dm's bad sensemotive/ bluff rule.

[Cranthis]

So, my dm has a rule that he refuses to give us, or roll himself, sense motives check for lies. We have to decide whether or not we sense motive.

He won't listen to me about how bad this is. So, what arguements do you think I should make? What can I do?

[CardCaptor]

Do you, in this case, have sense motive as a trained skill?

[Cranthis]

Do you, in this case, have sense motive as a trained skill?

yes but that is irrelevant to the question.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The point of DnD is to seperate yourself from your character. While you may/maynot be able to intuitively cut through lies, you can enjoy being a character who can. Because of this change, people who are more trusting or have a lower "wisdom" in real life are actively penalized for it, which not only defeats the purpose of the game, but can really be mean to actively rubbing someone's nose in their own personal flaws for trying to stick it out.

[Mnemnosyne]

What I'd do is tell him you're sensing motive every single time an NPC speaks, and explain you're going to continue doing this until he rolls it silently for you and informs you when you've succeeded, since his rule on how to deal with that requires you to do this.

Even better if the entire group does it. Every time an NPC speaks, get everyone to declare they sense motive.

[Darius Kane]

I'm having trouble understanding the OP. If it's what I think it is then do what Mnemnosyne is suggesting.

[Cranthis]

I'm having trouble understanding the OP.

sorry about that. Ok, so, the dm has said that he will never roll, or have us roll, sense motive checks, which are supposed to be rolled anytime someone bluffs. This a problem.

[Laserlight]

What I'd do is tell him you're sensing motive every single time an NPC speaks, and explain you're going to continue doing this until he rolls it silently for you and informs you when you've succeeded, since his rule on how to deal with that requires you to do this.

Even better if the entire group does it. Every time an NPC speaks, get everyone to declare they sense motive.

Not just for Sense Motive; that's a perceptual skill, and Spot and Listen are the same sorts of skills, so you'd probably better do it with them as well. Otherwise you're likely to have your teammate, five feet front of you, fall over with an arrow through his brisket, but you never see it, nor hear him yelling "Message for you, sah!", because you weren't actively spotting and listening.

[Keneth]

While sense motive checks are usually reflexive to the bluff check, it can influence players adversely if they see the DM rolling dice during or just prior to the conversation, usually resulting in metagaming. We prefer this method as well. You actively try to discern whether a character is lying to you when you don't trust them, and you accept the word of those you do trust as the truth as long as the lie isn't blatantly obvious. That's what you generally do in real life as well.

[Elric VIII]

What I'd do is tell him you're sensing motive every single time an NPC speaks, and explain you're going to continue doing this until he rolls it silently for you and informs you when you've succeeded, since his rule on how to deal with that requires you to do this.

Even better if the entire group does it. Every time an NPC speaks, get everyone to declare they sense motive.


Not just for Sense Motive; that's a perceptual skill, and Spot and Listen are the same sorts of skills, so you'd probably better do it with them as well. Otherwise you're likely to have your teammate, five feet front of you, fall over with an arrow through his brisket, but you never see it, nor hear him yelling "Message for you, sah!", because you weren't actively spotting and listening.

And don't forget to disbelieve everything you see ever, just in case.

Something you might like to do is tell him that you are perpetually taking 10 on the roll in a social situation (i.e. - you are listening and analyzing the conversation carefully).

[Laserlight]

You actively try to discern whether a character is lying to you when you don't trust them, and you accept the word of those you do trust as the truth as long as the lie isn't blatantly obvious. That's what you generally do in real life as well.

What is the difference between "blatantly obvious to someone with no ranks in Sense Motive and a 6 Wisdom", and "blatantly obvious to someone with 20 ranks in Sense Motive and a 20 Wisdom"?

[JackRose]

Ask your GM why he's using this homerule. I suspect it is because he doesn't want to tip the players off for fear of even unintentional metagaming. If he rolls everytime someone lies, it becomes pretty obvious when someone's lying, unless he makes 1+n rolls (where N is the number of characters with ranks in sense motive) every time someone speaks, which is just unwieldy. If this is his reason, there are a couple things you can do. My favorite is to preroll- have each player roll five or six sense motive checks at the beginning of each session, ideally with some way to semi-randomly rearrange them (just so the players don't figure "Well, my third roll was low, and the last two things he said were lies, so this probably is too,") and then just apply them as the lies come up.

[Greenish]

Ask your GM why he's using this homerule. I suspect it is because he doesn't want to tip the players off for fear of even unintentional metagaming. If he rolls everytime someone lies, it becomes pretty obvious when someone's lying, unless he makes 1+n rolls (where N is the number of characters with ranks in sense motive) every time someone speaks, which is just unwieldy. If this is his reason, there are a couple things you can do. My favorite is to preroll- have each player roll five or six sense motive checks at the beginning of each session, ideally with some way to semi-randomly rearrange them (just so the players don't figure "Well, my third roll was low, and the last two things he said were lies, so this probably is too,") and then just apply them as the lies come up.Or, you know, Take 10, if the characters aren't threatened or distracted.

[Keneth]

What is the difference between "blatantly obvious to someone with no ranks in Sense Motive and a 6 Wisdom", and "blatantly obvious to someone with 20 ranks in Sense Motive and a 20 Wisdom"?

That's a valid point, which is what take 10s are for (as mentioned). I do agree on the point that the DM should note the modifiers and inform you if you can clearly see the character lying, I just don't think the DM should be rolling bluff and sense motive checks on the spot every time.

[JackRose]

Or, you know, Take 10, if the characters aren't threatened or distracted.

Well, sure, if the characters indicate that they're paying careful attention to a particular conversation/statement.

[Slipperychicken]

It is an incredibly stupid rule.

Here's what you should do: If he does not revoke it, interrupt every sentence of every NPC's dialogue by strongly and clearly declaring that your character uses the Sense Motive skill, then immediately roll it on the table and announce the result with the same strong, clear voice. Get the other players in on this too; they don't want to be fooled or deceived, after all. For extra fun, your PCs can use the Sense Motive skill against one another for every spoken line of dialogue, bringing the game to a screeching halt. Do this until he revokes the rule and rolls it normally.


Here's what the DM should do: Record the PCs Sense Motive modifiers privately and assume they are Taking 10 on it unless the players declare otherwise. This way, he doesn't need to roll anything, you can still declare your intention to roll, and the Bluff check may be resolved against a static DC.

[Greenish]

Well, sure, if the characters indicate that they're paying careful attention to a particular conversation/statement.I've always imagined taking 10 to be pretty routine. A slippery street? Take 10 on balance while going to the store. The door is stuck? Take 10 Str check to see if it's not too bad.

Rolling I see just for being threatened or distracted: A slippery street and a sniper shooting at you? Gotta roll. A stuck door and the rogue keeps whining to you how you should let him handle the doors? Gotta roll.

[Phelix-Mu]

This is a bad way for the DM to handle things. As DM, I roll d20s all of the time, mostly idly for no reason, and I practice my poker face. That way the players can't be suspicious of rolls, or if they do, they have to be suspicious all of the time (since I'm always rolling something or other).

