It should be reactive. The DM is the Players only portal into the game world that exists largely in his own mind. Players aren't mind readers, so you should have some way to get reactive sense motives.
The best way i've found to do this is to ask the player to roll a d20, don't ask them what for, and look at their character sheet. You can go a step further and if the NPC is successful at lying to the character you as the DM lie to the player: give then an irrelevant detail off of their knowledge nature roll or a perception check to notice that their fingernails are dirty.
Most times i roll dices for skills like sense motive, perception, stealth etc hidden behind my GM screen. Additionall i roll dices hidden without reason.
Ok my players hear me rolling but they dont know if i am kidding or launching an ambush.
Hi there.
When I roll, I also do this behind the screen, normally just for the main person interacting with the NPC. In addition, though, I often simply tell someone who has a high Sense Motive (Vs someone with a lousy bluff) that "Something about this guy does not ring true... he seems to be uncomfortable or nervous about something".
All in all, I think it is a preference on playing style... I prefer to play fast and loose with skills when I am behind the screen, taking a judgement on how skilled is someone, Vs what they are trying to do. That said, if a player specifcally ASKS to role Sense Motive, then I go by the rules.
Hope that helps a little...
Aiddat
|
Like BigNorseWolf, I tell the players to roll, but not what for. I always have copies of all the sheets or at least these 'secret roll' issues. However, even that isn't always enough.
For example, if everyone who rolled 15 or higher thinks the person is lying, while the guy who rolled 1 thinks they are telling the truth then the players can use this meta-game information about the dice roll results to figure out that the person is lying.
Thus, in situations like that I offset each player's roll by an amount I roll secretly (i.e. actual result = if[player roll + my roll) > 20, player roll + my roll - 20, player roll + my roll]) so they won't know whether they've done well or poorly. At that point their only guide is what the people who are GOOD at Sense Motive think... which is exactly how they should be judging it.
Similarly, if they are searching an area and there is nothing to find I might just let them roll normally to move things along... or sometimes I'll roll a die just so they won't know whether there is anything to find or not.
Ditto for when NPCs need to roll to Bluff or sneak up on them... I'll just randomly roll a die for no reason every so often, and then sometimes ask the players to do so also. Thus they never know what a die roll means. 'Is this peasant lying to us? Is an assassin sneaking up behind us? Is the GM just messing with us again?'
The only way to prevent die rolling from 'giving away information' is to roll dice when it doesn't mean anything.
i just roll for them, if they ask me for a sense motive i give them a +2 bonus for paying careful attention during the conversation if there is something fish going on.
Rolling sense motive is relatively simple and is in itself quite metagamey but if someone is being especially paranoid or vigilant then they should be rewarded for it. I also make perception tests for my players when they would interact with something that they do not know is there, then if they later actively hunt for it i let them reroll, for example walking into a room with an invisibile creature then twigging something is wrong and actively trying to find the creature. I have been known to make the odd save for my PC's as well, normally only willpower and only for mind control or illusion effects which they would not know about if they failed, one of my favourite lines is "something just assaulted your mind" to a player who passed an unknown willpower save.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is what I don't get about some GMs, do you not trust your players?
IMO it has nothing to do with trust and everything to do with atmosphere and fun. Which is the more compelling scenario;
1: You rolled a 20, so you and everyone else in the party KNOW that the person you are talking to is really the Evil Badguy in Disguise (tm), but since everyone else in the party failed their rolls you all play along as if it is uncertain for now.
2: You really don't know whether the person you are talking to is the Evil Badguy in Disguise (tm) or just what they appear to be. Your instincts tell you they are lying, but everyone else in the group thinks they are telling the truth. You don't have enough to act on so you remain hyper vigilant for any clue(s) that might make it clearer.
Sure, you can 'trust' the players to pretend they don't know things, but that's robbing them of the experience of actually not knowing.
The best solution (I think) is for the DM to roll it secretly when the situation arises. Yes, it requires you to figure a way to roll without giving away what you're doing, and even still can turn into meta game reasons for players to suspect something is up. But the general stuff that Sense motive covers happens reactively (and often instinctively) and without conscious thought on the part of the observer (generally, anyway).
I think that if your party is trying to get info out of a captured enemy they should have to roll it on their own because if you aren't expecting a goblin, devil, demon or anything evil t be lying to you than you deserve to be fooled however if they are talking to lets say the captain of the guard than they would have to be told to roll a sense motive because you otherwise have no reason to assume the captain is lying to you however you should do it as it was said above where you have them roll and give them useless info if they fail. How I've heard of and thought of keeping track of skills is have your player's skills written down on an index card so you can add the skill to the check. however if you don't do sense motive and other checks all that often it might not be worth the time to writ down the info so I would just grab the person's character sheet.
