Wait, why would you allow the NPC to Take 10 on their Bluff but not allow the PC to Take 10 on their Sense Motive.
That would mean that even a mediocre liar would be able to deceive even an accomplished lie detector with no effort.
Using Take 10 is a good way t do it, but do it on both sides is what I'm saying. 10+Opponent's Bluff is almost always going to be higher than the player's 0+Sense Motive.
I was proposing setting a passive DC, either by pregen or by just using a base 10. If you're rolling when an NPC says something potent, it probably means something's up. If you've pregenned the DC then there's no MECHANICAL reason to ask for a sense motive check.
As for the "taking 0", that's just the passive sense motive. It's not quite RAW, but I find it makes the roleplaying smoother and keeps social interactions out of the dice realm unless the player wants to actively try to detect a lie. Then, roll away and take the information and act on it.
As for the "taking 0", that's just the passive sense motive. It's not quite RAW, but I find it makes the roleplaying smoother and keeps social interactions out of the dice realm unless the player wants to actively try to detect a lie. Then, roll away and take the information and act on it.
Well, I think that, RAW, passive sense motive is modelled by taking 10.
|
As for the "taking 0", that's just the passive sense motive. It's not quite RAW, but I find it makes the roleplaying smoother and keeps social interactions out of the dice realm unless the player wants to actively try to detect a lie. Then, roll away and take the information and act on it.Well, I think that, RAW, passive sense motive is modelled by taking 10.
That's certainly what the rule about guards and other casual observers taking 10 on perception checks implies.
Taking zero is an interesting house rule, but it puts the passive user at an extreme disadvantage.
The rules of this game are modeled on the d20 system. That system assumes that average circumstances result in average results most of the time. Every save DC is based on 10+whatever, AC is based on 10+whatever, and opposed rolls (making a successful saving throw or a successful attack, etc., are based on everyone, including monsters, having about the right amount of bonus that they will succeed about half the time - because half the time they roll low and fail and half the time they roll high and succeed. This is an expectation that "average" is around 10 and rolling lower than average should fail while rolling higher than average should succeed.
Yes, there are variations of it all over the place. Having a good BAB and a good STR means your best attacks will succeed more than half the time, but your worst iterative attacks won't, etc.
Nevertheless, the combat rolls, skills checks, monster abilities, CRs, etc., are all tailored around this general principle: average conditions result in average rolls result in average success half the time.
This is why Take-10 exists. Without danger or distractions, people can choose to get the average result. Usually this is enough, especially if whatever they're doing is something they are reasonably good at (but it's a bad idea to Take-10 on something you're really bad at).
Your "Take-0" houserule is far outside the system as designed and essentially amounts to a flat -10 penalty for common, ordinary tasks under common ordinary situations.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. I don't think I would believe someone is a jelly donut under most(if any!) circumstances.What if your character has never seen a jelly donut? How would your character know what a jelly donut looks like? Maybe, as Claxon said, some high level wizard casted Polymorph on him and turned him into whatever he is now and then bluffed him into believing he is a jelly donut. Now that person really believes he is a jelly donut. So when he tells you he's a jelly donut, and you sense motive, he's telling the truth, even if you rolled a nat 20 and have +15 to sense motive.
What then?
On a side note, can we stop talking about helly donuts? It's making me hungry and it's still 3+ hours until lunch time for me.
In that case I will replace all the word jelly donuts here with Tacos.
If I've never seen a taco? I'd probably believe your were a taco. I'd have a hard time believing your were a giant animated jelly filled pastry called a taco, but I might be convinced that a jelly filled pastry is a taco. The big problem of course, is that tacos don't usually talk, nor are they very large, nor do dwarves have the shape of a taco. I might be convinced that you were a new species of dwarf referred to from this point on as a taco, just not that your a jelly filled taco that talks and walks. No matter the circumstances, I won't believe your a walking talking taco, unless of course, you are actually a small jelly filled pastry that's talking to me. That's unlikely though, as dwarves are normally large and hairy.
Edit: I should add, if your telling the truth I can't detect that your lying to me. Doesn't mean I instantly believe, but it doesn't mean my sense motive will detect no lies. If I had good faith in my ability to detect lies, I may believe you about many things, but not that your a taco.
Also, I've been in a game where intimidate is doing anything they say, and bluff is believe anything. The results vary between completely reasonable, to complete loss of control. It really depends on the situation, which is why its DM's discretion as to how to handle this sort of thing.
