theround | Rules Clarification: Bluff checks (PC/PC interaction)

Rules Clarification: Bluff checks (PC/PC interaction)

There's been some concern expressed over when and where Bluff checks must be rolled and/or included in tags to prompt a Sense Motive. I've made it very clear both in OOC announcements and on the House Rules page that as the GM I will never directly state when I am making a Bluff check. The onus is on players interacting with NPCs to notice discrepancies in their behavior, holes or contradictions in their stories, etc., and call for a Sense Motive roll. Part of what makes this game unique and akin to a tabletop are the secretive elements, the dramatic reveals, and the way in which the player gets to do some of the theorizing/discovering along with their characters, as well to share in some of their moments of revelation/suspicion/shock, which is why this rule is in place. I have not, however, clarified effectively what expectations are for players and this has led to some confusion and misinterpretation, which I would like to clear up to avoid causing any undue stress.

In most cases of PC/PC interaction, whatever information might be concealed via a Bluff check is information that is already publicly accessible to the player base. A character is attempting to conceal something from another character, either about what they know, or how they're feeling, etc., but we as players already know the truth because we could read the thread where they knew or said or acted differently, or can read in their brackets how they actually feel or think on a subject. We know OOCly that this is a Bluff. Most players choose to state their Bluff checks in these tags with their result, prompting the other player to roll a Sense Motive check. This is perfectly acceptable, and often leads to great roleplay moments, so I certainly encourage it. For many people, a lot of entertainment value comes from seeing the comparison of the scores, and it's another way to communicate how your character is doing something, with the language of rolls.

This is not, however, a necessity. Sense motive is considered, in most cases, to be an active attempt to eke out a character's true motives, not a passive ability always at play. If you trust someone already (or even simply don't have a reason not to trust them), you are not constantly on the lookout for things they are saying that contradict other things you know, or for tics in their behavior that indicate they are not telling the truth. If you have cause to suspect them, however, or if something they say strikes you as strange, you may find yourself analyzing them more closely (making a Sense Motive check) to try to decide if they're being on the level.

Some factors instantly create a situation where there is cause for suspicion, in which case the Sense Motive is all but a given, and a Bluff check should be presented, and will be prompted by the GM if it is not. If, for example, a character were to state that they were on fire, when they were very clearly not, anyone would doubt their word. This is why Bluff checks should almost always be rolled when lies are used in missions - when you're bluffing security guards, etc., they are usually always on alert for some trouble. Likewise, lies that are far-fetched are more likely to prompt suspicion.

Part of the reason that I never indicate when an NPC is bluffing is because I've found eliminating the possibility of metagaming entirely in these situations leads to a more satisfying roleplaying experience for players. Even when I am a player in an RPG, as much as I might think I'm well versed in not metagaming, I cannot make myself forget, on an OOC level, things that have been explicitly laid out, or even implied heavily, OOCly by my GM. While they may not heavily affect what I have my character do, I cannot actually guarantee that it is not influencing me in some way - and it is certainly hard for me to turn my brain off from leaping to OOC conclusions that might spoil certain upcoming surprises in the game for me as a player. Being 'in the dark' means that I don't have to worry about whether I'm metagaming or not. As a GM, it means that I quite simply don't have to even entertain the possibility that my players are either.

There are certain circumstances under which a player becomes complicit in a story/NPC secret. This is the entire reason that we have a secrets community in the first place, after all. While NPCs have a prominent place in the story, not every secret reveal can or should revolve merely around their actions (the PCs are still the stars of the story), and the secrets community gives players a change to become an active part in these mysteries, to get more information that might help in unraveling them, or to participate in game-changing decisions whose ramifications are tied into revelations down the road. When a PC is complicit in an NPC secret, the player takes on a certain amount of responsibility for helping to maintain that secret as well. I ask anyone who participates in a secret log to keep from discussing the contents of those logs with other players. Sometimes even the existence of certain secret logs, or the fact that someone has one, are kept secret, simply to erase the possibility of metagaming entirely. In certain more extreme situations, I may ask a player who is comfortable with it to take this a step further for various reasons: for example, during the doppelganger plot, when I was controlling certain players' journals without the knowledge of most of the playerbase, I had to ask those players to refrain from making tag count plurks, that would lead to metagame lines of OOC thinking, which might prompt someone to guess that something was going on.

