PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Sense Motive and Avoiding Plot Collapse



Rhiannon87
2009-12-22, 04:31 PM
Any of my players: CEASE READING AT ONCE!

I'm running a game that's about to move into the second (and hopefully better) half. The party is going to meet up with a wizard who's going to tell them a very sad story about being held hostage for decades by this devil, and he needs their help to get free, and if they'd just do him a few favors, pick up a few items and such, then he can be free of his Infernal handler.

The problem? That story is lies lies lies. The wizard and the devil are working together (and in fact, the wizard is later going to overthrow the devil and become the new BBEG). The trouble comes in with sense motive. I'm not sure if I should tell the players to roll it, roll it in secret, or not roll it at all. We don't really have a strong commitment one way or another as to whether or not sense motive is an active skill-- sometimes, the DMs will tell people to roll sense motive, but majority of the time the players volunteer. I'm just concerned that, when the wizard's lies and evil are revealed, people are going to be all like "wait what? we talked to him all those times and never knew he was evil? why didn't you let us sense motive on his lies?"

Any thoughts on what I should do? I'm inclined to not do the rolls at all and if anyone asks, he's been telling this particular set of lies for decades and thus has gotten really really good at it, hence he avoids detection and suspicion. (Well, non-magical detection, anyway. Gods help me if someone casts detect lies for any reason.) I'm not 100% comfortable with bending the rules this way-- I'm generally of the mindset that the DM and the players have to answer to the same set of rules. Mostly I'm just worried about major player backlash (from a few players in particular) when they find out they've been had.

So... thoughts?

Optimystik
2009-12-22, 04:37 PM
Have the wizard speak the absolute truth. He only rolls Bluff (or falls afoul of Detect Lies) if he is actually lying.

Rhiannon87
2009-12-22, 04:40 PM
Have the wizard speak the absolute truth. He only rolls Bluff (or falls afoul of Detect Lies) if he is actually lying.

The problem is that in order to get the party to work for him he has to lie. Like, a lot. "Get me these things so I can trade them for my freedom" and "get me these things so I can overthrow the devil, take over his realm, and become a scourge upon the material plane" are very, very difficult to blend into purely truthful statements.

Optimystik
2009-12-22, 04:41 PM
"Get me these things. It's my only chance. We must defeat him together."

Every word true. Did you ever read about the Aes Sedai?

Xallace
2009-12-22, 04:43 PM
"Get me these things. It's my only chance. We must defeat him together."


And winning freedom could easily mean "freedom from our partnership / contract."

Douglas
2009-12-22, 04:45 PM
Never tell your players to roll sense motive. The simple act of having to make the roll tells them something is up. Rolling it on the spot behind the DM screen may also make them suspicious, unless you have a known established habit of rolling dice frequently for no reason but to disguise the times when they actually matter.

On the flip side, many players, including myself, would react poorly to being denied the check.

The solution: roll the wizard's bluff and every character's sense motive, but do it in advance when you're alone. Your players get their chance to notice something's up by the rules, you can truthfully tell them this afterwards if they find out and ask, and you don't give them unnecessary clues they shouldn't have.

You can give the wizard a circumstance bonus to his bluff check for having practiced this particular lie so much, but don't make it an automatic success by DM fiat unless his bluff bonus really is just that much better by the rules than the best sense motive in the party.

jmbrown
2009-12-22, 04:47 PM
Sense motive, bluff, and most opposing rolls shouldn't be made by the player or at least that's how I play. Diplomacy is okay because it relies on a static DC but the players know they rolled high but still don't get anything of value then they'll be suspicious either way because he's either magically bolstered or has high bluff. This is a metagame aspect you need to avoid.

The best lies are the ones that aren't totally false. You should modify the story so that he uses weasel words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word) and misleading claims to make his statement appear true while still being false. For example "For decades I was a prisoner to this otherworldly power struggle. Still I am chained until the debt has been paid. I ask that you end this for me."

The wizard made a deal with the devil and they've been scheming and gaining power ("prisoner to this otherworldly power struggle"). The "debt" he mentions was what he promised the devil in exchange for its service. He asks the players to "end" the contract they established by killing the devil.

If someone rolls sense motive then all they should get is a hunch which should be no more than "Things aren't as they seem." This shouldn't cause alarm because, in D&D, nothing is as it seems. If the player goes crazy trying to find out what's going on then create a red herring. Base an entire adventure around following a false lead so the players can trust this guy.