But, as I've pointed out, you don't need to see "signs of deception" to assume someone's lying. If I tell you I'm a doughnut, the mere fact that I'm self-evidently not a doughnut should be a pretty big hint....
I'm not worried about metagaming hidden rolls, I'm worried about PC ignoring the roll results completely. I don't want my players assuming someone is lying even after I tell them they see no signs of deception.
With magic, you actually COULD be a doughnut so it's not completely impossible. I'm also not sure you can just claim your character would never believe something anymore than you can claim your character would never be hit by a Commoner with a stick. These things are determined by dice. There is a provision for completely unbelievable, but that's up to GM discretion.
A PC makes a Sense Motive check vs an NPC and fails it, now what?
In the past I've required that the character behave as if he believed that NPC, but lately I'm wondering if that's too heavy-handed. I'm thinking of dropping that down to simply sensing no deception.
My problem is that I feel like this leads to metagaming. If you sense no deception from someone, why wouldn't you believe them? How do you fine GMs handle this situation?
Depends on the situation and how much he failed it by. This is why I typically suggest the DM rolling the Sense Motive for the PC so he doesn't have an idea what he rolled.
If the DC is missed by only a couple... "You believe what he is saying is true but he seems to be holding something back"
If the DC is missed by 5+... "You do not sense any deception"
If there isn't anything to hide and roll is success (why wouldn't it be)... "You do not sense any deception"
If roll is super high yet there is nothing to hide... "You believe he is lying to you" because at that point if the PC is so suspicious that he is questioning everything the NPC says he is going to find something to create doubt in his own mind.
Hiding the outcome of the rolls deters meta-gaming. Having generalized responses that overlap prevent meta-gaming even more. I have PCs that sense motive for no reason other than the fact that they refuse to trust anyone. It is always interesting when they roll their (typically very high) sense motive and get a response that completely derails the planned content.
A PC makes a Sense Motive check vs an NPC and fails it, now what?
In the past I've required that the character behave as if he believed that NPC, but lately I'm wondering if that's too heavy-handed. I'm thinking of dropping that down to simply sensing no deception.
My problem is that I feel like this leads to metagaming. If you sense no deception from someone, why wouldn't you believe them? How do you fine GMs handle this situation?
Depends on the situation and how much he failed it by. This is why I typically suggest the DM rolling the Sense Motive for the PC so he doesn't have an idea what he rolled.
If the DC is missed by only a couple... "You believe what he is saying is true but he seems to be holding something back"
If the DC is missed by 5+... "You do not sense any deception"
If there isn't anything to hide and roll is success (why wouldn't it be)... "You do not sense any deception"
If roll is super high yet there is nothing to hide... "You believe he is lying to you" because at that point if the PC is so suspicious that he is questioning everything the NPC says he is going to find something to create doubt in his own mind.
Hiding the outcome of the rolls deters meta-gaming. Having generalized responses that overlap prevent meta-gaming even more. I have PCs that sense motive for no reason other than the fact that they refuse to trust anyone. It is always interesting when they roll their (typically very high) sense motive and get a response that completely derails the planned content.
Your false positive idea is an intresting one. Putting that aside,
NPC: These are not the droids you are looking for.
'If the DC is missed by only a couple... "You believe what he is saying is true but he seems to be holding something back"'
PC: These are absolutely the droids I am looking for.
'If the DC is missed by 5+... "You do not sense any deception"'
PC: These are absolutely the droids I am looking for.
In both instances, especially, the second one, that reaction doesn't quite fit. If the player believes these are the droids and refuses to play it any other way, dice be damned, that's metagaming. On the other hand should I,
GM: No, you don't sense any deception. Act like it.
Your false positive idea is an intresting one. Putting that aside,NPC: These are not the droids you are looking for.
'If the DC is missed by only a couple... "You believe what he is saying is true but he seems to be holding something back"'
PC: These are absolutely the droids I am looking for.'If the DC is missed by 5+... "You do not sense any deception"'
PC: These are absolutely the droids I am looking for.In both instances, especially, the second one, that reaction doesn't quite fit. If the player believes these are the droids and refuses to play it any other way, dice be damned, that's metagaming. On the other hand should I,
GM: No, you don't sense any deception. Act like it.
You forget, my stance is based off you rolling the check for your PCs. This is how the conversation really goes
NPC: These are not the droids you are looking for.
