Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DeathLock 10-23-07, 10:08 AM	Our game is running pretty smoothing, no problems exspect for one, sense motive checks. What happen was my players ran into some discussion with the enemy and asked a bunch of questions, after the fact when he finds he was bluffing was when sense motive checks went into question. So do I roll a sense motive check everytime someone says somthing dishonest? Questions asked in game follows. Q:"How do we get out of here" A:"the front door right out there, but its locked you'll need a key" -lie Q:"Why dont I kill you and take the key" A:"because once you do my legion of men will swarm you" -lie 1:"ok then, go unlock the door, but I swear if you try ANYTHING, ill kill you instanty" 2:"ok, I wont, just dont hurt me" -lie
BW0222 10-23-07, 10:59 AM	DeathLock, So do I roll a sense motive check everytime someone says somthing dishonest? Send motive is not a lie detector or a discern lies. However, you do get a roll each time someone attempts to bluff you. But... bluff already assumes interactions (questions) between you are your opponent which might expose his bluff. Each 'lie' is not a separate bluff check if it is part of the same bluff. In your case, the person appears to be bluffing his way towards getting to the doorway by convincing you that he is the only one able to open it. The individual lies are part of the same story and bluff attempt. I'd only give them one bluff attempt and one sense motive. As a more obvious example... suppose someone is entering a city and says they are a merchant from Greyhawk. The guard asks questions like "What do you sell?", "How is business?", "Which guild you belong to?", "What do you think of the new shipping tax out of Greyhawk?", etc. Each answer will of course be a lie, but it is part of the same "story" which the person is trying on the guard. Questions around the same general topic are part of the same bluff/sense motive. Now, if sense motive side is asking a lot of good questions -- then give them circumstance bonuses, or allow them to assist each other. Likewise, if the bluffer is telling a story harder and harder to believe then remember to adjust the sense motive up appropriately. In your example, the initial part of the conversation -- "The door is locked and only I have the key." -- is pretty believable. No adjustment. However, when he started talking about legions, I'd be adding the +10 or so modifier to the sense motive rolls since it pretty hard to believe.
DeathLock 10-23-07, 11:48 AM	awesome explination, thanks for your help.
LSMFT 10-23-07, 11:51 AM	I don’t know. There are three very separate lies there. And, each dishonest response affected the next question asked. I would have “rolled” Sense Motive three times. I agree with BW022 about “extended bluffs.” But I don’t see that as the case in the scenario the OP described. Three separate questions. Three separate responses. Three Bluffs opposed by 3 Sense Motives. I think this is different than passing yourself off as a merchant because at each lie, the PC had a chance to react differently, ask a different question or take another action, e.g. if he didn’t believe the response to question 2, he could have killed the guy and not asked question 3 at all. There are three different things the PC could believe: the status of the door, the presence of legions, and whether or not the guy is going along. You might believe and/or doubt any combination of the three.
Someone 10-23-07, 01:21 PM	Sense Motive checks are a representation of the PCs trying to determine if the NPC is telling the truth. Sometimes, the NPC could be telling the truth, and a Sense Motive check should still be rolled, if only to keep from tipping off the player that the NPC isn't lying. Other times, a PC could forfeit a Sense Motive check because they are naive, too trusting, etc. The tricky part is balancing the two, so that you aren't rolling for every response an NPC gives, nor cheating the player out of a check because they didn't ask for one.
