Sense Motive - passive or active?

[Quasqueton]

Is Sense Motive a "passive" skill or an "active" skill?

Does a Player have to call for a SM check, or is the check automatic when someone lies or tries to mislead the PC? How about when the person is being honest but evasive to questions?

For instance, in a situation where the PC asks an NPC a question, and the NPC answers truthfully, but doesn't directly answer the question:

PC: "Do you know where John is?"

NPC: "I haven't seen John today." [NPC knows where John is, but doesn't want to say.]

Does the PC get a SM check versus the NPC's Bluff check? Or does the Player have to specificaly call for a SM check?

How about when the question and answer are less straight forward, but the meaning is clearly understandable?

PC: "Where is John?"

NPC: "I haven't seen him today."


PC: "Did John make it home OK?"

NPC: "I didn't run into any problems." [NPC left John on the park bench where he fell asleep.]


Quasqueton

 

[mikebr99]

Passive... it sets the DC for any bluff attempt against the character.

 

[shilsen]

IMC, both. I will sometimes allow PCs to make Sense Motive checks even if the players don't ask for one. And of course in a situation where a player chooses to make one, I allow it. Most of the time, I roll the check so that the player doesn't know if he failed because it's true or because of a lousy roll.

And sometimes it's fun to let players roll and get something like a 30 and then say, "He seems honest," leaving them wondering if it's true or if the NPC is a really good bluffer. Players are suspicious of even the most mundane things, so sometimes one should give them a little rope to hang their PCs with.

 

[Quasqueton]

bump

 

[Li Shenron]

I normally roll the Sense Motive as the DM even if the characters don't say anything.

 

[StalkingBlue]

Active. If the NPC is dumb or inept at Bluffing, I'll try to drop clues in how I play them and/or what I have them say.

 

[Thanee]

Active. If the NPC is dumb or inept at Bluffing, I'll try to drop clues in how I play them and/or what I have them say.

Isn't that sort of passive, just in a kinda "metagaming" way?

Your players detect, that you are acting out your NPCs in a "flawed" fashion, and therefore let their character use sense motive on them. The act of actually detecting the "flaw" is passive, just that it's the player, not the character doing so.

I think Sense Motive should normally be used passively (but can of course be asked for, thus being used actively).

Bye
Thanee

 

[pensiv]

When my NPCs are lying, etc. (using Bluff), I roll Sense Motive for the PCs and the NPC's Bluff behind my screen.
When the players ask to use Sense Motive, I let them roll and I roll the NPC's Bluff check behind my screen (even if they're not lying I roll anyway).

This is how I generally work any opposed skill check.

 

[StalkingBlue]

Isn't that sort of passive, just in a kinda "metagaming" way?

Your players detect, that you are acting out your NPCs in a "flawed" fashion, and therefore let their character use sense motive on them. The act of actually detecting the "flaw" is passive, just that it's the player, not the character doing so.
...

Nope.

You'd be right if I were to present 'flaws' to my players on a silver platter. In which case I might as well dispense with the fuss and get on with the gaming, IMO. That's a style thing of course though. A game I run isn't there for me display my acting skills (or lack of same), it's to present challenges and opportunities to my players and their PCs. If they don't pick up on a clue or don't act on it, the opportunity will pass them by. Also conversely if they are too paranoid and disbelieve sound information or advice, too bad for them. I might give them a Sense Motive check once they start asking verifying questions that show they are suspicious, but still, it's their challenge to deal with and their choice to make. I call that active.

 

[Pyrex]

I usually go with 'Passive'. Especially when the character has a higher Sense Motive modifier than the player.