Unbelievable Bluff?

[Niflheim]

Howdy!
I’m a long time GM and I’ve been playing 4e for a bit now to get the hang of it and am finally going to throw in and run a game. I have noticed a slight problem (IMHO) and wanted to get others thoughts before starting my game.
I’ve noticed that, as a player, when the party talks to an NPC who we believe might be lying, it seems to be almost impossible for the NPC to bluff their way out of anything. Assuming the NPC is skilled in Bluff and around the same level as the party, they still have to roll really well against 4-5 other people. Mind you the whole party is rarely skilled in Insight but one or two of them is sure to be and SOMEONE in the group is bound to roll high.
Sure I could give these people powers and such to raise their bluff but that’s not always “realistic”, and if I just let one person in the party roll, why would anyone else pick up the skill? Also, aiding doesn’t really work, that’s as bad or worse than the whole team rolling.
So, in a nutshell, how do you keep the PCs guessing at your NPCs motives in a heavy social game?

 

[Pierson_Lowgal]

First off, I'd say that the NPC's bluff check should be a reflection of how good you want him to be at bluffing, and does have to be a number match because of similar level.

Secondly, bluffing NPC's is always a problem. When the PC's think someone is lying, you'll never dissuade them that the NPC isn't. If the NPC is lying, and someone rolls a high insight, give them a noncomittal answer. The high insight tells the player that his character has reason to believe that NPC is hiding something. It isn't a lie detector.

Third, the PC's need not roll insight checks, that's what passive insight is for. If you really want control, give the NPC a bluff roll of 10 and figure out in advance how PC's insights compare, given appropriate situational modifiers. Then give the PC's information based on the difference in roll-results.

 

[Ed Gentry]

Have the NPC bluff against the group's highest passive insight, as suggested above. PCs are welcome to make active checks as well, but only when they ask to do so. Our group limits how many PCs can do active checks of that nature in order to save time. Most of the time, only the PC or PCs who are actively engaging the NPC in conversation make the checks. That way you're not bluffing against 5 insight checks, usually just one or two.

 

[jbear]

I would be wary of basing any major plot hooks on the PC's believing a lie. If that situation occurs roll with it... but what happens if someone is caught in a lie... surely they have a plan B... or speaking out against them publicly without infallible evidence could have serious social consequences as the liar is very well respected and in a position to use the full weight of the law to his/her advantage.

I guess half-truths are a lot harder to discover, and a technique the best liars use to leave even the most insightful person second guessing and wondering what exactly the person is hiding.

Also make the lies so natural and believable that noone even thinks of making an Insight check against it.

Other than that, charismatic rogues or warlocks have pretty awesome bluff rolls, especially if you choose a charismatic race (a +11 would be pretty normal at lvl 1, and if its an important villain s/he should be a higher level... you could give them a power like Beguiling Tongue which adds a +5 to the next bluff roll (as per warlock 2nd lvl Utility)... then add some situational modifiers: did the PC's accept drinks at the party, does the villain have people aiding him (only need a 10 to bump +2 and it stacks)... then just mentalise the villain rolls 10 when he lies. that gives the PCs a DC of 21 without adding anything else at all... which is VERY high at lvl 1. If the PCs catch them in the lie... well they kind of deserve it.

and even if the PCs trump your lie with an Insight check you can limit how much has been given away be comparing the difference in rolls. If the PCs roll is only slightly better, then they only get a hint at the depth of the lie...

If the NPC is not an expert liar... then it shouldn't be surprising that s/he can't get out of a situation once the pcs suspect.

 

[Ryujin]

Have the NPC bluff against the group's highest passive insight, as suggested above. PCs are welcome to make active checks as well, but only when they ask to do so. Our group limits how many PCs can do active checks of that nature in order to save time. Most of the time, only the PC or PCs who are actively engaging the NPC in conversation make the checks. That way you're not bluffing against 5 insight checks, usually just one or two.

Agreed; have the most 'intuitive' one or 2 PCs make a roll. If the NPC can fool them, then what are the odds that the unskilled WIS 8 Rogue has a shot?

