Proper use of Sense motive

[Heartilly]

Hello everyone,

I recently started, for the very first time, leading a D&D 3.5 campaign. My husband got me introduced, but I'm still very new to D&D, but Lion's Pit -> thrown ;)
I play with my husband, his high school friend (both been playing for 15 years) and a friend of ours (been playing with us for 1 year).

Anyway, my campaign started off as a bit of a inquisitive campaign where my players had to find out what was going on with some women who had fallen ill and a friend of my husbands character was missing. They make use of Sense Motive skills during this investigation and I answer them how the pc's act depending on their rolls.
Now my husband's friend decided he wanted to woo a very pretty tavern girl and did so, spend a few hours with her, but nothing happened. Then he left her to pursue the investigation the next morning and when he found her again he snuck into the inn she works at and found she was flirting with another man.
He was outraged, perhaps even more so out of game than ingame - as he believes she is but a lowely npc and he is a hero character lvl 6/7 and thus I should have told him she was 'deveiving' him automatically. When we argued he never sense motived her, he said as a hero character I (as the DM) should have prompted him to do so by default.

Is that really how you should approach roleplaying? I find it a bit ridiculous personally, removes all mystery and intrigue., but I'm still new to this so maybe I'm wrong.
But now he is pouting saying he - by default- will sense motive all characters he will ever meet and I should automatically assume he will do this from now on...

[Red Fel]

First off, if this is a 3.5-specific question, you should probably ask to have it moved into the 3.5 subforum.

Now, with respect to Sense Motive, there are different ways to run it. But, by RAW, it's an active thing that "generally takes at least 1 minute, and you could spend a whole evening trying to get a sense of the people around you." (Source (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/senseMotive.htm).) So unless you decide to run it as a passive check, it usually entails either a character actively checking, or giving the PCs, upon being lied to, the chance to roll it themselves.

The question, very simply, is whether she was in any way deceiving him. In this case, it doesn't sound like it. It sounds like he flirted with her for awhile, and then left. Unless she started spouting platitudes like, "You're the only one, my true love," there's no reason to assume that a tavern flirtation is anything more than a tavern flirtation, and no reason to run Sense Motive. It's not like she was seducing him for some sinister purpose, in which case he might be entitled to a passive role to smell a rat.

Admittedly, you haven't given us all of the information. That much is clear. But on the face of things, it sounds like you have an immature (or new) player who wants the NPC to revolve around him. Based on what you've told us, this has nothing to do with the Sense Motive skill, and everything to do with a player who wants his character to monopolize an NPC.

Or was there more to the story that you wanted to add?

[King of Casuals]

The way that I usually do stuff like this for my players is if they come up to something that would require a sense motive/listen/spot check, but I dont want them to immediately know that something is up (something like the player thinking "oh I need to roll sense motive, that must mean that someone must be lying"), I usually make it so that unless they say that they are using sense motive, instead of rolling I only use their skill bonus and not the d20 roll.

Example: If one of my players asked to sense motive a guy and he has a +6 to sense motive, he gets d20+6, but if he didnt ask to sense him his sense motive result would automatically be 6, as if he rolled a 0.

I do this because a d20 roll represents an attempt to do something. If the character has no reason to suspect someone, and therefore makes no attempt to use sense motive, they have nothing to rely on except their natural perceptiveness, I.E. their Sense Motive bonus.

[Heartilly]

Hey,

Thanks for replying first and foremost, I wasn't sure whether this falls under 'Roleplaying' or specific rules really, seems a bit of both. But on to the actual the issue - It was just a tavern flirtation, they started on a evening where they met up with one another in an inn and this player's character wanted to call to him the most pretty serving girl there and so he did. They bought her the evening free to hang out with him and the next day she was to escort him during a festival that happened in the city. No "you are the love of my life, noone but you, let's get married" sort of things, just flirting and spending time together. The next day in the morning he was called away on the quest, so she was very sad, said he promised to spend the day with her on the festival, but he didn't and he told her he would perhaps meet up with her at another time if he could find the time.

The day after that he went to surprise her at her work, he snuck in and threw gold to the barkeep to buy her the afternoon off and went to surprise her, when he found her in a conversation with another traveller, flirting.

The point more or less, he kept making, was that he is a HERO character and therefor lowely npc's cannot do things like this, I should have prompted him a sense motive check because she was... I don't know, not exclusively interested in him by default? And he keeps being of an opinion that because he is a HERO character he should not be told by a lowely npc priest sweeping the church floor that he isn't allowed in a private room in the back of the church. I keep telling him he doesn't have a sign on his head that says "HERO, Allow me everything" - he is still just a person and others (since they are new to this city) see him like another person and will treat him as such to start off, but he seems not to be of the same opinion and I was here wondering if it's me in the wrong? Afterall, he is 15 years experienced as player and as DM and I'm completely new.

[Flickerdart]

I was here wondering if it's me in the wrong? Afterall, he is 15 years experienced as player and as DM and I'm completely new.
You're absolutely right, he's just entitled. Drop a dragon on him, see how heroic he is then. If he beats the dragon, then the people have a reason to admire him. If he loses, have the city guard step in and the people laugh at him.

