So I have a problem with an assumption you've made.
That Sense Motive is always active and never reactionary. To me Sense Motive is like Perception. You can actively investigate something, but you also automatically get chances to notice things.
When someone lies to you you should get an automatic Sense Motive.
Now, it does appear trying to get a "hunch" about someone does take a minute, but I also feel like that more means it takes an minute of interaction not a minute of actions to get a hunch about them. Which again makes me think it's reactionary. By being around someone, they can give you the creeps.
I mean, that's normally how it works in life isn't it? You hang around someone, and within a few minutes you've already formulated an opinion about how trustworthy they think you are. You might be wrong, you might be wrong. But you're doing it.
Now, this can cause a bit of a problem, but those problems are mostly alleviated if the GM makes the rolls in secret by knowing the player character's sense motive skill modifiers.
Now, this can cause a bit of a problem, but those problems are mostly alleviated if the GM makes the rolls in secret by knowing the player character's sense motive skill modifiers.
Yeah, this is what I do. It's not going to work for every group though; some players will get really angry if you try and 'take away control' from them and insist on rolling sense motive themselves... every single time anyone says anything ever.
...Though I find the players who dislike the GM rolling sense motive for them are usually the ones who use it to metagame, distrusting NPCs they have no reason to distrust simply because they rolled low on sense motive and worry they might have missed something.
Now, this can cause a bit of a problem, but those problems are mostly alleviated if the GM makes the rolls in secret by knowing the player character's sense motive skill modifiers.Yeah, this is what I do. It's not going to work for every group though; some players will get really angry if you try and 'take away control' from them and insist on rolling sense motive themselves... every single time anyone says anything ever.
Eh, it's not every single time though. If the player calls that they want to roll it, then let them roll and use their roll (instead of yours if you already rolled). The idea here (for me) is that you as the GM know when the NPC is bluffing or acting suspicious, but your players might not catch it. But their characters might, and that's the whole purpose of them having the Sense Motive skill in the first place.
...Though I find the players who dislike the GM rolling sense motive for them are usually the ones who use it to metagame, distrusting NPCs they have no reason to distrust simply because they rolled low on sense motive and worry they might have missed something.
Metagamers gonna metagame. If you notice a player doing that, it's a problem outside of the skill interaction of Bluff/Sense Motive. It's a problem with the player. If someone fails to make the check, and they start acting in a suspicious manner call them out for being meta and having no reason to be suspicious.
At the same time this doesn't mean they have to be super trusting and accept the invitation into someplace they don't know, a bit of suspicion is expected from murder hobos. But, if they want to do secret investigations on everyone they roll a low Sense Motive on throw in lots of NPCs, make them roll sense motive, and when the roll low let them follow the red herring to nothing.
I could put a note in the GM section about rolling in secret, or assuming players are taking 10 on a more or less constant basis.
That's actually what I do. At least for perception checks that are made passively (perception checks the players don't ask for) I use take 10 for their characters to "passively" notice things. If its something big I will give them a chance to roll, but usually for things that might give meta-knowledge I roll for them secretly so I don't give things away.
There's no reason you couldn't do that with Sense Motive too.
Passive skill checks like Perception and Sense Motive are one area where I struggle to get a satisfying result in my GMing.
I like to play an absolutely straight and open game where the players' choices, my choices and the dice roll all play a part in letting the events unfold. Metagaming detracts from this experience, but the players cannot help but metagame if they are asked to make a skill check or see me making secret rolls - they know something is up even if they do not know exactly what and become ultra-cautious. I also find it hard not to metagame as a GM if I know what their Take 10 score will mean success or failure for my intended course of action. I've tried printing sheets of random rolls, which I cross off as I use them but I still know what the next roll is going to be and that effects my decision making. I've also had players rolling at random or even every round but this just slows gameplay.
No answers I'm afraid, just interested to see how others handle it.
There are many ways you could go about.
As a player I almost always take 10 (when I can) after the first few levels because doing average is usually successful while rolling low might fail.
Passive skill checks like Perception and Sense Motive are one area where I struggle to get a satisfying result in my GMing.
...
No answers I'm afraid, just interested to see how others handle it.
Sometimes have the character roll 20 times and note the raw rolls on a card. If you have a problem forgetting the next number on the card, use a second card to conceal the rolls until you get there.
Another way to do it is pre-roll the NPC values and then ask before they get to the area for a series of rolls. Record them down the line and apply them as things come up. This is similar to each PC recording rolls on a card, but you line everyone's rolls up on a single sheet.
In the end, I think you need to train yourself to forget some stuff as GM. It isn't that much different than having one NPC not knowing something that just happened to a different NPC.
|
I personally favor an approach where the GM rolls in secret, even when the players aren't asking for it, because their characters might notice something weird although you as a GM may have the players fooled.
