Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Quidam 09-19-07, 02:15 PM	A BBEG had the party caught in a web and started spinning a yarn about not wanting to hurt us, etc, etc. None of the players at the time thought to ask for a sense motive check, so the DM never made a bluff check for the BBEG. Is this RAW? Must players request a sense motive check any time the think an NPC is bluffing or must the NPC make a bluff check any time they're lying, with the DM making secret rolls (or rolling ahead of time) every time they try to bluff?
Ian0311 09-19-07, 02:21 PM	Well, since you didn't ask for them, you didn't get them. However, since it is the BBEG (unless your characters don't know (s)he is the BBEG), your characters probably will have a good deal of mistrust for him (or her) anyway...
Tectorman 09-19-07, 02:24 PM	Well, if your DM has asked the players what their Sense Motive modifiers are (and made sure to update them every time someone leveled up), and if you here the discreet sound of rolling dice coming from behind the DM screen, then yeah, it's legal. Having players roll a SM (Sense Motive) check, then telling them they fail to see through the deception kind of defeats the purpose (maybe an extreme example, but you see my point) If the DM never takes that into consideration (no rolling, secret or otherwise, no asking the players what their modifiers are so he can do it in private), then I'd ask him about it. Devote a few skill points to SM, make sure the DM knows you're doing it specifically to be able to use the skill, and hope that every so often, he says, "The BBEG says '[blank]'", points to player 3, and says "you don't believe him for a second". So yeah, players can request SM checks, but the DM is certainly allowed to do it secretly.
Jaxgaret 09-19-07, 02:29 PM	A BBEG had the party caught in a web and started spinning a yarn about not wanting to hurt us, etc, etc. None of the players at the time thought to ask for a sense motive check, so the DM never made a bluff check for the BBEG. Is this RAW? Must players request a sense motive check any time the think an NPC is bluffing or must the NPC make a bluff check any time they're lying, with the DM making secret rolls (or rolling ahead of time) every time they try to bluff? AFAIK there is no RAW on how DMs are "supposed" to use SM vs. Bluff. In my campaigns, if a player doesn't roll SM, they don't get the benefit of the skill. PCs can choose to believe or disbelieve anything they want with or without SM; just because your SM tells you that they aren't lying, it doesn't necessarily mean that you believe them - they may just be better at lying (Bluff) than you are at telling they are lying (SM). Essentially, I let my PCs roleplay their characters' Int, Wis, level of trust, gullibility, etc. Please let me know if what I am doing is a houserule. AFAIK it is not.
Quidam 09-19-07, 02:30 PM	So yeah, players can request SM checks, but the DM is certainly allowed to do it secretly. While I'm aware that the players can request SM checks, my question is whether or not the DM is obligated to make them in secret on behalf of the PCs any time an NPC makes a Bluff check. PCs are required to make a bluff check any time they use the bluff skill- should NPCs be treated more leniently?
rironin 09-19-07, 02:37 PM	I would make Sense Motive checks for them whenever it's pertinent. If a PC had to suspect he was being lied to in order to try to detect if he was being lied to, it's like double jeopardy. If the DM does a good job lying to the PCs through an NPC, none of the PCs will think to say "I make a Sense Motive check," which is kind of a ridiculous thing to say/do as a PC anyways. You as a player shouldn't have to suspect an NPC's motives just to try to sense his motives. I've always thought of it as an almost purely reactive skill. Requiring PCs to declare their Sense Motives will also quickly lead to PCs announcing that they're using Sense Motive every time they talk to anyone in the world ever. That's what I'd do if I were a PC in a game like that. A real character would try to evaluate the people he's talking to in order to decide if he trusted them, even if they were saying something that sounded true. The only way to "role play" that mindset in your DM's world is to announce that you're Sensing Motives every time an NPC opens his/her mouth.
Tedronai 09-19-07, 02:38 PM	The PCs are entitled to a sense motive, whether rolled themselves or by the DM. You don't expect PCs to ASK if they want to oppose a grapple or a trip; if the NPC is using bluff (meaning that they're 'spinning a yarn' in the OP's words) then the PCs get a sense motive.
Salla 09-19-07, 03:41 PM	Sense Motive is one of those skills I keep track of and roll for the PCs at appropriate times (typically vs Bluffs), since the player knowing the result of his roll, or even that he's made one, can arouse suspicions.
Jaxgaret 09-19-07, 03:49 PM	Requiring PCs to declare their Sense Motives will also quickly lead to PCs announcing that they're using Sense Motive every time they talk to anyone in the world ever. That's what I'd do if I were a PC in a game like that. A real character would try to evaluate the people he's talking to in order to decide if he trusted them, even if they were saying something that sounded true. The only way to "role play" that mindset in your DM's world is to announce that you're Sensing Motives every time an NPC opens his/her mouth. There isn't but one way to role-play your character, though. Some characters are paranoid; some characters are gullible. Wouldn't a paranoid character be "rolling SM" - in the game world, concentrating intently on the person talking to discern any falsitude on their part - a lot more often than a gullible character?
