Suggestion to handle ingame Deception.

[Incarnate]

None of this is necessary or relevant.

If your character is lying, RP it out. Don't just turn it into a mechanical roll. Mechanically enforced RP is dull and turns the outcome into nothing more than a single dice roll.

If you're worried about metagaming, then don't give them blatant hints.
It's that simple. Leave bluff rolls to be called for by DMs where appropriate. It's more enjoyable for everyone that way, and then nobody needs to code in a system to 'enforce' it. Just be a good RPer and give some small clues here and there so that the other players may figure it out if they're paying attention. That should be far more rewarding than 'oh well I won on this mechanical dice roll so now you have to do what I say', or 'well you gave me no reason to disbelieve you but I know you're lying.'

No it's not that simple and I disagree quite strongly, for instance, you're saying that it will enforce rp and that the outcome is turned into nothing more than a single dice roll - that is very, very far from what this suggestion if implemented will do. In my opinion with or without this suggestion when someone is attempting acts of direct deception one should roll a bluff check, which would be best if done secretly. Metagaming parts comes from the bluff check being done overtly as that will reveal sensitive information about the character's abilities, skills and quite possibly also equipped equipment. Furthermore, this suggestion doesn't mean you won't rp it out, because this is supposed to be used in conjunction with it. Also, as stated before, this doesn't enforce rp in anyway, but it does give an indication on if your character is finding the other character to be sincere or not, which is quite different from what it is now, because as it is now its the player solely that that decides whether or not the character seems sincere, which is player abilities and skill, and not the character's which it should. So no it doesn't enforce the outcome, and the character is free to believe or disbelieve what was said. I think there should be something like this to keep players more in line with their characters abilities and skill, because I said before its not the players abilities and skills that is at work here, its the characters. Also, keep in mind this intended for when DM's are not present.

[Young Werther]

If u got sense motive roll it freely, baby. Let the bluffer decide if they wanna play ball. Boom broblem solved.

[Incarnate]

If u got sense motive roll it freely, baby. Let the bluffer decide if they wanna play ball. Boom broblem solved.

That doesn't solve any problem, and also rolling a sense motive overtly reveals sensitive information about the character, like abilities, skills and even possibly equipped gear. Also, succeeding an overtly made sense motive roll, doesn't mean the character will learn anything in regards to the deception being made, because that means the other player has to honor that roll, same with an overtly made bluff. With what I'm suggesting any player will get a very important piece of information about how their character's disposition to the "deception", how they use this information is entirely up to them, and more importanly they're not forced to do anything in regards to this information, its an indicator thats more in line with their character's abilities and skills, rather than their own as a player, which is how it is now.

[Young Werther]

I've never had problems telling people stuff after a good sense motive roll the two times it happened pre-emptively. Weird. Sensative info getting revealed opens the door for mwtagaming, yes, but if someone can't handle bluffing someone they know has a high sense motive they aren't a fun player they can go somewhere else.

[Incarnate]

I've never had problems telling people stuff after a good sense motive roll the two times it happened pre-emptively. Weird. Sensative info getting revealed opens the door for mwtagaming, yes, but if someone can't handle bluffing someone they know has a high sense motive they aren't a fun player they can go somewhere else.

Its not everyone that wants to or is willing to honor a roll, and they have no obligation to do so according to the rules, and no player can force them to. This suggestion deals with all of these issues and also gives an IN-CHARACTER indication if the "deceptive" character is found sincere or not, as it is now this is based on the player's abilities and skills, rather than they character as it should be. Fun or no fun player, they have every right to be there. Again, this is intended as something that should be used when there isn't a dm present, and this in-character indication is rather important.

[chad878262]

This is fixing a perceived issue by creating more / bigger issues. As i said earlier you'll have some jerk create an 80 sense motive pc jyst to run around asking everyone "are you a Harper? Are you thieves guild? Are you evil???" And other such nonsense. I like the idea, but not if it's enforceable by rule without a DM present. DM can take into account modifiers based on the bluff involved. A system can't.

[Young Werther]

Its not everyone that wants to or is willing to honor a roll, and they have no obligation to do so according to the rules, and no player can force them to. This suggestion deals with all of these issues and also gives an IN-CHARACTER indication if the "deceptive" character is found sincere or not, as it is now this is based on the player's abilities and skills, rather than they character as it should be. Fun or no fun player, they have every right to be there. Again, this is intended as something that should be used when there isn't a dm present, and this in-character indication is rather important.

But you can't force every player to use your suggested system either according to yourself. A malicious player could not turn on bluff mode and you have the same problem lol.

[Incarnate]

This is fixing a perceived issue by creating more / bigger issues. As i said earlier you'll have some jerk create an 80 sense motive pc jyst to run around asking everyone "are you a Harper? Are you thieves guild? Are you evil???" And other such nonsense. I like the idea, but not if it's enforceable by rule without a DM present. DM can take into account modifiers based on the bluff involved. A system can't.

Even with a DM present such an individual could still do the same. There also ways around that without having to be trying and be deceitful, one can answer truthfully without actually telling the truth. One can also answer the question with a question, there are various ways around that issue. It really depends on how you perceive and interpret the question. I'm quite sure that once people got used to this, they'd also get used to those types of people and would find even better ways around a type of player like that. Also, I think its important to point out that you really need a stance on how you deal with people who abuse and exploit systems, rules and weaknesses in the game to gain an or more unfair advantages over other players.