However, I won't tell the players when I'm rolling for them. So if they're suspicious and asking to check, they can trigger a roll. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it isn't. Usually I let them roll in the open, but I'm thinking it would be better to just ask them for the modifier, roll in secret, and then tell them something about the outcome. Because I don't like it when a player rolls very low or high and already has his mind made up about whether he's going to believe the result of the roll. If a player rolls 19 he's going to believe whatever I tell him he got with SM, if he rolled a 3 he'll just ignore it. If I roll for him in secret he'll have to live with "your PC feels he's probably speaking the truth/there's something direly wrong here".
Party paranoia wise, this works best when you have a listing of all the skill ratings of important 'behind the screen' rolls you'll have to make and just roll without telling them what skill check you're using.
Or ask "Hey what's your perception rating?" and then roll, even though you don't have anything you're really needing it for. So even if they freak out at 'take 10' you can still go, "Nothing of note" cause there wasn't anything in the first place.
For sense motive and lying, I tried to remember that just because someone doesn't want to talk to you, doesn't mean they have to lie to you. "I don't want to tell you, go fark yourself" can be a legitimate response.
Or people lying without knowing they're lying.
Or omitting things.
The problem boils down to the players' only interaction with the game world is through the description given to them by the GM. A common scenario is the party meets an NPC and engages in conversation. Is the NPC telling the truth or lying?
Option 1: The NPC is telling the truth, do you do sense motive checks? Yes/No/Only if the players ask.
Option 2: The NPC is lying, do you do sense motive checks? Yes/No/Only is the players ask.
If the answer to the two options is different then you are not being consistent as a GM and will arouse player suspicion that something is up regardless of what the skill check says. If the answer is Yes to both then the game is being slowed down. If the answer is No or only if the players ask then you are breaching the inherent trust between the GM and the players; you are requiring the players (not the characters) to determine whether you are lying to them and they have no frame of reference as they rely on you for all the information about the game world. If you check in advance then you will find it very difficult to roleplay the interaction. The players might not ask any questions that generate a lie even if you've determined that they detect a lie. Just as likely, your response to the questions will be affected by the fore knowledge that lies will or won't be found out.
The problem boils down to the players' only interaction with the game world is through the description given to them by the GM. A common scenario is the party meets an NPC and engages in conversation. Is the NPC telling the truth or lying?
Option 1: The NPC is telling the truth, do you do sense motive checks? Yes/No/Only if the players ask.
Option 2: The NPC is lying, do you do sense motive checks? Yes/No/Only is the players ask.If the answer to the two options is different then you are not being consistent as a GM and will arouse player suspicion that something is up regardless of what the skill check says. If the answer is Yes to both then the game is being slowed down. If the answer is No or only if the players ask then you are breaching the inherent trust between the GM and the players; you are requiring the players (not the characters) to determine whether you are lying to them and they have no frame of reference as they rely on you for all the information about the game world. If you check in advance then you will find it very difficult to roleplay the interaction. The players might not ask any questions that generate a lie even if you've determined that they detect a lie. Just as likely, your response to the questions will be affected by the fore knowledge that lies will or won't be found out.
So no matter but I do, whatever I chose means I'm a bad GM?
In either case I'm going to say:
Option 1: Only if they ask
Option 2: Yes and if they ask.
I think I'm being consistent:
If the NPC is telling the truth it doesn't matter if I roll a 1 or a 20, also it doesn't matter if they roll with a -100 or a +100. The answer allways going to be; you believe him.
If the NPC is lying, they deserve an option to catch it, hence the roll. If the player rolls bad then "you believe him", if the player beats the Bluff check "you don't believe him" (that last part is harder to adjudicate when the lie is much more extense than a mere Yes/No or when part of they say is truth and part lie, or even worse, they're telling the truth but hiding information).
Next point, I let the players roll if they wish. Why I should deny them to roll to see if someone is lying them. for me it's the same as letting them roll to search for traps in a trapless room. No matter what they roll, the result will be the same, but they`ll have more fun if they're allowed to do what they want. (Also this can be used to make the players paranoid about their surroing if this fits the game mood).
The "problem" for me will be not letting them twice for a given situation, one done by me in secret and one done by the player. But this can be solved talking with the players and searching a common ground.
|
Sense Motive is one of those really interesting skills that has a few listed mechanics but applies in a really wide range of situations and playing out a roll can range from easy to very complicated. Having played a character with a massive Sense Motive bonus in PFS (allowing me to see a lot of GMs deal with it) I find that how a successful check is handled can range wildly. For charm effects I would get things from "Something is off about this person" to a straight confirmation that they're being controlled via magic. Alternatively, I would get a similar vague response, "This person seems hesitant/like they are lying" to a detailed description of what's going on. I also found that GMs would sometimes give me a LOT due to the massive amount by which I'd bypass the DC (at level 13, I currently have a +35. Gogo Snake Style shenanigans).
I would love consistency on what these checks are supposed to provide, but I understand that it depends not only on situation, but also on the GM. I also found more than a few GMs who had no idea all of what you could do with the skill. Thank's for the guide! I hope folks read it and spend more time working on how a well timed sense motive check could impact a situation, and how to deal with them.