Quidam 09-19-07, 04:14 PM	I think what's at issue here is that there is more than one way to use the Sense Motive skill, active and reactive. The question seems to be "is the reactive use optional?", ie "can a bluff check go unopposed?" or "are bluff checks only required when those being bluffed ask for a sense motive check?" My judgment, shared by some of those who have replied above, is that one cannot bluff without making a bluff check and that a bluff check cannot be made unopposed. While it is of course important that the one sensing motives should not be made aware of the rolls, it is also important that they not be denied the opportunity.
rironin 09-19-07, 04:22 PM	There isn't but one way to role-play your character, though. Some characters are paranoid; some characters are gullible. Wouldn't a paranoid character be "rolling SM" - in the game world, concentrating intently on the person talking to discern any falsitude on their part - a lot more often than a gullible character?You can role-play a character however you like, but usually the stats reflect the way you're playing your character. If you were playing a gullible character, you should have a low Sense Motive check modifier. If you had a 30 Wisdom or had invested 12 ranks in Sense Motive, I would question your character's natural gullibility, no matter how much you wanted to play a gullible character. Gullibility should be reflected in your character's stats, and if it is, then your character will still be gullible even if the DM makes SM checks for you whenever an NPC is bluffing you. The opposite is also true: shrewdness should be reflected by a high Sense Motive check, and your character shouldn't be gullible if your Sense Motive check is high - even if the player is fooled by the DM's portrayal of an NPC. Even if the DM makes a great speech and is totally believable, if you've got a high Sense Motive check, your character should have a good chance of getting a funny feeling if the NPC is actually lying. Just as the player playing a fighter isn't expected to be able to physically pick up a greataxe and slaughter an opponent, the player who plays a shrewd character with a high Sense Motive check should not be required to call out the DM because he suspects a lie. Nor should a paranoid character have to declare that he's "sensing motives" whenever he's talking to an NPC - there's just no point. I acknowledge that there is a mix of role-playing and roll-playing here, and everyone has to find the depth that they're comfortable with. But requiring that PCs declare they're trying to figure out if someone is lying robs them of their character's natural abilities, and requires them to remember to do something that occurs as naturally as breathing in the real world. Intuiting someone's trustworthiness (in a visceral way) is just as reactive as spotting a distant bird or hearing a cry above the sound of the wind, and should be treated like Spot or Listen.
Finarin Panjoro 09-19-07, 04:48 PM	If a character invests in Sense Motive he's doing it because he does not want to be lied too. He wants to ferret out mysteries and catch people in deceptions. As the DM if I know in advance that a PC is going to be lied too I pre-roll their Sense Motive checks for them, then after the NPC delivers his dialogue I simply say "You don't believe him," or "He's hiding something." If its not something I planned for then I roll for the PC without telling them what's going on. But I play it that a PC gets a Sense Motive check every single time they are bluffed whether they ask or not. Same as with Spot and Listen checks. I do make the PCs call for hunch rolls with Sense Motive (Does he seem trustworthy?) I've also taken to having NPCs take 10 on just about everything they do out of combat. An NPC always takes 10 on bluff, hide, spot, etc. This puts the outcome entirely in the roll made by the PC (or for the PC if its a secret roll such as Sense Motive). It also cuts my rolling in half. I don't see how there is much benefit to rolling two oppossed d20 rolls and comparing results, especially if the DM has to roll both dice. This way if the PC rolls high he probably wins, if he rolls low he probably loses instead of rolling high but having the enemy roll a 20 and still beat him or rolling a 5 but having the enemy roll a 1 and they still win.
Kouk 09-19-07, 06:28 PM	I usually require players to make Sense Motive rolls of their own volition, mostly because I don't tend to know who they are going to talk to or what they will ask. Since I can't really predict the conversations, just rolling after particular sentences or demanding skill checks seems like it gives more away, or adds suspicion when otherwise there wouldn't be any. I try to RP a bit of lying sometimes though, when the NPC isn't particularly skilled at it ("His eyes dart around nervously", "he stammers", or just try to make my voice sound unsure of myself or like I'm not saying everything). Generally just one Sense Motive check will last the entire conversation though, as a general sense of the person, unless the player really wants to nitpick everything that is being said. In that case I will roll a die when they ask to Sense Motive, and look at it, though if it is not a lie I still pretend to look up a Bluff modifier. Rolling secretly for them in advance is probably the least obtrusive, but I simply can't remember to do that during prep time. It seems to me like whether you roll for them in advance, roll for them at the table, or call for rolls, the players will be suspicious whenever they happen to feel suspicious. There's really no telling what the other guys' rolls are, whether the Bluff check result is really high, whether I just happened to roll low for the players but high for the NPC, or whether I'm just making up the rolls or modifiers on a whim (especially considering I can't stat out every random NPC they like to chat with). It is also my experience that players like rolling dice themselves, so I think that allowing them to call for Sense Motive checks on their own is the best compromise for my groups, with the only exception being when a character has a very high Sense Motive modifier to the point he really would easily be able to tell when something fishy was going on, even without rolling (never had a character with more than a 5 total though...).
Dheran 09-19-07, 07:39 PM	I generally have the players make their own d20 rolls, but I don't tell them what's going on (i.e., what skill they're making a check for) a lot of the time. I keep a copy of their character sheet so I know what their skill modifiers are. Sometimes I'll throw in some random disinformation, such as "You think you detect the accent of a Northerner when she speaks." "You don't notice anything." "The workmanship of that saddle reminds you of something; you just can't put your finger on it." "That guy off to the side seems to be leaning against the wall, but actually his weight is on the balls of his feet." That way the players don't know what's going on if somebody's Bluff exceeds their character's Sense Motive.
