Use of Sense Motive skill: Automatic?

[Saeviomagy]

Diplomacy and Intimidation, on the other hand, is almost always a roll combined with roleplaying in my game. To influence someone, you have to A) be convincing and B) have skill at doing so.

Would you say that you fancy yourself as a grade A method actor then? That you are always flawless in your portrayal? That your range works all the way from "I'm so bad at lying that it's blatantly obvious" to "I'm not entirely sure of what I'm saying, but I'm trying to appear confident" to "I'm bad at lying, but I'm not actually lying, because I don't know the truth, but I DO know that what I'm saying might not actually be the whole truth" to "I'm awesome at lying, but the PC is better at sense motiving".

Can you truely pitch a performance so that only the guy with a +19 sense motive could possibly pick you up on it?

Or are you just screwing people who choose to take ranks in those skills?

Or do you actually mean "when it matters, we roll".

 

[KarinsDad]

Or are you just screwing people who choose to take ranks in those skills?

Screwing people? Are you implying something negative about my gaming style here?

How about a person that take 15 ranks in Swimming? Do you give him an opportunity each and every session to swim? If you say no, can I say "Pot calling the kettle black"?

When he has opportunites to swim and it is a calm gentle lake, do you make him roll every round? If it is stormy water, do you roll every round?

Personally, I do not screw people. I draw the line at reasonableness. How about you?

Or do you actually mean "when it matters, we roll".

Go back and read what I wrote before making assumptions.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Go back and read what I wrote before making assumptions.

What you wrote seemed to be "if the players realise that an NPC is lying to them, they get sense motive checks against him - otherwise they do not".

Later, what you wrote seemed to be "if it's important to the NPC or the PC, then they get rolls".

I'm having a hard time working out what you mean.

And for the record? Occasionally a character with swim will swim. Because they have the swim skill, they're more likely to get into situations where they swim. In most swimming situations, I'll expect them to take 10. In stressful or unusual situations, they'll roll.

If there was a situation where their swim skill was going to be pitted against an opposed roll, then I would gauge whether they were more likely to be taking 10, or rolling. I would then roll the opposed roll. You know, so that it's not a guaranteed result.

Unless it was unimportant, in which case I may just describe the overall result based on relative modifiers.

What I'd never do is ignore the rules when it matters - as you seemed to indicate you would at the beginning of the thread when you suggested that if the players didn't state they were suspicious, then lies would get through. I'd never say "oh, and then you start drowning because you didn't say 'after I dive into the water, I start using my swim skill'".

At present, I understand your position to be
1. PC's get a sense motive roll when I feel like it, not when it's important.
2. Social skills are optional. A strong roleplayer can cope without them, and a weak roleplayer will get very limited use from them.
3. Somehow the same would apply to swimming. If I wanted to be flippant, I'd also assume that you require your players to go for a couple of laps in a pool or something every time their character fell in water, but I'm pretty sure both of us would agree that's a ridiculous situation. I'll assume instead that you mean that swim checks are called for when you feel like it. Again, if I wanted to be flippant, I'd assume that if you didn't feel like it, your PC's would drown, and again I'm pretty sure this isn't the case. So that's a second point on which they're unlike social skill rolls in your game.

If this isn't your position, please clarify it.

 

[KarinsDad]

At present, I understand your position to be
1. PC's get a sense motive roll when I feel like it, not when it's important.
2. Social skills are optional. A strong roleplayer can cope without them, and a weak roleplayer will get very limited use from them.
3. Somehow the same would apply to swimming. If I wanted to be flippant, I'd also assume that you require your players to go for a couple of laps in a pool or something every time their character fell in water, but I'm pretty sure both of us would agree that's a ridiculous situation. I'll assume instead that you mean that swim checks are called for when you feel like it. Again, if I wanted to be flippant, I'd assume that if you didn't feel like it, your PC's would drown, and again I'm pretty sure this isn't the case. So that's a second point on which they're unlike social skill rolls in your game.