PC: I don't believe him...
GM: What is your bonus to Sense Motive? *Roll checks behind the screen*
[I always roll two dice even if the NPC isn't bluffing, that way the PC has no idea what is going on and can't meta game.... in fact sometimes I just randomly roll dice when my PCs make decisions because it keeps them aware]
'If the DC is missed by only a couple... "You believe what he is saying is true but he seems to be holding something back"'
PC: I have no clue what I actually rolled so I might as well listen to the GM, or I can be a complete tool and keep being contrary.
'If the DC is missed by 5+... "You do not sense any deception"'
PC: I have no clue what I actually rolled so I might as well listen to the GM, or I can be a complete tool and keep being contrary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I only have sense motive rolled when the player ask to roll one. That normally means the player does not believe the character, and I almost always use words such as "you do not detect any deception". The could mean roll was no high enough of the NPC is actually telling the truth.
|
|
If roll is super high yet there is nothing to hide... "You believe he is lying to you" because at that point if the PC is so suspicious that he is questioning everything the NPC says he is going to find something to create doubt in his own mind.
That's a horrible way to do it, since it penalizes a high modifier and/or good rolls. It's better to give false positives when someone rolls low - say, check result below 10, or a nat 1 (so there's always a chance of a false positive).
'If the DC is missed by 5+... "You do not sense any deception"'
PC: These are absolutely the droids I am looking for.
Or:
PC: You sound like an honest bloke but my job's on the line so I'm just going to check their serial numbers. Oh look, these are the droids I was looking for. I'm sure you bought them in good faith, but I have to confiscate these.
Cheap tests should always be performed, especially when costs for failure are high.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taking zero is an interesting house rule, but it puts the passive user at an extreme disadvantage.
The rules of this game are modeled on the d20 system. That system assumes that average circumstances result in average results most of the time. Every save DC is based on 10+whatever, AC is based on 10+whatever, and opposed rolls (making a successful saving throw or a successful attack, etc., are based on everyone, including monsters, having about the right amount of bonus that they will succeed about half the time - because half the time they roll low and fail and half the time they roll high and succeed. This is an expectation that "average" is around 10 and rolling lower than average should fail while rolling higher than average should succeed.
Yes, there are variations of it all over the place. Having a good BAB and a good STR means your best attacks will succeed more than half the time, but your worst iterative attacks won't, etc.
Nevertheless, the combat rolls, skills checks, monster abilities, CRs, etc., are all tailored around this general principle: average conditions result in average rolls result in average success half the time.
This is why Take-10 exists. Without danger or distractions, people can choose to get the average result. Usually this is enough, especially if whatever they're doing is something they are reasonably good at (but it's a bad idea to Take-10 on something you're really bad at).
Your "Take-0" houserule is far outside the system as designed and essentially amounts to a flat -10 penalty for common, ordinary tasks under common ordinary situations.
I'm talking purely about sense motive. If you aren't looking for a lie, then why are you taking 10? Taking 10 usually implies taking action.
It can apply to perception checks too: a guard is on the lookout, watching for things, an active action, a man eating supper is not. The guard takes 10, the man eating supper takes 0 to his perception checks. At my table at least.
I have the passive 0 to drop a hint if someone's sense motive is exceptionally good, or the liar is exceptionally poor at lying, and this is only in the NPC lies to PC scenario. Typically NPC bluff DCs are 10+sense motive for alert and 0+sense motive for passive. If I say I'm Bob from Camelot to a shop keeper, they should believe me, even if I'm Jack from Caerleon. If I tell I guard I just got hired and I'm their relief, then it's not really a passive scenario.
Inversely the Duke who asks the PCs to kill a bandit for him, but actually is a despot trying to get the PCs to kill a rebel leader, tells the PCs there is a bandit who needs to be brought to justice. Unless the PCs have knowledge about the Duke's evil ways, they probably should believe him. But mechanically, the Duke, a level 7 wizard, is rocking maybe a (+1 CHR, +9 skill) +10 total bonus against Lothar the Truthbringer, a 6th level inquisitor with a (+4 Wis, a +9 skill, +3 gaze and +2 alertness) +18 total bonus will nuke the Duke 28-20 and nix a classic adventure hook with a hackneyed but tried and true twist if you're giving them both a passive 10. But if Lothar has no reason to suspect the Duke is lying, then the PCs won't call for a sense motive and on goes the adventure.
