Does Sense Motive allow you to detect lies?

[UltimaGabe]

The majority of the skill checks in our campaign, unless they're crucial to the storyline, or the person has a low modifier, generally don't include rolls. The DM will usually just ask for their modifier ("I've got a +14 to all Knowledge: Arcana checks, Bob.") and use that figure alone as a basis for how well they do their action, sorta like they're taking 10. For example, if your character sees a Githyanki raiding party burst out of a door, he might ask what your character's Knowledge: The Planes score is. If it's relatively high, he'll simply tell you what you know about them- if it's low, he might have you roll for it (depending on how crucial it is, he might roll for it himself, or he may have you roll). If you don't get high enough, he'll tell you you don't know anything about them. After all, in our last campaign, there was a Cleric whose Bluff and Sense Motive scores were in upwards of 40 (before rolling). Nobody could ever tell he was lying, and nobody could ever lie to him. It was pretty funny, actually.

Bluff and Sense Motive checks, in our campaigns, are usually just a "What's your modifier?" "Uh... +2." "You can't tell anything." in regards to whether someone's lying or not. We use Sense Motive as one of our most common Roleplay skills, though- Sense Motive is much more than simply telling if someone's lying or enchanted, for us. We use it to tell how someone's feeling, vaguely discern their alignment, get a feel for someone's personality, see how they run their job, things like that.

 

[Saeviomagy]

In the d20 modern game, there's a class which gains the abilities to detect a lie with a successful sense motive check.

I thought that this was the function of a normal sense motive check, so I asked about it on the WoTC boards.

Whoever the designer of d20 modern (is it Chris Ryan?) replied that you don't roll a sense motive check every time an NPC lies. You just roll one for the conversation. Afterwards, you tell the player that he felt the NPC wasn't entirely truthful - however the player has no idea WHAT the NPC was lying about. That's what the special ability did - it told you exactly when the target lied.

Personally I think that this was a bit of a load. Primarily because it has some easy workarounds (ie - the player keeps stopping and starting the conversation so he can get feedback on every single statement) and also because it kills off roleplaying (ie - I can't tell a player halfway through a conversation that the NPC is hiding something, so he can't react to it...).

Personally I'd roll for each lie, but not tell the player whether the NPC is lying, concealing something, simply genuinely nervous, or under an enchantment. I just tell them that the NPC has some unusual trait (ie - he's wringing his hands, sweating, staring into the distance etc).

 

[DarkMaster]

The majority of the skill checks in our campaign, unless they're crucial to the storyline, or the person has a low modifier, generally don't include rolls. The DM will usually just ask for their modifier ("I've got a +14 to all Knowledge: Arcana checks, Bob.") and use that figure alone as a basis for how well they do their action, sorta like they're taking 10. For example, if your character sees a Githyanki raiding party burst out of a door, he might ask what your character's Knowledge: The Planes score is. If it's relatively high, he'll simply tell you what you know about them- if it's low, he might have you roll for it (depending on how crucial it is, he might roll for it himself, or he may have you roll). If you don't get high enough, he'll tell you you don't know anything about them. .

I partially agree with that, if the guy has 14 knowledge in plane then yes knowing Githyanki might not need a roll since the DC would probably be below 15 but knowing that this particular tribe eats specific mushroom that protect them from acid then might need a DC25 and then your theory doesn't apply. The only information that I will provide to a player with a high knowledge score is the one with a DC below his score all the more complex/specific issue will still have to be rolled.

 

[Darklone]

That is why I either prerolled my dice or use a dice roller on my laptop. they never know when I rolled their spot,listen, sense motive it keeps the game going

Hey, I WANT my players to be wary and hear the dice roll. No matter if I just warm them up or roll something

 

[Numion]

Personally I think that this was a bit of a load. Primarily because it has some easy workarounds (ie - the player keeps stopping and starting the conversation so he can get feedback on every single statement) and also because it kills off roleplaying (ie - I can't tell a player halfway through a conversation that the NPC is hiding something, so he can't react to it...).

Yeah, and metagaming liars would start every conversation with an obvious lie - "The sky is green". That would render the skill check useless, because of course there was a lie in the conversation

 

[RigaMortus]

Yeah, and metagaming liars would start every conversation with an obvious lie - "The sky is green". That would render the skill check useless, because of course there was a lie in the conversation

But in my campaign, the sky IS green... Hmmmm...