What I do, is sometimes call for sense motive when the NPC is not lying. I also have honest NPCs do suspicious things sometimes. I reduce the value of meta-gaming by reducing its effectiveness.
To those of you who are basically saying to keep it secret, do random stuff to reduce metagaming, etc, am I correct to assume that you throw out the bath water with the baby just because succeeds on a sense motive check? It's how it sounds to me. You don't have to reveal the truth of the matter. All you have to reveal is that *they* (the character making the roll) does or doesn't trust another character as that's all the skills says it does. It's no different than telling someone they feel ill. They don't know the poison name automatically, they don't know specifically how it's impacting their body and have zero concept of the saves necessary to stop feeling bad. They just know they don't feel well. Likewise, someone should just *know* if they don't trust someone either by instinct or choice.
I guess I was answering more from a player perspective.
When I'm rolling around in town or whatever (as a player), and I run across a situation where I'm being lied to (but don't necessarily anticipate being lied to), I'd much prefer the DM just roll the dice for me in secret and pass me a note that says "something about what he's saying strikes you as odd/false/misleading/whatever".
That seems to make the game come to life more fo rme. If I don't think that the DM is doing that, then I have to constantly (as in every social situation i find myself in) be thinking to myself "shoudl i be rolling sense motives here on the off-chance this random dude is lying to me?"
: shrugs :
Maybe that's just me.
|
|
Yes when the players actually pick up the hint it can be great. I don't know how many times I have made the hints as obvious as possible at least to myself, and even with redundant hints, the players totally miss out on it. Later on complaining that I robbed them of their skills.
Um, actually I didn't say anything about requiring the players to 'pick up the hint' rather than allowing skill rolls. In fact, I allow both. If someone is a bad liar I try to RP them as a bad liar, but the players can always roll to see what their character reactions are too. No 'nerfbat to skills'.
am I correct to assume that you throw out the bath water with the baby just because succeeds on a sense motive check?
Ironically, this seems to be the opposite of Gignere's concern, but nope not accurate either.
Really, this isn't a difficult concept. Play the game exactly as you do now... just disguise the purpose and results of rolls to 'preserve the illusion of reality' / 'not break the fourth wall' / 'avoid out of character knowledge'. You know, the reason we have this thing called 'role playing'?
This is what I don't get about some GMs, do you not trust your players?
Of course I do, but they're still human. Telling someone to ignore the fact that they just flubbed a Sense Motive is about as useful as "The jury will disregard that last statement." Or you can just fiddle with some dice, glance at a reference sheet, and tell them only what their characters know, thus preventing them from having to pretend they don't know something that they do.
|
|
Telling someone to ignore the fact that they just flubbed a Sense Motive is about as useful as "The jury will disregard that last statement." Or you can just fiddle with some dice, glance at a reference sheet, and tell them only what their characters know, thus preventing them from having to pretend they don't know something that they do.
Exactly... and then if they 'figure it out in character' you have essentially robbed them of the accomplishment because they can't tell whether they really solved the issue on their own or were only able to do so because they knew the answer 'out of character' all along. Blech. 'Mystery', people. Surprise. Uncertainty. These are all good things.
I guess I was answering more from a player perspective.
When I'm rolling around in town or whatever (as a player), and I run across a situation where I'm being lied to (but don't necessarily anticipate being lied to), I'd much prefer the DM just roll the dice for me in secret and pass me a note that says "something about what he's saying strikes you as odd/false/misleading/whatever".
That seems to make the game come to life more fo rme. If I don't think that the DM is doing that, then I have to constantly (as in every social situation i find myself in) be thinking to myself "shoudl i be rolling sense motives here on the off-chance this random dude is lying to me?"
: shrugs :
Maybe that's just me.
How would you handle take 10 on Sense Motive? Have it be a sort of mode the PC declares themselves in? "Until further notice, I shall take 10 on all Sense Motive checks."
This is what I don't get about some GMs, do you not trust your players?
you say this as if "trust" is an absolute. I trust my players the same way I trust any individual. After getting to know them, there are some things that I trust them with and there are other things that I do not. And even in that case it depends entirely on the player in question. I have two players at my table that I could definitely trust NOT to meta game even though they (as players) may have information that their characters do not.
There is one player I really dont think I could trust not to metagame at all. The other two could go either way I think.