Its not everyone that wants to or is willing to honor a roll, and they have no obligation to do so according to the rules, and no player can force them to. This suggestion deals with all of these issues and also gives an IN-CHARACTER indication if the "deceptive" character is found sincere or not, as it is now this is based on the player's abilities and skills, rather than they character as it should be. Fun or no fun player, they have every right to be there. Again, this is intended as something that should be used when there isn't a dm present, and this in-character indication is rather important.

But you can't force every player to use your suggested system either according to yourself. A malicious player could not turn on bluff mode and you have the same problem lol.

Actually, this is already an issue, but if this system was implemented along with the suggested rule, anyone who'd be omitting using it would be trying to cheat, and even if they forgot using it, it would still be cheating. And even by not using the deception mode, it wouldn't be any different from how it is now, with the exception that would be cheating if not using it.

[Young Werther]

Even with a DM present such an individual could still do the same. There also ways around that without having to be trying and be deceitful, one can answer truthfully without actually telling the truth. One can also answer the question with a question, there are various ways around that issue. It really depends on how you perceive and interpret the question. I'm quite sure that once people got used to this, they'd also get used to those types of people and would find even better ways around a type of player like that. Also, I think its important to point out that you really need a stance on how you deal with people who abuse and exploit systems, rules and weaknesses in the game to gain an or more unfair advantages over other players.

Part of bluffing is misdirecting according to the description so you'd still be bluffing if you deflected with a question.

[Young Werther]

Also you already get hunches according to the IG description with a mesely roll of 20.

Task Sense Motive DC Hunch DC 20 Sense enchantment DC 15-25 Discern secret message DC Varies

Hunch: This use of the skill involves making a gut assessment of the social situation. You can get the feeling from another’s behavior that something is wrong, such as when you’re talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy.

Somehow I doubt everyone honors that though and it's mostly a DM thing. I think it's fun to give people hunches. Makes a bluffers job harder to really latch on to the target.

[flipside43]

A pretty good way to tell if your idea has any interest in the community is by others responding positively. I've yet to really see that in this thread (other than Chad, for a portion of your idea), so far it's been the opposite with you posting 20 times out of 55 posts total. While it's good that you bring suggestions, I think it's pretty clear the communities doesn't want this nor think it's necessary.

[chad878262]

A pretty good way to tell if your idea has any interest in the community is by others responding positively. I've yet to really see that in this thread (other than Chad, for a portion of your idea), so far it's been the opposite with you posting 20 times out of 55 posts total. While it's good that you bring suggestions, I think it's pretty clear the communities doesn't want this nor think it's necessary.

Yep, I do like the idea of a 'hidden' bluff vs. sense motive roll as I think it would encourage utilizing dice rolls among players which can be a good thing when a certain amount of trust is built to have a fun CvC experience. I simply don't support any dice rolls being enforced without a DM present. Too much room for exploitation and general arse hattery.

Not that it would matter for me... Elvina would still know every little (not so) white lie Chord would ever tell...

[Incarnate]

Even with a DM present such an individual could still do the same. There also ways around that without having to be trying and be deceitful, one can answer truthfully without actually telling the truth. One can also answer the question with a question, there are various ways around that issue. It really depends on how you perceive and interpret the question. I'm quite sure that once people got used to this, they'd also get used to those types of people and would find even better ways around a type of player like that. Also, I think its important to point out that you really need a stance on how you deal with people who abuse and exploit systems, rules and weaknesses in the game to gain an or more unfair advantages over other players.

Part of bluffing is misdirecting according to the description so you'd still be bluffing if you deflected with a question.

Deflecting a question with a question doesn't have anything to do with misdirection with regards to bluffing/acts of direct deception. Also, keep in mind that bluff is also used to misdirect in combat - feinting.

A pretty good way to tell if your idea has any interest in the community is by others responding positively. I've yet to really see that in this thread (other than Chad, for a portion of your idea), so far it's been the opposite with you posting 20 times out of 55 posts total. While it's good that you bring suggestions, I think it's pretty clear the communities doesn't want this nor think it's necessary.

You know, just because people don't respond positively to it, doesn't mean it won't be good for the community, and for the most part people are generally inclined to be on the defensive rather than be open minded, especially if/when it "threatens" their way of playing. But this suggestion doesn't really change anything with regards to how people play, but still people are ûberly defensive. Notice how people are saying its not needed and not relevant, when it in fact is needed, it just needs proper implementation and support. The only thing that changes is the fact that one has to use the deception mode when attempting acts of direct deception - when directly lying. Because people can still be as elaborate when acting/rp'ing it out, and people can't just use the deception mode without the actual deception.

[Young Werther]

I'll leave the words to you, seeing how I disagree. Later.

[Fury_US]

If the community is by and large reacting negatively to a suggestion, then you can be assured it will not be implemented, because it is clear at that point that it is NOT a good idea. So instead of having to constantly have the last word, maybe move on to something else?

Seriously, man. That poor horse.