If the PCs aren't looking for the secret door in the inn's floor that leads to the cultist's sacrifice chamber when their just in to have a drink, some stew and bed down, why tell them it's there before the series of mysterious kidnappings start an adventure? Same goes for villains with ulterior motives.
Sense motive shouldn't act as a passive lie detector, it should serve as an active one when the PCs want to follow a hunch. It also shouldn't spoil an adventure hook passively. Hence taking 0 in context that no lies should be expected until the players start asking for rolls.
Taking 10 generally implies a passive check, actually. That's the intent of it.
Taking zero is an interesting house rule, but it puts the passive user at an extreme disadvantage.
The rules of this game are modeled on the d20 system. That system assumes that average circumstances result in average results most of the time. Every save DC is based on 10+whatever, AC is based on 10+whatever, and opposed rolls (making a successful saving throw or a successful attack, etc., are based on everyone, including monsters, having about the right amount of bonus that they will succeed about half the time - because half the time they roll low and fail and half the time they roll high and succeed. This is an expectation that "average" is around 10 and rolling lower than average should fail while rolling higher than average should succeed.
Yes, there are variations of it all over the place. Having a good BAB and a good STR means your best attacks will succeed more than half the time, but your worst iterative attacks won't, etc.
Nevertheless, the combat rolls, skills checks, monster abilities, CRs, etc., are all tailored around this general principle: average conditions result in average rolls result in average success half the time.
This is why Take-10 exists. Without danger or distractions, people can choose to get the average result. Usually this is enough, especially if whatever they're doing is something they are reasonably good at (but it's a bad idea to Take-10 on something you're really bad at).
Your "Take-0" houserule is far outside the system as designed and essentially amounts to a flat -10 penalty for common, ordinary tasks under common ordinary situations.
I'm talking purely about sense motive. If you aren't looking for a lie, then why are you taking 10? Taking 10 usually implies taking action.
It can apply to perception checks too: a guard is on the lookout, watching for things, an active action, a man eating supper is not. The guard takes 10, the man eating supper takes 0 to his perception checks. At my table at least.
I have the passive...
I agree it should be active, not passive. They have to care, make the check and be involved to get added info.
Taking 10 generally implies a passive check, actually. That's the intent of it.
"Taking 10
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help."
Taken from the PFSRD. The bolding is mine.
So you're passively choosing to take an action? Not exactly. You're just avoiding rolling a 1 on a simple task when the heat isn't on. And you are taking an action. Only Perception and Sense Motive are really the skills that can be argued to be passive, and the RAW for taking 10 doesn't really cover that. AND the RAW for Perception implies reactive rolls, whereas the Sense motive RAW does not.
Also, since when was trying to figure out if someone is trying to lie to you a routine task?
This is why social skills are tricky. I provided an example of why passive 10 versus an NPCs bluff is detrimental to storytelling. Unless the PCs are looking for lies, why are you giving them tells? Make the players at least force the roll to detect the lie, otherwise intrigue, misdirection and subterfuge die.
I've provided several examples of why I use my passive 0. You could reverse engineer it and say I drop a -10 circumstantial penalty on PCs for passive Sense Motive for plausible lies in plausible circumstances (see the Duke and the Rebel), but I choose to remove it when a player decides to actually use the skill they have. Unless they are so good, they detect the lie without even trying, then I drop them a hint, usually in the form of a note, so the other players won't act on it without the original PC choosing to reveal it.
I do the same thing to perception checks in non-obvious cirucumstances (see the hidden trap door in the busy inn). Unless the PCs are carefully observing the room (active check), I assume they aren't taking 10 on perception checks. In a dungeon, different story, but usually I only use the person on watches check for when they are making camp. The rest who are memorizing spells, making a fire, singing a campfire song, whatever don't get the passive 10 in my books. They get a 0 until they start looking for trouble, because they trust the watch to do that for them.
But, that's just my table.
I'd advise the OP to:
1. Stop giving the PCs checks when a plausible lie is told: make them ask for it because they are suspicious. Don't drop a hint unless the lie is blatantly obvious or the PC is exceptionally good at sense motive.
2. If someone is being obnoxious and asking for checks constantly, start throwing red herrings in to condition them against it. Don't punish them, at least not severely, but make them see that constant paranoia is counter-productive usually.