[hymer]

This is assuming this is the whole story. Somehow, I have a feeling there's something out of character going on here, but I can't know. Anyway:


I should automatically assume he will do this from now on...

I wouldn't let him get away with that. It's definitely the player's responsibility to use the character correctly. And this placing all the burden on the busy DM will almost inevitably lead to more sulks in the future, when you forget, or when he believes you forget. No, he says when he uses a skill like Sense Motive (as Red Fel has indicated above), just like he says when he checks for traps, or climbs a wall. It's perfectly allright for the DM to give a 'free' check on something when it suits the situation, but it should never be assumed that you get such a check.
Sense Motive involves mechanics, taking 10 (if that's even possible in a given situation) or rolling dice. That means the player needs to make choices. And there's no telling how long it will take. How long will the PC try? Stay half an hour extra at each shop to get a feeling on the shopkeepers? And while you're focused on the NPC you're trying to Sense Motive on, what about that NPC's spouse, also part of the conversation? Which one first? Or that person who keeps interrupting?

No, the player is in a sour mood because his PC was thwarted. If this is the sort of sulking you can expect every time he has a setback, playing with him won't be worth it. Do your best to nip this in the bud.


The point more or less, he kept making, was that he is a HERO character and therefor lowely npc's cannot do things like this, I should have prompted him a sense motive check because she was... I don't know, not exclusively interested in him by default? And he keeps being of an opinion that because he is a HERO character he should not be told by a lowely npc priest sweeping the church floor that he isn't allowed in a private room in the back of the church. I keep telling him he doesn't have a sign on his head that says "HERO, Allow me everything" - he is still just a person and others (since they are new to this city) see him like another person and will treat him as such to start off, but he seems not to be of the same opinion and I was here wondering if it's me in the wrong? Afterall, he is 15 years experienced as player and as DM and I'm completely new.

That's not his decision. While running a game in that fashion is a style choice, the DM gets to pick a different style. I don't see why he would/should assume that he gets special treatment from people who do not know him.

[Red Fel]

The point more or less, he kept making, was that he is a HERO character and therefor lowely npc's cannot do things like this, I should have prompted him a sense motive check because she was... I don't know, not exclusively interested in him by default? And he keeps being of an opinion that because he is a HERO character he should not be told by a lowely npc priest sweeping the church floor that he isn't allowed in a private room in the back of the church. I keep telling him he doesn't have a sign on his head that says "HERO, Allow me everything" - he is still just a person and others (since they are new to this city) see him like another person and will treat him as such to start off, but he seems not to be of the same opinion and I was here wondering if it's me in the wrong? Afterall, he is 15 years experienced as player and as DM and I'm completely new.

Yeah, you're in the right, he's in the stupid. He's an entitled little turdblossom who can't grasp the idea that NPCs don't have to throw themselves at his feet at every turn.

Don't be so quick to doubt yourself. Yes, you're new, but that doesn't mean you're bad; he's experienced, but that doesn't mean he's not an imbecile.


You're absolutely right, he's just entitled. Drop a dragon on him, see how heroic he is then. If he beats the dragon, then the people have a reason to admire him. If he loses, have the city guard step in and the people laugh at him.

This. People don't wear signs over their heads with their class and level on them. People don't get a Charisma bonus based on how many Orcs they've flattened. This guy has no basis to assume that, just because he's an above-level-one adventurer, he's entitled to some kind of adoration or royal treatment.

And if he wants monogamy from a tavern lass, he should know to put a ring on it.

[holywhippet]

Has the character managed to do anything to make them famous around town? Something particularly heroic? It might be fair to assume the tavern girl might become interested or fixated on him if it is clear he is hero material. But if he's just got a few levels that isn't guaranteed as he might not have done anything particularly noteworthy and there could be other tavern patrons with as many if not more class levels than him.

I'd suggest one of two tactics if he is too annoying about it. Have some other adventurer of a much higher level step in an smack him down if he starts bothering her. Or have her turn out to be the obsessive type who'll hound him constantly - like have her buy a magic item that lets her send him messages and do so about once every 1/2 hour (game time or real time, your choice).

[goto124]

Setting the entitlement aside, I thought it was proper adventurer paranoia that he rolls Sense Motive when a waitress hits on him. Why is someone flirting with me when she's on her job? How do I know she isn't a succubus, or trying to trick me into getting kidnapped so that she can claim the bounty on my head, or the many other possibilites out there that aren't too far ahead when I'm in such a risky job?

Yes, I realize it turned out not to be the case, but I wanted to voice why someone would want to roll Sense Motive for a flirty waitress. Heck, roll Sense Motive for anyone who flirts. It can save a lot of trouble, and it's not like I'll meet flirty people too many times in the campaign.

Now, another question: What sort of information should Sense Motive give? How much information?

[goto124]

Oh, nevermind! I thought the waitress flirted the PC first.

Setting the entitlement aside, I thought it was proper adventurer paranoia that he rolls Sense Motive when a waitress hits on him. Why is someone flirting with me when she's on her job? How do I know she isn't a succubus, or trying to trick me into getting kidnapped so that she can claim the bounty on my head, or the many other possibilites out there that aren't too far ahead when I'm in such a risky job?

