Personally I would give a Sense Motive check reactively (they don't need to know you are lying before rolling to see if they know you are lying, that makes no sense), but they don't get a separate Sense Motive for every little detail. For instance if you are a Chelaxian diabolist masquerading as an enchanter from Absalom, they get one Sense Motive to sense that you are being dishonest about your backstory, not two Sense Motive checks for "from Absalom" and "enchanter".
One sense motive check per deception-writ-large.
The first of these (Sense Motive is reactive) is RAW, the second is DM discretion to draw the lines between one deception and another.
When im running a game I dont allow SM DP or Bluff checks between pcs. I feel that its more a tool for npc interactions. As far as rules go Ill have to check the book when I get home but I believe the wording on bluff says vs opponent.
This. Players have more control over their actions than to simply fall to die rolls. Roleplaying decides on whether or not they buy it.
I usually run it so that you don't have to roll bluff every time you bluff and you don't have to roll sense motive every time someone lies to you. Just when someone opposes your roll. I think it makes it more believable when its at your leisure, because it means you might believe a lie outright or you might not trust every truth. Also less dice on the table and more talking/actions, which I'm not opposed to!
I never allow PCs to use social checks against each other either though(Unless someone says "roll a diplomacy against me!" or something similar, that way its consensual and much less of a mess.)
I generally prompt them to make the the roll if I think they have reason to suspect, but more often than not I leave it to them to use it in a more active fashion when they have doubts.
The only way I'd ever consider rolling it every time is if I were to do it behind the screen.
This is a bit of a gray area I'm always on the fence about.
I don't usually condone social skill use between party members, but Bluff and Sense Motive are a bit...different.
They're not really used to convince one person of something, just how convincing something is.
I'd say the best way to run it is to call for a Bluff check to say how convincing the lie is, not how suspicious the players are.
I.e. the higher the Bluff check the better you control your racing heartbeat, the quavers in your voice, the expression changes, and so forth, while the opposed Sense Motive check is to pick up on these things.
The players are still free to believe or disbelieve as they desire, but the Bluff vs Sense Motive check determines how much of it is a hunch, and how much of it is more of a concrete sense that someone is lying.
Ex. Bluff check 30 vs Sense Motive 5. The person using Sense motive can't read the Bluff guy's p-p-p-poker face. At all. He can feel free to be suspicious still, but he doesn't have anything to go on to, say, convince others to realize it.
Conversely, Bluff 5 vs Sense Motive 30 means the Sense Motive guy is seeing the Bluff guy's every slip of the tongue, the sweat on his brow, and all the other tell-tale signs of a liar, which he can use to convince the other party members of the guy's untrustworthiness...or not as he desires, if he deems it unimportant.
|
Probably house ruled for us, but as a PC that butt heads often against other PCs, our group generally doesn't allow social skill rolls against each other. Period. You're expected to roleplay it out, and not let the dice decide what you should or shouldn't be thinking against another player.
Plus it's a bit to meta-game-y too do that against your fellow players.
NPCs? Different story of course.
I'm with Ryjin on this. The short hand of 'social skills don't work on PCs' just isn't 100% accurate.
What that is BASED on is Diplomacy specifically says it works only on NPCs, not PCs,
and Intimidate only works on 'opponents', although once PC PvP breaks out that is also legit.
(as far as 'forcing to act friendly', how that is done is up to the GM/Player controlling said character, Intimidate is not Dominate Person)
For Bluff, there is no limitation to NPCs only, and thus no reason why it shouldn't work on PCs.
But as Rynjin said, Bluff is more about how believable that specific lie is, or rather,
whether you can distinguish that lie from any other statement the Bluffer might make.
If you have a PC (or NPC) who is known/suspected to be lying all the time, a successful Bluff check doesn't change that,
so the Bluff may 'succeed' because they're such a smooth liar, that just means the statement isn't itself unbelievable.
But if the character themself is known for continually lying/deceiving, then the bigger issue
is that they aren't reliable/believable IN GENERAL, and ANY statement EVEN POTENTIALLY TRUE ONES THAT THEY DON'T ROLL BLUFF FOR
are possibly going to be treated as a lie/deception, based on their reputation.
Likewise, a character may TRULY believe that they know the truth and are telling the truth, but they may just be ignorant or deluded.
No Sense Motive check will ever reveal a Bluff or lie/deception there, but if this character has a consistent history of doing this (either in general, or in one specific topic)
then nobody is going to believe what they have to say any more.
