NPCs bluffing PCs

[erok0809]

If an NPC lies to the party, should I be making a bluff check and just telling the party to make sense motive checks, or should I not make the bluff check until they ask for sense motive? The reason I ask is that I might be better at bluffing in real life than the character speaking actually is, and I'm not a particularly good actor so I don't think I could try to be worse at it on purpose without looking like I'm trying to do that. Also, I'm not in the habit of lying to the party as the DM, and so I'm afraid they might take most things I say as true without a check. At the same time, I don't necessarily want to tell them to roll sense motive, because then now they know something's up, and will probably subconsciously metagame (or consciously, depending on the player) and that's no fun. What would you guys do in this sort of situation?

[rrwoods]

Roll the Bluff and the players' Sense Motive checks privately. If this is a Plot-Planned lie, you can even roll the Sense Motive checks before the session starts.

[PaucaTerrorem]

Ask for their character sheets, tell them to roll a d20, don't tell them why.

[Der_DWSage]

I'm with RRWoods. Asking for a Sense Motive check is a red flag that they're being lied to, and even if they're good at separating metagame knowledge and in-character knowledge, they're still going to have that suspicious mindset. (Unless you WANT that suspicious mindset, and the character is telling the truth...)

Roll the Bluff and Sense Motive checks secretly. Get a dice rolling program on your phone or computer so you can do it discreetly. I'd recommend doing the same with Stealth and Perception checks.

[Curmudgeon]

Don't even roll. Use "take 10" rules for all passive (not player-initiated) checks.

[nedz]

Players reacting to having to make a sense motive role is metagaming since this is OOC information. That said it is easier for them to role play if they don't know.

Have them make a d20 roll and take a quick look at their character sheet.

You can also have them roll such that they cannot see the result - tricky, but possible.

Another approach is to have them make Sense motive rolls openly for several minor situations - which don't involve them being lied to. Eventually they will take such rolls less seriously.

[fishyfishyfishy]

2 different tips for you as a DM:

1. Keep a copy of their character sheets with you so that you can make secret rolls for your players every now and then. Have the players create this second sheet and provide you with updates any time there is a major change to their character (level up, reincarnation, etc.) This also serves as a backup in case they lose theirs or forget theirs for a session.

2. When role playing NPC's lie to your players more often. There are many dishonest people out there, and it's not always clear cut. Riddle your story with half truths, misdirection, and outright falsehoods. There are spells and skills specifically for detecting lies, and anyone who invests their time and resources in this should be rewarded for their smart thinking.

Good luck!

[Âmesang]

I ran into this problem, once, whilst DMing the Occipitus chapter of The Shackled City Adventure Path. I had attempted to take a rather bland, yet named, succubus enemy named Liuvash and add a bit of depth by giving her nine levels of bard (as the party was bigger and stronger than typical) and having her disguise herself as a celestial being, allying herself to these "heroes" and using them to get her closer to the Skull. (The part of the first test that banned evil outsiders? "Oh, you all go on ahead, I'll stay out here and keep watch! Don't want any more salamanders or driders sneaking up on us, right?") Now for a bit of SCAP spoilers, Occipitus is a layer of the Abyss that was once part of Celestia, so I thought it'd be fun — and expected — to have a succubus disguise herself as an angel; and if the party saw through her Bluff, perhaps they'd think twice about trusting the real angel they'd later come across. Sow some dissent into the group.

I tried going all out on this, combining Arcane Thesis (disguise self) with Disguise Spell and Extend Spell to have her disguise herself in an angelic form — augmented with real feathers glued to her wings via a disguise kit, in the off chance someone brushed up against them; I imagined her tail could be wrapped around her like a belt. This should, essentially, have given her a +44 on Disguise (+46 whilst acting) that, I felt, should have fooled even the ranger's Spot, and so while it should have only lasted 3⅔ hours per casting, all they should have noticed was her just casually singing to herself every so often — practicing her bardic music, if you will.