Nom 09-19-07, 07:59 PM	I think what's at issue here is that there is more than one way to use the Sense Motive skill, active and reactive. The question seems to be "is the reactive use optional?", ie "can a bluff check go unopposed?" or "are bluff checks only required when those being bluffed ask for a sense motive check?" My judgment, shared by some of those who have replied above, is that one cannot bluff without making a bluff check and that a bluff check cannot be made unopposed. While it is of course important that the one sensing motives should not be made aware of the rolls, it is also important that they not be denied the opportunity.In general, I agree with this. Let's use an analogy. I consider Sense Motive to be in exactly the same category as Listen and Spot - it's primarily a passive detection skill. By "passive", I mean that it automatically gets triggered when a situation that it could apply to occurs. Just as you don't expect players to explicitly ask for a Spot check to detect ambushes or otherwise notice that they have missed something visually, you shouldn't expect them to explicitly ask for a Sense Motive check to notice that they are being bluffed or otherwise notice that that have missed something socially. That said, the passive skills can all be used actively if external circumstances lead the PC to think that they've missed something or the PC wants extra information. "I use Spot to try to spot the invisible guy." "I ask about the prince's hunting expedition and then use Sense Motive to figure out what he really thinks." Of course, you could expect players to ask for these checks explicitly, but then you get one of two undesirable scenarios: (1) The game bogs down because smart players ask for them all the time. (2) The PCs don't get to use their skills because they forget to nag. IMO, the best way to use passive skills is "If there's something worth checking, I'll make sure a check happens (perhaps in secret)". The players don't miss out but don't slow the game down by explicitly asking for rolls.
Jaxgaret 09-19-07, 09:24 PM	Ah, I can see part of the discrepancy of opinion here - I don't know if others use Spot and Listen as Nom does, but in my games Spot and Listen are not 100% reactive/passive. IRL, have you never stopped to really Listen or really look around and pay attention to Spotting? Characters can't be doing that 24/7... so there are both passive and active Spot/Listen rolls and passive as well as active Sense Motive rolls. IG, this translates so that a character who decides to stop and make a focused Listen check may have a bit of a better chance at hearing something specific than a character who is constantly listening to everything that's going on. They may miss something. Except that with Sense Motive, any time you will pass a passive check, it's pretty darn obvious that the guy is probably lying anyway, so it's kinda moot. That makes pretty much everything an active focused Sense Motive check - like, hey, this guy might be lying to me, let me attempt to discern if that is so. Good bluffs are mostly not out and out lies - they are usually much more subtle and less easily detectable unless you're really trying to pick up cues from the speaker.
StevenO 09-19-07, 11:28 PM	If your players don't ask for a Spot Check when walking past something they may see what do you do? Sense Motive is a lot like Spot and Listen in that the players should get a "roll" to notice whatever even if they haven't specifically asked about it. Of course if you have their modifiers you could (should) perform the roll yourself or have them take 11 (this is slightly better than average but is fairer when the PC aren't asking for the randomness removal) to set the DC for the opposed check.
Jaxgaret 09-19-07, 11:47 PM	If your players don't ask for a Spot Check when walking past something they may see what do you do? I tell them to roll a Spot check. If an Invisible creature is Hiding in the corner, I'm not going to tell them to roll to Spot it, but if they make an active Spot check and beat the high DC (I would make it 20 + Hide check), they would become aware of it.
AnonymousInternets 09-20-07, 12:17 AM	I make players prompt for sense motive checks, and then roll the competitive bluff secretly. It's their job to question things.
Jaxgaret 09-20-07, 12:21 AM	I make players prompt for sense motive checks, and then roll the competitive bluff secretly. It's their job to question things. Pretty much how I run it too.
Finarin Panjoro 09-20-07, 10:08 AM	To me that slows the game down too much. I agree that it's their job to question things, but aside from the mechanics, PCs never have to believe anything. If they fail a sense motive check, but still think the story is dubious, they can disbelieve it of their own volition. Sense Motive just provides an additional resource for getting at the truth. In the end to really know whether something is true or not they'll have to investigate. If I don't give them a sense motive check when they are being bluffed and they don't have any reason to suspect it, then they will suspect it during every conversation that takes place. It's like putting a trap in a dungeon in an utterly random place such that players learn that they need to Search every square that they step in. It bogs the game down too much. That being said, Sense Motive makes more sense to me as a passive skill, as I said before, I actually pre-roll any bluff/sense motive checks that I know are coming. However if in the course of the conversation a player asked for a Sense Motive roll I would allow them to roll instead and use their result.