However, I guess I should caveat this by saying my players regularly distrust me as DM, as I regularly throw some crazy crazy at them, sometimes unintentionally. Half my players play semi-paranoid CN types, as well, so there isn't a lot of trust being passed around.

Finally, as DM, if you want to make sure that some subplot is unfolding properly without the PCs' knowledge, then just have the mooks and social npcs not know anything. They don't have to lie if they aren't concealing something and legitimately believe the lies that they've been fed by w/e nefarious organization/BBEG.

Arch Monty Python references are win, by the way.

[Darius Kane]

sorry about that. Ok, so, the dm has said that he will never roll, or have us roll, sense motive checks, which are supposed to be rolled anytime someone bluffs. This a problem.
Mhm. Essentially he requires from you to guess by yourself if someone's bluffing. Well, in that case just assume that:
http://img2.demotywatoryfb.pl/uploads/201205/1337680475_by_pozytywnie93_600.jpg
... and proceed accordingly.

[Malrone]

Ask him to build a diorama of every dungeon he runs, down to the trap triggers and light sources, since the principle is the same. I never let a player use Diplo/Intim on another player, but hot damn, I really doubt the DM is a great enough actor to justify the ability to lie of any NPC. Not to mention that some Characters would be MUCH better at discerning lies than their players. It's why you're playing an RPG in the first place, and not in the military or somesuch.

[Keneth]

I never let a player use Diplo/Intim on another player.

You don't? :smallconfused: This is actually how we resolve any inter-party conflict where the players are unable to do so themselves. That way they don't extend into the real world which would otherwise result in grudges, breakups, or any other social calamities.

[Malrone]

You don't? :smallconfused: This is actually how we resolve any inter-party conflict where the players are unable to do so themselves. That way they don't extend into the real world which would otherwise result in grudges, breakups, or any other social calamities.

I've never had a party dynamic bad enough for the need to arise. IC conflict has always been just that.

[Urpriest]

Most of the clearest ways to deal with this problem rely on either being disruptive or trying to make your DM see logic, and neither is likely to work. Instead, I suggest an evocative example. Start here (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=53), and keep going.

That is what happens when you turn passive checks into active ones. Once your DM reads that, he should understand.

[Keneth]

I've never had a party dynamic bad enough for the need to arise. IC conflict has always been just that.

Ah, well, your sentence implied that it happens on occasion and you don't allow it. If it hasn't happened yet, then you shouldn't be too quick to discard that option. Both our parties and group are quite often at odds as to what the appropriate course of action should be in any situation, most likely because we very rarely make characters with matching alignments and/or goals. The easiest way to avoid a lengthy argument between players is simply to roll a social skill between characters and let the dice decide.

[Greenish]

Ah, well, your sentence implied that it happens on occasion and you don't allow it. If it hasn't happened yet, then you shouldn't be too quick to discard that option. Both our parties and group are quite often at odds as to what the appropriate course of action should be in any situation, most likely because we very rarely make characters with matching alignments and/or goals. The easiest way to avoid a lengthy argument between players is simply to roll a social skill between characters and let the dice decide.How does that even work? I mean, the Diplomacy rules are pretty silly even for PC-to-NPC interaction, I don't see any way they'd work for PC-to-PC interaction without basically rewriting the system.

[NichG]

There are lots of styles of D&D. One very common one emphasizes player skill rather than character skill whenever doing so is feasible. Puzzles, complex tactics, and large-scale strategic decision making are aspects that more commonly fall under player skill.

So this houserule is a perfectly reasonable thing to do if the DM wants those aspects of play to be based on player skill rather than character skill. Ask for a free retrain of skillpoints put into skills the DM has basically said cannot be used, and see if you can use it as an opportunity to get better at telling truth from lie as a player. After all, its a chance to learn where the consequences of failure aren't really significant at all.

[SowZ]

You don't? :smallconfused: This is actually how we resolve any inter-party conflict where the players are unable to do so themselves. That way they don't extend into the real world which would otherwise result in grudges, breakups, or any other social calamities.

Most tables rule that social rules are for NPCs. NPCs aren't characters, so arbitrating how they respond to a situation based on social rules help keep things simpler and allow social characters to have advantages. But you don't need them to decide how players work with each other. Otherwise, what is the point of roleplaying character interaction? Does an IC argument come down to which character has the highest diplomacy? That would destroy one of my favorite parts of the game.

If other PCs were allowed to roll intimidate and diplomacy and tell me what my character responds with, I would politely drop from the group. And I am not one of the people who frequently makes this threat, or tells other people to 'find a new DM' for any problem. I can handle most things. I'm not saying you are playing the game wrong. But I couldn't play that way.

[Keneth]

How does that even work? I mean, the Diplomacy rules are pretty silly even for PC-to-NPC interaction, I don't see any way they'd work for PC-to-PC interaction without basically rewriting the system.

It works fine, or at least it does in Pathfinder (social skills in 3.5 are pretty horrible). You chose your starting attitude, generally indifferent, sometimes unfriendly or even friendly depending on what kind of dispute it is, and the player trying to coerce you into a certain course of action rolls a diplomacy check with all appropriate modifiers. If he fails and you then want to convince him to refrain from what he intends to do, you get to roll a Diplomacy check as well. On rare occasions, both parties are equal in their stance and both present a course of action for the entire party (e.g. should we go right or left at this fork). In such a case, a single opposed roll is made.

[Duke of Urrel]

For your consideration: Here's how I handle Sense Motive checks: I consider them always to be elective checks. The following text is a full description of my own house rules.

An elective skill check is a skill check that you make only when you, as a player, choose to do so for your PC. Unless you are new as a player, I will never remind you when you have a chance to make an elective skill check. You must yourself learn to recognize opportunities to make an elective skill check, and in each case, you must yourself decide whether making this check is worth the risk.

In particular, there is risk involved in making an elective Sense Motive check that challenges another creature’s Bluff check.

If you make an elective Sense Motive check to challenge the Bluff check of a creature that tells you a lie, but your skill check fails, you must role-play believing what the creature told you until evidence appears to make you disbelieve it.

Similarly, if you make an elective Sense Motive check after one minute of observation to confirm your hunch that a creature is untrustworthy, but your skill check fails, you must role-play trusting the creature until evidence appears to make you distrust it.

In the meantime, I do not allow you to make another elective Sense Motive check unless the creature tells a lie that I regard as implausible (one that adds a +10 bonus to your Sense Motive check) or ludicrous (one that adds a +20 bonus to your Sense Motive check).

Suggest to your DM that s(he) doesn't have to grant you Sense Motive checks just because an NPC lies, but that you ought to be permitted to make elective Sense Motive checks whenever you suspect something – but that you accept the risk that if your Sense Motive check fails, you must role-play being deceived until you have further evidence for suspicion. I think that's a fair compromise that's pretty unlikely to be abused.

NPCs should follow the same rule: If they are deceived by a PC's Bluff check, they remain deceived until something makes them suspicious again. In fact, my rule is that only a subgroup of NPCs are ever suspicious enough to make Sense Motive checks at all, so that when PCs use Bluff skill in front of a large audience of NPCs, only one in five, or two in 6 to 20, or three in 21 or more NPCs make Sense Motive checks at all.