In the same way, there is an expectation that players with PCs who are complicit in NPC secrets will not tip their hand on the fact by indicating that they are ICly making Bluff checks about the contents of these logs. There are very, very few times where this is even an issue - most of these things are subjects that are simply avoided, never come up, can be lied about via exclusion or half-truths. In the rare cases where a blatant deceit occurs, the player is expected to roll a Bluff check, and use the result of that to decide how their character delivers the lie. Even the best liars in the world have tells, and those who aren't skilled at lying certainly do. Players are sometimes even coached to drop hints in the same way I do for NPCs. There is no satisfaction to be gained in a secret that is never revealed, and there's little satisfaction in a surprise that had no "breadcrumbs" dropped leading up to it. Given that I read everything in the game, if I believe a player is not making any effort to do this, or attempting to cheat the system, I certainly will and do intervene in various ways.

If we wanted to be rules heavy handed, every single time your characters talk to someone new at the castle and attempt to befriend them, etc., they would have to make a diplomacy check to change them from indifferent to friendly. This is not, however, necessary, in my opinion. You are all strong enough roleplayers to handle the social aspects of most PC/PC interaction via roleplay. Even if you are not good at conversation with strangers in real life, there is an expectation that when you app a character who is, you will be able to effectively portray this aspect of them. Likewise, if you are playing a character who is great at deceiving people, you should be able to write them that way, without relying solely on making Bluff rolls do the work for you. If you play a character who is good at comforting people and telling them what they want to hear, there is an expectation that as a player, you are paying attention in the conversations they have and using what other people say to form how your character approaches them. If you play a character whose skill is in reading people and knowing when they are not telling the truth, I expect you to do something similar. People with an unusual talent in this area who meet with lies and don't think to sense motive may sometimes receive OOC messages from me, prompting them to roll one or to make a wisdom check, if I believe there is no way they would not have had some cause to be suspicious. Sometimes, to avoid tipping people off OOCly on what might wind up being a failed roll, I will make the roll for you, without your knowledge, and only alert you if your character succeeded. (This is one of the reasons I appreciate having sheets posted on journals - I sometimes do the same for spot or listen checks, or will saves against unseen/undetected effects). This is directly stated in the D20 Modern Core Rulebook: "A Sense Motive may be made as a reaction to another character's Bluff check. When that's the case, your GM may roll a Sense Motive check in secret, so you don't necessarily know someone's trying to bluff you." This applies to both PC/NPC and PC/PC interactions. Again, this sort of thing happens so rarely, that I very seldom have to resort to these methods.

I wanted to clarify this in detail, because it has come to my attention that many players were unaware of some or all aspects of this, and discovering that they were meant to be calling Sense Motive rolls against other PCs was a distressing surprise. This is entirely and completely my fault, for not clarifying how these rules extend to PC/PC interactions, and I take full responsibility for both the confusion, and any stress this has caused people. I would urge you not to feel as if you've done things wrong in the past, and missed opportunities - like I said, having read everything, I closely monitor these situations to make certain that no one is taking advantage of the system, and that nothing that should have a chance to be caught by certain characters slips through the cracks. I do, however, recognize that this is a sensitive topic for some people, and I would like to take steps to make things as comfortable as possible for everyone.

Because of this, I would ask you to post either in your character's journal profile or on a top post in their journal, a disclaimer if you are someone who makes Bluff checks in PC/PC situations without necessarily including that information in the brackets of the tag. I think this is not only a valid request, but certainly a valid concern, as I do not want anyone to feel in this game that they are not getting a fair chance for their characters in any given situation. I would ask every player to abide by posting this Disclaimer if it applies to them, and to be neither dismissive or disrespectful in any way towards those asking for it. I would also likewise ask for all players to please trust as always that I have everyone's best interests in mind when I make the calls that I do, and am not attempting to grant some players special privileges and/or undermine other players. I pay very close attention to situations such as these, and work hard to preserve both the story, and your rights as players in it. But I am, of course, only one person, it's a large game, and I make plenty of mistakes across the board. Failing to specify all this was definitely one of those, and I am very sorry if this caused any discord. I hope these measures help answer any questions remaining, and grant everyone the peace of mind they deserve on the issue. If you find yourself still troubled by any aspect of this, or unsatisfied with the Disclaimer rule, please contact me privately to discuss this, and I will do everything I can to try to find a better solution.

Thank you for your cooperation in this and to those who voiced their concerns!

Arden