If that doesn't work then make the devil betray the wizard. Yes, that's right, throw the whole story out the window. Roleplaying is part improvisation and if you fall into the pitfall of predictable types (devils and wizards, one guy betrays the other *yawn*) then your players will learn to pick up on your habits. The PCs are the stars of the show, not your plot so don't be afraid to make sacrifices to keep them guessing and making the game fun.

Cespenar
2009-12-22, 04:51 PM
Use Magic Device. Scroll of Glibness. Problem solved. :smalltongue:

Seriously though, I agree with the last two posts. They make sense.

Rhiannon87
2009-12-22, 05:18 PM
You can give the wizard a circumstance bonus to his bluff check for having practiced this particular lie so much, but don't make it an automatic success by DM fiat unless his bluff bonus really is just that much better by the rules than the best sense motive in the party.

This might actually be my saving grace-- at present, none of the characters have terribly high sense motive scores. One of them is switching out his current character for a bard who might be have a higher sense motive, but it depends on how he builds the character.

I guess I could roll things beforehand and notify players if the rolls indicate they suspect something. And if they do suspect something... well, the evil plan of evil will just have to skip several steps.

Surgo
2009-12-22, 05:22 PM
Come up with a new plot? Even if the players have poor Sense Motive checks they're going to get a few successes along the way. Or they'll find some other way to figure out the lies. You should expect it to happen, because it will.

It feels more than a little rail-roady to deny them their Sense Motive checks. Let whatever happens happen.

And sorry, but Sense Motive and Bluff do not work like Aes Sedai do in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time. Sense Motive will not auto-fail when someone is "technically telling the truth but bending it", as the skill description is pretty clear about:

You can also use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on) or to assess someone’s trustworthiness.

The_JJ
2009-12-22, 05:23 PM
I disagree with the 'literal truth, so he isn't lying.' It's a sense motive check, not a absolute truth-o-meter. A successful check should pick up on deception.

That said... yeah. Throw all the circumstance bonuses you want, roll behind your screen/ahead of time and remember the lesson of the red pen. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/YUMiX2JPVjHIJ6h5VlD.html)

My advice? Roll a head of time, figure out how much they should pick up, and work it in.

Optimystik
2009-12-22, 05:31 PM
Why not do both? Rolling ahead of time protects you from Sense Motive as said above; making the Wizard be truthful beats Detect Lies (and eliminates the need for Glibness shenanigans.)

Thalnawr
2009-12-22, 05:36 PM
Now you just need to cover protection from spells like Detect Thoughts.

Mikeavelli
2009-12-22, 05:40 PM
Honestly, any time a DM has ever done a plot that depends upon our mysterious quest-giver being a shifty backstabber, I (and most of my group, whatever group it has been) saw it coming from the very first adventure. It's nearly impossible to do this well. Just handwaving it by saying the sense motive checks come out as "yes, truthful" is a fundamentally flawed way of running a game.

[hr]

Whenever I have to run someone like this, and the players roll sense motive (as they always do) - I set a sense motive DC to get information, varying levels of "he's not telling you the whole truth."

DC+5 or DC+10 nets you a little more information, DC+20 or so reveals, "yeah, he's planning to betray you."

With this plotline, unless you're running it better than anyone I've ever seen, no-one is going to be surprised at the reveal!

So incorporate how the Players might be suspicious of the Wizard's motives into your story, plan for the contingency where they find out, and let them succeed at uncovering the deception and dealing with it appropriately. Use your original planned plotline only if the players are idiots who never even think to question the wizard's motives.

ericgrau
2009-12-22, 05:41 PM
Computer generated random pre-rolls. Every time someone makes a secret check, you cross out a roll with a pencil. For example:


<SCRIPT language = "javascript">
var baseModifier = 7;
document.write("Sense Motive (base modifier = " + baseModifier + "): ");
for (i=0; i < 100; i++) {
document.write(baseModifier + Math.floor(Math.random() * 20 + 1) + " ")
}
</SCRIPT>

produces:


Sense Motive (base modifier = 7): 8 14 10 24 27 10 8 13 25 27 11 23 14 8 17 21 9 14 25 18 15 11 27 23 21 9 15 14 20 19 20 9 23 22 11 11 19 18 24 24 9 20 14 20 19 9 15 22 27 8 24 26 26 10 23 16 17 24 8 19 26 21 27 23 22 9 9 10 21 26 18 13 11 26 22 14 26 17 13 26 18 20 26 16 14 12 24 12 22 17 10 19 18 9 16 25 23 18 8 26


Save the first block as a .html. Change "7" to whatever base modifier you want. Change "Sense Motive" to whatever skill you want. Open with a web browser. Print or copy-paste into a document editor for any further formatting you might want to do.