Puca 09-20-07, 11:57 AM	I agree with Nom: The BBEG was lying to the characters. The players failed their Sense Motive checks and believed him, but characters are often stronger, more nimble, healthier than the players. Some are also better at noticing when a lie is told to them. Requiring the players to ask for a check limits the wisdom and ability to sense motives to the level of the guy playing the character. (I guess I wont waste any points buying Wis.) I hope DMs dont limit strength or the ability to Tumble the same way. When someone lies to you, it either sounds true or seems like bs the second they say it, whether the player remembers to roll a check or not.
jaelis 09-20-07, 12:09 PM	I also do it like Nom. At the beginning of the session, I have everybody roll a Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive check, and record them. If the need for a check comes up, I use that score.
ravenshrike 09-20-07, 01:00 PM	Bluff does not make someone believe you, it just means that whatever you're telling the person seems to be completely honest and above board, with no deception whatsoever. At least, if they fail their checks. Most PC adventurers by the time they hit 5th level would be suffering from PTSD ranging from mild to extreme, and would all be slightly paranoid about what anybody important might be telling them. Sure the guy might seem to be telling the truth, but he also might be lying through his teeth. If anyone here has watched Farscape, specifically the episode where the crew lands on present-earth, you would understand where I'm coming from.
Jaxgaret 09-20-07, 03:10 PM	You can role-play a character however you like, but usually the stats reflect the way you're playing your character. If you were playing a gullible character, you should have a low Sense Motive check modifier. If you had a 30 Wisdom or had invested 12 ranks in Sense Motive, I would question your character's natural gullibility, no matter how much you wanted to play a gullible character. Gullibility should be reflected in your character's stats, and if it is, then your character will still be gullible even if the DM makes SM checks for you whenever an NPC is bluffing you. The opposite is also true: shrewdness should be reflected by a high Sense Motive check, and your character shouldn't be gullible if your Sense Motive check is high - even if the player is fooled by the DM's portrayal of an NPC. Even if the DM makes a great speech and is totally believable, if you've got a high Sense Motive check, your character should have a good chance of getting a funny feeling if the NPC is actually lying. Just as the player playing a fighter isn't expected to be able to physically pick up a greataxe and slaughter an opponent, the player who plays a shrewd character with a high Sense Motive check should not be required to call out the DM because he suspects a lie. Nor should a paranoid character have to declare that he's "sensing motives" whenever he's talking to an NPC - there's just no point. I acknowledge that there is a mix of role-playing and roll-playing here, and everyone has to find the depth that they're comfortable with. But requiring that PCs declare they're trying to figure out if someone is lying robs them of their character's natural abilities, and requires them to remember to do something that occurs as naturally as breathing in the real world. Intuiting someone's trustworthiness (in a visceral way) is just as reactive as spotting a distant bird or hearing a cry above the sound of the wind, and should be treated like Spot or Listen. A character can have a high Wisdom and a low Sense Motive, or a low Wisdom and a high Sense Motive. A character can also be completely paranoid and Sensing Motive on everything that moves, but is crap at discerning deceptions. Then there is the character who normally just accepts everything at face value, but if they really felt like it, they could tell in a moment whether or not someone is lying to them. You forget also that there are magic items that enhance skills - donning a Headband of Sense Motive +15 doesn't make your character any less likely to trust someone at their word. Basically, Sense Motive isn't magic - it isn't a continuously functioning spell. It's a skill that characters use. You don't make players choose when to roll passive Spot/Listen because they are not in the world - they can't see or hear what is going on. The difference with Sense Motive is that characters always pass passive Sense Motive checks - it's easy enough to tell that it's a lie without even focusing on the person talking. Stuff like "I am from the Elemental Plane of Fire!" and the guy is dripping water. It's a lie. If you believe the guy, no amount of Sense Motive is going to help you - you just are gullible and not Sensing Motive.
rironin 09-20-07, 03:42 PM	A character can have a high Wisdom and a low Sense Motive, or a low Wisdom and a high Sense Motive.Unless the character has significant penalties to his Sense Motive check, then a character with a high Wisdom (say, 30, in the example I used) can't have a low Sense Motive, at least not compared to an average human being. Such a character would have a +10 on his Sense Motive checks solely due to his high Wisdom. As for a character with low Wisdom and high Sense Motive, of course such a character is possible - the example I used was a character who had "invested 12 ranks in Sense Motive." Even with a low Wisdom, such a character would have a higher than average Sense Motive check modifier. In either case - the character with 30 Wisdom or the character with 12 ranks in Sense Motive - I'd ask the player who wanted to play someone that was "gullible" why or how they manage this, given the way they've built their character. I would ask similar questions of the 30 Strength barbarian who wanted to roleplay his character as "a scrawny weak guy."A character can also be completely paranoid and Sensing Motive on everything that moves, but is crap at discerning deceptions.Given the play style I use, in which most (if not all) Sense Motive checks are reactive rather than declared, a paranoid character would already be "Sensing Motive" on everything that moves just like every other creature in the game world. The player playing the paranoid character would be free to suspect everyone of deception. Even if his character made Sense Motive checks against deceiving NPCs, his compatriots would probably ignore him anyway, since he cries wolf so often.Then there is the character who normally just accepts everything at face value, but if they really felt like it, they could tell in a moment whether or not someone is lying to them.This sounds to me like a character who has the vision of a hawk... when he feels like it, but normally just sees everything kind of blurry and out of focus, because he just accepts everything fuzzy. In other words, I don't get it. If you really want to