BW0222 10-23-07, 05:03 PM	LSMFT I don’t know. There are three very separate lies there. And, each dishonest response affected the next question asked. Bluff already assumes interaction between PCs. That means it assumes that various questions will be asked. I think this is different than passing yourself off as a merchant because at each lie, the PC had a chance to react differently, ask a different question or take another action, e.g. if he didn’t believe the response to question 2, he could have killed the guy and not asked question 3 at all. Sorry. The guard and the 'merchant' is the same thing. He also asked multiple questions. The guard has a chance to react differently to each question. Each answer would allow the 'merchant' a greater chance to mess-up with an unbelievable answer. And if the guard didn't buy answer #2, he could have arrested, searched, or subjected to magic. There are three different things the PC could believe: the status of the door, the presence of legions, and whether or not the guy is going along. You might believe and/or doubt any combination of the three. And there are several things the guard would have to believe. That the person was a merchant. That the person sells X (maybe X isn't sold in the city). That the person belongs to X guild (or that he dodges the answer). And his reaction to the Greyhawk shipping tax (maybe there isn't one?) This is an issue with all social skills. The skill checks are supposed to represent how well the PCs/NPCs do at such skills. You don't just ignore the result of social skills rolls because the player wants to 'try again' or because they can roleplay better than their characters 'rolled'. The DM should give a circumstance bonus for the general approach which the folks are trying, ask for the rolls, and then expect players to roleplay the results of the rolls. In the guard example, if the guard gets a 9 on sense motive, then he obviously he isn't going a good job. He isn't asking many or terribly good questions. He isn't doing a terribly good job at uncovering the 'merchant'. The DM should roleplay him asking a couple of basic questions and maybe in a rush and trying to keep the line moving. Now, if the guard gets a 28 on sense motive, then he is doing a good job at uncovering the 'merchant'. He is asking questions he knows the answers to, he is asking questions based on false assumptions to trip up the merchant, etc. You should roleplay him grilling the 'merchant' and the 'merchant' should roleplay is bluff check -- either with stupid answers (low roll), reasonable answers (reasonable roll), or excellent answers (high roll). Or the DM should meta-game the entire conversation if he and/or the players aren't that great off roleplayers and can't (or won't) roleplayer the results. The skills of the players should have little effect on the skills of their PCs. Just because the player is great at polite conversation does not mean that Krog the Half-Orc barbarian didn't get a 6 on his diplomacy check. One the flip side, you don't expect players to be expert 'interrogators' if they PC rolled a 32 on a sense motive. The same goes with the PCs and the door fellow. The guy is trying one bluff check -- he is trying to convince the PCs that he is the only one able to use a key to open a certain door. The PCs are trying sense motive checks. The PCs skill at grilling the person with questions have nothing to do with the players skills. Their ability to sense obvious goof ups in the story should not have anything to do with their characters ability. The DM should either: * Ask the PCs for their 'general approach' and then give them a circumstance bonus (either way) depending on how good it is. Roll for the door guy and get the rolls for each of the PCs. Then expect everyone to roleplay appropriately. PCs rolling a 2 shouldn't be asking lots of pointed questions -- their PCs certainly weren't. PCs rolling high should be asking lots of pointed questions. And the DM should give silly answers if the bluff check was low and believable answers if the roll was high. or * The DM should meta-game the entire conversation. Tell players that they ask several questions but either fail but the person appears convinced that only he can use the key to open the door, or else that his sorry gets more and more unbelievable when certain PCs grill him with questions. If the guy rolled a good bluff check, then his answer shouldn't have been "the front door right out there, but its locked you'll need a key". It should have been something much better. One able to inticipate and prevent obvious follow-up questions -- perhaps something more like "The door over there, but it contains a nasty trap, so I'll need to open it. You better hurry, they'll be sending reinforcements soon." P.S. I'd also argue that question #2 was an intimidate check.
Killydd 10-23-07, 05:07 PM	from the SRD: A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell. Note that bluff is not the "lie" skill. It is also the skill you use to influence someone's actions without affecting their relationship with you. (Hm, does that mean that it should be the skill used for bartering rather than diplomacy?) Given this, I'd say that one interaction like your example is unlikely to warrant multiple checks, especially as the likelihood for failure skyrockets. Note also that Sense Motive normally requires at least one minute to use, so a short interaction/series of questions should provoke only one Sense Motive check.
