"Bluff" mechanic in RPG's

[pete_darby]

In This thread, I asked:

Question: has there been an RPG that uses a Perudo like device where you can "bluff" your results? Could there be?

(Thinks: Perduo Rune... time for daughter thread)

Well? An actual bluff of dice rolls, not tactics...

[Mike Holmes]

What's Perudo?

Bluffing, I think is completely do-able. Take the game Mexican for instance as a dice game in which you bluff. Put in some mechanics to allow for re-rolls for character effectiveness, and it becomes your resolution mechanic no problem. You just need to have extra negative results for having your bluff called, or calling a bluff incorrectly. For example, assuming a GM as central opposition, if he calls your bluff, you "crit-fail". If he calls your bluff, unsuccessfully, you "crit-hit". That sort of thing.

Should be no problem in general terms. I can't speak for Perudo.

Mike

[pete_darby]

I think Perudo is the Mexican game under one of it's many disguises; a British family game company became slightly infamous in packaging what was commonly known as liars dice into a tube and charging over the odds for it  as Perudo (I say mazel tov to them: if you can get the punters to pay twice as much for a set of dice and a sheet of rules than they'd pay for a set of dice and a rule book, good luck. I've got my dice and book!)

I was thinking of a bluff call by other players, mainly, but I find it's an elegant solution in search of a problem... or rather a "thing" to simulate.

Thinks... the Lawyers RPG... where the other side would have an idea of the strength of your case on it's presentation (the declared result), but could risk harming their own case if they call the bluff (the rolled result)...

It seems it would be very "gamey" in play, which is why it made me think of Rune, the most Gamist game I know...

[Walt Freitag]

Hi Pete,

I think you're right about bluff being very "gamey" in play. To put it another way, bluff is a very aggressive action that makes sense only in a context of already aggressively competitive play. It's essentially a maneuver that benefits a competitor by escalating the stakes whenever the competitor is in a stronger position.

The main benefit of bluffing is not the chance of getting away with the bluff. In fact, bluffing as an attempt to overcome some form of consistent weakness is doomed to failure. (So don't expect the ability to bluff to be a "balancing" force that will equalize differences in power. It will do the opposite.) The reason to bluff is to conceal your power at those times when you're not bluffing, to force your opponents to vigorously oppose you when it's actually counterproductive for them to do so. For example, if a poker player never bluffs, the other players will tend to fold every time the non-bluffer raises, unless their hands are also very good. This minimizes the non-bluffing player's winnings, because the other players stay in when he would want them to fold, and fold when he would want them to stay in. If the player is known to bluff occasionally, the other players are more likely to bet against his strong hands, because they must do so to defend themselves against being beaten by bluff. This is far more important than whether or not the bluffer occasionally does get away with a bluff. In fact, a player using an optimum bluffing strategy gains the most benefit in the long term when his bluff is called.

To have a player's bluff called by an other player therefore implies direct and sustained competition between those players. It's only worth the risk of calling if the calling player has something to gain (most likely, at the bluffer's expense), and it's only worth the risk of bluffing and possibly being called if the bluffer can benefit from having his opponents commit more resources to the struggle.

The bluffing side could be the GM instead, of course. This presents another possible issue: successful bluffing requires some real-world skill. Deciding when to bluff could be handled by a die roll (a random decision of when to bluff can be an optimally effective strategy), but it's up to the person to play the bluff without giving it away. If the resolution system depends on bluff, and the GM unknowingly acts way too nonchalant every time the bluff is on, all NPCs will present little challenge to the players and there's no immediate work-around. (As opposed to, for instance, a rock-paper-scissors resolution system, where if the GM proves to be consistently poor at "reading" or outguessing the players' intentions, he can randomize his choices and at least do no worse than chance.)

There's no show-stopper here. In the right context, a system with a strong element of bluff would be very effective.

- Walt

[pete_darby]

And again I'm thnking of the TV Lawyers game... isn't it one of the great screen court cliches where the master attorney lures his opponent into a valid objection, but is only valid if it incriminates the opponents' client? It needs (dramatically) to first establish the master attorney as slightly bumbling, a little lax with the rules of court, a hairs breadth away form contempt on occassion...