[JusticeZero]

Honestly i'd think it's easiest to just have Sense Motive be one of those things that is never rolled - it just increases the Take 10 DC to Bluff the character. I don't really care for how much wild variance is introduced in changing a skill check range from 1..20 to -19..19 (a range of 38 points) of swinginess.

[Urpriest]

That elective system is interesting, and I can sort of see where you're going with it. RAW, it's completely pointless: the consequences for failing a Sense Motive check are the same as the consequences for not making a Sense Motive check, and thus there is no downside to making Sense Motive checks all the time. At most you're just changing the time window involved, which mostly just makes Glibness more powerful.

In terms of table-culture though, it can serve an important role. Normally, even if Sense Motive comes up blank they still won't trust someone who's untrustworthy, so Sense Motive only serves to reveal people who appear trustworthy but are actually untrustworthy. With this rule, players can choose to either trust their fate to the dice, or trust their own opinion. That said, if you have players who are good at Sense Motive in reality they will see through NPC lies much better than their characters should, which is a problem because it gives people with real-world social skills basically free skill points which is counter to the intended power dynamic of D&D.

[Asteron]

I'll go ahead and add my worthless two cents (they're plastic, see) to the PC vs PC social skills topic...

I'm pretty firmly against it. No other player should be able to determine how my character is going to be played with just the roll of the dice. If their Diplomacy is high enough, you could probably just hand over your sheet to them since you're not really in control anymore. Also, the PHB does state that it is for NPCs as well.

My DM allowed it once for intimidate. A friends weretiger tried to intimidate my warblade into not doing something. He passed (because the rules are tilted in favor of the skill user...) but I still did it anyway. My character pretty much told him that I would kill him if he ever tried it again. We haven't done it since.

[dascarletm]

I'll go ahead and add my worthless two cents (they're plastic, see) to the PC vs PC social skills topic...

I'm pretty firmly against it. No other player should be able to determine how my character is going to be played with just the roll of the dice. If their Diplomacy is high enough, you could probably just hand over your sheet to them since you're not really in control anymore. Also, the PHB does state that it is for NPCs as well.

My DM allowed it once for intimidate. A friends weretiger tried to intimidate my warblade into not doing something. He passed (because the rules are tilted in favor of the skill user...) but I still did it anyway. My character pretty much told him that I would kill him if he ever tried it again. We haven't done it since.

In our group we handle only used opposed skill roles when it would be impossible to not meta-game. Bluff is a good example, when the player knows flat out that the other player is lying, but the character doesn't. We only use it as a guide to help the role-play. If a party of three has to go left or right, and player A says left and player B says right. Player C may be better friends with A irl, but in game he'll have them convince him with opposed rolls.

Stuff like that

[SowZ]

In our group we handle only used opposed skill roles when it would be impossible to not meta-game. Bluff is a good example, when the player knows flat out that the other player is lying, but the character doesn't. We only use it as a guide to help the role-play. If a party of three has to go left or right, and player A says left and player B says right. Player C may be better friends with A irl, but in game he'll have them convince him with opposed rolls.

Stuff like that

I'm good at knowing what my character would do and separating meta-knowledge. I frequently disagree with the course of action my character would take, but take it anyway since it leads to a more interesting story. I'd much rather control my own character's decision to go left or right and judge based on who my character, IC, is better friends with.

If my character suddenly acts totally different than normal because a party member rolled good I will be taken out of game mode.

If it helps your group roleplay, cool, that's awesome. But it would hurt my roleplay, so I'd rather not let diplomacy checks effect me.

[SiuiS]

sorry about that. Ok, so, the dm has said that he will never roll, or have us roll, sense motive checks, which are supposed to be rolled anytime someone bluffs. This a problem.

So how does he handle bluff checks?


Honestly i'd think it's easiest to just have Sense Motive be one of those things that is never rolled - it just increases the Take 10 DC to Bluff the character. I don't really care for how much wild variance is introduced in changing a skill check range from 1..20 to -19..19 (a range of 38 points) of swinginess.

huh.

It's not removing swinginess; the DM will not tell the player if the NPC is lying. Ever.

Whihc means they probably won't roll bluff, and instead just lie, and it is based entirely on whether you say "I believe/Don't Believe them".

[SowZ]

Hey, so, what is the point of ever putting points into Bluff or Sense Motive? Does the DM houserule away social skills? Cause if he doesn't, why even list them numerically if there isn't a percentage chance of success/failure?

[ArcturusV]

The OPs situation is... kinda odd. The Elective thing on last page is kind of in spirit to how I've always handled it.

I dread the sort of response that happens anytime I roll dice (hidden or not). If the players walk into a room, and I roll dice... they instantly get that "spider sense" even if they failed and I didn't tell them anything.

Unless I put a lot of effort into basically messing with them (Meaningless Dice Rolls) so they start to ignore it. But until that takes effect I just massively slowed down the game. Anytime I roll a dice, they suddenly STOP... and try to figure out what I rolled. Even if there's no IC reason to do so.

It gets... tiring. So I've kind of just avoided doing that sort of thing.

So I've been doing effectively what 4th Edition does. I presume that unless a character is telling me something like "I use Spot/Listen/Sense Motive" or other informative checks, I just presume they're always taking 10.

Combat uses are always rolled out, of course. Feinting, Intimidate Checks, etc. But just for social stuff, I presume characters just naturally take 10. Exception being if they are in a situation where they cannot act rationally of course. Like if you're inebriated or the likes.

So then when they say something like "Well... I think he's lying!" even though the guy's bluff passed their Take 10 result, I'll say "Okay, throw a sense motive." I'll roll out a bluff now to counter it. And of course, I am always careful to use the lack of information responses.

"You don't sense any deception coming from him." Instead of "you know he's not lying.", etc.

And doing so, I've not really had a problem with it.

[dascarletm]

The OPs situation is... kinda odd. The Elective thing on last page is kind of in spirit to how I've always handled it.

I dread the sort of response that happens anytime I roll dice (hidden or not). If the players walk into a room, and I roll dice... they instantly get that "spider sense" even if they failed and I didn't tell them anything.

Unless I put a lot of effort into basically messing with them (Meaningless Dice Rolls) so they start to ignore it. But until that takes effect I just massively slowed down the game. Anytime I roll a dice, they suddenly STOP... and try to figure out what I rolled. Even if there's no IC reason to do so.

It gets... tiring. So I've kind of just avoided doing that sort of thing.

So I've been doing effectively what 4th Edition does. I presume that unless a character is telling me something like "I use Spot/Listen/Sense Motive" or other informative checks, I just presume they're always taking 10.

Combat uses are always rolled out, of course. Feinting, Intimidate Checks, etc. But just for social stuff, I presume characters just naturally take 10. Exception being if they are in a situation where they cannot act rationally of course. Like if you're inebriated or the likes.

So then when they say something like "Well... I think he's lying!" even though the guy's bluff passed their Take 10 result, I'll say "Okay, throw a sense motive." I'll roll out a bluff now to counter it. And of course, I am always careful to use the lack of information responses.

"You don't sense any deception coming from him." Instead of "you know he's not lying.", etc.

And doing so, I've not really had a problem with it.

