Unbelievable Bluff?

[keterys]

It does look like it was Burning Wheel. I don't own it so I was just skimming, but I did like the sound of it.

One problem with making Bluff + 10 the DC, but allowing the group to aid another, is you make it very trivial to overcome cause they end up ahead of the DC by 5-9, only failing on very low numbers. Much like when rolling six times and likely getting at least one high roll.

 

[LostSoul]

A party working together should often be able to overcome a similarly-levelled opponent. It just makes sense. 5 minds are better than 1, eh?

(I believe there is an issue with the static DC 10 for Aid Another checks, but I don't know what to do about it.)

 

[Akaiku]

(I believe there is an issue with the static DC 10 for Aid Another checks, but I don't know what to do about it.)

You can try that the player wanting to aid the main player needs to roll within the other person's roll-5 to aid.

If someone is awesome, you sitting there not being awesome won't help much, so no +2

IE, if someone who's doing something rolls a 23, to aid him, you need to get an 18 or higher.

 

[keterys]

True, I'm willing to blame Aid Another a bit there I also like the idea of failed Aid Anothers actually giving a penalty, so it's not a casual 'and everyone aids'.

Especially for figuring out if someone is lying, a dissenting opinion 'What are you talking about? He's totally telling the truth' is actually quite harmful.

 

[Stalker0]

This is a fundamental issue with opposed rolls and the variability of the d20.

When you have 5 rolls attempting to beat 1 roll, the odds of the 1 roll winning are actually really low (I'll have to throw the math out there at some point to show how bad it is). It takes an optimized bluffing npc to pull the wool over a regular party.

However, if you have all players use a passive insight, then for all intents and purposes insight means nothing to 4 out of your 5 players.

Its a problem inherent in d20 games, and its really hard to get away from.

 

[Niflheim]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

What about making a failed aid another roll add to the bluffers skill roll? That might take care of the 'aid another' issue.
Also, what about (and i know this might sound strange) rolling a skill check vs each PC that's rolling against them? I'm not sure if the numbers would work out to be balanced with the bluffer rolling more dice, but it might be more so than it is now.

 

[Regicide]

NPCs don't use PC rules. At all. Their bluff is whatever you want it to be. 1000 is a nice round number, so is -1000. Use one of those.

 

[LightPhoenix]

If the PCs aren't trying to detect signs of a lie, then they don't roll their Insight; you use their Passive Insight as the DC.

In my game, when they do ask to make an Insight check, I do two things a little differently than normal.

I don't roll the NPC's Bluff check. I add 10 and make that the DC.

I only allow one check for the entire group. Everyone can Aid Another but only one person makes the check - and that check stands.

That's pretty much what I was going to suggest as well. The players might think someone is lying, and call for an active Insight check. That doesn't guarantee it's the case, and in some cases can be a lot of fun, especially if it's role-played well.

I certainly wouldn't roll for the NPC, in fact I would do pretty much exactly as you described - essentially set the DC to detect it as 10+Bluff. Like others, I would definitely be wary of adjusting this number to specifically defeat a character. If a player has training in Insight, and has invested in it, I certainly wouldn't penalize the player for it. In fact, you can take it a step further; if the PC in question realizes a lie, and is trying to be diplomatic, have the player make a Bluff check to try and tip off the other players.

One thing I disagree on though is the use of Aid Another. I'm not sure I would allow a group to collaborate on an Insight check without some sort of consequence, except under certain circumstances. I'm picturing it as, basically, the PCs conferencing as to whether or not the NPC in question is lying. That's not something you can do right in the middle of a conversation - it requires the conversation to at least pause. After the fact, I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, if they broke off a conversation to converse about it, I might apply a penalty to future Diplomacy checks, on the basis that if they don't trust the NPC, the NPC isn't going to trust them either.

 

[Henry]

There's an even simpler answer: If an NPC believes he's telling the truth, then he isn't lying.

Ergo, if the Evil Bad Guy has told a lie to the NPC, and the NPC interacts with the characters, telling them what he earnestly believes, then they haven't been lied to, they've been fed misinformation. No lie, no chance at a roll, the characters just have to find out through clues during the adventure that the NPC and themselves by extension have been lied to.

 

[DracoSuave]

Also, even if they have the Insight to glean the NPC is withholding information, it doesn't -reveal- that information. The PCs then have to decide if it's worth their time to extract that info, and -that- can be a LOT more difficult, especially if said NPC is not friendly towards them.

This way the PCs get to have their success ('Well, you -know- he's not telling you the whole story...') but you get to maintain the mystery ('...but short of torturing him to death, there's no real way for you to figure out what that whole story is until you go into the Dungeon of Madness yourselves...') and perhaps even give them a lead to further investigation. ('...that said, perhaps if you ask around you might find out how to be better prepared for what lies ahead.')