As a default there are rolls that I'm simply going to make in secret and give the player an interpretation of the outcome either through verbal queues or via paper note or text. What the player then decides to do with what I've given him or her is up to them.
I like to be upfront when and where skill rolls are involved. Because how else can they role-play. You need to trust your players as mature and even if a bit metagamy, so what.
I could turn that around and ask you : If the entire exchange is based on a simple skill role where is the role playing in that? As opposed to the players not being 100% certain that they succeeded (or failed) in the skill roll and them acting accordingly?
The subject of metagaming isnt an issue for you. Great. But your table isn't my table. Your players are not my players. and your gaming style obviously isn't my own. So your tastes work fine for you. But when I run a game metagaming is (for the most part) frowned upon.
Think of it like handing a script to actors/actresses. They know how everyone will act and what they will say, however if they are good actors/actresses they will emote the necessary reaction and convince audience that they didn't know.
But here's the thing, my players ARE NOT ACTORS. They're PLAYERS. Yes they are playing a Role Playing GAME. ANd honestly most players that I've run into are more comfortable with that last part (GAME) than the first part (Role Playing). Your game ISNT a SCRIPT either. It's closer to improv really. ANd some players dont want to do improv or act they just want to tell you what their PC is doing. Just because every player isn't a wannabe thespian doesn't make the game less relevant or fun.
There is a much easier way to do this.
Make it an player roll if they want to check.
I always have players tell me, they want to roll Sense Motive if they think someone is lying or hiding something in conversation. I let them roll and then I roll and tell them whether or not the the person they are targeting is lying or not. I roll even if the character if not lying.
I leave if up to the player when they want to roll sense motive.
I would have them take a 10 automatically if you, the GM, feel that the person they are talking is supposed to be suspicious. I would allow an automatic "take a 5" (take 10 - 5 for target wants to believe you) on anyone else.
There are three cases, are there not?
1) Necessity for passive rolls (perception check to notice something as you walk on by)
2) Necessity for hidden rolls for actions taken (heal check to stabilize a dying character or a perception check to search a room)
3) Necessity for visible rolls for actions taken (jump check to cross the chasm) or for actions that should normally be hidden but don't need to be because they're opposed by hidden rolls (i.e. sense motive vs. bluff).
Although I'm not a stickler (read: 100% consistent), the approach is that I roll #2 upon request, they roll #1 but are not told what they're rolling, and #3 is rolled in the open.
So, the only question left is how do the players approach the skill checks. With a sense motive, I don't suggest it, I let them suggest that they're suspicious. I say, "roll a sense motive". And regardless of whether or not the PC is trying to bluff them, I'll roll a d20 and give them the appropriate results.
|
|
Take 21 minus the roll (so if you actually roll a 1, it's treated as a 20, if you roll a 20, it's treated as a 1) then proceed normally with that difference (i.e. add modifiers and compare to DC)
I used to do it this way (alternating between normal and 'upside down' rolls randomly), but switched to the 'offset' method described previously to avoid situations where a player had rolled before I decided whether it was going to be 'upside down' or normal. Also prevents any info being gleaned from values towards the extremes. That is, with the 'upside down' method if one person rolled a 1 and another a 19 they'd know they had a pretty good chance of success one way or the other... but if I am offsetting both values by 8 that comes out to a 9 and a 7, and since they don't know the offset it could be anything.
That seems like a good operating assumption. Unless otherwise stated, PC's (or anyone else) could be considered to be using ordinary listening/communications skills when engaged in conversation.How would you handle take 10 on Sense Motive? Have it be a sort of mode the PC declares themselves in? "Until further notice, I shall take 10 on all Sense Motive checks."I guess I was answering more from a player perspective.
When I'm rolling around in town or whatever (as a player), and I run across a situation where I'm being lied to (but don't necessarily anticipate being lied to), I'd much prefer the DM just roll the dice for me in secret and pass me a note that says "something about what he's saying strikes you as odd/false/misleading/whatever".
That seems to make the game come to life more fo rme. If I don't think that the DM is doing that, then I have to constantly (as in every social situation i find myself in) be thinking to myself "shoudl i be rolling sense motives here on the off-chance this random dude is lying to me?"
: shrugs :
Maybe that's just me.
I'd be fine with this solution. When engaging other things, seems about right that the perceiver would get about an average result on their reactive sense motiving.
I'll throw this out there. If a character is lying, it is an opposed roll.
Per Bluff: "Check: Bluff is an opposed skill check against your opponent's Sense Motive skill."