roleplay someone who frequently ignores the benefits of his skills, then that is a really weird exception; you could specifically tell me that you don't want to make any checks for a certain skill, and I'd be happy to not make them and not tell you what your character perceives - but in my experience, my players want their characters to exercise their skills and judgement as best they can; they don't want to have to remind me every encounter that their character is "really trying this time," and I'd rather not have to police them on this point. Keep in mind that the Sense Motive skill is about having a "hunch" - a feeling that something is amiss or that someone is not quite right. You're describing a character who is highly skilled at... having hunches... but who rarely choses to try to "get a hunch." And in your games, your players are forced to declare whether or not they are trying to have hunches. If they forget to try to have a hunch, no hunches for them! If this sounds silly, it's because it is. It makes sense that some people have more (or at least more accurate) "hunches" about others about others because they can read behavior, recognize telltale signs, and evaluate the situation better. But in general, people just have hunches, the same way they just spot far off objects or just hear sounds in the distance. They don't sit down at a desk and say, "Okay, time for some hunch brainstorming!"You forget also that there are magic items that enhance skills - donning a Headband of Sense Motive +15 doesn't make your character any less likely to trust someone at their word.I don't really understand what you mean. As far as I can tell, donning a headband that gives you a +15 on your Sense Motive check would significantly increase your chances of detecting falsehoods and deceptions; in my game, it would give you a natural sense of intuition and insight into other people's motivations and actions. Whether or not this would make them "any less likely to trust someone" depends on the person they're evaluating. If someone were trying to deceive a person with this headband on, they'd probably fail in their deception, and the wearer of the headband would indeed not trust them. Again, I don't know what that has to do with the discussion.Basically, Sense Motive isn't magic - it isn't a continuously functioning spell. It's a skill that characters use. You don't make character roll Spot/Listen because they are not in the world - they can't see or hear what is going on. They can hear exactly what a person is saying to them.First part, Sense Motive isn't magic, but there are many reactive skills like Spot and Listen. I've suggested that Sense Motive is similar, and a lot of people have agreed. No one thinks it is "a continuously functioning spell." I think we can all agree that Sense Motive is, in fact, "a skill that characters use." So in that we agree completely. Second part and Third part: huh? I have no idea what that means. It sounds like you're mixing references to characters in the game world, players in the real world, and who makes checks... but I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Puca 09-20-07, 03:44 PM	The difference with Sense Motive is that characters always pass passive Sense Motive checks - it's easy enough to tell that it's a lie without even focusing on the person talking. Stuff like "I am from the Elemental Plane of Fire!" and the guy is dripping water. It's a lie. If you believe the guy, no amount of Sense Motive is going to help you - you just are gullible and not Sensing Motive.That doesnt seem to be the way the skills are described though. The assumption that characters "always pass passive checks" is the assertion that "casual or ridiculous lies never succeed." And thats not true. Under the Bluff skill, they cover modifiers for bluffs that are "way out there, almost too incredible to consider." So obviously, you can tell atrocious lies and get away with it. D&D is a world where creatures from other planes show up. In addition, knowing that creatures from the plane of fire never get thirsty, the silly thing that makes this so obviously a lie, requires a knowledge check to even know (maybe a low one, but still.) I might not roll the bluff because it would take a natural –1 for any of the PCs to fail, but as soon as a 1 or better would, I need to offer (or make myself secretly) the check. In D&D, gulible is a negative wis mod and no ranks in Sense Motive.
rironin 09-20-07, 04:09 PM	You don't make players choose when to roll passive Spot/Listen because they are not in the world - they can't see or hear what is going on. The difference with Sense Motive is that characters always pass passive Sense Motive checks - it's easy enough to tell that it's a lie without even focusing on the person talking. Stuff like "I am from the Elemental Plane of Fire!" and the guy is dripping water. It's a lie. If you believe the guy, no amount of Sense Motive is going to help you - you just are gullible and not Sensing Motive.Ahhh, okay, you edited while I was replying. But I still don't get what you're actually saying here. One thing I do think we both experience, along with everyone else, is the slight disconnect when it comes to the DM playing NPCs. I know as a DM there have been plenty of times when I'm not fully prepared to portray an NPC exactly the way I want to, or when I'm having trouble deciding just how legitimate/ridiculous/obvious/crafty I ought to be in order to play a role and convey what needs to be conveyed to the PCs. I think that's one of the reasons Sense Motive is an important skill that should be used whenever it is needed, automatically. If my players have to rely on their own judgement to evaluate my flawed performance, there are two problems - one, my performance may not be very good. My portrayal of a perfectly honest character might come off as shady, and my portrayal of an obvious liar might seem like the next kindly noble who needs to hire PCs. In both those cases, I wouldn't want them to mistrust the first guy and I wouldn't want to trick them with the second guy, but that might be what happened. Two, my players are all pretty smart people - they're good at picking up a plot hook here and there, and I think we've all seen that look on our players' faces that says "This guy is so the BBEG in disguise." (even if you haven't given it away, with NPCs, it's pretty much 50/50 that a new character will be either a helpful friend or a hated adversary). But if those players are playing Krog the barbarian with Wisdom 6, and if they're good role-players, they'll accept that they don't see anything to worry about, while their cleric pal might not feel so at ease. And that is as it should be - even if the cleric player isn't paying quite so much attention and misses that something's up, that's when his cleric makes his Sense Motive check and I let him know that he's got a funny feeling...