I've tried pre-rolling all the checks i plan they'll make/ just roll like 20 or so rolls for them. I do it well enough away from the time of play so I don't remember the order and keep that hidden from me till they require a secret roll, then I add the mods. It just looks like you are reading some notes.

I do feel a little for the DM, though i disagree with his methods, it does suck to have your large plot-dependent secret be blown by a good sense motive. Makes you plan more carefully.

[SilverLeaf167]

This thread brought something sort-of interesting to my mind:
For the DM, at least, in-character lying should typically be just easy as speaking the truth, as in either case you're making things up (this is roleplaying after all) and have probably planned it ahead of time. It might be SOMEWHAT harder if you have to improvise, or the truth has already been established, but if the players know the truth already, lying is useless anyway. I don't know if others agree with this, but it is how I feel about the matter.

Anyway, more on topic, I have each PC's modifier for secretly rolled skills, like Disguise, Spot and Sense Motive, written on a table, as others have recommended. In addition, however, I have rolled a d20 a whole bunch of times and written down the result. Whenever one of these checks would be called for, I look at the next d20 result, add the modifier and mark it used. Since the table with the rolls is on my laptop anyway, and I obviously have to fidget with it quite a bit during sessions, the players don't get any clear hint that they just "rolled Sense Motive". Unless they succeed, of course.

[NotScaryBats]

There are lots of styles of D&D. One very common one emphasizes player skill rather than character skill whenever doing so is feasible. Puzzles, complex tactics, and large-scale strategic decision making are aspects that more commonly fall under player skill.

So this houserule is a perfectly reasonable thing to do if the DM wants those aspects of play to be based on player skill rather than character skill. Ask for a free retrain of skillpoints put into skills the DM has basically said cannot be used, and see if you can use it as an opportunity to get better at telling truth from lie as a player. After all, its a chance to learn where the consequences of failure aren't really significant at all.

This is exactly what I thought when I read the OP, and I'm glad someone else thought it too!

If he wants to play this way, give it a legitimate shot instead of calling it a 'bad rule' and complaining about it because it isn't the way you think things 'should be'

After you've tried it out, open the table up to discuss it if you still think its bogus, and see if you're the odd man out.

Personally, I prefer systems like this -- the less dice rolls the better, generally.

[molten_dragon]

So, my dm has a rule that he refuses to give us, or roll himself, sense motives check for lies. We have to decide whether or not we sense motive.

He won't listen to me about how bad this is. So, what arguements do you think I should make? What can I do?

I'm kind of confused here. Does the DM not allow you to use the sense motive skill at all? Or does he simply not automatically roll it for you, and you have to tell him you want to use it if you suspect someone is lying?

Because I do the latter with my group as well. I don't want to give away that someone is lying by rolling for people. And I don't want to roll randomly when people are talking to mask it.

I really don't see what the big deal is about the player needing to say "I use sense motive" if they suspect someone is lying.

[Darius Kane]

I already asked for clarification and it was given. Look for OP's posts on 1st page.

[Mnemnosyne]

I'm kind of confused here. Does the DM not allow you to use the sense motive skill at all? Or does he simply not automatically roll it for you, and you have to tell him you want to use it if you suspect someone is lying?

Because I do the latter with my group as well. I don't want to give away that someone is lying by rolling for people. And I don't want to roll randomly when people are talking to mask it.

I really don't see what the big deal is about the player needing to say "I use sense motive" if they suspect someone is lying.
The big deal is that their character has the ability to sense motive. The player shouldn't have to suspect someone is lying for his character, who is trained in detecting when people are lying, to do so. It's not something you 'turn on'.

Really, ask someone who's trained to interrogate people and detect lies. They don't have to 'turn on' their sense motive. They don't have to get suspicious of the person ahead of time. They just have enough experience and training with deception that they can spot the telltale signs that inexperienced liars give off. Without any conscious effort or suspicion on their part. Someone lies to them badly enough for them to notice, and their spidey-sense just goes off and they know the person is acting shifty.

That's why sense motive needs to be done automatically by the DM, because a character trained to spot such behavior doesn't ever turn it off, and the character, if trained, has all sorts of subtle physical cues to go off of. When the DM describes what the NPC is saying, do you think he accurately conveys to the player all the subtle movements that the NPC makes? The 'microexpressions' that can be an indicator of lying? Of course not. But the character, if he has ranks in sense motive, means he has studied and intentionally learned such things, working hard to observe the little cues that people give away when they attempt to lie. Here's an interesting FBI report (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/june_2011/school_violence) on the subject that illustrates the sorts of subtle hints and clues that a trained investigator has at their disposal. Now, can a DM really accurately represent all those hints and clues to their players? And even if they can, are the players trained investigators? Certainly not, in either case, which is why bluff and sense motive are skills. The bluff check represents how many of those referred-to hints and clues the speaker gives away, while the sense motive check represents whether said clues are noticed by the listener or not.

[molten_dragon]

The big deal is that their character has the ability to sense motive. The player shouldn't have to suspect someone is lying for his character, who is trained in detecting when people are lying, to do so. It's not something you 'turn on'.

Really, ask someone who's trained to interrogate people and detect lies. They don't have to 'turn on' their sense motive. They don't have to get suspicious of the person ahead of time. They just have enough experience and training with deception that they can spot the telltale signs that inexperienced liars give off. Without any conscious effort or suspicion on their part. Someone lies to them badly enough for them to notice, and their spidey-sense just goes off and they know the person is acting shifty.

That's why sense motive needs to be done automatically by the DM, because a character trained to spot such behavior doesn't ever turn it off, and the character, if trained, has all sorts of subtle physical cues to go off of. When the DM describes what the NPC is saying, do you think he accurately conveys to the player all the subtle movements that the NPC makes? The 'microexpressions' that can be an indicator of lying? Of course not. But the character, if he has ranks in sense motive, means he has studied and intentionally learned such things, working hard to observe the little cues that people give away when they attempt to lie. Here's an interesting FBI report (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/june_2011/school_violence) on the subject that illustrates the sorts of subtle hints and clues that a trained investigator has at their disposal. Now, can a DM really accurately represent all those hints and clues to their players? And even if they can, are the players trained investigators? Certainly not, in either case, which is why bluff and sense motive are skills. The bluff check represents how many of those referred-to hints and clues the speaker gives away, while the sense motive check represents whether said clues are noticed by the listener or not.

Eh, I still think you're making a bigger deal of it than it needs to be. It's not like it's a big deal for the player to say "I want to use sense motive".

And I would argue that someone trained to interrogate people and detect lies would indeed have to 'turn it on' in the real world. Most of that kind of thing requires paying extremely close attention to another person's behavior and looking for cues that they're nervous or they're trying to think up a lie. Even someone trained in that kind of thing probably isn't doing that all the time to every person they meet.