So, if an NPC makes a bluff check to lie, the PC(s) get a sense motive check to oppose it, automatically. I would recommend the GM roll these all behind screen before the NPC starts to talk so that he can tailor what is said to match the rolls.
This is much the same as stealth checks. If the party is being ambushed, you don't say "well, you guys weren't looking so you didn't get a perception check."
Alternately, they can ask to use sense motive for the "hunch" use, to determine if something is wrong/someone is an impostor/if someone is trustworthy. These rolls the Player would make and know the result of, as opposed to the GM rolling the opposed check behind the screen.
|
|
The offset method sounds like a good solution to this situation as well, but maybe a little more homework ;).
Heh, math homework? Me? Let's put it this way... this is the calc for my falling damage house rule;
Dice = rounddown((m * g / k)^(1/2) * tanh((m / (g * k))^(1/2) * acosh(e^(d * k / m)) / (m / (g * k))^(1/2)) * 0.3465, 0)
...and that's the 'simplified for ease of use' version. Math is our friend.
The offset method sounds like a good solution to this situation as well, but maybe a little more homework ;).Heh, math homework? Me? Let's put it this way... this is the calc for my falling damage house rule;
Dice = rounddown((m * g / k)^(1/2) * tanh((m / (g * k))^(1/2) * acosh(e^(d * k / m)) / (m / (g * k))^(1/2)) * 0.3465, 0)
...and that's the 'simplified for ease of use' version. Math is our friend.
gurps_sailboat.jpg
; )
The only fair way is every person being bluffed has to roll. Forcing the people being bluffed to take 10 gives a gigantic advantage to the bluffer.
... just saying that there is another way to storytell ...
Thousands, actually, but the fact we use different ones doesn't reflect poorly on us, our players, or our relationships to our players. To answer your original question:
This is what I don't get about some GMs, do you not trust your players?
Sure do. I just seem to have a style of GMing that differs from yours.
The only fair way is every person being bluffed has to roll. Forcing the people being bluffed to take 10 gives a gigantic advantage to the bluffer.More accurately, making everyone roll sense motive every time is a huge penalty to the bluffer.
With everyone Taking 10, he can fool 4 people with the same skill about half the time. With rolls, he's got less than a 10% chance, rendering bluff almost useless against multiple people.
Mind you, I'd certainly allow anyone who wanted to roll a Sense Motive to do so. Though I'd be unhappy with players who rolled for every conversation.
I guess if you strictly enforced not being able to see the rules and made people with low rules disbelieve even the truth it might be workable, but it would be a huge pain.
I wouldn't be unhappy with players who did that; some people are simply suspicious by nature. A true "face" character (say, a court noble or a well-seasoned diplomat or politician) would likely Sense Motive on everybody out of sheer habit.
That said, it'd be more interesting if RAW mentioned false positives. If the socially-inept dwarven wizard is constantly suspicious of everybody, it would make sense that he believes people are lying to him even when they are not. Sadly, there's no mechanic for that in Pathfinder.
Moreover, the "hunch" rule seems ridiculously oversimplified. A flat DC 20 check for any situation simply doesn't make sense, as the Bluff scores of the various characters involved should factor significantly into that. But I try to play it that way regardless, so long as the PC spends the requisite minute or so feeling things out; it's nothing that some reasonable situational modifiers can't fix.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I made up a cool little chart once for rolls like this with six columns. The first column has 1-20 in totally random order, the last column has numbers 1-20 in 1-20 order, and the middle columns start mostly random and get more in order as you move toward the end. When a player makes a skill check where I don't want him/her to know the success based on the die roll, I translate his/her roll using my little chart and add his/her skill modifier to the translated number. I decide which column to use based on his/her Wis modifier, basically low Wis, you don't really have a sense if your attempt was good or not, high Wis, you can at least get a sense based on the die if it was decent or not. I figure it's fair because the probabilities are still the same, it just masks the result of the roll from the players.
Just to chime in on the multiple people rolling sense motive on one bluffer issue. Have you considered having one of your players as the primary interacter (does not need to be the same PC every time) who rolls his skill and then all the other PCs are actually rolling aid another?
Diplomats use aid another for social interaction all the time, as do teams of lawyers in court and many other people who perform complex social interaction tasks in teams. Now they normally have the "best" social interacter leading their discussion but many of the best solo interacters (sales people) when approaching a group of people will target the weakest members of the group as their skill specialisation(b$*$~&$#) beats the poor rubes non class skill sense motive.
