|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assume characters are taking 10 on both Perception and Sense Motive unless they ask a probing question (triggering a die roll).
So, for a character who has invested in SM I give them insights automatically based on that number. If they ask a specific question, I have them roll and give information appropriate to that roll.
Best way to counter meta is to use reverse and double-reverse psychology - mixing up "actual" SM rolls with "bogus" ones so that they don't assume that only important or relevant information is ceded from rolling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like he said. I can tell the player or pass a note saying that they feel that the person in question is hiding something, or not being honest, or is preparing to lash out.
How you RP it is up to you, if it's me I tell the GM I am studying the person in question carefully, or ask for my impressions. Sense Motive is the social equivalent of Perception, really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To add to the above, I never roll bluff, diplomacy or intimidate against my players unless they roll a social check (like sense motive) against the npc. I also don't outright tell them which I'm rolling (if any at all—sometimes I just roll the die with nothing in mind, just to satisfy them), and try to describe the 'vibe' they get from the character. Usually saying something like, "you think this part is accurate, but they hesitated slightly when saying that part." If they roll badly, I usually say something like, "you don't know one way or the other." If they just don't roll high enough, I don't tell them so (my roll has to be hidden, for obvious reasons); Instead, I tell them something along the lines of, "they seem to be telling the truth" or I just shrug and say it sounds reasonable. If they beat a bluff by a significant amount, I'll use more precise descriptions.
For the most part, I just role-play it without any rolling, otherwise every npc interaction would take forever. If someone's trying to get you to go on a quest, technically they should be rolling diplomacy, but I firmly believe that the GM should not force such a decision upon the group, and should instead provide encouragement or pleading in-character. If an npc is trying to bluff, announcing it would be counter-intuitive, due to meta-gaming. If an npc is trying to intimidate the group, it's trickier, as many players will assume that every encounter is winnable. It's a sad state of affairs, but one we have to work around.
I have the players make two blind rolls at the beginning of every "important" NPC interaction - Diplomacy and Sense Motive. The player can always substitute Bluff or Intimidate for Diplomacy.
Next I quietly make the same rolls for the NPC, especially Bluff.
During the RP, I send whispers to some players who got high enough to see through the bluff or who think the NPC might be lying, send some false ones to people who rolled a 1. I RP the NPC's attitude based on the player rolls (usually majority response) and give the players comments that reflect the rolls.
The players aren't forced into RP, but their rolls influence the way the RP goes and how the NPC will react. Works great, and my players actually use those skills!
I'm not sure I understand the question. Could you spell it out a bit? That way I may be able to provide a more focused answer. Thanks.
-Nearyn
Curios about this myself as a GM. I dislike the Sense Motive trait, though I understand why it exists. It tends to get abused, however, as a "detect lie/truth" ability, and I don't know how to counter that. Aside from: "they seem to be honest" or "they seem to be hiding something" etc.
I have one player who has invested heavily in this trait because he is playing a Monk and took the Snake Style feat, which can pump his AC considerably (against 1 attack). But he also tends to roll it A LOT in social interactions, testing all the main NPCs they encounter, and I find it both a pain and a bore.
Otherwhere:
My suggestion would be something along the lines of this:
An oncologist, after a time, starts believing that everyone in the world is dying of cancer ... because all he sees of humanity are the ones dying of cancer, and his brain extrapolates the pattern in the data.
If your monk-friend is CONSTANTLY Sensing Motives, make him start to suffer for it. He starts seeing conspiracies EVERYWHERE. When he breaks out the tinfoil hat, you've made your point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To reduce the number of rolls, you could add a houe-rule like this:
"Sense Motive can only be rolled against any person once per hour. That roll is assumed to apply to all subsequent checks."
That way, if your player rolls a 10+10, they are assumed to beat all DC 20 and lower SM checks against that particular person during that conversation. The NPC is, of course, still allowed to just refuse to answer any questions. The player may know they're hiding something, but Sense Motive doesn't grant mind-reading capabilities or anything like that. If the NPC were to have variable bluff DC's (due to, for instance, disguise-like abilities or official-looking documentation), the player may think they rolled really well and are guaranteed success, but still miss a few details. If they really do succeed on all their checks because they've invested heavily in the skill, feats, special abilities or items…let them? If they chose to become good at reading people, it's because they want to be good at reading people. Let them have their fun, unless it's making other players unhappy.