 

[RigaMortus]

So, what do you do in a situation where, the NPC is not lying, but a player wants to roll Sense Motive. I mean, regardless of their roll, they're going to feel the NPC isn't lying, right? So why bother rolling to begin with? As the DM, just tell them they aren't lying. There is no need to roll...

On the flip side, let's say an NPC tells an obvious lie. Something the PCs would never beleive, or any sane person beleive. They roll Sense Motive but fail the roll. Do you (adressing this to anyone) require them to roleplay out the result? No matter how ridiculous or contradicotry the lie was?

 

[DarkMaster]

So, what do you do in a situation where, the NPC is not lying, but a player wants to roll Sense Motive. I mean, regardless of their roll, they're going to feel the NPC isn't lying, right? So why bother rolling to begin with? As the DM, just tell them they aren't lying. There is no need to roll...

On the flip side, let's say an NPC tells an obvious lie. Something the PCs would never beleive, or any sane person beleive. They roll Sense Motive but fail the roll. Do you (adressing this to anyone) require them to roleplay out the result? No matter how ridiculous or contradicotry the lie was?

Roll the dice, your PC doesn't need to know that he is not lying. If he has no personal skill he will never be able to know who can he trust.

Don't forget that sense motive will only help you detect that somebody is lying (see my previous posts) it doesn't forces you to beleive it.

Don't forget that rediculous lie bring ridiculous modifier to the check.

and some people sold the Grand Canyon to tourist.
If you meet the best used car salesman of the country and you have no social skill chances are that you will end up buying the most expensive car of the lot.

 

[RigaMortus]

Don't forget that sense motive will only help you detect that somebody is lying (see my previous posts) it doesn't forces you to beleive it.

Not sure I follow you here... If I know somebody is lying, why would I beleive them? Do you often beleive lies when they are told to you, and when you know they are lies? They seem to go hand in hand to me. Sense Motive... If lying, don't beleive them.

So if someone is lying, and you know they are lying (before even rolling SM), if you make a SM check and they beat you, you won't be detecting their lie, which gives you no reason NOT to beleive them. Right? Makes no sense to me. /shrug

Another way to look at it is this... Sense Motive really isn't a roleplay skill. Players are going to have their characters beleive, whatever they want them to beleive, regardless of a check result. So the only time you should roll for SM is when you have no idea if a person is lying or not, right?

 

[DarkMaster]

Not sure I follow you here... If I know somebody is lying, why would I beleive them? Do you often beleive lies when they are told to you, and when you know they are lies? They seem to go hand in hand to me. Sense Motive... If lying, don't beleive them.

So if someone is lying, and you know they are lying (before even rolling SM), if you make a SM check and they beat you, you won't be detecting their lie, which gives you no reason NOT to beleive them. Right? Makes no sense to me. /shrug

Another way to look at it is this... Sense Motive really isn't a roleplay skill. Players are going to have their characters beleive, whatever they want them to beleive, regardless of a check result. So the only time you should roll for SM is when you have no idea if a person is lying or not, right?

Sorry I wasn't clear. The skills are used to asses how somebody is communicating the information not to determine the validity of the content(there are spell for that). Therefore when you roll a sense motive you want to see if you can notice something unusual in the attitude of the NPC which could make you beleive that he is not telling you the thruth or he is trying to hide something from you. You can also detect the intention of the speaker, he wants you to buy that sword badly, why? then sense motive roll would determine the outcome of investigation

simple example.

NPC : please buy this sword
PC : Roll sense motive against NPC bluff :success
DM : by talking a bit with him you figure out that this guy really want you to buy the sword.
PC : I wonder why, I will try to ask subtle question using sense motive to get more from this guy.
DM : roll sense motive against NPC bluff :fail
DM : you attempt to ask him subtle question in order to get a clue on why he needs to sell you that sword but he is very smart and answers all your questions vaguely preventing you from getting more info.

In this "skill combat" you detect a lie or a false truth but the skill didn't allow you to find figure out the truth. Then the PC counter attacked and fail. If the PC roll would have been a success the amount of information that I would have revealed would have been proportionate to the difference of the roll.

I really enjoy those encounter.

Let's say the first roll would have fail. the only thing they would know is that this guy wants to sell them a sword. It doesn't mean they trust him, just that they cannot see anything in his action/words that could reveal that they can't trust him.