In this way using the skill system can mimic real life and allow you a slightly greater freedom with lying NPCs and force your high skill social interaction PCs to actually step up and roleplay their skills be becoming the primary interacter so their skill comes to the fore.
I have always let the players decide, and I normally preroll a few d20 before the game starts. That way my lack of rolling dice is to counter the sense motive check is not an indicator of anything.
|
|
You could take a note from 4e and basically roll your NPC's Bluff versus a static Sense Motive score. Effectively unless the players ask to roll Sense Motive they are considered to Take 10.
I see as a potential problem the fact that the guy with the highest Sense motive value will be always the one "right" (at least if someone can succeed at the check).
It will became too easy to say "We always follow Abe (the Sense motive guy) advice when he say that something is fishy".
What we lack in the rules is the guy that is saying the truth (at least as far as he know it) but seem to lie. The guy can avoid eye contact and have sweating palms because he is timid, embarrassed, fearful or speaking with the king for the first time, not because he is lying. A good sense motive roll will differentiate between the two guys.
A Hunch (DC20) can give you the information that the guy don't seem normal even if he is not trying to pass out a lie.
As often happens a yes or not skill check isn't so efficient into managing a situation where in RL there are several different degrees of possible information.
My solution is to make a secret check when the players are bluffed or in situations where they can get some clue, with a -2 as they are distracted (they aren't actively trying to notice if the guy is lying/ill at ease). Asking for a Sense motive check will remove the -2 modifier.
There are several situations where a guy is not exactly lying but a sense motive check will help. As an example, a rabble rouser can be really someone angry at the local baron or someone paid by the lord of a nearby country to stir dissent in the baron territory.
A good Sense motive roll could notice that the guy seem too controlled to be a truly outraged person.
|
|
You could take a note from 4e and basically roll your NPC's Bluff versus a static Sense Motive score. Effectively unless the players ask to roll Sense Motive they are considered to Take 10.I see as a potential problem the fact that the guy with the highest Sense motive value will be always the one "right" (at least if someone can succeed at the check).
It will became too easy to say "We always follow Abe (the Sense motive guy) advice when he say that something is fishy".
That is a potential problem, though theoretically one that already exists if all players when asked to roll choose to Take 10. However if a player comes out and asks to roll then they can do so and at that point could beat "Abe".
That is a potential problem, though theoretically one that already exists if all players when asked to roll choose to Take 10. However if a player comes out and asks to roll then they can do so and at that point could beat "Abe".You could take a note from 4e and basically roll your NPC's Bluff versus a static Sense Motive score. Effectively unless the players ask to roll Sense Motive they are considered to Take 10.I see as a potential problem the fact that the guy with the highest Sense motive value will be always the one "right" (at least if someone can succeed at the check).
It will became too easy to say "We always follow Abe (the Sense motive guy) advice when he say that something is fishy".
I think you're missing it. If the Players aren't picking up on signs and asking for a roll, the DM is using the "Take 10" number as a guideline as to how well the party can pick up on things. If the players feel something is up on their own, they can do the check at that point, rolling the dice.
Of course, to address the "always following Abe" bit, at 1st level, you could already have a 9 point difference between the 2 guys anyway (Abe has a +4 Mod, 1 Rank, +3 Class Skill vs Bob with a -1 Mod). While "Taking 10" seems wasted, rolling a 16 and losing to the guy who rolled an 8 is disheartening. And that's just at level 1. Just think of what will happen when Abe keeps putting skill ranks in while Bob doesn't.
Bob (and the party) is going to be sitting there and "always following Abe" regardless of rolling or not anyway.
|
|
I think you're missing it. If the Players aren't picking up on signs and asking for a roll, the DM is using the "Take 10" number as a guideline as to how well the party can pick up on things. If the players feel something is up on their own, they can do the check at that point, rolling the dice.
Actually that was exactly what I meant (perhaps bad phrasing on my part) - use Take 10 / Passive Sense Motive to see if the PCs pick up on something as a default, but if a player states that they are suspicious and want to roll, then let them and at that point if its better than take 10 they may catch something they didn't earlier.
There was another thing I was curious about:
My current group roll sense motive on almost EVERYTHING that a REMOTELY untrustworthy npc tells them, what do I do when they roll it on someone telling them the truth? What DC do I set? Is there a roll for someone telling them the truth?
That's the problem--for this situation, there is no Pathfinder mechanic that produces different results on success instead of failure. There's no Bluff check to roll against. "Hunch" provides a general feel of the situation ("Everything seems okay/legit"), but failure has the same result has success ("Everything seems okay/legit").