Jaxgaret 09-20-07, 04:16 PM	Unless the character has significant penalties to his Sense Motive check, then a character with a high Wisdom (say, 30, in the example I used) can't have a low Sense Motive, at least not compared to an average human being. Such a character would have a +10 on his Sense Motive checks solely due to his high Wisdom. As for a character with low Wisdom and high Sense Motive, of course such a character is possible - the example I used was a character who had "invested 12 ranks in Sense Motive." Even with a low Wisdom, such a character would have a higher than average Sense Motive check modifier. In either case - the character with 30 Wisdom or the character with 12 ranks in Sense Motive - I'd ask the player who wanted to play someone that was "gullible" why or how they manage this, given the way they've built their character. I would ask similar questions of the 30 Strength barbarian who wanted to roleplay his character as "a scrawny weak guy." A character with a 20 Wisdom has a high Wisdom. That's only a +5 to Sense Motive, hardly a drop in the bucket compared to such things as +30 from Glibness. Given the play style I use, in which most (if not all) Sense Motive checks are reactive rather than declared, a paranoid character would already be "Sensing Motive" on everything that moves just like every other creature in the game world. The player playing the paranoid character would be free to suspect everyone of deception. Even if his character made Sense Motive checks against deceiving NPCs, his compatriots would probably ignore him anyway, since he cries wolf so often.This sounds to me like a character who has the vision of a hawk... when he feels like it, but normally just sees everything kind of blurry and out of focus, because he just accepts everything fuzzy. In other words, I don't get it. If you really want to roleplay someone who frequently ignores the benefits of his skills, then that is a really weird exception; you could specifically tell me that you don't want to make any checks for a certain skill, and I'd be happy to not make them and not tell you what your character perceives - but in my experience, my players want their characters to exercise their skills and judgement as best they can; they don't want to have to remind me every encounter that their character is "really trying this time," and I'd rather not have to police them on this point. The point is that I as the DM do not want to make roleplaying choices for my players - they choose when to Sense Motive or when not to. I cannot - repeat, cannot - do this for them. Keep in mind that the Sense Motive skill is about having a "hunch" - a feeling that something is amiss or that someone is not quite right. You're describing a character who is highly skilled at... having hunches... but who rarely choses to try to "get a hunch." And in your games, your players are forced to declare whether or not they are trying to have hunches. If they forget to try to have a hunch, no hunches for them! If this sounds silly, it's because it is. It makes sense that some people have more (or at least more accurate) "hunches" about others about others because they can read behavior, recognize telltale signs, and evaluate the situation better. But in general, people just have hunches, the same way they just spot far off objects or just hear sounds in the distance. They don't sit down at a desk and say, "Okay, time for some hunch brainstorming!" I don't really understand what you mean. As far as I can tell, donning a headband that gives you a +15 on your Sense Motive check would significantly increase your chances of detecting falsehoods and deceptions; in my game, it would give you a natural sense of intuition and insight into other people's motivations and actions. Whether or not this would make them "any less likely to trust someone" depends on the person they're evaluating. If someone were trying to deceive a person with this headband on, they'd probably fail in their deception, and the wearer of the headband would indeed not trust them. Again, I don't know what that has to do with the discussion. I would consider Sense Motive to be a trained skill. It's a *skill*, not magic, like i said. You train at it by learning how to tell when someone is lying - there are certain specific things that people do when they lie, certain patterns of speech. If you're not attempting to ascertain these things - in other words, if you are not trying to Sense Motive - you have to go by your "hunch", which is pretty much an OOG intuition/role-playing decision. First part, Sense Motive isn't magic, but there are many reactive skills like Spot and Listen. I've suggested that Sense Motive is similar, and a lot of people have agreed. No one thinks it is "a continuously functioning spell." I think we can all agree that Sense Motive is, in fact, "a skill that characters use." So in that we agree completely. Okay. Second part and Third part: huh? I have no idea what that means. It sounds like you're mixing references to characters in the game world, players in the real world, and who makes checks... but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Don't play dumb. You know what I meant - a character sees and hears what is going on in the game world, but the player does not, so it would make no sense to make players decide when their characters are making passive spot checks. Players don't choose when their character make passive Sense Motive checks either - only active SM checks. That doesnt seem to be the way the skills are described though. The assumption that characters "always pass passive checks" is the assertion that "casual or ridiculous lies never succeed." And thats not true. Under the Bluff skill, they cover modifiers for bluffs that are "way out there, almost too incredible to consider." So obviously, you can tell atrocious lies and get away with it. "Almost too incredible to consider" emphasis mine. It is too incredible to consider that a creature who is made of water is a native to the Elemental Plane of Fire. It's blatantly impossible. In D&D, gulible is a negative wis mod and no ranks in Sense Motive. I disagree. Gullible is a role-playing decision. A character with decent Wisdom and a couple of ranks in Sense Motive can still be gullible. I do agree that a character with 30+ Wisdom cannot be gullible - and I never made the opposite claim.