(in general or in the specific topic, although they may adjust their overall judgement as well).
The point of a Bluff check is to conceal whether that specific statement/interaction is a lie/deception,
but when characters are at the point that they think it's likely that ALL statements are a lie, a successfull Bluff matters that much less.
Really? I've never played in a game, or ran one, where Players considered it wrong to have social skills work on their characters, in any game system. Especially lying.
Really? I've never played in a game, or ran one, where Players considered it wrong to have social skills work on their characters, in any game system. Especially lying.
Well, if bluffing, diplomacy, intimidate ever take free will out of the player's hands and force them to commit an act, believe in something they never would, or something similar then its a violation of one of the most important things you have as a player. Could you imagine a game where the BBEG just did an intimidate check and you had to do whatever he said? Or he convinced you how awesome evil was with diplomacy and turned all your characters into his Chaotic Evil minions? How being bluffed into believing the sky is purple when its clearly a shade of Fuchsia? There's a certain weirdness to needing social stats at all, because if its reduced to a roll why talk?(The book says give modifiers for your conversation skills). Doesn't help that everyone I know has run it differently(one guy ran it like the three questions I mentioned above, bleh!)
Another thing is the meta. If you have to announce your lying everytime, even to the players, and they are expected to believe you and roll against you everytime you speak then that's a lot of rolls and it can be hard to stay in character(or at least happily...) The fact its PvP complicates it further. One time I knew a player who's whole character concept was built on lying, even to the party. Constantly had to roll against him to figure out what he wanted, even during plot critical or character defining moments. All I remember about that character is how much of a pain in the butt he was to look after, not anything about his actually characterization beyond being a liar and creating his character outside of session 0 where I could've said something before he created his character and ran with it.
Nothing wrong in bluffing, there is however in taking control out of a player's hands and there might be one reducing the game to dice rolls.
I've never heard of anyone using the skill system (any skill system) to make a pacifist kill a kid.
I have however, heard of people lying to the PCs about who they are, and what the situation is, and tricking them into killing someone who wasn't a bad guy.
The problem with leaving it up to decision is, it means the most skillful of liars (say Loki) is reduced to the skill level of the GM personally lying to the players.
And I don't tell the PCs they've been lied to. I simply make a roll and then tell them the story (I roll the dice all the time, so they never know when it rolled). They can roll a sense motive (or if the bluff check was low enough the PCs sense motive take 10 would see through it) if they want, but if they suddenly decide, without any reason, that the bad guy is lying despite a good roll on his part, I begin to wonder if they've read the module. In fact, one of the reasons I don't use modules anymore was players who refused to believe any lie from a module, because they'd read the modules.
EDIT : If you want something that takes away player control of their character, go read the Antagonize feat. Your 12 level, never attacked anyone no matter why Pacifist Cleric, upon being the target of the feat, has to cast a damaging spell or throw a rock or attack the user of the feat. That's destroying player control of character concept.
I've never heard of anyone using the skill system (any skill system) to make a pacifist kill a kid.
He rolled a really high intimidate, it was like, in the 50's yo! So we believed him and gave him the artifact of doomy doomness and let him end the world. Kidding aside, neither of my examples did that, but they were still pretty stupid and one of my dozens of horror stories.
I have however, heard of people lying to the PCs about who they are, and what the situation is, and tricking them into killing someone who wasn't a bad guy.
The problem with leaving it up to decision is, it means the most skillful of liars (say Loki) is reduced to the skill level of the GM personally lying to the players.
Sort of, ideally a good liar tells a good lie. In game a good lie gets a bonus on its modifiers because its a good lie, and a good liar makes even the worst lie sound believable. You choose whether you believe something, but sense motive tells you if someone is lying and how trustworthy they are, but not whether what they say is true or false. So even though Loki told the best lie in the world, if you know he's Loki or that what he says is a lie you then you don't have to believe him, and you have the choice as to how to follow the consequence. This isn't necessarily a bad thing though; Keep in mind that if you allow rolls to do anything, you really can convince someone the night sky is white and that your the time traveling king of Hel'dath, a million year old utopian civilization to the south north, and that your name is Mary even though its Zeke.
EDIT : If you want something that takes away player control of their character, go read the Antagonize feat. Your 12 level, never attacked anyone no matter why Pacifist Cleric, upon being the target of the feat, has to cast a damaging spell or throw a rock or attack the user of the feat. That's destroying player control of character concept.