LSMFT 10-24-07, 11:28 AM	Bluff already assumes interaction between PCs. That means it assumes that various questions will be asked.Does it? Here's the problem as I see it. In the OPs scenario, if you make one Bluff check countered by one Sense Motive check, the result will be that I either believe everything he said, or disbelieve every thing he said. Does that seem right to you? Should it not be possible to believe some of what he said and not other parts? I think so. If you agree, then what mechanic is used? Doesn't it have to be separate Bluff checks?
BW0222 10-24-07, 09:17 PM	LSMFT Here's the problem as I see it. In the OPs scenario, if you make one Bluff check countered by one Sense Motive check, the result will be that I either believe everything he said, or disbelieve every thing he said. Does that seem right to you? Yes. If he really got a good bluff his entire story would be consistant. He wouldn't be saying stuff like there is a legion behind me. He'd come up with a believable story. Likewise, if you rolled a low sense motive, your PC didn't do a good job at grilling and cornering him with questions. It is like asking someone to make a diplomacy check and then when the fail, they try roleplaying talking and ask for another diplomacy check. Or failing to a search check and then roleplaying how you would search in hopes of gaining another. IMO, you either put the dice aside and let the players decide on the truth based solely on their roleplaying, or you roll dice and ask them to roleplay how well their PCs actually did. Don't allow one to be used when the other fails. Should it not be possible to believe some of what he said and not other parts? I think so. If you agree, then what mechanic is used? Doesn't it have to be separate Bluff checks? No. You could just roleplay the overall result. You can give varying degrees of success based off... the results of the roll. Examples: Bluff rolls a 24, highest sense motive is a 12. (The guy has a good story and no one challenges him well.) He says that the only way out is through a door which is locked and trapped. You ask a few questions, but he asures you that the use of the key is pretty complex and he isn't willing to explain it to you because it might get him killed also. Bluff rolls a 24, highest sense motive is a 27. (A good story, but an exceptional cornering him.) He says that the only way out is through a door which is locked and trapped. You ask a few questions, but he asures you that the use of the key is pretty complex and he isn't willing to explain it to you because it might get him killed also. However, Grogan asks a lot of specific questions and wanted to see the key and the guy refused to even let you see it. He is pretty sure that something is up. Buff rolls an 11, highest sense motive is a 27. (Poor story, but great questioning) He says that the only way out is through a door which is locked and only he has the key. His story falls apart as soon as Grogan starts with the focused questions with him giving some talk of a legion of folks being why you can't take the key from him. It doesn't makes sense to most of you. Grogan even notices that the guy eyeing the door and suspects that he is trying to make a dash for it. You can base results off the difference, how many PCs success in detecting the bluff, etc. IMO, if you want the dice to determine the outcome... let them and roleplay the outcome. If you roll a 2 on a spot check, don't say that you were climbing a tree, looking for motion, carefully scanning back and forth, etc. Make snoring sounds instead. If you didn't made a low sense motive, don't roleplay asking lots of pointed questions. Likewise, if you roll high, roleplay grilling him.
ScipioX 10-25-07, 01:25 AM	Sense motive isn't a lie detector. It should just let you know that something is off. So if the PC makes the check, the DM should suggest that the speaker seems evasive or nervous. Thus the PC's in the door guard example would know that the guard was lying about some parts, but not know which exactly. Treating it as a check for each lie means that a guy with a good sense motive score can just play 20 questions and figure out everything.
LSMFT 10-25-07, 10:27 AM	Yes. If he really got a good bluff his entire story would be consistant.But there aren’t any consistency issues here. Any one of the three or four lies in that scenario could be false without there being any credibility issues. I mean, this isn’t one big extended lie. It is several separate lies. Let me put it this way. As a DM, your PC asked the question: “How do we get out of here" And the NPC replied: "the front door right out there, but its locked you'll need a key" Now, this was a lie. Did you roll a Bluff check? If not, why not? I think you have to. The next question or action the PC takes hinges on his assessment of that response, does it not? We know the second question, because the OP gave us the whole scenario. But if this were happening in a real game, we wouldn’t. There was a question followed by a Bluff. Don’t you need to roll the checks at this point? Sense motive isn't a lie detector. It should just let you know that something is off. A successful check lets you avoid being bluffed.The question is, taken in isolation and not assuming any other actions or statements which have yet to be made, is “[You get out through] the front door right out there, but its locked you'll need a key” a Bluff according to the rules of the game?