3. Let the player defy the dice roll, but point out that the behavior is paranoid, whether through an NPC or through subtle nudges: "Are you sure you don't want to sense motive the innkeeper in case he's gouging you for the room? Lothar the Truthbringer doesn't seem to trust anyone these days!" Usually using the dice result is metagaming, but occasionally a character might just be stubborn in their convictions, and in the end they are right. This is a classic trope, don't deny it.
4. Have an OOC conversation with the player and the group and try to mediate it if it becomes problematic. Offer that their manipulation of the results is making it harder for you to tell the story, and accept their offer that they might just be roleplaying what their character would do and not trying to game the system. Hopefully your group dynamic will enable this problem to smooth itself out.
Read it again.
When your CHARACTER is not distracted YOU may choose to Take 10.
You, as the player, are choosing to Take 10.
Your character is passively scanning around or performing averagely at whatever task he's taking 10 on.
If they're not looking for lies why give them tells? Because their characters ARE looking for lies. That's what Sense Motive represents, your skill at reading people. By concentrating on them you are taking 20, but as a standard scan of their face you are taking 10.
Read it again.
When your CHARACTER is not distracted YOU may choose to Take 10.
You, as the player, are choosing to Take 10.
Your character is passively scanning around or performing averagely at whatever task he's taking 10 on.
If they're not looking for lies why give them tells? Because their characters ARE looking for lies. That's what Sense Motive represents, your skill at reading people. By concentrating on them you are taking 20, but as a standard scan of their face you are taking 10.
Listen, I don't think you're hearing me: if the players CHOOSE to take a sense motive check, they can take 10 til the cows come home. Or they can roll. It's their choice.
However, I am giving a 0 when they CHOOSE NOT to take a sense motive check. Do you force your players to submit to a bluff versus sense motive check when they give a completely innocuous alias? If they are asked 'What's your name?' And they respond 'Tom' instead of 'Rick', do you force a bluff vs. sense motive?
And nowhere does the term "passive" come up. Anywhere. Average does. And Routine does. Trying to tell if someone is lying? How is that routine? Do you spend your days studying the facial tics and the tone of voice of your coworkers when they answer "I don't know" to the question "Have you seen my stapler?" A full minute per answer? Of course not.
All skills but Perception and possibly Sense Motive are ACTIVE skills. You don't use them without actively choosing to, or being prompted by the DM. Maybe you think I'm screwing my characters over by not prompting a sense motive every time an npc is dishonest, but I prefer to let the players decide whether they believe the npc, then push for more information. That way dice INFORM the roleplaying instead of DICTATING the roleplaying.
And the RAW don't contradict me when it comes to taking 10. Perhaps you can argue that the act of lying compels a bluff v. sense motive check, but players aren't DCs for NPCs to overcome in social roleplaying, and by forcing them to believe or disbelieve based on a dice roll is silly.
It also forces the players to ignore the fact that they KNOW they're being lied to, because why else a sense motive check? And that hurts the immersion more than finding out the Duke deceived you and you didn't get a sense motive check at the end of the adventure when you're fighting the Duke and his cronies.
Do you spend your days studying the facial tics and the tone of voice of your coworkers when they answer "I don't know" to the question "Have you seen my stapler?" A full minute per answer? Of course not.
I don't.
My character who has Sense Motive through the roof does. That's what I'm trying to get across.
Sense Motive, like Perception, is the result of training to notice something. Except where Perception is noticing the surroundings, Sense Motive is noticing the tells, body language, and speech patterns of the people around you.
It also forces the players to ignore the fact that they KNOW they're being lied to, because why else a sense motive check? And that hurts the immersion more than finding out the Duke deceived you and you didn't get a sense motive check at the end of the adventure when you're fighting the Duke and his cronies.
But, uh, there isn't a check. They'd be Taking 10. All you have to do is just mentally add their Sense Motive bonus to the number 10 and compare it to the opponent's bluff check.
If they pass, you say "You feel like he's lying" or "You think there's something off about these guys".
If they fail, you keep your mouth shut. Avoids all metagaming. That's why the taking 10 exists.
I feel like there's something both of us aren't getting about what the other's trying to say.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want your players to tell you when they want to roll sense motive, the first time this bites them, be prepared to have them ask for sense motive against every NPC.
Barmaid: Hello!
Players: We roll Sense motive!
DM: What? why, she is a barmaid...
Players: The last barmaid was a succubus that killed our cleric. We roll sense motive!
If you want your players to tell you when they want to roll sense motive, the first time this bites them, be prepared to have them ask for sense motive against every NPC.