Puca 09-20-07, 04:39 PM	"Almost too incredible to consider" emphasis mine. It is too incredible to consider that a creature who is made of water is a native to the Elemental Plane of Fire. It's blatantly impossible. In your opinion, it is impossible. I would think it impossible that anyone with an IQ high enough to type their bank account number would be stupid enough to then send it to a guy who claimed to be a Nigerian prince. And yet, we live in that world. Some people are just dumb. I think Im of average intelligence but yes I have searched all though an equipment shed for a “sky hook.” Sometimes, you just blow it. Impossible to think a fire elemental would drink water? Half Orc with Int as a dump stat. Never underestimate just how stupid or gullible people can be. “I’m flying now,” said by a person obviously standing on solid ground might be considered “definitely too incredible to consider” but “I’m flying now and it only looks like the ground is solid because of a persistent illusion” could, no matter how unlikely, be true. It therefore requires a check, even if you dont go through the actual motions of rolling because you know the bluff cant beat the +1000 modifier to the Sense Motive, it was still a check.
rironin 09-20-07, 04:47 PM	A character with a 20 Wisdom has a high Wisdom. That's only a +5 to Sense Motive, hardly a drop in the bucket compared to such things as +30 from Glibness.Now you're splitting hairs. Gullible people are easier to fool than most. In D&D most people don't have Wisdom scores above 12. A Wisdom of 20, or of 30, or of 15 would make a character naturally better at detecting falsehoods than a substantial majority of the population - and the average commoner isn't gullible, they're average. Gullible is below average. I hardly see how a 20 Wisdom character is still gullible just because he can be fooled by a person using magic to enhance their ability to lie. A 20th level fighter can still miss with a swing of his sword (especially against magically enhance foes); that doesn't make him wildly inaccurate. By common people's standards, he's still quite good with a sword.The point is that I as the DM do not want to make roleplaying choices for my players - they choose when to Sense Motive or when not to. I cannot - repeat, cannot - do this for them.I don't want to make roleplaying choices for my players either. If one of them wanted to play someone who was gullible, I'm fine with that, but I'd ask them to figure out some explanation for it if they had an exceptional Wisdom, and I'd definitely ask for a good explanation if they had invested many ranks in Sense Motive, which is arguably a measure for how un-gullible a person is. As I said before, if someone asked me not to tell them when they were sensing something, I suppose I could just not tell them, but the vast majority of players want to use their skills to the fullest, and would therefore find that your style shortchanges them. To each his own, however.I would consider Sense Motive to be a trained skill. It's a *skill*, not magic, like i said. You train at it by learning how to tell when someone is lying - there are certain specific things that people do when they lie, certain patterns of speech. If you're not attempting to ascertain these things - in other words, if you are not trying to Sense Motive - you have to go by your "hunch", which is pretty much an OOG intuition/role-playing decision.I agree with you that Sense Motive is a skill you can train at. A real world example would be law enforcement agents and the like. D&D supports this interpretation. However, I should point out that when you use the Sense Motive skill, a successful result is a hunch. It's the name of that use of the skill. That's why I was using the word "hunch" so much in my argument. I think it's there to imply the way the skill is supposed to work.Don't play dumb. You know what I meant - a character sees and hears what is going on in the game world, but the player does not, so it would make no sense to make players decide when their characters are making passive spot checks. Players don't choose when their character make passive Sense Motive checks either - only active SM checks.Dude, I wasn't playing dumb. I invite others to read what I was responding to and make their own judgements about how obvious your point was. Players don't choose when they're characters make passive Spot and Listen checks because they're passive. It is assumed that they are looking around and listening to the world around them, and they therefore get an automatic chance to see or hear anything that they may potentially perceive. As pointed out above, it is assumed in my games that players are not only looking around and listening around, but also reacting viscerally to people they interact with. It is assumed that the characters in the game world are assessing nuances in the look, sound, and mannerisms of the NPCs they talk to, because my players want to play that way. If they didn't - if they declared that they were ignoring the NPCs, or blindfolding themselves, or stuffing cotton in their ears, then I'd refrain from making Sense Motive, Spot, and Listen checks respectively. In your games, the players don't see the look of the NPC because the NPC isn't there; they rely on the DM's description. The players don't hear the sound of the NPC's voice (they hear the DM's interpretation) and they don't detect the same nuances and mannerisms that the NPC is making because all the mannerisms that the NPC displays are happening in an imaginary fantasy world, unless you as a DM are flawlessly depicting all of this. Instead of letting the characters (who are actually in the same imaginary world as the NPC, seeing and hearing all of these things) use their own judgement (as represented by their Sense Motive check modifiers) to assess the situation, you force your players (who have wildly different Wisdom scores than their respective characters) to assess your portrayal of the NPC, which is being colored by a thousand different desires (the desire to trick the PCs, or to be obvious for the PCs, or to make sure the PCs do one thing or another) and then avoid metagaming and decide "Is this something my character would pick up on?" and then declare that they're trying to have a hunch so that they have a chance to find out. As I said before, you can do it however you like, but I think I'm sticking with my way :) Oh, one other thing - you never really addressed this part, but I honestly want to know. What happens when someone in your game constantly asks for Sense Motive rolls? I mean, all players get taken in by their DM once in a while. All PCs eventually start searching every door in the dungeon after they hit a trap. So, I would be surprised if you didn't wind up with players who constantly, constantly, constantly announced that they were Sensing Motives in every conversation. If so, doesn't that get annoying? Doesn't it start to sound redundant after a while? As a player, I would certainly hate to find out that I'd been hoodwinked because I forgot to say "oh and I'm trying to find out if he's lying now too."
elonin 09-20-07, 06:38 PM	It's easy to forget that the players rely on their dm to describe all aspects of the game world. Also, as a player who favors the rogue I feel like I have to nerf my own abilities in order to keep the game moving.