The interesting encounters are when things go horribly wrong and you know that they've gone horribly wrong. I tried to Bluff a Drow soldier. He knows that I tried to Bluff him. I know that he knows I tried to Bluff him. Madness will soon ensue

 

[Armadillo]

You can also try to keep the NPC away from the PCs with the high passive Insight scores. He doesn't have to always talk to the PCs as a group.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Note that this same sort of issue exists with ANY attempt to overcome the party in an opposed skill check. Stealth for example. Party members should only get active checks when they actively initiate something in general or there is a very good reason for them to believe they need to actively oppose something.

In the case of bluff vs insight it could mean for example that if a party member decides to actively oppose the check and the NPC is NOT lying then a bad roll could result in the truth being disbelieved or the NPC could pick up on the high level of suspicion and be offended, etc. In general using an active check vs passive awareness should be a trade off with either course of action potentially having a down side. In some cases just the possibility of a low roll on an active check can suffice.

 

[keterys]

You could even have the PC switching from passive Insight to active as being suspicious in nature.

Ie, you roll the NPC's Bluff, it beats the PCs passive, and they later go to make an active Insight on top of the passive they already made, effectively scrutinizing the NPC's voice and words more closely. So the NPC could start being more careful of what he says, since they're paying more attention... one possible way to approach it anyways.

This problem actually highlights something I've been seeing a lot of, though... it feels like it's too easy to bombard the DM with checks sometimes, and it _drastically_ changes the odds to go from 'one opposed check' to 'one check against six rolls'. It also makes the skill challenge system feel wrong if people are using to just checking dice all over the place at the drop of a hat.

I don't recall the name of the indy RPG I read the other day, but it basically was that every check has to be for a real gameplaying reason and you make one check, then live with it. If you fail, then you can't just make another check to suddenly succeed. Instead take narrative control and dictate how you fail and continue to fail (or stop trying). Was interesting, anyhow.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You could even have the PC switching from passive Insight to active as being suspicious in nature.

Ie, you roll the NPC's Bluff, it beats the PCs passive, and they later go to make an active Insight on top of the passive they already made, effectively scrutinizing the NPC's voice and words more closely. So the NPC could start being more careful of what he says, since they're paying more attention... one possible way to approach it anyways.

This problem actually highlights something I've been seeing a lot of, though... it feels like it's too easy to bombard the DM with checks sometimes, and it _drastically_ changes the odds to go from 'one opposed check' to 'one check against six rolls'. It also makes the skill challenge system feel wrong if people are using to just checking dice all over the place at the drop of a hat.

I don't recall the name of the indy RPG I read the other day, but it basically was that every check has to be for a real gameplaying reason and you make one check, then live with it. If you fail, then you can't just make another check to suddenly succeed. Instead take narrative control and dictate how you fail and continue to fail (or stop trying). Was interesting, anyhow.

Yeah, its definitely an area where DM finesse is a big help. Sometimes it can be fairly difficult to tell exactly how to keep pushing the players in these situations. At the very least the DM either needs to be pretty thorough in outlining the possibilities ahead of time or well versed in the system and/or fast on their feet.

The best defense really is to cast these situations into skill challenges. If the situation really is pretty trivial and no SC has been designed for it, then either the outcome is fairly trivial as well, or its just one of those situations you may need to whip up an SC on the fly for.

As someone else pointed out earlier though, a lot of times a situation really doesn't have multiple possible outcomes. If the PCs can't proceed without defeating an NPC's attempt to mislead them etc, then either it should just happen and be pure RP (you can for example have the highest insight character be the one that picks up on the deception so it seems fairly natural and they get to feel like their character was clever). Or else again it should be an SC with a defined extra reward for doing well or an extra obstacle if they fail.

 

[LostSoul]

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 might be another thing worth noting - I generally don't allow for rerolls. The PCs are stuck with the result.)

I don't recall the name of the indy RPG I read the other day, but it basically was that every check has to be for a real gameplaying reason and you make one check, then live with it. If you fail, then you can't just make another check to suddenly succeed. Instead take narrative control and dictate how you fail and continue to fail (or stop trying). Was interesting, anyhow.

Burning Wheel? That sounds like Let it Ride.