Edit: Actually, you can include him in a beneficial spell, or even a spell that's not actually that harmful like charitable impulse. Spells can do anything, and its likely a pacifist cleric is likely to have those spells. You can also attack them non lethally.
I never ask for these skill checks between players, but if the players do it themselves and bide by the results (for better or worse), then that can be fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dice rolling? I give cookies to players whose PC lie well to other PCs.
Really? I've never played in a game, or ran one, where Players considered it wrong to have social skills work on their characters, in any game system. Especially lying.Then you have played with people who like Role-playing Games. There's lots of people out there who treat them as "(role-playing) Games" if that makes any sense whatsoever. I envy your good fortune.
Nah, what I usually get asked is things like 'Does my character believe him?' or 'Does my character think it's a lie?'. Most people I've gamed with had a clear distinction in their heads between them and the character. Nothing ever told them they had to act in a certain way, I'd just say 'Yep, your character believes he is 100% sincere' or 'Your character thinks he is lying through his teeth!', and then they'd decide how to act based on that belief.
Hey guys! My group recently had a disagreement at a session and I was hoping some here could provide me some insight.
My group thinks that every time you lie to your party, you have to make a bluff check against their sense motive. Every time, regardless of whether they suspect deception or not. I think you only have to bluff check when they detect your lie and decide to roll sense motive, or the DM suggest they should or otherwise hints at it. They only thing we could agree on is that the DM should always be informed of a PC's true intentions.
When lying to a PC do you have to inform the person out of character?
Do you have to make a bluff check every time you lie to a PC and or do they have to roll sense motive?
I know most of this may be DM discretion. I also know lying between PC's is not advisable, just wondering what your thoughts are.
Thanks!
If they don't ask for the roll, don't give it to them. It makes sense for them to accept something if they don't want to check or consider it.
If they want to make a sense motive roll upon everything that is said to them, let them.
I think I'd allow the Bluff/Sense Motive for PCs, as it doesn't take away agency and force the player into an action they dislike, unlike Diplomacy and Intimidate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the player asks for a roll they get the roll.
If not I will often give them reactive rolls behind the screen. Sense motive is one of the stats I record for my own behind the screen use.
Nothing gets a players guard up like the phrase
"roll sense motive"
I will also occasionally ask for sense motive rolls when the character they're talking to is in no way lying to them.
I like to keep them on their toes.
- Torger
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still allow Intimidate, at least to demoralize PCs. Sauron McR'lyeh being scary and making the PCs shake doesn't remove any autonomy.
Diplomacy is basically out, though.
I still allow Intimidate, at least to demoralize PCs. Sauron McR'lyeh being scary and making the PCs shake doesn't remove any autonomy.
Diplomacy is basically out, though.
Yeah, I do allow demoralization. But not actually forcing one's will on them.
I never ask for these skill checks between players, but if the players do it themselves and bide by the results (for better or worse), then that can be fun.
That's how we do it. We do use them but don't take them too seriously.
UNLESS, one of us is Dominated, etc, then Sense Motive is more for real.
Generally of course, a party is a Team and teams don't conceal really critical stuff from each other.
There is no reason to use these rolls between two PCs.
For one, players should decide what their characters think and do.
But more importantly, how does it go down?
Fred: Hey, Joe, the sky is green.
Joe: I don't believe you. I think you're lying.
Fred: Well, roll Sense Motive to find out.
Joe: I got a 17.
Fred: I got a 22. So yeah, the sky really IS green.
Joe: So what? I still don't believe the sky is green just because you rolled higher. In fact, I KNOW you bluffed me because I saw your roll.
See, the whole idea of the GM rolling secretly is that the players never know the outcome. If Fred had been a NPC, Joe would never know if his 17 was higher or lower than Fred's roll. The GM would say something like "Fred seems to be honest" and the player would not know if Fred really was honest or just made a good Bluff check - the player would still have to make a decision about what he believes.
Since this is not the case with players bluffing each other, it kind of defeats the purpose. Sure, sure, a couple of good role-players who make honest in-game decisions for their characters based off of the rolls without ever metagaming can make it work. But even with players like that, the one who knows he was bluffed always seems to suspect the other PC, keeps an eye on him, tries to catch him in future lies, etc. - none of which would REALLY happen if his character actually fell for the bluff completely.
