If a NPC lies to a character, do you always allow him a Sence Motive check?
I feal this can reveal to much to the player if he simply rolls high. Players should discover lies by themselves IMO.
Thoughts?
How to deal with lies
-
Rob-hin
- Posts: 4832
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2001 11:00 am
- Location: In the Batcave with catwoman. *prrrr*
- Contact:
How to deal with lies
How do you deal with in-game lies?
If a NPC lies to a character, do you always allow him a Sence Motive check?
I feal this can reveal to much to the player if he simply rolls high. Players should discover lies by themselves IMO.
Thoughts?
If a NPC lies to a character, do you always allow him a Sence Motive check?
I feal this can reveal to much to the player if he simply rolls high. Players should discover lies by themselves IMO.
Thoughts?
Guinness is good for you.
Gives you strength.
Gives you strength.
Well - in real life there are (mostly always) "tell tell" signs when a person lies, depending on how good the liar is.
This is hard to convey in (roleplaying) games, and therefore I think one should ask for a roll.
If the player fails the roll, but still acts as if he knows that the person lied to him due to the fact that he was asked to roll, then he (imo) is a bad roleplayer using metaknowlegde.
A decent roleplayer would act oblivious if he fails his roll
Possible the DM could roll for the player withouth telling the player what he is rolling for, if he doesn't trust the player to act accordingly. But I think the roll should be done.
An alternative could be to try and incorperate "tell tell" signs of possible liar, to "provoke" the player into saying that he is performing the roll, withouth asking the player to do so. (for instance the NPC could: studder, clear his troath a couple of times, avoid eye contact or fluttering eye movements and so on).
If the player catches on, he could ask for permission to do a sense motive check on his own, due to the description/behavior of the NPC.
Besides - just because the person rolls high, dosen't mean he knows what the truth is. He simply senses that the NPC isn't telling the truth or rather that there is something strange, whatever that might be.
This is hard to convey in (roleplaying) games, and therefore I think one should ask for a roll.
If the player fails the roll, but still acts as if he knows that the person lied to him due to the fact that he was asked to roll, then he (imo) is a bad roleplayer using metaknowlegde.
A decent roleplayer would act oblivious if he fails his roll
Possible the DM could roll for the player withouth telling the player what he is rolling for, if he doesn't trust the player to act accordingly. But I think the roll should be done.
An alternative could be to try and incorperate "tell tell" signs of possible liar, to "provoke" the player into saying that he is performing the roll, withouth asking the player to do so. (for instance the NPC could: studder, clear his troath a couple of times, avoid eye contact or fluttering eye movements and so on).
If the player catches on, he could ask for permission to do a sense motive check on his own, due to the description/behavior of the NPC.
Besides - just because the person rolls high, dosen't mean he knows what the truth is. He simply senses that the NPC isn't telling the truth or rather that there is something strange, whatever that might be.
Insert signature here.
I'm constantly rolling a D20 while I DM. Also I have a list of all the player's skills and other attributes. Before a character meets with an NPC who I know is going to lie to him, I roll a sense motive check for the character. If he gets a DC 15 + I'll tell the character outright that he knows the character is lieing. If he get's a DC 10 - 15, I'll allow the player to roll a Check IF he thinks to ask. If he dosen't beat a DC 10, I'll allow the player to roll a check if he asks, but no matter what he rolls, I'll tell him he senses the NPC is telling the truth.
I've been known to to the exact opposite if the character is meating someone who is telling them the truth!!! lol. Make things alot more interesting!
l8r
I've been known to to the exact opposite if the character is meating someone who is telling them the truth!!! lol. Make things alot more interesting!
l8r
I let my players roll sense motive checks if they ask for it. That is, if a player thinks that an NPC is lying, I'll let him roll a check. If he doesn't express any concern or thought that the NPC is lying, it's best just to go along with it. I think the sense motive exists mainly for confirming that an NPC is lying...it is not a substitute for detective work or role-play...much like other rp-related skills like diplomacy and bluff.
Check it out! One of my earliest, and certainly, more creative threads!
Fantasy Football - Pick a Side
Fantasy Football - Pick a Side
-
Rob-hin
- Posts: 4832
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2001 11:00 am
- Location: In the Batcave with catwoman. *prrrr*
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Mr.Waesel]
And what do you mean by "discover for themselves"?[/QUOTE]
Well, finding things in statements by NPC's that are wrong and concluding the NPC has been lying. In other words, discovering lies with common sence.
I've read some good idea's.
My conclusion would be allowing rolls when a player asks for it. naturally, they should be informed of this at the beginning of a quest.
Also, a DM could decide to allow a player (only the ones with skill points in Sence Motive) to roll when a NPC could be cauch not telling the truth. If all players are allowed a roll, chances are one of them will roll high. This is not fair to the DM IMO.
And what do you mean by "discover for themselves"?[/QUOTE]
Well, finding things in statements by NPC's that are wrong and concluding the NPC has been lying. In other words, discovering lies with common sence.
I've read some good idea's.
My conclusion would be allowing rolls when a player asks for it. naturally, they should be informed of this at the beginning of a quest.
Also, a DM could decide to allow a player (only the ones with skill points in Sence Motive) to roll when a NPC could be cauch not telling the truth. If all players are allowed a roll, chances are one of them will roll high. This is not fair to the DM IMO.
Guinness is good for you.
Gives you strength.
Gives you strength.
Well, to the play the devil's advocate...you don't have to say "you don't know if he's lying" when a player rolls badly. That's not really how it works in real life anyway. Let's say you have a group of five players, and a certain NPC is lying. The players ask for a sense motive check. You roll the dice out of their sight. Two beat the check. One just fails the check. The remaining two completely fail the check. So two people think he's lying, one's not sure, and two people vow he's telling the truth.
Lost Souls: A bereft lover. A masterless familiar. Friends gone their separate ways. Time marches on, and destiny heralds the meeting of comrades old and new. Can they find what they're seeking? Or will the search bring them only more pain?