Likewise her Use Magic Device was beefed up to +29 (+31 for scrolls), allowing her to safely wield a good-aligned sword with which she could cast extended misdirection spells upon every morning… by telling the party she'd stand watch, when in reality she was greater teleporting to a place of safety with which to recover her spells-per-day and cast it (and while she couldn't heal or resurrect 'em for free as they would have liked — "See the sword? I'm a battle angel, sorry." — that UMD made it very easy to use just about any scroll or device they had). Combine that with a Bluff of +32 (+62 with glibness), and I was pretty confident that no one in the party would be able to see her for what she truly was… or, really, have any reason to do so with how helpful she was behaving. Well, until her inevitable betrayal at the end of the chapter.
My problem is that, as a DM, I'm not all that comfortable rolling dice "in secret." I actually prefer rolling them out-in-the-open for all to see so that they feel like I can't cheat 'em in any way; so when it came time for me to have an NPC use Bluff/Disguise against the party… I essentially ignored it, deciding to only deal with it if one of the PCs actively decided to be suspicious of their new "angelic" ally deep within the Abyss, but it never really came up. I recall the party taking her at face value (primarily using the Occipitus-was-once-part-of-Celestia excuse) and knowing that, had I asked for Sense Motive/Spot checks right from the get go, they'd catch on early even if they failed (I like these guys, but they're really not the best roleplayers — then again I'm not the best referee, either).

…

You know I started typing this so long ago that I've forgotten why I started typing to begin with. Guess I'm just trying to use this thread for my own help in such matters were I to attempt such a thing again. :smalleek:

[mephnick]

I just let them take anything at face value unless they ask to roll. It's probably not the "correct" way to do it, but I have too many other things to worry about to care.

[Segev]

Ask for a "spot check" when they are about to first meet him. Whoever rolls highest notices him first, because he's not actually hiding. But you really were getting a preliminary Sense Motive roll from them, and anybody who rolled higher than your rolled-before-the-session Bluff check will get tipped off that he's fibbing.

[elonin]

The responses encouraging secret rolls bother me. First, it indicates that even though you are playing a trust based game with people you don't trust to keep out of game knowledge out of game. There are also a few actions or abilities that could be called into play (depending on their abilities or items) and if you don't take that possibility into account you've railroaded your characters.

I'd say be honest about how they perceive the setting etc but honestly portray the lying npc. When the pc calls for a sense motive check that's when that interaction happens.

[razorback]

One thing we do as a group at the beginning of each session is set up a grid for each PC, which is nothing more than 50 blocks in 10x5 formation, that we roll a D20 for each and put in whatever order we want until all 50 rolls fill up all the blocks.
DM has copies of each PC and when he needs to make a passive check for any PC, he starts at top left and works his way across then down to the next row. Things like sense motive, perception, etc are then given out without asking for rolls or knowing if you failed or not. I don't think we every used up a full sheet ever, so 50 may be overkill, but a 5x5 would probably work.

[nedz]

The responses encouraging secret rolls bother me. First, it indicates that even though you are playing a trust based game with people you don't trust to keep out of game knowledge out of game. There are also a few actions or abilities that could be called into play (depending on their abilities or items) and if you don't take that possibility into account you've railroaded your characters.

I'd say be honest about how they perceive the setting etc but honestly portray the lying npc. When the pc calls for a sense motive check that's when that interaction happens.

It's not about trust, it's about role-play.

A player have a decision to make for which the OOC information is pertinent, but they don't have perfect information about otherwise. They are torn, weighing up the odds, and then the DM provides them with the information (OOC). How are they supposed to make the decision ?

For example: I was once playing a Bard and I had a choice of two courses of action A and B. A was more effective but had a HD cap, B was less effective but uncapped. I was waiting for my turn trying to guess how weak the mooks were when the DM told everyone their HD. This meant that I knew A wouldn't work :smallfurious:

My decision had be invalidated by a lax DM; and, how was I supposed to play this ? I don't want to metagame, but now I have no choice — either way.

This is why you should keep OOC information secret whenever possible.

[Hiro Quester]

DM: "roll a listen check"
Player: "I got a 5"
DM: "Nope. You don't hear anything."

This generates "I think I just failed a listen check" kind of OOC knowledge, but most players can handle that fairly responsibly.

I'm not sure you would so the same with a sense motive check against this NPC, though. Making the check raises suspicions.

But I think having players' sheets and asking players to roll occasionally, not knowing what they are rolling for, is perfectly reasonable. The more often you ask players just to roll a d20, without telling them why, the less they will get suspicions aroused.

If one gets a high roll, then soon but not immediately afterwards perhaps drop a small clue (that angel's feather you just found has a small dollop of something very sticky on it).