Yes, I realize it turned out not to be the case, but I wanted to voice why someone would want to roll Sense Motive for a flirty waitress. Heck, roll Sense Motive for anyone who flirts. It can save a lot of trouble, and it's not like I'll meet flirty people too many times in the campaign.

Now, another question: What sort of information should Sense Motive give? How much information?

[holywhippet]

Now, another question: What sort of information should Sense Motive give? How much information?

Depends on how well you roll vs. your targets counter roll if any. If they are trying to bluff or possibly intimidate you then it's a matter of opposing rolls. Given the rules: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/senseMotive.htm I'd say that in this case the hunch use would be the correct one. It would let you suspect that something is the case - like the waitress actually liking you or alternately that the waitress is planning to strip you and rob you at the first opportunity. It won't be a definite thing though.

For that matter, arguably the DM should make the sense motive roll as otherwise you can use OOC knowledge based on how well you roll.

[YossarianLives]

Setting the entitlement aside, I thought it was proper adventurer paranoia that he rolls Sense Motive when a waitress hits on him. Why is someone flirting with me when she's on her job? How do I know she isn't a succubus, or trying to trick me into getting kidnapped so that she can claim the bounty on my head, or the many other possibilites out there that aren't too far ahead when I'm in such a risky job?

Yes, I realize it turned out not to be the case, but I wanted to voice why someone would want to roll Sense Motive for a flirty waitress. Heck, roll Sense Motive for anyone who flirts. It can save a lot of trouble, and it's not like I'll meet flirty people too many times in the campaign.

Now, another question: What sort of information should Sense Motive give? How much information?
Would you be automatically suspicious of someone flirting with you and being friendly?

[goto124]

When I'm in a job that tends to create enemies, yes.

Seems pretty invasive to sneak into someone's house, really. That aside, the player might've wondered why the tavern girl flirted with him if she already had a boyfriend. If I hit it up with an NPC, and the next day I saw the same NPC with another person, I would wonder what the NPC's up to. If she's already seeing a boyfriend, what was she trying to do with me? Sense Motive can check if she has an ulterior motive, or just cheating, or has an open relationship, or that man isn't her boyfriend and she simply likes to flirt around.

To be honest, doing a Sense Motive after the discovery may be best. As is a Wisdom check to realize he probably shouldn't have snuck in at all.

[Slipperychicken]

The use of sense motive, like a knowledge skill or perception, is passive. The PC's brain is always on, with suspicions and insights often coming to mind unbidden. People often make connections, judgements, or observations that they didn't set out to make. As such, requiring players to declare every sense motive roll is like requiring them to declare their intention to breathe or put on their pants in the morning.


A player should never need to ask to use such a skill. Instead, the GM should either call for it, or check for it in secret, whenever that skill is applicable. When the PC's roll indicates a suspicion or grants him some insight (whether or not the insight is useful or accurate), the GM can simply inform the player what thoughts came to his PC's mind. If desired, he can simply collect the relevant number from the players and roll it himself. This cuts down metagaming and enhances immersion, since the players don't have a number to tell them whether or not their suspicions are correct. Conversations do not need to be interrupted at every sentence with players' cries of "I roll sense motive!", made for fear that the GM will otherwise decide their characters willfully ignored an obvious lie.

[Quertus]

Wanting to sense motive on everyone here interacts with - or at least those he interacts with for an extended period of time? Asking the DM to assume this? Reasonable. If this were 2e, he would deserve the drow paranoia +2 bonus to... the equivalent of will saves, IIRC.

Feeling like and wanting to be treated as an entitled hero / special snowflake? That doesn't sound reasonable. Where did this come from? Was he treated this way in previous campaigns you played with him?

[Segev]

One thing to consider is this: if you know that his goal is to seduce the NPC, then you should let him know what tools he has, IC, to try to do so. What skills SHOULD he be using? If he has them, then by all means, let him work towards success. If he doesn't, let him try, and let the success/failure happen as the dice and RP say it should.

What it sounds like to me is that he had an objective but as a player didn't know how to pursue it. That is INCREDIBLY frustrating, as a player, especially if he THINKS he was pursuing it successfully but was actually accomplishing nothing because he wasn't even using the right system tools.

Now, maybe this is how it should be with the PC he's playing, but you should help him see that and let him perceive why things work as they do. He should be able to tell that his actions were meaningful, even if unsuccessful, in determining the outcome. Maybe he changes his build as he levels up. Maybe he tries a different strategy in similar situations. Maybe he decides he's no good at that aspect of the game and does other things.

Now, I could be wrong. He could just have wanted the generic power fantasy of being irresistible because he, the player, said his PC was. In which case, meh. That's a question of how the game's flavor and fluff and personality play out, and up to you more than him. But at least make sure he understands the kind of game he's playing.

I'm not blaming you for anything, mind. I'm just trying to explain where, if he's being reasonable, I think he's coming from. Even if he, himself, can't articulate it.

[Slipperychicken]

Where did this come from? Was he treated this way in previous campaigns you played with him?

My guess? Because he's playing an escapist fantasy game. In the genres it's based off, the hero gets the girl. Sexist or not (and for the moment leaving aside concerns regarding the romantic agency of a fictional person), that's an expectation which often carries over into fantasy roleplaying. I'd recommend the OP to figure out whether that's an appropriate idea in her game, then let the player know one way or the other.


