Bluff/Sense Motive

[Eltern]

When you've got an NPC just straight up lying to PCs, what does the interaction of sense motive and bluff look like? Is it simply the NPC's bluff check vs each of the PC's sense motive checks (which the DM roles in secret), or must the PCs be actively "sensing his motive" for each statement, rolling on their own?

Eltern

 

[dcollins]

All the roleplay-interaction skills are highly subject to DM adjudication.

When I DM, PC-bluff-NPC automatically gets a Sense Motive check by the NPC. However, NPC-bluff-PC does require the PC to say that they're using Sense Motive to make that opposed roll (otherwise the call for the roll alerts the players already). That having been done, in theory I only allow a Sense Motive check by the PC with the highest skill -- allowing it by everyone in the party skews the probabilities off and makes almost impossible for a successful Bluff. Maybe I allow "cooperation" bonuses if the situation is right.

 

[hong]

All the roleplay-interaction skills are highly subject to DM adjudication.

When I DM, PC-bluff-NPC automatically gets a Sense Motive check by the NPC. However, NPC-bluff-PC does require the PC to say that they're using Sense Motive to make that opposed roll (otherwise the call for the roll alerts the players already). That having been done, in theory I only allow a Sense Motive check by the PC with the highest skill -- allowing it by everyone in the party skews the probabilities off and makes almost impossible for a successful Bluff. Maybe I allow "cooperation" bonuses if the situation is right.

You could just assume that any passive checks use take 10, so there's no die rolling to tip off the players.

1) Not that I mind tipping off the players on occasion. It makes for good tension when the players are suspicious about something, but their characters don't have a clue what's going on. This does assume the players know the difference between player and character knowledge.

2) Some situations may disallow taking 10, of course, but bluffing in social interaction should be fine.

 

[dcollins]

This does assume the players know the difference between player and character knowledge.

Know, and avoid acting on -- an assumption which is not borne out in most groups, in my experience.

 

[green slime]

I roll these kind of checks. As I am usually rolling my dice anyway, players don't know whether it is just trivial "dice-fiddling", or actual checks.

If reveals that they suspect something is going on, then I tell them that. Just like Spot and Listen checks, really.

Having a little note with the PC's skills joted down is invaluable.

 

[Endur]

Sense Motive is a passive skill check in my opinion. As the GM, I automatically roll sense motive checks for the PCs every time a NPC lies.

If the PCs already distrust the NPC, I probably won't bother to tell them that "you don't trust the NPC" if they make their sense motive check. On the other hand, if they fail it, I'll tell them, "you think he's telling the truth now."

Now in a lot of cases, I may just "take 10" on sense motive and bluff skill checks, to avoid rolling lots of dice.

When you've got an NPC just straight up lying to PCs, what does the interaction of sense motive and bluff look like? Is it simply the NPC's bluff check vs each of the PC's sense motive checks (which the DM roles in secret), or must the PCs be actively "sensing his motive" for each statement, rolling on their own?

Eltern

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I go for passive checks. I know that a lot of DMs don't do this, and, IME, this leads to players asking to roll sense motive after every statement any NPC ever says. If the DM isn't going to clue players in when their characters can sense a lie, he'll have to deal witht he tedium of the players making sure they get clued in.