Though I like the 50 pre-rolled d20s list, in any order you like, scheme. I the the players should and probably do trust the DM to make that kind of passive check responsibly.

[YossarianLives]

I just let them take anything at face value unless they ask to roll. It's probably not the "correct" way to do it, but I have too many other things to worry about to care.
I do this too.

[Der_DWSage]

The responses encouraging secret rolls bother me. First, it indicates that even though you are playing a trust based game with people you don't trust to keep out of game knowledge out of game. There are also a few actions or abilities that could be called into play (depending on their abilities or items) and if you don't take that possibility into account you've railroaded your characters.

I'd say be honest about how they perceive the setting etc but honestly portray the lying npc. When the pc calls for a sense motive check that's when that interaction happens.


It's not about trust, it's about role-play.

I wouldn't even say it's a role-play issue-it's a proper mindset issue. It's about framing the narrative, and eliciting sincere emotion from players. This is bigger with bluff than it is with spot checks, to my mind-the lying NPC is supposed to be an unexpected twist, and a surprising moment. It's difficult to elicit those sincere emotions of surprise, betrayal, and/or anger about the person lying when people are in the mindset of 'I think I failed a sense motive check.' Sure, they'll play along, but in the back of their mind...the sincerity of the surprise is gone. And to me as a GM, the sincerity of such powerful emotions can be the difference between a mediocre session and a great one.

Furthermore, letting them take things at face value until they ask for a sense motive roll does two things that I, personally, dislike. It either teaches the PCs to be suspicious of everyone they meet, asking for Sense Motive rolls constantly, or it wastes the skill points, magic items, etc. of someone that invested in Sense Motive...and Sense Motive isn't exactly an active thing. It's about being able to read someone, and noticing red flags that others would miss. It's a passive thing, and turning it into an active one hinders my verisimilitude.

That's my two copper on the matter.

[Aldrakan]

We just let the DM roll for us when its a check where if we fail we shouldn't know we failed (or even that a roll needed to be made) in character. We play over Skype though, so he can access everyone's character sheet without asking for them, and can use a website or app to roll dice silently.

[mephnick]

Furthermore, letting them take things at face value until they ask for a sense motive roll does two things that I, personally, dislike. It either teaches the PCs to be suspicious of everyone they meet, asking for Sense Motive rolls constantly, or it wastes the skill points, magic items, etc. of someone that invested in Sense Motive...and Sense Motive isn't exactly an active thing. It's about being able to read someone, and noticing red flags that others would miss. It's a passive thing, and turning it into an active one hinders my verisimilitude.

Oh I don't like it either, but now I have to stop our conversation to roll 5 sense motive checks, or compare 5 sense motive passive DC's, and it will be pretty obvious that something is happening anyway. I guess you could consult a pre-roll list, but those have always rubbed me the wrong way.

I guess part of it is I don't keep copies of my players' sheets in front of me. I suppose I could make up a cheat table.

[nedz]

Oh I don't like it either, but now I have to stop our conversation to roll 5 sense motive checks, or compare 5 sense motive passive DC's, and it will be pretty obvious that something is happening anyway. I guess you could consult a pre-roll list, but those have always rubbed me the wrong way.

I guess part of it is I don't keep copies of my players' sheets in front of me. I suppose I could make up a cheat table.

Hmm, well you know the roll is going to come up - so do it before you kick off the conversation.

[Curmudgeon]

My problem is that, as a DM, I'm not all that comfortable rolling dice "in secret." I actually prefer rolling them out-in-the-open for all to see so that they feel like I can't cheat 'em in any way...
Then don't roll any dice, but instead use "take 10" numbers. You won't cheat anyone that way.

[Âmesang]

I'd be cheating the NPCs! :smallfrown: Not giving those poor, non-existent characters their fair chance!

[Psyren]

I just let them take anything at face value unless they ask to roll. It's probably not the "correct" way to do it, but I have too many other things to worry about to care.

The problem with this approach is you can run into a situation where a character would easily spot a lie, but if their player doesn't think to roll the check, they get screwed over. The player who invested in sense motive is then likely to feel cheated.

If pre-rolls or randomly calling for rolls is too much work, I would go with Curmudgeon's suggestion and use the "take 10" values. At least then a character who's invested in the skill gets a fighting chance.



