Bluff v. Sense Motive clarification request!

[ruleslawyer]

Dear All,

Thanks in advance for answers or input.

I've been having some problems running Bluff vs. Sense Motive in my game. Basically, in extended conversations (read: interrogations) with NPCs, my players ask to use Sense Motive to detect a falsehood with each and every answer an NPC gives. Now, I'm not sure how to run this. In an extended interaction, how does Bluff vs. Sense Motive work, exactly? Will a single successful Bluff check allow a PC to tell an unlimited number of falsehoods without detection? Do PCs get multiple Sense Motive checks to effectively discern lies told by NPCs? I'm just sorta stumped as to the exact way to run this.

 

[Thanee]

I'd try to identify how many different bluffs the person is making. On an extended interrogation, there might be different things he lies about and thus one roll is made for each.

If he's only trying to hide a single fact, than one roll will tell, if the PCs can sense him hiding something.

Bye
Thanee

 

[ruleslawyer]

Thanks, Thanee. The big problem that I have with allowing a Sense Motive check for each lie is that the skill then becomes an improved discern lies; opposed checks generally entail a likelihood of success for equivalent-CR encounters that's better than beating an opponent's save, and a separate check for each lie means that the PCs will pick up on at least a few falsehoods over a period of extended interrogation. Still, if that's the way it's supposed to be played... I'd love some further input, though!

 

[Artoomis]

Sense Motive:

SENSE MOTIVE (WIS)
Check: A successful check lets you avoid being bluffed (see the Bluff skill). You can also use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on) or to assess someone’s trustworthiness.

I'd say you can use Sense Motive for each actual lie (each Bluff attempt), but it only tells you that something is up, it does not tell you what's going one exactly. Note that a bluff is, in this case, an active attempt to get someone to believe something other than the truth. Further, it does NOT let you know when someone is telling the truth - not at all. A successful check will let you know someone is lying, if they are and unsuccessful check gives you NO information. A successful check when NOT being Bluffed also gives NO information.

Thus, the results might go like this:

<A lie told> (Successful check) "That's not really true."
<A lie told> (Unsuccessful check) "That seems reasonable."
<Truth told> (Successful check - success is not really possible due to no opposing Bluff) "That seems reasonable."
<Truth told> (Unsuccessful check - success is not really possible due to no opposing Bluff) "That seems reasonable."

DM MUST make all these rolls.

Do this, and soon they'll stop bugging you for constant Sense Motive checks. Simply know what the results are for "take 10" and apply them all the time. No rolls required.

 

[Deimodius]

I would argue that this:

"<A lie told> (Successful check) "That's not really true." "

should be changed to this:

<A lie told> (Successful check) "That _may_ not be true."

I don't think a successful Sense Motive check tells You something is untrue, but rather something seems wrong about it.

 

[Artoomis]

I would argue that this:

"<A lie told> (Successful check) "That's not really true." "

should be changed to this:

<A lie told> (Successful check) "That _may_ not be true."

I don't think a successful Sense Motive check tells You something is untrue, but rather something seems wrong about it.

That might be a nice way to view it, but that's not the way the skills work. An attempt at deceipt is a Bluff check opposed by Sense Motive - if the Sense Motive check succeeds, the deceipt is not believed. The truth is not revealed, of course, but the fect that the speaker is lying becomes clear.

Thus you get two basic results:

That's a lie.

or

That may be true.

You never know if they are telling the truth, but sometimes you can tell if they are lying.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

the deceipt

Deceit.

I agree with Artoomis. The key here is for the DM to make the rolls, so that the players can't see a 20 and know they've succeeded, or a 1 and know they've failed. Then, when they fail checks, be sure to sometimes give them false readings--and sometimes give them true readings!--when they fail their checks.

Nothing will have them scratching their heads more than the "that sounds fishy" on something that seems like the truth...

 

[Artoomis]

Deceit.

I agree with Artoomis. The key here is for the DM to make the rolls, so that the players can't see a 20 and know they've succeeded, or a 1 and know they've failed. Then, when they fail checks, be sure to sometimes give them false readings--and sometimes give them true readings!--when they fail their checks.

Nothing will have them scratching their heads more than the "that sounds fishy" on something that seems like the truth...

Of course, a "1" is not auto-failure, nor is a "20" auto-success for these checks.