Given the player's behavior, he certainly doesn't need a roleplaying game to experience romantic frustration. Being rejected and deceived is probably one of the realities he's trying to escape, even if just for a few hours a week. As such, it's important to clarify whether or not that's going to happen in your game.

[hymer]

The use of sense motive, like a knowledge skill or perception, is passive.

Are we talking about the same system here? The only 'passive' use of D&D 3.5 Sense Motive is in dealing with the Bluff skill. If the NPC didn't use Bluff (and I see no indication she should have), Sense Motive only comes into effect if the player announces it.
Trying to gain information with Sense Motive generally takes at least 1 minute, and you could spend a whole evening trying to get a sense of the people around you. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/senseMotive.htm)

[Dimers]

Two answers. First, try "passive perception", where you add the average die roll (10) to the character's stat bonus if they don't say they're actively looking for information, but let them roll if they do want to sniff around. People's capacity to notice cues & clues doesn't disappear when they stop focusing on it! Just assume the character is 'taking 10' when he's not in combat.

Second, that won't work with this player in particular, because you had no idea he wanted that kind of information. For the same reason, rolling Sense Motive on his behalf in every social situation also won't work, because you don't know what offbeat expectation he'll come up with next. "I should have gotten a roll to know that the merchant is alcoholic!" "As a HERO, I'd have a chance to know that she's making cucumber salad for dinner tonight!" Dude, dude ... it's quite possible the character could have picked up on that info via the Sense Motive skill, but why would I have assumed he cared?

[Heartilly]

Hey everyone, thanks for the answers, I'll try to respond to what is being advised by you all;


Has the character managed to do anything to make them famous around town? Something particularly heroic? It might be fair to assume the tavern girl might become interested or fixated on him if it is clear he is hero material. But if he's just got a few levels that isn't guaranteed as he might not have done anything particularly noteworthy and there could be other tavern patrons with as many if not more class levels than him.

They started as level 6 characters and had just arrived into the city, that is literally all they had done when they met her. The next day, in her presence, they won a Last Knight-style (the movie) Gauntlet that I had created for the festival's purposes, which all 3 they managed to overcome. He gave her the token he got from it, a jewelry pin. When I said she was happy and flattered he'd give it to her "Because you have to understand I might not return one day and we'd have to part", she was completely genuine.


The use of sense motive, like a knowledge skill or perception, is passive. The PC's brain is always on, with suspicions and insights often coming to mind unbidden. People often make connections, judgements, or observations that they didn't set out to make. As such, requiring players to declare every sense motive roll is like requiring them to declare their intention to breathe or put on their pants in the morning.


I understand certain things that would indicate you should be suspicious of that I can't simply not roleplay, not denying them a check (or not prompt it) and then later say it was like that - in that sense I do tell my players to roll things. But to keep the mystery of roleplay alive, and making a npc capable of having 'underlying motives' I do not prompt them a sense motive every time, ofcourse if they, on their own initiative say they want to see if the guy/lady is genuine, then by all means. Like this:


The way that I usually do stuff like this for my players is if they come up to something that would require a sense motive/listen/spot check, but I dont want them to immediately know that something is up (something like the player thinking "oh I need to roll sense motive, that must mean that someone must be lying"), I usually make it so that unless they say that they are using sense motive, instead of rolling I only use their skill bonus and not the d20 roll.

If I make an npc outright lie however, I understand I need to roll a bluff check and -


Two answers. First, try "passive perception", where you add the average die roll (10) to the character's stat bonus if they don't say they're actively looking for information, but let them roll if they do want to sniff around. People's capacity to notice cues & clues doesn't disappear when they stop focusing on it! Just assume the character is 'taking 10' when he's not in combat.

this is very good advice that I will be using for future references, thank you! (also King of the Casual's point to take the skill bonus without the D20.)


My guess? Because he's playing an escapist fantasy game. In the genres it's based off, the hero gets the girl. Sexist or not (and for the moment leaving aside concerns regarding the romantic agency of a fictional person), that's an expectation which often carries over into fantasy roleplaying. I'd recommend the OP to figure out whether that's an appropriate idea in her game, then let the player know one way or the other.

I'm all for, the hero gets the girl, but in this case there was little to be hero about, seeing as this was the very first session and nothing had yet happened. To her, he was yet another adventurer in the inn she works at who demanded her attention because of her looks.


Feeling like and wanting to be treated as an entitled hero / special snowflake? That doesn't sound reasonable. Where did this come from? Was he treated this way in previous campaigns you played with him?

He says his campaigns are generally on the very epic and statistical side, he prefers more roleplay over throwing stats around, but the players he plays with in his other group (is leading to) are much less emotionally involved in their characters and are all about stats. They command whole armies and the likes, from what I understood. Anyway, he is very hung up on the "I am a Hero character" idea, therefor finding that all others of lower lvl should almost automatically cower or drop at his feet to allow him things, which to me makes sense only if they know about who he is and/or he is exercising this through diplomacy or intimidate. The only proper campaign I played with him was my husband's campaign we all played for over a year. But he didn't join in until 12 sessions in or so, at which point my friend and I had already made our party into a heroic party saving the world and working for various kings. In that case he dropped right into being a entitled hero alongside us, so I can't say.


