Bluff and Sense Motive in Roleplaying Encounters

[Dr Lucky]

I'm sure this has been done before, but I wanted to ask how you guys choose to use Bluff and Sense Motive checks during various roleplaying encounters.

Myself, I find I only use it during small encounters, much like traps. You can possibly use a Bluff check to get past the guards at the gate of the castle, in the same way you could use a Disable Device check to get past a collapsing ceiling trap. If you pass, your day is a little bit easier, if you fail, it's probably not the end of the world. Perhaps take a little bit of damage and move on.

In major roleplaying encounters, I usually like to leave it up to roleplaying. If the PCs lie to a major NPC about how many gems they found in the dungeon, or deny every finding a legendary magical sword, as long as it is relatively easy to believe, there are no Bluff checks involved. Of course, if they were to tell him something obviously false, he will probably recognize it as such, no matter how low his Sense Motive check is.

PC's Sense Motive usually works a little different for me. If the characters really disbelieve something an NPC tells them, they usually want to roll the check. My telling them to just go with their instincts usually isn't good enough for them, they seem to want to roll a die.

This whole train off thought came from a game I was playing in. One party member lost his magical sword to a charlatan illusionist, who claimed he would enhance it. This guy came to us out of nowhere and offered his services to enhance our weapons. We didn't know him from Adam. One character hands over his +2 sword with the thought that it would soon be a +3 flaming sword, but the illusionist skipped town. He cried and moaned forever, because he didn't get a Sense Motive check. The DM argued that this guy was an idiot for giving up his sword to someone he didn't know, and that common sense and roleplaying should come before skill checks. At the very least, if his player disbelieved the story, he should have asked for a check. Of course, he wanted to believe the illusionist, so he never assumed it was a lie.

Wow. This post got really long. Sorry. What do you guys think?

 

[Humanophile]

Sometimes Sense Motive, and more over Bluff, are good for when there's some wiggle room in how believable a story is. Some players might want to play good liars (or characters who can see right through people) when they don't have said talent, and there are plenty of little details that the DM probably can't get along well unless he's a trained actor.

That being said, asking for a Sense Motive check every time someone lies to the characters guarentees metagame abuse. I'd allow a quick roll behind the screen if the players are dealing with not quite the real thing (E.G: a charmed friend or masquerading doppleganger) and let the player who pulls off the check know that something's not quite kosher. On the other hand, I'd only a character to roll Sense Motive to tell if the story he's hearing is the truth if he specifically asked for one, and I'd include the chance that he'd make a mistake if he failed, quite possibly even mistaking an honest merchant for a crook. (Just to prevent characters with low Sense Motive scores from checking everyone they meet. One nervous, suspicious seeming guard asking the characters to do something who is actually a nervous, ratty looking guard following orders could be an interesting encounter if he's called a fake.)

 

[Mort]

I think that it’s fully a player’s responsibility to ask for a sense motive check.
What’s the DM supposed to do, supplement his speeches with “roll a sense motive check to see if you’re character believed a word of what I just said?”
It’s the player’s responsibility to make sure his skills are used effectively, otherwise what’s the point?
Note, this in no way means DM’s shouldn’t help inexperienced, shy or otherwise reticent players just that it’s not the DM’s responsibility to prompt characters who should know better.

A sense motive check does not have to replace role-playing, it just gives the DM a chance to give the player some more info and have him role-play accordingly. In the Illusionist situation for example if the player rolls well on his sense motive the DM should say something like “You notice the stranger eyeing your weapons greedily, more like a thief than an enchanter.” (or something less obvious) – This lets the players react “in character” and adds to role-playing.

Just a thought

 

[Chrisling]

I think . . . .

No RPG does social situations well. On one hand, I feel that requiring the player to just RP it when his C lies or whatever is roughly akin to having the player be a master swordsman to play a swashbuckler.

Furthermore, unlike combat (the other really dramatic thing that happens in games), a social roll is usually one roll, two, tops, if it's the kind of game that allows opposed rolls. Surely, a duel of words should be as involved as a swordfight? I think so.

On the third hand, calling for a bunch of rolls in a social situation detracts from the role-playing in a way calling for a to-hit roll does not.