[hymer]

I don't think this is something to get excited about as long as the DM told you. If you play a paranoid character, ask to do Sense Motive on just about everything. Otherwise, ask for Sense Motive when you feel like it. Please don't interrupt the playing experience for the other players by annoying the DM. Talk to her/him and the other players, by all means, but in the end the DM is just a human being. S/he is probably trying to make the game as playable as s/he can.
Mnemnosyne's tract is interesting (if perhaps a little besides the point - after all a 36 int wizard would probably memorize dfferent spells from what an int 11 player would, but it's still the player's responsibility to memorize spells), but it may be impractical to follow. I had to remove the automatic chance for elves to detect secret doors by passing by them, because I simply forgot about it all the time. I can imagine a DM trying to do a scene and simply failing to plan for Sense Motive. It shouldn't happen, but it really seems a very minor thing to me. If Bluff may or may not crop up every other session, I can see how you can end up in a position where you forget, and you need the player to remind you that this thing is in play.
I do Sense Motive in the way that I ask players to make a check at every major NPC interaction (for a general impression) and allow them to ask for more as they like on specific statements.

[Mnemnosyne]

Eh, I still think you're making a bigger deal of it than it needs to be. It's not like it's a big deal for the player to say "I want to use sense motive".

And I would argue that someone trained to interrogate people and detect lies would indeed have to 'turn it on' in the real world. Most of that kind of thing requires paying extremely close attention to another person's behavior and looking for cues that they're nervous or they're trying to think up a lie. Even someone trained in that kind of thing probably isn't doing that all the time to every person they meet.
They sort of are. No, they're not paying that close attention, but very often they will happen to notice at just the right moment to catch the clues. The better the investigator is at spotting these things, the fewer clues he needs to do so, and the more likely he is to notice. Or perhaps he's just constantly highly observant to people around him. In any case, this is all represented by his high sense motive modifier.

It might be fair to impose a circumstance penalty on sense motive unless the character is paying specific attention to try to catch someone in a lie; something like a -2 to sense motive unless the player declares his character is actually looking for signs of lying is reasonable. Maybe even as high as -4. But not rolling at all unless the player declares it denies the character any chance whatsoever of noticing what he should reasonably have a decent chance of noticing entirely passively and without specifically looking for it.

[Duke of Urrel]

Five more things. (Sorry, can't shut up when I'm intrigued!)

1. I realize that my last posting was an outlier, and that it may look like attempted derailment or at least an unwelcome violation of the spirit of the thread. Actually, I've never tested these newest house rules of mine in actual play. Judging from most of the opinions on this thread, they'd go over like a lead balloon...!

2. A dungeon master should not force a rule on players if they all hate it, and at the very least should make accommodations if the players have built their PCs according to other expectations of how the rules work.

3. There are many ways to understand how skills work. Do dungeon masters generally make Search checks for their PCs when there's something that they may find next to them? Should they, then, make Sense Motive checks for their PCs when there's some deception that they may see through?

I don't share Mnemnosyne's view that lies are obvious things that require great skill to hide. My view is that lies are very subtle things that require great skill to search for, using various clues, not all of which are right on the surface. My view is that Sense Motive checks should be used to confirm hunches and suspicions that players already have, not to create them in the first place. This is why I am leaning toward making Sense Motive checks elective.

4. I am still considering the merits of granting at least one Sense Motive check to some PC every time a NPC lies. If I followed this rule, I would want to limit these granted checks to a subgroup of PCs: one in a party of 1 to 5, two in a party of 6 to 20, or three in a party of 21 or more. This is how I distribute granted Will saves against Illusions that interact with all PCs at once (this is also how I distribute them among NPCs when the situation is reversed), and this may be a better way to handle Sense Motive checks than to make them all elective, as I proposed above. The downsides of this method are: (1) I would be the one deciding who uses Sense Motive skill and when, not the PCs, which bothers me (and makes more work for me), (2) it would be hard to know under what conditions I should allow elective Sense Motive checks in addition to granted ones.

5. I'm intrigued by the notion that PCs always use Sense Motive skill and take 10 on their checks. I've never tried that method. Maybe it would work, but I'd have to know how to handle the Bluff end of things. If both Bluff and Sense Motive checks generally took 10, that would knock the spontaneity right out of challenges that I believe should be highly unpredictable. I would want to avoid that, in any case. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to disallow taking 10 on all Bluff checks...

I'm still thinking about these things. Thanks for the ideas!

[JusticeZero]

It's not removing swinginess; the DM will not tell the player if the NPC is lying. Ever.
Whihc means they probably won't roll bluff, and instead just lie, and it is based entirely on whether you say "I believe/Don't Believe them".
Which I don't agree with, which is why i've been heavily thinking about just treating Sense Motive, Spot, and any other defensive detection skills, plus 10, as DCs to bluff past. A roll has to be made - by the NPC - but it'll be more like throwing an attack. (*crosses out a prerolled number off the list, adds NPC's Bluff* Does an 18 fool them? *looks at sheets* It won't fool the Paladin, so i'd better slip her a note.)

[molten_dragon]

It might be fair to impose a circumstance penalty on sense motive unless the character is paying specific attention to try to catch someone in a lie; something like a -2 to sense motive unless the player declares his character is actually looking for signs of lying is reasonable. Maybe even as high as -4. But not rolling at all unless the player declares it denies the character any chance whatsoever of noticing what he should reasonably have a decent chance of noticing entirely passively and without specifically looking for it.

I'm not denying the character anything. They're welcome to use sense motive, they just have to tell me they want to do it. It's by far the easiest way for me as the DM to handle it, since it doesn't give information away, and I don't have to keep track of constantly changing PC stats or worry about making up a list of rolls ahead of time or any of that.

I'm a big fan of things that reduce the amount of prep work that I have to do and don't bog down gaming sessions. Requiring players to tell me when they use sense motive does both those things.

[JusticeZero]

My view is that lies are very subtle things that require great skill to search for, using various clues, not all of which are right on the surface.If you have trained Sense Motive, then you HAVE that skill. Furthermore, the knowledge of how to see those things is a passive ability.
Once upon a time, I saw the movie "Fight Club". There is a section in it where the characters point out the little one-frame circle flash that they use to know when the next reel of film needs to start. I'd never noticed those before, and I cannot NOT notice them now. It's a subtle thing, easy to miss, but once you've had them pointed out to you, it screams out at you. Tells for detecting lies are similar (as are other things).
5. I'm intrigued by the notion that PCs always use Sense Motive skill and take 10 on their checks. I've never tried that method. Maybe it would work, but I'd have to know how to handle the Bluff end of things. If both Bluff and Sense Motive checks generally took 10, that would knock the spontaneity right out of a challenges that I believe should be highly unpredictable. I would want to avoid that, in any case. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to disallow taking 10 on all Bluff checks...Require a roll from SOMEONE, even if you make it yourself. Who makes the check isn't important. It can be (Bluff+Cha+1d20) - (Sense motive+Wis+10), or (Bluff+Cha+10) - (Sense motive+Wis+1d20) or (Bluff+Cha+10) - (Sense motive+Wis+10) + (1d20-10). They're all exactly the same check.

[JusticeZero]

I'm not denying the character anything. They're welcome to use sense motive, they just have to tell me they want to do it. It's by far the easiest way for me as the DM to handle it, since it doesn't give information away, and I don't have to keep track of constantly changing PC stats or worry about making up a list of rolls ahead of time or any of that.