Given the player's behavior, he certainly doesn't need a roleplaying game to experience romantic frustration. Being rejected and deceived is probably one of the realities he's trying to escape, even if just for a few hours a week. As such, it's important to clarify whether or not that's going to happen in your game.

This might be the key to his whole anger as he recently had some girl trouble, very insightful, thank you!


But on the waitress, my way of preparing for sessions generally consists of creating a red wire for the storyline and npc's, giving them character, motivations and a background, so no matter how my pc's act towards them, I have a plausible way of responding without the character not making sense. Certain information lies with certain npc's etc etc. When he 'spawned' the waitress on the very first second he was boasting out of game he was going to bang the prettiest girl there and made me call forth the prettiest waitress. They bought her the evening and next day off with the single intent for her to fulfill his needs.

Now in my head, this isn't the first time for her. She is a very pretty waitress in an inn that tends to travelers often, logically (to me at least) this isn't the first man hitting on her by far. She is also not very wealthy serving drinks in a otherwise wealthy city, she knows how to use her beauty to get some extra coin from those she waits on (by flirting, naturally). So she goes along with the PC, but because he didn't demand sex from her, but instead was courteous, she was indeed flattered and genuinely had a good time. Up to the point he basically told her to leave because he had other matters to tend to, even though he promised her to take her around the festival. She got a few coins out of them to pass the tax at the gates (which was a hint to my pc's they could have easily picked up on, as she had a pass from her employer to pass the gates, which she told them).

Now when he was throwing a tantrum to my husband I largely kept myself quiet, as most of what he was saying was incorrect anyways. She flirts, it's what she does, did not mean at any point she wasn't interested in him or starting to like him for more than just a good time, or even that she didn't have a good time to begin with! As was said before -

And if he wants monogamy from a tavern lass, he should know to put a ring on it.

I told him she didn't stop existing when he was so upset, indicating there might be more to it than he thinks, but apparently it's either one extreme or the other. My husband even hit the nail on the head saying to him it may have been that she never lied, because maybe she was interested. I do understand that if she was out to abuse him for gold from the start (which she wasn't) and was basically eyerolling in her head every time she feigned interest and when she kissed him in her head she was like "Yuck!" that this prompts him a sense motive even if he did not ask for it. More often I just describe a suspicious action the npc does, like in this case I wouldn't have said "roll me a sense motive!" but more, "when you kiss her, you feel she is a bit withdrawn" or "She says she loves your gift, but her facial expression isn't quite as ecstatic and she barely looked at it before she put it away" etc. Is that still an okay way to go about it?

[Nightcanon]

Exactly what motive is he expecting to be able to sense from her regarding her intentions towards him? Unless she's a spy working for the enemy (in which case she should have a very high bluff skill to avoid being 'outed' by a casual sense motive check in the first session), she's likely to be pretty much indifferent to him beyond seeing him as a potential source of tips if he looks like he's taken a shine to her. Sneaking back in to her place of work and being upset because she's flirting with her next customer is pretty odd behaviour, either in-character in an RPG or in real life. If he's genuinely trying to establish a relationship, he needs to ask about her intentions and reservations in character (likely answer: "oh honey, if I married every adventurer who wandered in here, told me I was beautiful and gave me a trinket, I'd be a widow twenty times over by now."), not expect you to role-play a love affair with him based on a handful of wisdom and charisma checks.

[Seto]

Personally, I roll Sense Motive on behalf of the PCs (without telling them, in case their characters fail the check) whenever they're being deceived, that's to say whenever a NPC rolls Bluff. This is to avoid the "I roll Sense Motive" anytime a NPC says something important, which would bog the game down.
In accordance to that, when my players want to make active Sense Motive checks, it means their characters are studying the NPC's manner of speech, body language etc. in order to determine their state of mind. For example, the last time the Half-Orc Paladin got a good active Sense Motive roll (he'd asked me "does this NPC Paladin look uncomfortable with the fact that I'm a half-orc ?"), the answer was "he's a bit uncomfortable, but mostly he seems tense and afraid, and since you're his superior he's relieved that you're here".

[Heartilly]

Personally, I roll Sense Motive on behalf of the PCs (without telling them, in case their characters fail the check) whenever they're being deceived, that's to say whenever a NPC rolls Bluff. This is to avoid the "I roll Sense Motive" anytime a NPC says something important, which would bog the game down.
In accordance to that, when my players want to make active Sense Motive checks, it means their characters are studying the NPC's manner of speech, body language etc. in order to determine their state of mind. For example, the last time the Half-Orc Paladin got a good active Sense Motive roll (he'd asked me "does this NPC Paladin look uncomfortable with the fact that I'm a half-orc ?"), the answer was "he's a bit uncomfortable, but mostly he seems tense and afraid, and since you're his superior he's relieved that you're here".

That's another interesting way to go about it, should I in the future set up npc's with hidden intentions/actually lying without giving them the hint they are. Though should they find out later they were being deceived and I say I rolled on their behalf to see whether or not I should notifiy them of suspicious behavior worth investigating, I think they'd get upset with me because that is their roll to roll. Especially the person in question.