If this isn't your position, please clarify it.

Sure.


If you read the Checks Without Rolls section, Take 10 is an optional character choice. If you read the DMG, players are encouraged to Take 10.


But, what about the case where players do not know the DM is rolling a Sense Motive for them? Can they choose to Take 10? Obviously not. So, can the DM choose to Take 10 for them?

I think so. If not according to the rules, than according to rule zero.

And, the DM can obviously choose Take 10 for the NPCs. Now, the interesting thing about social skills is that there is little in the way of distraction or threatening in them for most situations (with the exception of Intimidation). Hence, most of the time, you can Take 10 (both PC and NPC).


And according to the DMG:

"For example, you can decide that the task is practically impossible and modify the roll or DC by 20. Feel free to modify these numbers as you see fit, using modifiers from 2 to 20."


Now, I just verbosely explained all of this for a reason. The reason is that the rules allow the DM to make the opposed check and the DM decides the modifiers, whether the dice are rolled, and whether Take 10s are performed. In other words, the DM can decide the outcome based on the situation, sometimes regardless of whether he rolls the dice.

Now, before you start in again with your "Screwing the players" mantra, what I am talking about here (in the case of Sense Motive / Bluff) is that most of the time, a mildly lying NPC (or PC for that matter, we have yet to discuss when the shoe is on the other foot) is not going to be caught unless he starts contradicting himself or unless he starts making outrageous claims or unless the PC's skill total is significantly higher than the NPC's.

But, this philosophy (that little white lies or omissions are typically hard to catch) is the antithesis of a game system where D20+x is greater than D20+x 50% of the time. 25% to 75% of the time, if you roll the dice, you have to tell the PC that the guy is being evasive or some such (if you are not going to be truthful to your players about this, why bother to roll the dice?). I, as DM, think that is WAY too high of a percentage. 10% to 15% seems more reasonable to me, but rolling dice won't get you into that range (unless you explicitly only make the roll a success on 18+ as opposed to actually figuring out reasonable modifiers).

So, when do you throw the dice and get into that huge 25% to 75% range?

1) When the player asks (i.e. it is important to the player).
2) When the DM deems it important to the storyline.
3) When the NPC says something outrageous that is hard to believe.
4) When the PC(s) appear to be suspcious of the NPC.


But, I do not do this for every lie because I do not think most lies would get caught without a lot of additional information to indicate that they are lies. In fact, suspicious PCs should occassionally incorrectly "sense" an NPC is lying when he is not.


So, I typically roll Sense Motive / Bluff when one or more of the four conditions above apply. I might even do it if the NPC contradicts himself, but to me, that is part of the fun of roleplaying and my players should have more fun noticing that kind of thing on their own as opposed to me spoon feeding it to them with a dice roll, so unless it is critical to the storyline, if I throw in a contradiction, the players either pick it up or not on their own.

I blow off rolling Sense Motive / Bluff the rest of the time, just like I blow off roleplaying going to the latrine.


Now, let's go back to the other foot. If a PC is lying to an NPC (and the DM is unaware of it for some reason), should the player tell the DM he is lying in order for the DM to roll Sense Motive / Bluff? Or, should he roleplay it out and not influence the DM's roleplaying of the NPC? Which typically results in more fun?

And now, turn this back around. Which is typically more fun (and more conducive to better roleplaying) for the players, when they are told that an opponent is lying, or when they figure it out for themselves?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Now, let's go back to the other foot. If a PC is lying to an NPC (and the DM is unaware of it for some reason), should the player tell the DM he is lying in order for the DM to roll Sense Motive / Bluff?

Absolutely.

Perhaps the DM might add a circumstance modifier if the player is particularly well-spoken as a form of roleplaying reward, but you should absolutely allow players who are not necessarily articulate speakers to roleplay characters who are.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I use it as both an active and a passive skill.

If the player is actively trying to figure out that the NPC is lying then he rolls a die for his sense motive. He also makes a bluff or diplomacy check if he doesn't want to look suspicious of the person he is listening to.