I'm a big fan of things that reduce the amount of prep work that I have to do and don't bog down gaming sessions. Requiring players to tell me when they use sense motive does both those things.
Yeah, but then I have to say "I Sense Motive *roll*" every time anyone talks just to correct for how good of a liar the GM is or is not. And then the session gets bogged down.
Also - there are still people who don't have a list of rolls made up in advance? No wonder things are so difficult. Seriously, thirty seconds on a spreadsheet, tops, and the 'print' button and you can absolutely fill one sheet of paper with all the numbers you could want for a year of gaming. There's also dice webpages and apps and the like. Click the screen on the same thing your notes are on. You now have several dice rolls.

[hymer]

I'm one of those without lists of prerolled rolls. I roll random treasure ahead of time, for example, but I don't preroll an NPC's skill checks. A small concern is how it might lead to my metagaming, since I could simply look at the list and manipulate the game to get the high rolls when I want them.
But really, it's a matter of aesthetics. We roll with dice, and we do it pretty much when it's needed, and openly whenever possible.

[Duke of Urrel]

I think Mnemnosyne has made a good point that I should consider more carefully. PCs should have powers that exceed those of players themselves. If a PC has high Sense Motive skill, the PC should be able to notice deceptions even if the player fails to notice them. This speaks in favor of granted Sense Motive checks.

At the same time, I don't believe lie detection is an easy thing, and I am absolutely unconvinced by the claim of any government that it has now somehow reduced lie-detection to a science. (My own Sense Motive skill is better than that!) Not even magic can detect lies reliably until the Discern Lies spell, which is a fourth-level cleric spell or a third-level paladin spell.

Right now, I'm considering two options:

1. Assume that PCs always use Sense Motive skill, but that they always take 10 on Sense Motive checks unless they tell me otherwise. At the same time, I control the modifiers for appeal, risk, and implausibility/ludicrousness. I'm still not sure whether this permits me to say that NPCs generally take 10 on their Bluff checks. On the one hand, fair is fair, and if I assume that PCs always take 10, then I should assume the same thing for NPCs. On the other hand, I don't want to eliminate spontaneity. Is it enough spontaneity to allow PCs to roll Sense Motive checks rather than take 10 any time they choose?

2. Generalize the decisive subgroup rule. This is the rule I apply in most other cases to deceptions that affect large groups of creatures at once, including lies, disguises, and illusions. I believe it should be possible to deceive an entire audience, so I make it easier by allowing only a decisive subgroup in the audience to resist the deception. In a group of 1 to 5, only one makes a check or save; in a group of 6 to 20, two make checks or saves; and in a group of 21 or more, three make checks of saves. Nobody else is granted a check or a save, but anybody may make an elective check or save by taking some action to do so. In the case of Sense Motive skill, I would require this action to take one minute. After completing this action, a PC could either make one Sense Motive check to confirm a hunch or make one check for every statement made by the NPC in the past minute that may be a lie.

In either case, I would require PCs to role-play being deceived when this happens. This means that once a PC believes a NPC's lie, he or she continues to believe it until there's some reason to become suspicious again. That reason might be as simple as making a Sense Motive check successfully the next time the NPC tells a lie. Or it might be any circumstantial evidence that makes the NPC's behavior seem suspicious.

[Tragak]

PCs should have powers that exceed those of players themselves. If a PC has high Sense Motive skill, the PC should be able to notice deceptions even if the player fails to notice them. This speaks in favor of granted Sense Motive checks. So much sense was just made :smallsmile:

[ArcturusV]

Well, the theory on the "Taking 10" on Sense Motive, Spot, Listen, etc, being presumed as a passive benchmark is just that, a passive benchmark. Over the course of a few minutes, just paying average attention, they're going to average out an average roll... so that's kind of a baseline awareness.

So I don't Take 10 on Bluffs, Diplomacy, Hide, Move Silently, etc, the things that those skills are opposed to because it's an active use. Someone might roll well, someone might botch it. No telling. And since it's not really something that can be "Averaged out" quite the same way, kind of makes sense that it's a singular roll. I might allow a singular roll to cover several lies over a conversation, of course. Particularly if they are related.

It's just one of those weird metagaming things. If I roll just once? Players don't pay it too much mind. Particularly if they don't see what dice I grabbed. It might be a Random Encounter tidbit. I might have been rolling for a Random Rumor Around Town. Whatever.

When you roll in sequence though, it tips people off. Or if you roll a ton of dice at once. But just one dice? Eh, it could be anything. It might be a trick. It might be something that you can forget about like a Random Encounter that had "No Encounter" as a result. But you throw Number of Players + 1 dice roll? They know something is sneaking up on them, or lying to them, etc.

Course I COULD just have a huge sheet of numbers. But I've run into players that get a little antsy about that. Maybe rightly so. It seems like, if you don't roll dice and just read numbers in situations where dice probably should have been rolled that you are just DM Fiating them, and they will think that in my experience. Even if it's not the case. Meanwhile at least if they hear a dice or two roll, they have faith that I"m running things legit.

[molten_dragon]

Yeah, but then I have to say "I Sense Motive *roll*" every time anyone talks just to correct for how good of a liar the GM is or is not. And then the session gets bogged down.

Why on earth would you need to do that? Most of the time it doesn't matter if the NPC is being honest or not. Do you go around constantly in real life analyzing every little bit of information someone tells you to determine whether it's true or not? Of course you don't, because most of the time it doesn't matter. I think on average I might have a PC roll a sense motive 4 or 5 times a session, usually when they want to know if some key piece of information is true or not.


Also - there are still people who don't have a list of rolls made up in advance? No wonder things are so difficult.

No, why would I have that? That's what dice are for. Why bother having dice at all if you're just going to roll everything in advance?


Seriously, thirty seconds on a spreadsheet, tops, and the 'print' button and you can absolutely fill one sheet of paper with all the numbers you could want for a year of gaming. There's also dice webpages and apps and the like. Click the screen on the same thing your notes are on. You now have several dice rolls.

Well, for one I don't like the pseudo-randomness that spreadsheets generate. And for two, I like rolling dice.

[Keneth]

I'll go ahead and add my worthless two cents (they're plastic, see) to the PC vs PC social skills topic...

I'm pretty firmly against it. No other player should be able to determine how my character is going to be played with just the roll of the dice. If their Diplomacy is high enough, you could probably just hand over your sheet to them since you're not really in control anymore. Also, the PHB does state that it is for NPCs as well.

My DM allowed it once for intimidate. A friends weretiger tried to intimidate my warblade into not doing something. He passed (because the rules are tilted in favor of the skill user...) but I still did it anyway. My character pretty much told him that I would kill him if he ever tried it again. We haven't done it since.

I think your example was a poor resolution on your part, unless of course you did it after the effects of intimidate passed, which makes perfect sense. I agree that no other player should be able to tell you how to react to any given situation, but I don't believe that their characters shouldn't be able to impose any influence on you. That's like saying you shouldn't be taking any damage from the sorcerer's fireball just because you decided to charge into a group of enemies before his turn. I support an organic resolution between players, but when that doesn't bear fruit, a social check is in order (at our table).

I should probably note that our Intimidate rules are houseruled to significantly higher DCs and Pathfinder rules for Diplomacy and Bluff have some pretty severe DC modifiers depending on what you're trying to achieve. It doesn't stop a character that's min-maxing their social skills, but even they won't be able to string you along forever. In addition, the rules also state that you can't make requests of a creature that's not at least indifferent towards you, and they don't allow players to change the attitude of other players. In a case where a player changes their attitude to unfriendly, we allow for a single opposed Charisma check to try and smooth things out if the situation is serious enough.