If they chose to become good at reading people, it's because they want to be good at reading people. Let them have their fun, unless it's making other players unhappy.
Well, it's ultimately my bad for allowing him to begin treating Sense Motive as a "detect lie" ability. But I was new to PF at the time, and trying to learn the system. Now he has like +14 or something ridiculous and only needs a DC20 to get a hunch, so he often beats it by 5 or more.
I guess I need to be far more vague in my answer. "You get a sense he may be withholding something or not entirely honest" - regardless of whether he simply gets a 20 or something higher.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The hunch rule is there to let the player know that someone may not be 100% honest. I just have NPC's who are not honest roll a bluff check, and if they don't beat the bluff check, they(PC's) don't know the NPC is being dishonest.
Basically bluffing in my games is used to hide the truth, not just for outright lies. I don't think it is a bad use of the skill, even if it is not RAI.
I appreciate the example, Wraithstrike, and your experience with the system.
I'm curious: if a player succeeds, how do you give information that is merely a "hunch"? That is where I feel I am giving away too much information/truth.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SM +14 means a very psychologically perceptive character. The existence of PCs like this played by players who continuously ask probing questions means you have to step up your game as a DM. Because, you already know Snake is going to ask (and is going to roll high).
Being vague as a baseline, and adding details at DC+5, DC+10, etc, is also a good strategy.
You might want to consider simply supplying the desired subtext to many NPC descriptions automatically, and only roll when some very important plot point hinges on some form of deception. This might train him out of the habit, giving him the social context piece he is seeking.
Also, it's totally ok for you to roll for him, the physical result of the die roll safely behind the DM screen, to prevent the disconnect between player and PC knowledge ("I rolled a 1, so, whatever info the DM gives me, it must be the opposite!"). If you do this, I would also do a mental self-check from time to time, making sure you are not doing so out of spite.
Overall, it's safe to assume that Snake's presence in your game means that many of your "secrets" will be "spoiled" - and adjust accordingly, without robbing him of this advantage he has built his character for.
Actually, I think by the rules, it is a True or False indicator. You beat their Bluff roll with an opposed SM roll, they're lying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not necessarily, Dominus. They might just be withholding some of the truth or wording it in such a way that it gives you a wrong impression. Sense Motive, Bluff and Diplomacy are very grey areas. If one of my players barely beats such a check, they'll get vague assurances, but no specifics. If they beat it by 5 or 10, I'll give them much more precise information. Whether the information is true or false can occasionally depend on their perspective, as well. A tough person with an arrow sticking into their arm might tell you they're fine, and not be lying at all. A con artist telling you that their curative potion is amazing and made of rare components is also not necessarily lying. If all SM did was check the truth/falsity of the statement, you could fool yourself into thinking that the potion was something you wanted. Instead, SM is supposed to check the other person's motive for saying what they're saying. Instead of telling you that they are lying, it tells you that they are trying to trick you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate the example, Wraithstrike, and your experience with the system.
I'm curious: if a player succeeds, how do you give information that is merely a "hunch"? That is where I feel I am giving away too much information/truth.
You can say "You feel as if the person is hiding information", or "You feel as if ___ is not acting normally".
From here the PC's still have to get the NPC to divulge the information .
It may be better to just have the NPC lie if you don't like the hunch rule they have a decent bluff check since that would have a higher DC than a "hunch".
A good time to use the hunch rule: If someone is hiding the truth, to protect themselves, not necessarily to harm the PC's. As an example if a local gang is collecting protection "insurance" from local businesses, they might not want to say anything to anyone, but you a certain topic might give the PC's a "hunch" that they are hiding something.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could also have other things going on with NPC's that make the roll difficult to determine even if 100% successful.
The last time my PC's tried a Sense Motive against one of my NPC's, the NPC was being completely honest in his reply, but was angry at the PC's for kidnapping him for mistaken identity, had not had a pesh fix in a while (borderline withdrawl), and saw an opportunity to gain monetarily from the PC's mistake (eyes flashing with greed.)
So yes, he was 100% honest, but they had trouble reading it as such because of all the other conflicts and effects the NPC was going through, and I roleplayed it as such, "his answer seems sincere and logical, but there is a glint in his eye, like he sees you as somehow vulnerable. His hand twitches somewhat and his scowl reveals a deep anger."
It was up to them to figure out the pesh withdrawl, why he is angry, or the meaning behind that glint through further questions.
Which they did.