Reactive vs Requested Sense Motive checks

[Kahuna Burger]

There was the glimmer of this debate in a general discussion thread, and it got me currious how most people deal with S.M. checks in response to npc lies. Specificly, do PCs get an automatic reactive sense motive check in response to any bluffing (=lying) npc just as they would get an automatic reactive spot check if an npc was hiding in a room, or do they have to ask for a sense motive check on every npc who might be lying, just as they would need to ask for a search check to find the magic item under a rug in the room?

 

[IcyCool]

Only on request.

For one reason.

#1. I would call for reactive rolls, but there are one or two players that would use that information OOC.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sometimes reactive, sometimes requested.

Whenever a PC is being Bluffed, I'll use a pregenerated roll* plus their SM bonus to determine whether or not the get a hint as to something fishy going on.

Players may request Sense Motive checks on their own, however.

* - Thanks to whoever originally mentioned this idea here. Basically, generate 100 d20 rolls before the game starts by whatever method you like. Then, as you need to make secret checks, cross one off the list. That way, you can make a secret check without the PCs knowing they even rolled for anything.

 

[melkorspawn]

DM should make a reactive roll behind the screen. It balences the game without tempting metagaming.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

A followup question for those who chose requested only - do you make this ruling clear to your players prior to play? Prior to character creation?

For those who chose the mix, can you give a brief description of what ingame situations would trigger a reactive roll and which you would only give one on request?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

DM should make a reactive roll behind the screen. It balences the game without tempting metagaming.

I've been doing pbp mostly lately, which makes reactive rolls easy and smooth. I can make the rolls ahead of writing up the interaction and then describe the character's perception of the npc based on how well the sense motive rolls went.

 

[JimAde]

I do some of each. When I decide to do the rolling for them, I then roleplay the result. i.e. if the NPC won the opposed check, I lie with a straight face. If he lost, I lie badly so the players realize the NPC is lying.

If the NPC wins, and the player then asks for a check I go ahead and roll for him again. I figure this properly reflects the fact that the PC is more suspicious than usual. This works for us because my players aren't paranoid and don't ask for checks constantly.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

For those who chose the mix, can you give a brief description of what ingame situations would trigger a reactive roll and which you would only give one on request?

Sure!

I'd give one on request any time a player said, "I want to use Sense Motive."

They're generally trying for DC 20, with the goal being:

Hunch: This use of the skill involves making a gut assessment of the social situation. You can get the feeling from another’s behavior that something is wrong, such as when you’re talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy.

This doesn't necessarily tell the player that the NPC is lying, but it might let them know that he seems to be concealing something (as in, he's asked them to go pick up a package from an importer, but knows that the package contains contraband and that if the party is captured it might prove ... inconvenient ... for the party).

If, instead, the NPC were to come right out and tell the party that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the package that they were assigned to pick up, he'd be making a Bluff check. In this case, the party would get an immediate and reactive Sense Motive check opposed by the NPC's Bluff result.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

This doesn't necessarily tell the player that the NPC is lying, but it might let them know that he seems to be concealing something (as in, he's asked them to go pick up a package from an importer, but knows that the package contains contraband and that if the party is captured it might prove ... inconvenient ... for the party).

If, instead, the NPC were to come right out and tell the party that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the package that they were assigned to pick up, he'd be making a Bluff check. In this case, the party would get an immediate and reactive Sense Motive check opposed by the NPC's Bluff result.

so an active lie is a bluff check, which gets a reactive S.M. check, but a sin of ommission is general untrustworthyness which requires a requested S.M. check to notice. Thank you, thats a fairly straightforward distinction.

 

[Arnwyn]

A followup question for those who chose requested only - do you make this ruling clear to your players prior to play? Prior to character creation?

Nope. It's a "common understanding" between my players and I.

In any case, logistics disallow the pre-emptive discussion of every single possible ruling interpretation.

(To be perfectly honest, though, I suppose there's a bit of a mix for both reactive and requested Sense Motive checks in our game - when haggling, for example, it would be reactive. But I voted "requested" only, since that covers most of our situations.