I guess part of it is I don't keep copies of my players' sheets in front of me.

You should start doing this, and not just for skill checks; knowing what the players can do and what items they're carrying is an important part of challenging them properly.

[Âmesang]

The latter never worked with my group because we were alternating referees every chapter (not the best way to play through The Shackled City Adventure Path). I attempted to make 3"×5" cards that had some basic character stats on 'em (as well as posting my own character's stats up on my own message board), but… it was received half-heartedly at best. :smallconfused:

(Another reason for the cards was that each had a nice, big Initiative box. Just write down the number — LIGHTLY!! — and then reorganize the cards as needed… or at least that was the idea.)

[Segev]

The responses encouraging secret rolls bother me. First, it indicates that even though you are playing a trust based game with people you don't trust to keep out of game knowledge out of game.As others have said, it's not about trust. As a player, I prefer not to know if I've failed a check that would have gotten me information, because now I know either (by elimination) what that information is, or I know that I missed something and it's going to bother me and warp how I think about it.

In particular, if I don't know that I just rolled a Sense Motive and failed it, I may or may not, totally in-character, have evaluated things I later saw (or already knew) and questioned the NPC's correctness, if not his veracity. If I determine, as a player and on behalf of my character, that I am going to act with suspicion towards the NPC's statements, that's fine. If, on the other hand, I know I just failed that check, suddenly I have to second-guess all of my evaluations. Am I meta-gaming? Am I only finding suspicious inconsistencies because I'm specifically looking for excuses not to act on the belief in this NPC's veracity?

As a player, I don't like having to second- and third-guess my own decision-making as to whether or not I am playing "fair" with meta-knowledge. I am more than willing to act according to what my PC knows even if I have meta-knowledge to the contrary, but it's harder. And the effort to avoid meta-gaming can lead me to meta-game myself to a DISadvantage I wouldn't have suffered had I been ignorant of there even being a check, let alone that I failed it.


There are also a few actions or abilities that could be called into play (depending on their abilities or items) and if you don't take that possibility into account you've railroaded your characters.This, on the other hand, is a valid concern, and takes care on the DM's part. I love it when systems take this kind of thing into account in their initial design, making it able to operate seamlessly without having to ask players if they use abilities that the use of would require them to know something is "up" before they even make the roll.

[mephnick]

You should start doing this, and not just for skill checks; knowing what the players can do and what items they're carrying is an important part of challenging them properly.

Eh, I know what everyone can do,( I play 5e mostly so it's not hard to keep track) but I run a semi-sandbox and don't tailor encounters to the party anyway.

I think I can compromise with a cheat sheet with some important info on it. Add it to the 50 other things I've got in front of me.

[Enixon]

Hmm, well you know the roll is going to come up - so do it before you kick off the conversation.

I kinda like this idea, have them roll sense motive checks before the session starts, now they'll still maybe know that at some point someone maybe lying to them, but don't know who or when so it's not perfect but might still be a good compromise if you don't want to roll for them.

[nedz]

I kinda like this idea, have them roll sense motive checks before the session starts, now they'll still maybe know that at some point someone maybe lying to them, but don't know who or when so it's not perfect but might still be a good compromise if you don't want to roll for them.

No - you make the rolls (in secret) just before you do the role-play. It's an interruption, but that's going to happen anyway.

[ComaVision]

I just let them take anything at face value unless they ask to roll. It's probably not the "correct" way to do it, but I have too many other things to worry about to care.


I do this too.

Same here. I haven't explicitly told my players about this but they've asked for Sense Motive checks before. If one of my players invested in the skill, I'd let them know how I do things.

[AMFV]

How I do this depends on the atmosphere I'm trying to create. If I'm trying to create an atmosphere of paranoia, I make the players roll (more often than necessary as well). If I'm trying to "sell" the NPC as trustworthy, I make the checks beforehand, but it depends entirely on how important that is.

The trick is I think, to make the players make sense motive checks anytime their characters are suspicious, warranted or not. Once they have a few false positives they'll stop assuming.

[Enixon]

No - you make the rolls (in secret) just before you do the role-play. It's an interruption, but that's going to happen anyway.

ah gotcah, sorry misread your first post :smallredface:

[AMFV]

Another thing to remember... Sense Motive only tells you if they are lying, not if they're misinformed... Which also can cause false readings.