But I think we've derailed this thread enough. If anyone wants to discuss the issue further, we should make a new thread.

[Darius Kane]

No, why would I have that? That's what dice are for. Why bother having dice at all if you're just going to roll everything in advance?
With what are you rolling those numbers in advance?

[elonin]

I like the idea of having mini battle boards for each character with frequently used skills, saves, and abilities that would come into play.

The rules might be distorted from their intention, but in actual play sense motive gets checked when the player has a sense that something is off. I don't like it cause it leads to metagaming vs the dm rather than playing character.

[Duke of Urrel]

I like the idea of having mini battle boards for each character with frequently used skills, saves, and abilities that would come into play.

The rules might be distorted from their intention, but in actual play sense motive gets checked when the player has a sense that something is off. I don't like it cause it leads to metagaming vs the dm rather than playing character.

I like to keep a record of every PC's modifiers for Spot, Listen, and Search checks, as well as for Will saves, firstly because these are often granted checks and saves, and secondly because I often like to grant these checks covertly, as semi-secret checks.

Here's how I grant a semi-secret check. I tell every PC either to roll 1d20 or to take 10. I don't tell any PC what kind of check or saving throw he or she has made unless it succeeds. For example, suppose I grant the PCs semi-secret Listen checks. Every PC either rolls his or her own d20 and tells me the score, or else tells me "I'm taking 10." If a PC's check succeeds, I say, "You heard ________." If no PC's check succeeds, I tell the PCs absolutely nothing. They know only that they failed to detect something, but they have no idea what it was or which skill or saving throw it was that failed. In response, some PCs may now take elective Spot checks, others elective Listen checks. A few may even take elective Search checks if they wish, which is a good way to make an elective Will save to detect an illusion. But the point is, no PC is able to use meta-game thinking to deduce precisely what the whole party has failed to notice. At least a little mystery is preserved until an actually successful skill check or saving throw clears it up.

If I grant Sense Motive checks (and I'm still considering whether and how I should do that), I think it is right and proper to grant them as semi-secret checks.

[molten_dragon]

With what are you rolling those numbers in advance?

In the post I was replying to he was suggesting using a dice roller app or the rand() function in a spreadsheet.

[Greenish]

Require a roll from SOMEONE, even if you make it yourself. Who makes the check isn't important. It can be (Bluff+Cha+1d20) - (Sense motive+Wis+10), or (Bluff+Cha+10) - (Sense motive+Wis+1d20) or (Bluff+Cha+10) - (Sense motive+Wis+10) + (1d20-10). They're all exactly the same check.Well, there's technically a minor bias for the one making the roll (because d20 average result is 10.5), but yeah, that should work.

Legend actually uses almost the same system, with the exception that the target of the roll is (Level+StatMod+10(+Misc.)). Of course, Legend interaction rules are rather more complex, and skills are less easy to boost.

[Darius Kane]

In the post I was replying to he was suggesting using a dice roller app or the rand() function in a spreadsheet.
You can roll dice in advance, was my point.

[Mnemnosyne]

Lot of interesting points made while I slept, and I'll address the ones that are notable to me...

3. There are many ways to understand how skills work. Do dungeon masters generally make Search checks for their PCs when there's something that they may find next to them? Should they, then, make Sense Motive checks for their PCs when there's some deception that they may see through?

I don't share Mnemnosyne's view that lies are obvious things that require great skill to hide. My view is that lies are very subtle things that require great skill to search for, using various clues, not all of which are right on the surface. My view is that Sense Motive checks should be used to confirm hunches and suspicions that players already have, not to create them in the first place. This is why I am leaning toward making Sense Motive checks elective.Search tends to be a more active skill. It's an actual search (looking for things that aren't in plain sight) and the rules call out specific occasions where characters get automatic search checks, such as with elves and secret doors. If something is in plain sight and the question is whether the character just happens to notice it or not, I think a Spot check would be more appropriate, and one of these should indeed be passive and granted anytime a character looks in the general direction of something that might be significant.

As for whether lies take skill to pull off or not, it largely depends on the nature of the lie, the liar themselves, the consequences for being caught in the lie, and numerous other things. Is it hard to tell someone their outfit looks okay if you happen to think it doesn't look very good? No, because the consequences for being caught are low, so lying about it doesn't make the liar all that nervous, unless they're compulsively honest. But a character whose lie being exposed means serious negative consequences for them is going to be more nervous by default, which means they lie more poorly unless they're actually good at lying.
At the same time, I don't believe lie detection is an easy thing, and I am absolutely unconvinced by the claim of any government that it has now somehow reduced lie-detection to a science. (My own Sense Motive skill is better than that!) Not even magic can detect lies reliably until the Discern Lies spell, which is a fourth-level cleric spell or a third-level paladin spell.I wasn't suggesting (nor do I believe it's suggested in the linked report) that these methods are infallible, but they certainly exist and they have been scientifically proven to be generally effective. There are many variables in really detecting it though, and certainly we have no methods that are reliable enough to count as evidence, but they are certainly depended upon for guidance, and such techniques produce results more often than not.
Why on earth would you need to do that? Most of the time it doesn't matter if the NPC is being honest or not. Do you go around constantly in real life analyzing every little bit of information someone tells you to determine whether it's true or not? Of course you don't, because most of the time it doesn't matter. I think on average I might have a PC roll a sense motive 4 or 5 times a session, usually when they want to know if some key piece of information is true or not.Because while it doesn't matter if every NPC is being honest, the ones that do matter sometimes aren't the ones you think do, so in order to avoid unknowingly ignoring an important clue, I need to sense motive on every single NPC ever, because I never know when the kindly old lady is actually a disguised hag, or whether the girl I just met in a tavern is actually a vampire or something. So I have to declare sense motive on everything anyone ever says to me, or anyone that ever interacts with me, or anyone I ever see, because my character reasonably has a chance to notice little things that she is being denied if I don't do that. If a DM tells me I'm not getting automatic sense motive rolls unless I declare them, I absolutely will declare them, on everything and everyone, at all times.
I like to keep a record of every PC's modifiers for Spot, Listen, and Search checks, as well as for Will saves, firstly because these are often granted checks and saves, and secondly because I often like to grant these checks covertly, as semi-secret checks.

Here's how I grant a semi-secret check. I tell every PC either to roll 1d20 or to take 10. I don't tell any PC what kind of check or saving throw he or she has made unless it succeeds. For example, suppose I grant the PCs semi-secret Listen checks. Every PC either rolls his or her own d20 and tells me the score, or else tells me "I'm taking 10." If a PC's check succeeds, I say, "You heard ________." If no PC's check succeeds, I tell the PCs absolutely nothing. They know only that they failed to detect something, but they have no idea what it was or which skill or saving throw it was that failed. In response, some PCs may now take elective Spot checks, others elective Listen checks. A few may even take elective Search checks if they wish, which is a good way to make an elective Will save to detect an illusion. But the point is, no PC is able to use meta-game thinking to deduce precisely what the whole party has failed to notice. At least a little mystery is preserved until an actually successful skill check or saving throw clears it up.