[Seto]

That's another interesting way to go about it, should I in the future set up npc's with hidden intentions/actually lying without giving them the hint they are. Though should they find out later they were being deceived and I say I rolled on their behalf to see whether or not I should notifiy them of suspicious behavior worth investigating, I think they'd get upset with me because that is their roll to roll. Especially the person in question.

True. That sort of thing works better as a ground rule. Like, "there are some rolls (Perception/Search, Sense Motive, some specific Will checks) that I'll roll for you to avoid spelling out when there's something fishy, is it all right with you ?".

But the specific player you mention sounds like he's having problems with conflicting expectations that go beyond this situation. He likely expects an open-world videogame-like agency, where you can walk into NPC's houses and search their rooms without them objecting, where NPCs don't really have a will of their own that contradicts what the Hero wants to do.
Maybe that's what he's been playing for 15 years, a game with emphasis on PC-driven exploration and fighting, with stock NPCs present only as generic background or tools, rather than social interaction. Which is a valid style. But if that's the case, then his experience is a hindrance rather than an asset in going along with what you're trying to do, which is a game with immersion and relatively emotionally/psychologically realistic NPCs.
This is not you doing something wrong. In fact, you sound like you're doing a fine job. But maybe you should ask him if he's having fun, ask him if there's a problem similar to what I described, and explain to him what you're going for and would he be okay with trying it.

[Mnemnosyne]

That's another interesting way to go about it, should I in the future set up npc's with hidden intentions/actually lying without giving them the hint they are. Though should they find out later they were being deceived and I say I rolled on their behalf to see whether or not I should notifiy them of suspicious behavior worth investigating, I think they'd get upset with me because that is their roll to roll. Especially the person in question.
I would not say this is their roll to roll. As a general rule of thumb, any roll where the character doesn't know if they succeeded or failed, I would suggest the DM roll without showing the players. Mind you, I'm typically an advocate of DMs rolling openly for everything, but this is a special sort of case because the player making the roll will influence them.

If the DM says, 'roll sense motive', that instantly gives the player some level of information. If the DM never asks for such a roll except in a situation where the NPC is bluffing, then the player simply knows, by being asked to roll, that the NPC is lying. If the DM peppers false requests for rolls throughout NPC dialogue, then the player still knows to be wary in conversations where the DM has called for a roll, as opposed to conversations a roll is never called for. Also, the false requests for rolls slows things down. Even a good player, who consciously tries not to let this out of character knowledge influence their character's actions, will be influenced by the knowledge to some degree. It's unavoidable, because humans are incapable of perfectly thinking about something while excluding knowledge they actually possess. They can make a good effort, but it cannot be done perfectly.

So, for any roll where the player isn't meant to know whether they succeeded or failed, I think the DM should always roll in secret, and indeed, usually call as little attention to the existence of the roll as possible.

[Heartilly]

True. That sort of thing works better as a ground rule. Like, "there are some rolls (Perception/Search, Sense Motive, some specific Will checks) that I'll roll for you to avoid spelling out when there's something fishy, is it all right with you ?".

But the specific player you mention sounds like he's having problems with conflicting expectations that go beyond this situation. He likely expects an open-world videogame-like agency, where you can walk into NPC's houses and search their rooms without them objecting, where NPCs don't really have a will of their own that contradicts what the Hero wants to do.
Maybe that's what he's been playing for 15 years, a game with emphasis on PC-driven exploration and fighting, with stock NPCs present only as generic background or tools, rather than social interaction. Which is a valid style. But if that's the case, then his experience is a hindrance rather than an asset in going along with what you're trying to do, which is a game with immersion and relatively emotionally/psychologically realistic NPCs.
This is not you doing something wrong. In fact, you sound like you're doing a fine job. But maybe you should ask him if he's having fun, ask him if there's a problem similar to what I described, and explain to him what you're going for and would he be okay with trying it.

From the points he was using to make his argument it seems he does indeed tend to view it like an open-world videogame like you mentioned, though other times he argues he likes reality, immersion and such. My husband says to attribute what he was saying to the fact he was being salty about the tavern girl, I guess I'll have to monitor how things go in the future. They soon start to gain their hero-status, so I guess it'll be less of an issue by then.


I would not say this is their roll to roll. As a general rule of thumb, any roll where the character doesn't know if they succeeded or failed, I would suggest the DM roll without showing the players. Mind you, I'm typically an advocate of DMs rolling openly for everything, but this is a special sort of case because the player making the roll will influence them.

If the DM says, 'roll sense motive', that instantly gives the player some level of information. If the DM never asks for such a roll except in a situation where the NPC is bluffing, then the player simply knows, by being asked to roll, that the NPC is lying. If the DM peppers false requests for rolls throughout NPC dialogue, then the player still knows to be wary in conversations where the DM has called for a roll, as opposed to conversations a roll is never called for. Also, the false requests for rolls slows things down. Even a good player, who consciously tries not to let this out of character knowledge influence their character's actions, will be influenced by the knowledge to some degree. It's unavoidable, because humans are incapable of perfectly thinking about something while excluding knowledge they actually possess. They can make a good effort, but it cannot be done perfectly.