Barmaid: Hello!
Players: We roll Sense motive!
DM: What? why, she is a barmaid...
Players: The last barmaid was a succubus that killed our cleric. We roll sense motive!
From experience, it cools down pretty quickly. At worst you had the player with a killer DM who's afraid everything is going to kill him, but that guy honestly just needs a hug or something. Using sense motive when your dealing with a guy in a back alley or something shady is to be expected. If they don't roll sense motive fine.
Do you spend your days studying the facial tics and the tone of voice of your coworkers when they answer "I don't know" to the question "Have you seen my stapler?" A full minute per answer? Of course not.I don't.
My character who has Sense Motive through the roof does. That's what I'm trying to get across.
Sense Motive, like Perception, is the result of training to notice something. Except where Perception is noticing the surroundings, Sense Motive is noticing the tells, body language, and speech patterns of the people around you.
It also forces the players to ignore the fact that they KNOW they're being lied to, because why else a sense motive check? And that hurts the immersion more than finding out the Duke deceived you and you didn't get a sense motive check at the end of the adventure when you're fighting the Duke and his cronies.But, uh, there isn't a check. They'd be Taking 10. All you have to do is just mentally add their Sense Motive bonus to the number 10 and compare it to the opponent's bluff check.
If they pass, you say "You feel like he's lying" or "You think there's something off about these guys".
If they fail, you keep your mouth shut. Avoids all metagaming. That's why the taking 10 exists.
I feel like there's something both of us aren't getting about what the other's trying to say.
That doesn't avoid all metagaming. A player could decide "this NPC is lying to me.". Maybe he's read this AP. Maybe he picked a change in the GMs tone. He doesn't NEED to be told "You feel like he's lying" to feel like he's lying. It's when you don't say that, but a player jumps to that conclusion, that I find myself in a grey area.
That doesn't avoid all metagaming. A player could decide "this NPC is lying to me.". Maybe he's read this AP. Maybe he picked a change in the GMs tone. He doesn't NEED to be told "You feel like he's lying" to feel like he's lying. It's when you don't say that, but a player jumps to that conclusion, that I find myself in a grey area.
Its hard to avoid meta-gaming if the player has read the AP. Sometimes you have to have trust. On the other hand, are you just supposed to tell him "He bluffed and you failed. You believe him and go into the dark alley with his friends carrying obviously poisoned shivs." or "He intimidated you, You have to do what he says. Your helpful to him now." You take a lot of control out of the player's hands that way, and that's usually a really big no no. What's wrong with deciding "This guy isn't tell the truth to me." You do it all the time in real life, and NPCs can do it too.
On the other hand, are you just supposed to tell him "He bluffed and you failed. You believe him and go into the dark alley with his friends carrying obviously poisoned shivs." or "He intimidated you, You have to do what he says. Your helpful to him now."
Ye gods! I hope not. That's the kind of stuff that magic can do. Skills are not magic. Skills are the game's modeling of mundane non-magical stuff that simple mortals use to get through their daily lives.
You take a lot of control out of the player's hands that way, and that's usually a really big no no. What's wrong with deciding "This guy isn't tell the truth to me." You do it all the time in real life, and NPCs can do it too.
Players should control their PCs. Skills like we're discussing here should be a tool to get the player extra information to help him decide how to control his PC. Sense Motive is a means to get that information. It doesn't always work, but when it fails, this is not an excuse for the DM to take over the character and force any actions on the PC or the player.
But the reverse is also true. When players use these skills against NPCs, they cannot force the NPC to be dominated by the PC's skillful will. Instead, the DM uses the skill results to modify the NPC's behavior as he sees fit. This doesn't give the DM liberty to ignore the skill result and punish players for investing thought, energy, and time into developing a skillful character that the DM neutralizes by disregarding those skills. The DM should extrapolate the NPC's behavior from what the NPC should know or do, modified by the skill result, but without assuming successful skills force any NPC into giving up his autonomy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't avoid all metagaming. A player could decide "this NPC is lying to me.". Maybe he's read this AP. Maybe he picked a change in the GMs tone. He doesn't NEED to be told "You feel like he's lying" to feel like he's lying. It's when you don't say that, but a player jumps to that conclusion, that I find myself in a grey area.