So in the end, it's kind of pointless.
Here is a solution I heard about on Happy Jack's Podcast.
Player A rolls a social skill check against player B.
Player A fails = "Okay Player B, they just tried to convince you of X, they didn't make a very convincing argument, and you are aware of their attempted manipulation. How would you like to react?"
Player A succeeds = "Okay Player B, Player A has just made a really compelling argument about X. He hasn't taken control of your character like a spell would, but he has, mechanically, figured out your position on this matter, even if you may have tried to keep that position under the surface. Please tell player A what arguments/compromises they would have to make to convince your character to side with their desires."
Sometimes I just have the Bluff check be against the other PCs' Sense Motive + 10 (i.e., they automatically Take Ten). That makes things a bit easier for the liar--usually. I feel he's at a disadvantage against 3-5 other d20 rolls, so he needs every edge he can get.
Comes up fairly frequently in my games as my current group is prone to hiding information from each other about certain things. Haven't had any issues with metagaming one way or the other. (Just lots of "why do you hate me dice?!")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no reason to use these rolls between two PCs.
For one, players should decide what their characters think and do.
-snip-
Read mah first post as an example of how it seems most people who use them are using them.
Yeah Blake, I dunno about your players but mine are at least mature enough not to use "I saw you make the roll" as an excuse to ignore the outcome. I'll get a little griping from the loser about their dice betraying them but usually everyone has a good laugh and we move on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My players do bluff/sense motive against eachother for the fun of it. Two of my buddies that I play with like to be at odds with at least one party member in every game, so it comes up in every game. Everyone gets a laugh.
As for GM's using Sense Motive, I never tell my players to roll it. Usually they start rolling the dice in their hands before I finish talking when talking to an NPC they have reason to believe might lie. And a character can still be suspicious of another even if he didn't "pass" his sense motive, in which case I simply say "You can't be certain either way if he's lying or telling the truth".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have allowed players, and been in games where we were allowed to use social skills against each other, and it almost always resulted in at least one player with high bluff and diplomacy abusing it, trying to make other players do menial tasks for them or going so far as convincing them to endanger themselves for various reasons.
This may be amusing for the chaotic neutral bard, but the poor at-best-average-charisma/wisdom fighter player will not be happy.
I arrived at the conclusion that PCs should completely roleplay their social interactions, wether they believe each other, are convinced what the other said or whatever.
I would make sure to encourage roleplaying according to your character's skills (the dwarf barbarian who never put a rank into diplomacy shouldn't be the most eloquent participant of the discussion, and the cleric with max ranks in sense motive should be the first to get suspicious when someone is not telling the truth), but not actually rolling any of them. This way maybe a player still ends up doing a menial task for another, at some point, but if something happens that the player really objects to, they can still say no and don't have to have random chance stacked against them determine their actions.
I've heard of rpg games with no rolls or mechanics at all for social interactions. All talk, believe and say what you will. If you say the right things, the dm hands out more info and you find out more. If you want to persuade a character, persuade them in rp.
Quite shocking, but I liked it. Certainly better than a player trying to lure you in with what is clearly a crock of s@+$, and then rolling high.
I have allowed players, and been in games where we were allowed to use social skills against each other, and it almost always resulted in at least one player with high bluff and diplomacy abusing it, trying to make other players do menial tasks for them or going so far as convincing them to endanger themselves for various reasons.
This may be amusing for the chaotic neutral bard, but the poor at-best-average-charisma/wisdom fighter player will not be happy.
I arrived at the conclusion that PCs should completely roleplay their social interactions, wether they believe each other, are convinced what the other said or whatever.
I would make sure to encourage roleplaying according to your character's skills (the dwarf barbarian who never put a rank into diplomacy shouldn't be the most eloquent participant of the discussion, and the cleric with max ranks in sense motive should be the first to get suspicious when someone is not telling the truth), but not actually rolling any of them. This way maybe a player still ends up doing a menial task for another, at some point, but if something happens that the player really objects to, they can still say no and don't have to have random chance stacked against them determine their actions.
If the rules do come up, don't forget diplomacy takes a while to go through, and a target could attack or walk away from the diplomat mid speech. Starting a diplomacy doesn't make the hearer helpless. They could just put on their helmet and close the visor:
"Pardon? Can't hear you, going on patrol."
I think passive Sense Motive is a very clumsy mechanic, since it is quite often used actively as well. Sense Motive is weird.