DeathLock 10-25-07, 11:25 AM	Wow what a conversational peice I started, thanks for all your replys, the different points of view help me make my own judgement for the best way to work for me. I wanted to respond to some of the basics. First I didnt realy know it was leading to bluffing, I thought my bro was going to leave the guy alone but he just started poking him with a stick while he was sleeping.. So I more forgot to roll the checks, the player naturally intarigated very well though, and still sensed somthing was up (hense he had a cross bow to his head as he followed him to unlock the door). Also when I deal with the bluff/sense motive checks its more after the fact. So I understand what you mean by roleplay your roll but we usually roleplay first then roll to see if he senses the disception. It does seem like it can be turned into a lie detector though. And your also right with more checks leads to failure. I was thinking about somthing too, if someones lieing to you, how do you know when their telling the truth (besides rolling for it)? I mean lets say someones bluffed you once or a few times, once it comes to them telling the truth how is the player spose to know hes not lieing (other then 'not' rolling for a bluff check). Anyway I thought I would throw my 2 cents in there for you guys. Later :) (btw this was only the begining of the bluff maddness, the invisible dagger player could probably pretty soon bluff someone into thinking their dead..) I have a quick question also. 10 fighter / 1 exotic weapon master If I use the spiked chain (+2 to trip attempts) and I get the Improved Trip Feat (+4 to trip attempts) then I also get Trip Attack Special ability from the exotic weapon master which gives a (+2 to trip attempts), would all these skill increasers stack for a (+8)?
BW0222 10-25-07, 12:15 PM	LSMFT, Let me put it this way. As a DM, your PC asked the question: “How do we get out of here" And the NPC replied: "the front door right out there, but its locked you'll need a key" Now, this was a lie. Did you roll a Bluff check? If not, why not? You roll the bluff check before the NPC answers (or likely before the question was even asked). The DM then roleplays the entire story. "The skill encompasses acting, conning, fast talking, misdirection, prevarication, and misleading body language." A simple answer is not a bluff check. If he rolls high, then it isn't going to just answer. He is going to lay out a complete, well crafted, story. Follow-up questions fall under fast talking. He is going to anticipate obvious follow-up questions and craft his answers such that he isn't grilled or that his future answers are consistant. Try something like: "Well, the only way out is that door." He appears to be looking at it nervously. "I know how to open it, but there is a deadly trap on it. It is pretty complex. Look I don't want to be killed, so I'll try opening it, but if I fail you have to promise to heal me." That is a good bluff check. Pretty hard to come up with questions to break it. The original answer was an example of a pretty low bluff check... one which the PCs should find their way around with just about any sense motive. However, if they didn't roll well enough then obviously their characters never bothered to ask simple follow-up questions. Bluff is not merely lying. Prevarication (lying) is only a part of bluff. It involves the complete bluff -- conning, acting, body language, deception, misleading, etc. The bluff is getting to the doorway. Lying is merely part of it. You don't get separate sense motives if he acts in different manors, misleads folks in different ways, looks nervously at the door and acts scared when PCs ask for the key, etc. Why? Because they are part of the bluff check. Same as prevarication (lying) is part of the same bluff check -- even if you tell five or six lies. Same as you act two or three different ways to confuse someone, or use different types of body language to appear anxious and worried about something behind you to mislead someone.