I have also used this and told the PC that 'the guard looks at you as though he thinks that you are up to something.'

If passive then I assume that the PC or NPC takes 10.

Casual lies work the same way, using bluff. Only when it is a meaningful lie do I bother rolling a die for the bluff. And some NPCs just lie to make themselves look better rather than malignant intent.

Very little die rolling and the game chugs along nicely.

The Auld Grump

 

[Saeviomagy]

Sure.

...

And now, turn this back around. Which is typically more fun (and more conducive to better roleplaying) for the players, when they are told that an opponent is lying, or when they figure it out for themselves?

Thanks for that. Now that I understand your position, I agree with it to some extent. Personally while I do believe that doing the roleplaying thing can lead to more fun, I've also been burned by it - a DM (who did have a speech impediment, albeit not a stutter) decided that stuttering once on an important fact (when we were talking to an NPC we'd never met before) was enough that if we didn't ask for sense motive checks, we didn't get any. The entire group noted the stutter, but just assumed that it was the DM stuttering rather than the NPC. As a result, we got totally screwed. The DM was kind of surprised in the post-mortem to find that everyone in the party noted the stutter, but didn't bring it up.

I also like that you DO still take the skill levels into account. I agree entirely with your philosophy that on a roll the PC is unaware of, it's perfectly fine to make the PC take 10 - my own system usually assumes that the PC will do so unless prohibited. I also agree that modifiers will usually mean that a minor lie will just go straight past most individuals.

In fact, the only way my system differs from yours is that I roll the NPC bluff check when I think it's important, rather than the slightly more limited situations you require.

I think this is more down to the level of seperation between player and PC that each of us see. I see the PC is what's on paper more than the player with some extra abilities - if he's got a high sense motive, he's always suspicious to some degree. You see the PC as the player with some extra abilities - if the player doesn't specify that he's suspicious, his high sense motive goes to waste. I suppose that's just personal taste.

 

[KarinsDad]

In fact, the only way my system differs from yours is that I roll the NPC bluff check when I think it's important, rather than the slightly more limited situations you require.

Even here, I do not think we are that far off:

"2) When the DM deems it important to the storyline."

To me, storyline is a fairly broad subject (i.e. a plotline with many subplots).

I think this is more down to the level of seperation between player and PC that each of us see. I see the PC is what's on paper more than the player with some extra abilities - if he's got a high sense motive, he's always suspicious to some degree. You see the PC as the player with some extra abilities - if the player doesn't specify that he's suspicious, his high sense motive goes to waste. I suppose that's just personal taste.

I think you still think I let high rank skills go to waste. I don't. Not even Sense Motive. Not even Swimming. I would purposely throw water situations into my pre-game preparations maybe 10% of the time or more if one of my PCs had a lot of ranks in swimming. Ditto for Sense Motive (plenty of NPCs in the world).

But, that doesn't mean that Take 10 wouldn't rule a lot in most normal situations.

PS. When I do roll the dice though, the dice rule in my game. In fact, I roll most combat dice out in front of the players. If you miss your Sense Motive, oh well. I won't be making a second roll for the conversation unless the situation drastically changes.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think you still think I let high rank skills go to waste.

No - I understand that you modify their use based on the skills of the player in question. So a naturally suspicious and quick player + a character with ranks in sense motive will be more likely to pick up a lie than a naturally trusting player + a character with the same ranks. Either will perform better than a character with very low ranks. For most skills and game abilities, this is an inevitability - a player who knows stuff about horses (for instance) will try things with their character's ride or handle animal skills that a player not so knowledgable won't. A player with some innate tactical sense will make better use of their base attack bonus and so on. For a lot of the purely mental stuff, like spot and listen checks, social skills etc, it's a lot less inevitable and a lot more in the DM's hands. I suppose it's perfectly fair for the DM to set the level so that player input to character effectiveness matches up with that found in other skills. It's probably also fair to not do so.