplomacy checks with your opponent to see who makes the more convincing case

In all of those cases, PCs with better bluff may attempt to exaggerrate, overstate, or otherwise flatout lie to support their case in which case they use their bluff check instead but might have to beat an Insight check first to see if the people they are trying to convince call them on their lies.

At least, this is how I would handle it, other DMs might use other means.

 

[small pumpkin man]

From the rules.
"Bluff can make hte outrageous seem plausible"
"Make a diplomacy to change opinions"

Both are appropriate.

 

[FadedC]

I kind of see where you are going with this, and yeah I always thought it was wierd in 3e when my character with +25 bluff and +5 diplomacy could convince you of anything when he was lying, but not when he was telling the truth.

#3 though seems pretty straightforward.....arguing a point and convincing somebody that your perception of things is the correct one is a clear use of diplomacy.

 

[DLichen]

You're right, I think it depends more on the way the players go about it.

To me, diplomacy implies a more reasoned case based debate, whereas bluff involves cases where the PCs have no real proof and they have to improvise to make things seem believable.

A skill challenge where both skills are used would also be appropriate given how the situation is set up.

 

[fuzzlewump]

I'd suggest, given this is for 4th edition, to create a skill challenge with the key skills being bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate for each question you posed. For the basics on the skill challenge, check them out in the DMG in the fabled non-combat encounters section , but for the execution of said skill challenges I recommend using one of Stalker0's skill challenge systems located in the house rules forum. Hope this helps.

 

[Dargoth Soulfrost]

ok, thanx much for the help. I guess skill challenge is a good choice, since it's 4e =)

 

[Snotboy]

I'd suggest, given this is for 4th edition, to create a skill challenge with the key skills being bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate for each question you posed. For the basics on the skill challenge, check them out in the DMG in the fabled non-combat encounters section , but for the execution of said skill challenges I recommend using one of Stalker0's skill challenge systems located in the house rules forum. Hope this helps.

Don't forget History or other knowledge skills. In the doppleganger case, a History check would reveal some missed detail in the chief's career that he doesn't know, though that would be tough, if doppleganger's still have ESP like they do in older editions. Maybe an Arcana check would reveal a more literal flaw in his disguise, a seam that could be unraveled in some way.

 

[Plane Sailing]

You say that Bluff is for telling lies - but actually Bluff is about getting someone to believe something which is implausible; arguably, convincing somebody about something really weird (but true) is thus a legitimate use of bluff.

I don't think you could do an opposed check with insight though - because then poor bluffers would be better at convincing at an unlikely truth!

For campaign specific situations I'd use skill challenges. For simple situations which are not so significant I'd probably be half inclined to base DCs on the 3e rules as a static check as follows:

The target wants to believe you. DC15
The bluff is believable and doesn’t affect the target much. DC20
The bluff is a little hard to believe or puts the target at some risk. DC25
The bluff is hard to believe or puts the target at significant risk. DC30
The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider. DC40