Thatguyoverther
2009-12-22, 05:44 PM
I'd let them roll, but if they fail give them a red herring.

For instance they might discover something is up so when they pressure the wizard he claims that :

There's more to the story but a spell won't let him tell them more.

The demon also has his wife and child.

The demon is part of an even larger power play.

Or some other sob story that'll get the players even more enthused.

Gnaeus
2009-12-22, 05:53 PM
Well, you can give him max ranks in bluff. Then he can use his Craft Wondrous Items feat to craft a wondrous item to give him a big + on his bluff check, using his huge bluff ranks as a requisite. Then a cloak of Charisma.

If you WANT him to make the check, you build him to make the check. Without the PCs optimizing for sense motive, there shouldn't be any way for them to beat him. And if the PCs did optimize for sense motive, it is somewhat mean to prevent them from gaining the benefit of the skill.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-12-22, 05:56 PM
I disagree with the 'literal truth, so he isn't lying.' It's a sense motive check, not a absolute truth-o-meter. A successful check should pick up on deception.


This is how I always run it. If the PCs succeed a check, they learn that the NPC is not being perfectly honest with them (i.e. the NPC is lying, leaving out important information, or somehow intentionally misrepresenting the situation.)

Shardan
2009-12-22, 05:58 PM
He's a wizard... wizards can do anything. Put an abjuration spell in his book that makes his lies undetectable. done and done

ericgrau
2009-12-22, 06:14 PM
That's a bard-only spell called glibness. Wizards have enough toys already without stealing everybody else's.

Fitz10019
2009-12-22, 06:17 PM
Have you considered an intermediary? The party only communicates with the wizard's manservant, or golem or something. The servant does not doubt his master, so even the best sense motive will only discern that the servant believes what he was told.

Dixieboy
2009-12-22, 06:22 PM
Y'know, you could just have him say he wants to exchange his freedom for his services against the fiend.

If they roll a succesfull sense motive they'll know there is something more to his story, he'll then tell them that he was imprisoned by the fiend the last time he tried to kill it if they can convince him to tell.

No lies, and they get something for a succesful check

Haven
2009-12-22, 06:30 PM
Pre-rolling is probably the best idea. Though if the wizard knows he's going to be telling this lie which he really needs to sell, it'd make sense for him to take precautions (like downing a Potion of Glibness beforehand).

Asheram
2009-12-22, 06:36 PM
Have you considered an intermediary? The party only communicates with the wizard's manservant, or golem or something. The servant does not doubt his master, so even the best sense motive will only discern that the servant believes what he was told.

I second this. Working through a third party that takes fact for granted will save your day...

This whole situation reminds me of my extreme fear (both as a player and as a GM) for "True Seeing"... I HATE that spell!

Douglas
2009-12-22, 06:37 PM
Pre-rolling is probably the best idea. Though if the wizard knows he's going to be telling this lie which he really needs to sell, it'd make sense for him to take precautions (like downing a Potion of Glibness beforehand).
Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#creatingPotions)

AslanCross
2009-12-22, 06:38 PM
My players once captured an enemy beguiler and interrogated him. Now my party scrimped on the Sense Motive, so I didn't have any real problems with the Beguiler bluffing. However, they did make use of Elixirs and Candles of Truth.

In such a situation, the Beguiler HAS to tell the truth (he failed the saves), but he can still get away with telling either a half-truth or responding with a question, or even a truth that is not a direct answer to the question. It's pretty amusing how frustrated they got.

<Player> How big are your horde's numbers?
<Beguiler> More than enough to crush your pitiful little city.
...
<Player> How many dragons work for you?
<Beguiler> Dragons never work for anyone.
...
<Player, trying to intimidate> You're lucky we aren't allowed to spill your blood here. Tell me what you know.
<Beguiler, laughs, grins> I know how these things go. This was my JOB in the Red Hand! I know all about interrogation and torture. You're doing it wrong, and your precious principles are holding you back.