So, for any roll where the player isn't meant to know whether they succeeded or failed, I think the DM should always roll in secret, and indeed, usually call as little attention to the existence of the roll as possible.

This was exactly the issue I was dealing with, so far I've avoided plain lying npc's, but it's good to get some pointers on how to deal with them. Ofcourse the best players can't avoid meta-gaming if I they ask a npc "Are you telling the truth" and I start rolling a dice before I answer. My husband however, when we discussed this thread was also very much supportive of the 'if they don't actively roll sense motive take either a 10 on the roll + their skill vs the roll of the bluff from the npc or just their skill modifier in sense motive'. Now the roll of the npc ofcourse still needs to be discreet and my husband said there was a extremely easy answer for that - a online dice roller. I can roll just with a click on the laptop in front of me without anyone knowing!

[Dimers]

True. That sort of thing works better as a ground rule. Like, "there are some rolls (Perception/Search, Sense Motive, some specific Will checks) that I'll roll for you to avoid spelling out when there's something fishy, is it all right with you ?".

Yeah, that's my solution. I tell players, "I'll roll everything where the character wouldn't know how well they did" -- all knowledge and sense and discovery sorts of checks, basically.

[Quertus]

From the points he was using to make his argument it seems he does indeed tend to view it like an open-world videogame like you mentioned, though other times he argues he likes reality, immersion and such. My husband says to attribute what he was saying to the fact he was being salty about the tavern girl, I guess I'll have to monitor how things go in the future. They soon start to gain their hero-status, so I guess it'll be less of an issue by then.



This was exactly the issue I was dealing with, so far I've avoided plain lying npc's, but it's good to get some pointers on how to deal with them. Ofcourse the best players can't avoid meta-gaming if I they ask a npc "Are you telling the truth" and I start rolling a dice before I answer. My husband however, when we discussed this thread was also very much supportive of the 'if they don't actively roll sense motive take either a 10 on the roll + their skill vs the roll of the bluff from the npc or just their skill modifier in sense motive'. Now the roll of the npc ofcourse still needs to be discreet and my husband said there was a extremely easy answer for that - a online dice roller. I can roll just with a click on the laptop in front of me without anyone knowing!

I sometimes pre roll such rolls for the character before the session even begins - it's just part of my encounter notes that characters x and y spot the dagger up the NPCs sleeve, or character z feels that the npc is shady / nervous / distracted / whatever.

Although it sounds like what you are doing is fine, this player may need a little more "hand holding" to acclimate to your style. I recommend, for each npc he interacts with, explicitly give him up front what you think is most obvious about the npc, and, if he doesn't ask any questions, at the end of the conversation, ask him what he would like to have used sense motive to know about the npc in question. "is she really that into me", "who does this priest think that he is, not letting me into the holy of holys", "does it look like I could haggle with the quest givers for more money... And is there something they're not telling us", etc.

Oh, and don't just assume things will get better once the party starts getting local hero status. It may, and he may start to see the build-up of prestige, and start to understand things your way. However, as the old adage goes, give a man an inch...

[AceOfFools]

A rule I've found incredibly useful is "You are only entitled to a sense motive roll (or eqivalent) if you specifically ask for one."

The main reason for this is so that "Roll sense motive" isn't code for "this is a lie," but it has has other advantages.

Just make it clear your using this rule before play starts (before any sessions and again before any session where pcs will be interacting with suspicious strangers).

[Quertus]

A rule I've found incredibly useful is "You are only entitled to a sense motive roll (or eqivalent) if you specifically ask for one."

The main reason for this is so that "Roll sense motive" isn't code for "this is a lie," but it has has other advantages.

Just make it clear your using this rule before play starts (before any sessions and again before any session where pcs will be interacting with suspicious strangers).

Ah, but, given their experiences, the player specifically asked for a roll for every NPC - ahead of time, for all future encounters. So the question is, what does the PC want? What does the player expect? Going ahead and giving him some information, and explicitly asking what he would like to know, may help fix the disconnect between the player's and DM's expectations.

IMO, that will be the easy disconnect to fix. The difference between their view of how the world should interact with the Hero and how the world has been (seemingly realistically) been interacting with them will probably be harder to fix.

So, I recommend the OP showing that they are willing to work with them, and start doing so on the easy part (ie, the sense motive issue), to set up good will, and to give them experience working with the difference between this player's preconceived notions and how the world is being run.

So, to directly address your comment, if a player responded to your statement of, "you are only entitled to a sense motive roll if you specifically ask for one" with "then I am asking, in advance, for a sense motive roll on every NPC, PC, woodland creature, tree stump, whatever, that we encounter", how would you respond?

I go the opposite direction, making sense motive a passive skill, like spot, and automatically give the PCs a roll roll for the PCs for any sense motive I believe they would find important / interesting / etc - or just ignore the roll and give them the information if their skills are obviously more than adequate. And I also allow them to specifically request sense motive, such as when I made no mention of whether a quest-giver would be open to negotiation on the price, or when they want to know anything else about an NPC that they feel they could reasonably sense motive but I hadn't thought of.