Quidam 09-20-07, 09:18 PM	The point is that I as the DM do not want to make roleplaying choices for my players - they choose when to Sense Motive or when not to. I cannot - repeat, cannot - do this for them. This is the point I think a lot of people are getting hung up on, but it seems to me that it's the NPC who is making the choice- by bluffing. And bluff is an opposed check- no volition required. Players can actively use sense motive for hunches, etc., but an opposed roll is by its very nature reactive.
Finarin Panjoro 09-21-07, 09:45 AM	The point is that I as the DM do not want to make roleplaying choices for my players - they choose when to Sense Motive or when not to. I cannot - repeat, cannot - do this for them. Do you require them to tell you that they want to make a saving throw against a spell they don't know is being cast upon them (say by an invisible or hidden caster)? Because that's what you're arguing here. How can a player know he's being lied too if you don't let him use the skill that lets him detect lies? This isn't a roleplaying issue. It's mechanical. The roleplaying is in deciding whether or not to believe the person regardless of what your Sense Motive result is and this is better accomplished if they don't know how well they rolled (if you roll for them or in advance and they don't even know that an opposed check took place). If they see that they rolled a 20 on Sense Motive they'll be pretty confident that they succeeded. Rolled a 1 and they'll have doubts. If you say "You can't tell whether he's being honest or not." because they failed the check OR because they're not being lied too then they can still choose not to believe him. That's where the roleplaying comes in. If you forced them to behave as though the believed the person on a failed check then that would be taking a roleplaying choice away from them.
Puca 09-21-07, 10:00 AM	Being aware of the world around you, noticing things, getting impressions, these are not things that are role-playable, nor are they conscious decisions on the characters part. You dont chose to notice that a shadow is irregularly shaped - you just see it. You dont chose to hear a squeaky floorboard - you just hear it. And you dont chose to see an eye twitch, or notice that the guy speaking to you looked away several times or observe that his hands clenched or glimpse the single bead of sweat at his hairline. I think part of this issue is that some people see it as "controlling what a character thinks." And thats to some degree controlling a character. If an NPC told my character some outrageous lie and the DM concluded with "and you believe him and do X as a result," well no, thats crap. No, the DM should have said, "and as outrageous as it seems, the guy comes off as very sincere." It doesnt mean I automatically trust him, or lose my ability to think, or follow him into a trap or do anything my character normally wouldnt do. It only means that based on what Ive seen and sensed, this guy seems to be on the level. It is a world where there are lammasu and there are spells that turn one creature into another. And we are in that world as adventurers who see the weirdest of the weird in that world. +20 to my Sense Motive, sure. Automatically disbelieve, no. Automatically believe because the player was a sucker and forgot to ask, oh, hell no.
1 ton ghost 09-21-07, 01:02 PM	ah, this is one of those nice grey area questions where a simple stats "yes/no" answer won't suffice. there are a million wasy to handle this, find what's best for your group, but i'd put it to a vote after hearing what the loyal opposition has to say. remember, be merciless in your convincing arguements as they will surely do the same... Sense Motive, so often overlooked, is terribly useful and poorly managed. point of order: shouldn't most Clerics get (class skill) it btw? i mean, many ministers and pastors take confession, do grief & marriage counseling, and basically are pseudo-teachers (you're lecturing life lessons from various holy texts, parables, etc.) and they need to gauge said religion's effectiveness from their parishoners and get a feel for where they're coming from, what's bothering them, etc. for example, martially speaking, Inquistions: how can you determine the validity of a confession or guilt w/out Zone of Truth? anyway, i digres, what works for me/my crew: i'll periodically call for a SM roll for all kinds of stuff; fencing loot (fair/unfair price vs. Appraise/Bluff cheat), possible Charm, etc. however, i secretly record their stats and roll privately to maintain integrity in high-drama situations, even going so far as to make bull$hit rolls...just so they don't know what the Hell i'm doing and force them to stay in character. that is, i'll call them on out-of-game crap when they are focusing on the clatter of my d20 and not the oration or RP. focus focus focus never ever forget to apply the oh-so-dubious circumstance modifier for almost all SM rolls. just cuz' it's not expressed in character gen stats, doesn't mean it's a far cry. ex)a dwarf should perhaps get a +1 or 2 vs. goblinoid's blatant attempt to lie, not just because PHB says "May prove harmful to PC". or country bumpkin might be "ignorant" of the big city type scenario...
STAT 09-21-07, 04:06 PM	Requiring PCs to declare their Sense Motives will also quickly lead to PCs announcing that they're using Sense Motive every time they talk to anyone in the world ever. That's what I'd do if I were a PC in a game like that. A real character would try to evaluate the people he's talking to in order to decide if he trusted them, even if they were saying something that sounded true. The only way to "role play" that mindset in your DM's world is to announce that you're Sensing Motives every time an NPC opens his/her mouth. That's what I'd do in a game where I had to actively use Sense Motive to detect a lie. And after about a half a session of it I'm sure you'd realize how horrendously annoying and time consuming it is. Which makes me wonder Jaxgaret do your players know this is how you're running sense motive and bluff? I agree with the people who said it's an opposed rolls and that opposed rolls cannot go unopposed.