If I grant Sense Motive checks (and I'm still considering whether and how I should do that), I think it is right and proper to grant them as semi-secret checks.If everyone makes a check and then fails, then they stop and search the area purely because their characters didn't notice anything, that's pretty much the exact metagaming situation that is the reason for the DM making checks in secret in the first place. Because the DM calls for a check, tells the players you didn't see anything, then the characters are for some reason suspicious because they failed to notice anything.

And the failure is often relatively obvious in context. Are they talking to an NPC? Then the check was almost certainly a sense motive roll, because there's not a lot of other checks you can make in such a situation. There are relatively few other options; spot or listen check for someone outside the conversation sneaking/hiding. Will save for an illusion you just interacted with somehow. In any case, if the characters suddenly get suspicious because they failed to notice anything, that's a bizarre reaction.

Similarly, if the group is walking down a dungeon corridor and fails a check, there's obviously something around, whether it's a spot, listen, search, or will save they failed. So, suddenly, because the group doesn't notice anything, two of them take point and carefully scan the corridor ahead, two of them cover the rear and scan the corridor behind, and the trapfinder carefully combs every inch of the area with a fine-toothed comb and prods everything with their 10 foot pole to make sure it's not an illusion. All because nobody noticed anything.

[Urpriest]

In terms of players becoming suspicious when you ask for a check, one solution is to give information regardless of the check result. If they succeed, they know the NPC is lying, while if they fail, they figure out something more minor, like the NPC's attitude. As long as you make a habit of asking for Sense Motive checks for things other than lying, this can work well: the players will get used to you asking for Sense Motive to get some of the subtext of what the NPC is saying, so they won't assume that Sense Motive means lying.

[molten_dragon]

Because while it doesn't matter if every NPC is being honest, the ones that do matter sometimes aren't the ones you think do, so in order to avoid unknowingly ignoring an important clue, I need to sense motive on every single NPC ever, because I never know when the kindly old lady is actually a disguised hag, or whether the girl I just met in a tavern is actually a vampire or something. So I have to declare sense motive on everything anyone ever says to me, or anyone that ever interacts with me, or anyone I ever see, because my character reasonably has a chance to notice little things that she is being denied if I don't do that. If a DM tells me I'm not getting automatic sense motive rolls unless I declare them, I absolutely will declare them, on everything and everyone, at all times.

Yeah, I'm guessing most DMs won't put up with that for more than a minute or two. I know I wouldn't. You clearly play in a VERY different type of game than most people do, if every single scrap of information your character is ever given must be analyzed in depth to see if contains some secret clue to the plot.

Generally if the PCs need to know something really important, I don't make it too subtle, and if they miss out on something subtle, it wasn't that important anyway.

[Duke of Urrel]

I'd like to thank everybody, but especially Cranthis for starting the thread and Urpriest and Mnemnosyne for excellent criticisms. You have helped me refine my thinking! You may be interested to know that I've decided to create a new category of granted skill checks in my own house rules: those that default to taking 10.

"When I grant you a skill check that defaults to taking 10, I don’t even inform you of the fact unless your check succeeds. However, you should be aware that the following granted skill checks default to taking 10:

• a Forgery check that I grant you when you read a forged text without any suspicion, but with some knowledge of either the handwriting of the purported author or the type of the purported document;

• a Survival check that I grant you to avoid getting lost when your party travels through trackless wilderness, but only if you are the one in your party whose Survival check is the most likely to succeed; and

• a Sense Motive check that I grant you when a NPC tells you a lie.

You can’t always take 10 on these skill checks; you must roll them if you are threatened or distracted, following the usual rule. If you are neither threatened nor distracted, you have the option of rolling these skill checks rather than taking 10 if you choose. Of course, in the case of a Sense Motive check that you make to detect a lie, you must form a suspicion that a NPC is lying before you can choose to roll a die rather than take 10."

I think these are the most sensible rules I've come up with for handling Sense Motive skill so far – though I still invite you to critique them, if you wish. Thanks again!

[Phelix-Mu]

In terms of players becoming suspicious when you ask for a check, one solution is to give information regardless of the check result. If they succeed, they know the NPC is lying, while if they fail, they figure out something more minor, like the NPC's attitude. As long as you make a habit of asking for Sense Motive checks for things other than lying, this can work well: the players will get used to you asking for Sense Motive to get some of the subtext of what the NPC is saying, so they won't assume that Sense Motive means lying.

This is a more intelligent approach to my misdirection tactic. It is a sound tactic. Since I like my players continually alert about what is actually going on, it can encourage the players to role play behaviors beyond rolling a die to discover information about an npc's behavior (like asking more questions and such). While skill ranks and die rolls are a very important aspect of the game, I try to elicit role play whenever possible, and intrigue is an excellent opportunity for this (especially for my semi-paranoid pcs/players).

[Venger]

How does that even work? I mean, the Diplomacy rules are pretty silly even for PC-to-NPC interaction, I don't see any way they'd work for PC-to-PC interaction without basically rewriting the system.

diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) explicitly does not work on pcs. it's only for npcs


In terms of players becoming suspicious when you ask for a check, one solution is to give information regardless of the check result. If they succeed, they know the NPC is lying, while if they fail, they figure out something more minor, like the NPC's attitude. As long as you make a habit of asking for Sense Motive checks for things other than lying, this can work well: the players will get used to you asking for Sense Motive to get some of the subtext of what the NPC is saying, so they won't assume that Sense Motive means lying.

this is how I have it work in my games. sense motive actually sensing someone's motive? who'd've thought? :smallbiggrin:

[Keneth]

diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) explicitly does not work on pcs. it's only for npcs

Indeed, by RAW, it doesn't. Or rather, it can't change the PCs' attitude, it doesn't preclude other uses of Diplomacy. Personally, I think the rule is ridiculous, but it exists to prevent abuse of the players' free will. The social conflict system is rather horribly designed, both in 3.5 and PF, and I'm still looking for one that's elegant and not broken to hell.

That said, our group uses a simple rule that says, "if you can use it, others can use it against you." While I don't allow PCs to change each other's attitudes with a Diplomacy check (that requires a Charisma check and can be used only if the other player is Unfriendly), everything else is fair game.

[Venger]

Indeed, by RAW, it doesn't. Or rather, it can't change the PCs' attitude, it doesn't preclude other uses of Diplomacy. Personally, I think the rule is ridiculous, but it exists to prevent abuse of the players' free will. The social conflict system is rather horribly designed, both in 3.5 and PF, and I'm still looking for one that's elegant and not broken to hell.

That said, our group uses a simple rule that says, "if you can use it, others can use it against you." While I don't allow PCs to change each other's attitudes with a Diplomacy check (that requires a Charisma check and can be used only if the other player is Unfriendly), everything else is fair game.

rich has a homebrew variant of the diplomacy skill (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) which provides a jumping off point if you don't like RAW diplomacy

[Keneth]

rich has a homebrew variant of the diplomacy skill (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html) which provides a jumping off point if you don't like RAW diplomacy

Thanks, I'll check that out when I find the time.