Some day, I keep telling myself I'll invent a system for actually determining how social interaction should work. Maybe soon as the game I'm running has a LOT of political action in it . . . but I've never seen a game help out with social interaction, really.

BTW, what I normally do is, when the player RPs is keep in mind the C's Int, Wis and Cha, appropriate social skills, Sense Motive and so forth and guestimate what would happen based on those.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

You cannot make everything a role play situation. My character has a 16 intelligence and a 16 charisma. He is also a 5th level rogue.

Does anyone really think I could ever "roleplay" my buff as well as the rogue can really do it? Or are you telling me that I wasted the 9 ranks I put into the skill?

If we are going to do this then I want to see the main fighter character get loaded with 50 lbs of gear and forced to swim 10 laps at the pool when his character dives in with his armor on. Just because his fighter has a 22 strength and 10 ranks in swim shouldnt mean we can't "roleplay" the situation instead of rolling his skill check.

 

[jgbrowning]

well

i role the roll for my players and say something like....

you think he's telling the truth.
he seems honest enough.
he's a little nervious, but your not sure why.
you think he's avoiding something.
you know he's not telling the whole truth.


but thats only if they ask for a check and under no circumstances do i allow them to see the roll.

joe b.

 

[dema]

try these

Check out the downloadable adventures at www.eqrpg.com

The everquest RPG, they have good exampled of bluff, sense motive and other checks within the mods.

-dem

 

[Etan Moonstar]

It's fairly rare for me to get a chance to play instead of DM, but when I do, my experience from various sources such as DM winging it and high school impromptu speaking make it so that, in social situations, most DMs entirely base the success of the bluff on how eloquent I was in real life. One day I was thinking about this, though, and I realized that unless I was playing a character who actually maxed out his ranks in Bluff each level, I was actually sort of cheating. After all, we still make the irl physically strong player roll to break open a door, so why should the irl glib players get free breaks on Bluff? On the other hand, though, it really sort of breaks the suspension of disbelief when someone like myself does rattle off a good story, only to subsequently roll a 1 on the Bluff check.

My eventual solution? Last time I got the chance to play in a campaign, I started to roll the Bluff check BEFORE rattling off the story. If I rolled high, I then came up with a good and believable story. If I rolled low (or, heavens forbid, a 1!) I would come up with a less believable story, or deliver the story in a stuttering, hesitant fashion, or some other roleplaying device that helped portray the low results of the check. I loved the results, as did the DM and other players, and have been using this system ever since, whether when I play a PC or (more often) when I do the NPCs.

To sum up--experienced and skilled roleplayers may find that portraying the results of the die roll in social situations, just like we do in combat and other situations, might make for a more balanced and enjoyable session.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I've been in the habit of giving PCs automatic sense-motive checks whenever the NPC is telling a flat-out lie. After all, NPCs get automatic sense motive checks if the PC attempts to bluff his way through something--why shouldn't PCs be afforded the same courtesy. If the NPC is simply trying to mislead them or focus attention elsewhere, I wait until players ask for a sense motive.

I've also noticed that players regularly ask for sense motive rolls on honest NPCs.

I usually respond to all Sense Motive rolls with one of the following:
-If he's lying, he's doing a good job.
-You're pretty sure he wants you to (do what he's asking you to do)
-He's lying through his teeth
-He seems a bit nervous
-He's trying to steer conversation away from topic X
-If you didn't know better, you'd swear this guy was telling the truth
-He's hiding something
-His "last offer" seems like a bargaining ploy
-He seems like a pretty shifty fellow (DC 24+ hunch)
-He seems like a pretty honest guy (DC 24+ hunch)

 

[S'mon]

I'd only give a PC a Sense Motive check if they asked for it; ie if they decide to _use_ their Skill. Likewise I'd only give an NPC a Sense Motive check (and require a PC to make a Bluff roll) if I as GM was unsure whether the NPC would believe the PC, or not. If it's obvious (either way), no roll. This is analogous to combat in that to-hit rolls are only required if the target is trying to avoid being hit; if they're not defending you can simply coup-de-grace them. Automatic fails are analogous to the target not being within your Threatened area!