This is where you need to get creative: If he's read the AP, change it up, if he's basing it on a dice roll start giving him red herrings. Don't force your PCs to do anything, but reward the one's who roleplay well. Fiat xp for roleplaying the encounter, treasure falling in their laps ironically, easier encounters because the villain thought they were soft and gullible, so they didn't prepare as well: incentivise believing the lie on failed checks, suddenly the meta-gamer will be role-playing instead of meta-gaming.
But don't punish a player for being suspicious even if they can't get a read on the situation: sometimes people are cautious, and sometimes the paranoid are right. This is legitimate roleplaying, and can be rewarded as well.
If you want your players to tell you when they want to roll sense motive, the first time this bites them, be prepared to have them ask for sense motive against every NPC.
Barmaid: Hello!
Players: We roll Sense motive!
DM: What? why, she is a barmaid...
Players: The last barmaid was a succubus that killed our cleric. We roll sense motive!
You sense a wish for at tip, and she is starting to fancy mr 18 charisma over there.
That doesn't avoid all metagaming. A player could decide "this NPC is lying to me.". Maybe he's read this AP. Maybe he picked a change in the GMs tone. He doesn't NEED to be told "You feel like he's lying" to feel like he's lying. It's when you don't say that, but a player jumps to that conclusion, that I find myself in a grey area.Its hard to avoid meta-gaming if the player has read the AP. Sometimes you have to have trust. On the other hand, are you just supposed to tell him "He bluffed and you failed. You believe him and go into the dark alley with his friends carrying obviously poisoned shivs." or "He intimidated you, You have to do what he says. Your helpful to him now." You take a lot of control out of the player's hands that way, and that's usually a really big no no. What's wrong with deciding "This guy isn't tell the truth to me." You do it all the time in real life, and NPCs can do it too.
Change the AP and laugh at those cheaters.
One player was such a scummy AP reader, so my friend who was dming, started the adventure with an out of control hot pie golem.
All his research did not prepare him for this!
I have this same problem with a person in my group. He was offered a horse his character wanted, (the horse was a mount spell). He failed to sense motive on what the wizard said and immediately said "I don't want to deprive you of a horse."
That is a bit strange.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. I don't think I would believe someone is a jelly donut under most(if any!) circumstances.What if your character has never seen a jelly donut? How would your character know what a jelly donut looks like? Maybe, as Claxon said, some high level wizard casted Polymorph on him and turned him into whatever he is now and then bluffed him into believing he is a jelly donut. Now that person really believes he is a jelly donut. So when he tells you he's a jelly donut, and you sense motive, he's telling the truth, even if you rolled a nat 20 and have +15 to sense motive.
What then?
On a side note, can we stop talking about helly donuts? It's making me hungry and it's still 3+ hours until lunch time for me.
I only have players use Sense Motive when they feel they can't trust someone: i.e. I don't tell them to roll it.
If the character is gullible and generally trusts everyone (or the player does), they might just assume people they don't know are telling the truth, or people in their party. On the flip side, the character might be very untrustworthy, and assuming everyone is lying unless he can be certain they're tellign the truth.
If they fail the Sense Motive, I just say that they can't tell for certain from the persons face/voice/etc, so they have to go by their gut anyway.
On the subject of diplomacy and Intimidate, I only require a PC to back down, not be swayed to do one thing or another. If the players argue for an hour about whether or not to kill someone and the LG person loses, he'll just leave. I will never require him to join in on the killing just because of a die roll.
I don't like to tell the players what to do, but will insert emotions to place them in a situation as a descriptor, then they do what they will. They can be shaken of course.
Unless they are paladins, in which case they are death-bots for the church that feel no fear.
Sense motive is good for detecting lies, not confirming the truth. Consider the case of a peasant telling you he is the king. Sense motive can tell you if he is lying about being the king, but will not tell you if he is actually the king. He could honestly think that he is the king, when in fact he is not. Maybe his mother lied to him and told him his father was the previous king who did not have any children.
The best way to handle sense motive is for the player to roll the sense motive, and the GM to secretly roll the bluff. Even if the opponent is not bluffing still roll and pretend to check the results. If the player beats the bluff tell him that other person is lying, if he is in fact lying. If the player does not beat the roll then tell him that he appears to be telling the truth. This only works if you roll the bluff even when the other player is not bluffing. Since the player does not know what the result of the bluff roll is he has no way of knowing if he succeeded. If the player is not bluffing consider the bluff to be a 0. If for some reason the player has a negative sense motive he will occasionally get false negatives.