The players learn to ask the right questions eventually, but the frustration gets to them enough so that they end up forgetting to ask for important details they do want to find.

I also go for rolling ahead of time, or rolling on a soft cushion behind your screen (if your Sleight of Hand modifier is decent IRL :smalltongue:) so that they wouldn't notice it.

Also, when my players use Sense motive, I always give an ambiguous answer. "You don't seem to think he is lying." "He seems to be telling the truth."
They can be suspicious all they want, but they really wouldn't get anything more than a hunch.

erikun
2009-12-22, 06:57 PM
I generally prefer to use a passive 5 + skill check or 10 + skill check to determine what the party "automatically" sees for my descriptions. Pre-roll the wizard's bluff against all party members "Taking 5", so to speak, to see if he wins. If anyone asks for sense motive checks, then let them roll against the (already pre-rolled) bluff check.

Note that a success doesn't automatically mean "He's lying." Something like "The wizard seems nervous and jittery, looking about the room and apparently choosing his words carefully." The PCs certainly get an idea that something is wrong, but not specifically if the wizard is a liar or just frightened about the devil.

I don't like the idea of changing the storyline if the players decide to kill the wizard. It feels a bit like "Ha Ha, your actions are meaningless!" Rather, make it a bad idea to kill the wizard in the first place. Some like, both the devil and wizard are imprisoned in the tower as long as the contract remains. Once it is broken (by, say, the death of one of them) then they are free to do as they please. Sure, they can kill the wizard then, but setting a powerful devil free probably isn't the best idea...

Megaduck
2009-12-22, 07:10 PM
Any of my players: CEASE READING AT ONCE!

I'm running a game that's about to move into the second (and hopefully better) half. The party is going to meet up with a wizard who's going to tell them a very sad story about being held hostage for decades by this devil, and he needs their help to get free, and if they'd just do him a few favors, pick up a few items and such, then he can be free of his Infernal handler.

The problem? That story is lies lies lies.

I'm sorry to be a wet blanket, but in my opinion the real problem is that it's rather obvious. I mean, powerful evil thing is imprisoned and pretends to be good to trick the players to release it. Oldest trick in the book. (Well technically, trick someone to eat something would be older not release it, but close enough)

As a player my internal alarms start going off the instant I see something like this. I mean, sure Mr person I've never seen before and can't give me character references that's imprisoned. I'll just go break the garden rose the tomb seal at the stroke of midnight because you assured me cross your heart and wish to die that you are actually a good person.

It's not the characters sense motive you need to be worried about here, it's the players.

You're going to need some very careful set up to prime the players into expecting this wizard to be good. Perhaps his first task is for the adventures to rescue his family. Start with the truth first and a simple good task to get the players to trust him, then start ramping it up.

paddyfool
2009-12-22, 07:13 PM
1) Pre-rolled sheets

2) Have a house rule that if a Sense Motive check gets a total below, say, five, it'll feed someone back very wrong information indeed ("you think the high priestess is coming onto you"; "you think the paladin is plotting to stab you in the back"; etc.), and below 10 it'll give some more minor false read, assuming the other person isn't actually bluffing. If they are bluffing, it'll give them a false read as long as their check is more than 10 less than the other person's. This may discourage people who don't invest in it from trusting what it tells them too much, which may stop them overusing it (or may not, as the case may be).

elonin
2009-12-22, 07:15 PM
In the groups that I've played in sense motive was a user called for skill. A high enough roll might even give a hint of "something more" behind the statement in the case of the early truth examples presented above. But then again in the groups I'm talking about we trusted each other enough to not metagame (for a missed check).

Lioness
2009-12-22, 08:14 PM
DM is always right.

If the players ask about why they didn't get sense motive checks, tell them 'I rolled it for you way back at the beginning. You all failed. This guy's obviously really practised his story.'

Or, if you want to give them an honest shot, let them. If any succeed, there's a possibility they'll change the quest. Perhaps instead of getting the items you want them to, they will go on a quest to defeat the wizard and his demon.

Grumman
2009-12-22, 08:18 PM
DM is always right.
A DM who plans to abuse "DM is always right" ahead of time is a bad DM.