Or the greatest combat bluffs in cinema history, both in the Princess Bride: Westley standing after the "to the pain" speech, and the Inigo and Westley duel : "Why are you smiling?"

Arguably, Inigo's counter attack after being stabbed could be handled by a bluff mechanism, but I'd rather see it as RoS SA's or HW relationship augments at their finest.

But I can see problems with the mixing of Author and Actor stance in the declaration of the roll and calling of the bluff. From a Sim perspective, bluff calling should be influenced by character skill (perception, deduction, relevant skills), but the mechanics are escaping me for the moment.

[Michael S. Miller]

Ironically, my wife (with a bit of input from me) is working on an RPG in which the combat system will involve a great deal of bluffing. The game is called Alley Cat and you play stray cats that duel for Prestige in the society of the alley. Anyone who watches cats fight knows that bluff and intimidation are as much a part of their martial arts as sharp claws and quick reflexes.

Plus, shaking dice around in dice cups, then slamming them on the table, peeking at them, and boasting of what you got is just too cat-like to not be in a game about cats.

It's still in its rough stages, but should be very cool when done.

[iago]

Damn.  Now I'm thinking I need to add a bluffing option to Texorami!.

[Walt Freitag]

Hi Pete,

But I can see problems with the mixing of Author and Actor stance in the declaration of the roll and calling of the bluff. From a Sim perspective, bluff calling should be influenced by character skill (perception, deduction, relevant skills), but the mechanics are escaping me for the moment.

To make it dependent on character skill, you could use the same mechanisms you use to handle any perception or information based situation in play, using complete out of character knowledge. So one player announces his character is bluffing, and this is rolled against the other character's relevant skill (perception, diplomacy, or whatever).

It only becomes difficult if you want to involve the element of real-bluff, that is, a player actually bluffing about e.g. the number he's rolled on the dice. This could be a lot of fun but could also mean the player's real-world skill overshadows the character's. This is no different from problems like a player who's poor at fast decision-making trying to play a character who's good at quick intuitive decisions, when the GM requires the player to really make the decisions quickly.

I'm not sure whether mixing the two approaches is wise, but if you wanted to, you could use character descriptors to influence a player's ability to bluff. For example, a player might only be permitted to bluff when certain numbers or combinations are rolled, with a higher character bluffing skill increasing the variety of eligible numbers or combinations. A character skill to detect bluffing could force the potentially bluffing player to reveal some of his dice (the higher the skill, the more dice revealed) before the player must decide whether or not to call the bluff.

Back to technical points about bluffing, which aren't extremely relevant but I find pretty interesting:

Westley's "to the pain" speech is a great example of bluff, used for the purpose of overcoming a weak position. There's a qualitative difference between a bluffing strategy, which is what I was focusing on, and an individual instance of bluffing, which is what's usually depicted in stories. Staking everything on one overwhelming bluff is very dramatic, and I'd highly recommend it to anyone who has an author on their side. For everyone else, I'd call it a little foolish. (When you have no other chance, you might as well try it, but that's exactly when a bluff is most likely to be suspected.)

The "why are you smiling?" duel did not involve any real bluffing. Both opponents pretended to be weaker than they actually were. Great scene, though!

The courtroom example is the best example of a bluffing strategy. Note that the bluff is not the maneuver that lures the opponent into making the "fatal" objection. That's actually a strong move (one that could destroy the opponent if misplayed) that the clever lawyer needs to disguise as a weak one (to entice the opponent to misplay it). The real bluffs are in the mistakes and bumbling that came before. These would take the form aggressive but legally weak moves (such as badgering a strong witness) that the clever lawyer knows are going to be challenged and overruled. Just as I described for bluffing in poker, this hides the clever lawyer's strength later when his position is strong. When he leads into the "fatal" objection, the opponent mistakes it for yet another weak move (a legal error that can be capitalized on). The opponent is lured to over-bet (that is, make the objection when he could and should just let the point slide), because of the clever lawyer's previously exhibited tendency to overplay a weak position. The strategy's success depends absolutely on many of those earlier bluffs having been called.

- Walt