FiniteLoop 10-25-07, 12:51 PM	Two thoughts here. One, what you really need is a mechanic for a bluff/sense motive conversation. It certainly seems fair that if you ask multiple questions and get multiple answers, you can roll a sense motive vs bluff for each one because it matters what your character believes as you go along. But as someone posted already, you can just keep asking questions and if they are lying then eventually it will be detected. What if there was a cumulative +2 (or +3, or +5, whatever) bonus to Bluff checks for each successful bluff check in a conversation? So as you go along through a conversation if you believe the guy a couple times, it might predispose your characters to believing the rest of the conversation. The other thought is that as a DM you really, really should be rolling those checks for your characters in secret. It's really hard for a player to roll a 1 on a sense motive and believe the guy when the player is already going to be predisposed to not trust ANY NPC at all anyway :).
LSMFT 10-25-07, 01:05 PM	You roll the bluff check before the NPC answers (or likely before the question was even asked). The DM then roleplays the entire story.Really? Don’t the responses to specific questions and the reactions to those responses shape the later questions? What you are suggesting sounds very scripted to me. Try something like: "Well, the only way out is that door." He appears to be looking at it nervously. "I know how to open it, but there is a deadly trap on it. It is pretty complex. Look I don't want to be killed, so I'll try opening it, but if I fail you have to promise to heal me."Well, what if, at this point, the PCs decided to ask something like “What’s behind the door? Why is it so well protected?”* Would you use the same bluff/sense motive checks as before? *(I know that doesn’t work perfectly for your scenario, as “out” is what is behind the door. But it clearly, is a legitimate questions regarding other doors.) Bluff is not merely lying. Prevarication (lying) is only a part of bluff.Ok, imagine a scenario with no follow-up questions or further interaction. One simple question and one simple dishonest response. Isn’t that still a case for a Bluff/Sense Motive check?
LSMFT 10-25-07, 01:21 PM	It certainly seems fair that if you ask multiple questions and get multiple answers, you can roll a sense motive vs bluff for each one because it matters what your character believes as you go along. But as someone posted already, you can just keep asking questions and if they are lying then eventually it will be detected. See, I think that, while you can use Sense Motive to get a hunch about someone's overall level of honesty, when you are dealing with multiple lies any one of which can be believed or disbelieved independently of the others, and when which ones you believe/disbelieve matter, you have to make separate checks. It's the only way? What BW022 seems to be suggesting is that you roll first, and decide if you are going to be believed or disbelieved, and then either tell really good lies or really bad ones based on the result in an "all or nothing" type of situation. I don't like all or nothing, and I can't predict what my PCs are going to do or how they are going to react to specific things. The other thought is that as a DM you really, really should be rolling those checks for your characters in secret. It's really hard for a player to roll a 1 on a sense motive and believe the guy when the player is already going to be predisposed to not trust ANY NPC at all anyway :).For my part at least, the word "roll" is just a convention. I use when I DM a system of pre-rolled secret rolls. Each PC rolls ten, fifteen rolls and writes them down on their card. I use them in order and apply the appropriate modifier when a secret roll is necessary, e.g. the spot mod when someone's hiding, the sense mot when someone lies. I have my own list as well, so I don't have to roll either. I've seen other DMs use other methods, but I prefer this.
Chibichibiko 10-25-07, 01:38 PM	The way I've always played bluff/sense is this: At any time, players can roll sense motive, declaring what they're trying to sense. Example: "Sense motive to see if these humans enjoy the torture they're talking about or simply conduct it because it's their job." It wouldn't be a clear lie in either case, because the humans in question did, in fact, conduct torture. However, the sense motive would come into play regarding whether they wanted to torture, which opens a whole new can of worms for the party. In my games, players are seldom told to roll sense motive (if ever). The only times I require it are when they lie to each other. I find it too difficult to avoid the metagaming that comes along with a failed sense motive with my players, so I make them choose when they roll it. Typically, they are conservative with sense motive, because the majority of conversations are not bold-faced lies.