The whole point of putting ranks in Sense Motive is that your character is good at telling when people are trying to screw you. If your character's skills are only going to work when they aren't useful you might as well not play.

jmbrown
2009-12-22, 08:29 PM
It should be noted the difference between spotting a bluff and getting a hunch.

An innkeeper who says "There's a casket of wine in the cellar, could you grab it?" but is secretly setting the PCs up for an ambush isn't bluffing. There really is a casket of wine and he wants them to grab it. They can roll against DC 20 for a hunch in which case they learn that "something is wrong." Exactly what is wrong is up to the DM. It could be "There's a slight stutter in his voice." The PCs don't know exactly what's wrong, they just know the innkeeper is hiding something.

If the same innkeeper said "There's a giant rat in the cellar. I'll give you a sack of gold if you kill it" then the PCs can call his bluff. The sense motive check only discerns the bluff, not the intention. The DM could say "This is a fine establishment and you've heard no word of neighbors complaining about rat infestations. You're certain there's no giant rat haunting his cellars." They don't know that the innkeeper is setting them up for an ambush but they could make an additional hunch check to learn "something's wrong."

In OPs situation, the wizard is flat out bluffing. If he told the truth "I've been dealing with this devil for decades and I want to cut off our relationship. I ask for your help in exchange for my service." He's not lying. Everything he said is true. They could make a hunch check to get a bad feeling about the situation (and they really don't need to; the guy deals with devils) which could be a foreshadow to his betrayal.

Frankly, in that situation, the PCs are already expecting betrayal and they don't trust the wizard in the first place for dealing with evil outsiders. Hunch is often used when the PCs need a clue. In most cases, they already distrust a stranger in a strange location.

Aldizog
2009-12-22, 11:02 PM
I also support the intermediary idea. It also goes far beyond this instance and has many applications in a world where Detect Thoughts exists. Londo Mollari's method of dealing with Refa's telepaths in Babylon 5 always struck me as brilliant... a way for a clever mundane to defeat "magic" without resorting to magic of his own.

Haven
2009-12-22, 11:54 PM
Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#creatingPotions)

Some quick googling reveals that apparently "Potion of Glibness" seems to have been dropped between 3.0 and 3.5, for that reason I guess. Weird.

Anyway, he could still have a rod or something.

Thinker
2009-12-23, 12:05 AM
I am a fan of pre-rolling. You could even start having your players do 10 d20 rolls before every session. These rolls are then used for any passive listen, spot, sense motive, or other checks that they only need to know if they succeed. It also gives them the satisfaction of having rolled for it so they don't feel like you cheated.

As for your plot, you may try switching it up a little bit. Instead of the wizard being sapped of power and requiring the party to aid him, perhaps he is battling the devil on another front and cannot be in two places at once. This may be a less obvious double cross, particularly if the party is used to his help for a meaningful amount of time. You could even have him help them out with some other quest before they ever officially meet.

Foeofthelance
2009-12-23, 05:20 PM
Simple Solution: Ring of Dishonesty: User automatically beats any sense motive check to see if the user is lying. Gets beaten by Zone of Truth/divination magic. Sensed as minor divination magic.

He's got protection from simple probing questions, but if you're players decide to actively investigate the guy, they should be allowed to get away with it with a little effort. More effort, more reward they get.

Draxar
2009-12-23, 05:41 PM
What level is the party? Some item that lets you cast Glibness is your friend; a +30 on your bluff, and a caster level check if they throw detective magic at it.

LibraryOgre
2009-12-23, 07:54 PM
There are a few things I would do.

1) Let it be understood that you're rolling any necessary SM checks, just like you would for Spot, Listen, or Search.

2) When I DMd, I kept note cards on each character... AC, saves, sense checks, MS/HS, etc., so I could check them at will. Useful things to have.

3) Go with a magic option. The wizard has a ring that casts Glibness 3/day. Or his demon friend cast it on him. Put an amulet of non-detection on him and you're good.

fryplink
2009-12-23, 08:19 PM
i agree with thinker here:

for certain easily meta-gameable checks (sense motive, listen, etc) i have them roll a "session check" at the beginning of every session which is assumed to be their result for every check of that sort for the session (i allow them to take 10)

just have your party do this from now on, and make sure that they catch someone else during the same session (that way they are less likely to ask what you were trying to hide from them)