[Flickerdart]

So, to directly address your comment, if a player responded to your statement of, "you are only entitled to a sense motive roll if you specifically ask for one" with "then I am asking, in advance, for a sense motive roll on every NPC, PC, woodland creature, tree stump, whatever, that we encounter", how would you respond?
"You can't ask in advance." Done. The PC will get bored of announcing and rolling the checks every time anything happens pretty quickly, and life will go on.

[goto124]

Or... you know... passive checks.

[AceOfFools]

"You can't ask in advance." Done. The PC will get bored of announcing and rolling the checks every time anything happens pretty quickly, and life will go on.
This is how I handle it. I've never had complaints from my players.

But then, I've never had any complaints about my players either.

[goto124]

What if the player's paranoia far exceeds their patience, and said players comes up with all sorts of reasons to roll Sense Motive?

[AceOfFools]

What if the player's paranoia far exceeds their patience, and said players comes up with all sorts of reasons to roll Sense Motive?

Sense motive (in the srd) is explicitly limited to no retries.

It's the same as a player who keeps asking for knowledge checks on one creature.

[Quertus]

RAW, sense motive does not help answer the question, "is she really that into me?" RAI, it is probably the correct skill to roll for that question... and for, "is the way she flicked her hair a conscious or subconscious gesture, and what does it indicate about her current emotional state and intentions", as well as, "is the placement of that wheelbarrow indicative of intent to ambush?"

Honestly, this is (or, at least IMO should be) less a matter of sense motive, and more an issue of DM/Player communication. Which, IMO, one of the easiest ways to resolve would be to give the player what he wants (more info), and actively probing for what info he wants. Which could be done under the player-suggested guise of constant sense motive rolls.

[Heartilly]

Honestly, this is (or, at least IMO should be) less a matter of sense motive, and more an issue of DM/Player communication. Which, IMO, one of the easiest ways to resolve would be to give the player what he wants (more info), and actively probing for what info he wants. Which could be done under the player-suggested guise of constant sense motive rolls.

I gave him all the info concerning how she acted towards him, she told him about her past and family etc. I am however, not going to describe to my players exactly what goes through the npc their minds as they are in vicinity of them, if they are not interested in finding this out - either through questioning the npc or rolling a sense motive. "She's playing with her hair as you tell her about your heroic deeds, fascinated and intrigued by what you have to say." - "But since you are sitting across from her, spending time with her, you realise that the reason she is fascinated and intrigued is because she likes finding men who are strong and wealthy, because she is not well off and likes to land a good man and a good life for herself".

Like... no. If she was faking intrigue and fascination, sure, I'd get that passive sense motive roll in, but I'm not of a mind to spell out every npc, their thoughts and 'hidden' motives to my players. It, in my mind, takes away all the mystery and the satisfaction of getting to know npc's. That player btw withdrew his comments, he was indeed salty and upset for little reason and doesn't want that sort of playstyle either - in fact, he loves things like that, just not when it happens to him it seems :p
He seemed mostly upset that the other two players would make fun of him for being swindled (or so he assumed).

[hifidelity2]

My 10p (or 10c)’s worth

If he had done a successful Sense Motive then it would have shown that she liked him – she likes all patrons who have gold and flirts with a lot of them because it gets her bigger tips

Don’t forget it is an opposed roll and she may have a very high skill in “Bluff” – afterall as a pretty barmaid in a tavern she will have had a lot of experience in handling “over friendly” adventurers
(in my game I allow npc to be 0 level person but 10th level barmaid

As a bar man (many years ago) I learnt to chat to / up the clients as it got you bigger tips

[goto124]

"Why didn't you let me roll Sense Motive?"
"Fine, you take 20 on Sense Motive now. She's just friendly. Is that enough?"

[Heartilly]

My 10p (or 10c)’s worth

If he had done a successful Sense Motive then it would have shown that she liked him – she likes all patrons who have gold and flirts with a lot of them because it gets her bigger tips

Don’t forget it is an opposed roll and she may have a very high skill in “Bluff” – afterall as a pretty barmaid in a tavern she will have had a lot of experience in handling “over friendly” adventurers
(in my game I allow npc to be 0 level person but 10th level barmaid

As a bar man (many years ago) I learnt to chat to / up the clients as it got you bigger tips

Thank you! That was indeed what I was going for! He, however, handled her with respect and kindness, which earned him perhaps a little more interest, who knows, maybe he can forgive her for her 'crimes' and it may still work out ;)

[Fri]

Hi. Nice to see a new GM jumping straight into the frying pan :smallbiggrin:

Since you're new, I guess I should mention a couple other tips. Maybe you know them already, maybe not, but I'll just mention it since I'm already here :D

1. Don't try to solve everything in-game or in-character. For example, if you think npc shouldn't be treated as mindless object, or if the players think they should, you should discuss it with the players to arrive at a good common understanding.

2. No need to roll for everything. Roll only if the the outcome would be interesting. For example, only roll out of combat when a failure or a huge success would be interesting or led to things. For example, walking on tightrope should be handled with acrobatic check right? But think, is there a purpose of rolling it? The purpose could be: If the player fails he falls down, and will get hurt/found by guard. Or he's doing it in circus, and a good roll would awe the watchers. Or the one doing it is a clumsy fighter, and you need to show that he can't do it. Something like that :smallredface: