Do you allow Bluff/Sense Motive (and others) between PCs?

[azhrei_fje]

I've got a little intra-party strife going on IMC right now. This is an online game using MapTool and Ventrllo for voip. Seems the rogue has been doing "rogue things" and got caught: detect magic by three different spellcasters found magic auras on the rogue and the party hasn't found any magic items yet (they were 2nd level at the time; just advanced to 3rd).

The rogue tried to talk his way out of it. (The story is actually much longer than that.) Should I make secret Sense Motive checks for the other PCs as they deal with the rogue? The rogue has NOT told me he's making Bluff checks, so I would need to roll those myself, too.

In general, I don't like making checks for PCs without their direction to do so. However, I feel that the players are missing out on all of the non-verbal (or in this case, non-written) clues they would normally have: tone of voice, facial expressions, body posture, and so on.

I also rolled an Intelligence check for the PCs when the rogue recapped what he remembered of events to see if the PCs remembered it differently. The rogue's player has not indicated to me whether he gave the false story on purpose, but as the character were THERE when it happened, it seemed reasonable to roll the check. I then told the players whose characters succeeded to refer to the chat log from the online session so that they (the players) could refresh their memory as to what occurred.

Given all of the above should I: (1) roll skill checks without a request from the players, and (2) roll Int checks to determine if the PC remembers something that the player has forgotten?

 

[Kylas]

I don't understand why your hesitant to do the secret rolls. Just because it's between 2 Pcs doesn't change too much. Is there a specific reason your avoiding doing the rolls.

As someone who has DMed for groups that have almost always had a Party member do something against the group or certain members of the grouo im used to making secret rolls between pc's.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's fine. I'd even let the players roll themselves because I'd have the PCs request to sense motive. In which case, the rogue would roll bluff regardless of if he's telling the truth or not.

Do remember to look at the Bluff description. The other PCs can get a sizeable bonus on their sense motive rolls if they have good reason to think the rogue is lying (such as the detect magic check they conducted).

 

[Herzog]

I'd let the players roll Sense Motive and the rogue a Bluff check if I'd know the rogue was lying, or if the rogue would request the Bluff check.

If the players can't handle that OC information, I'd make the rolls myself.

On a more generic note, I've seen players use Bluff checks to bluff their way through almost anything, including actually having a skill they didn't have.
Of course, the answer they came up with didn't have any kind of truth in it, but the other characters thought it did....

Of course I can determine which way is north!(OC: I have survival!)
It's that way! (Bluff check vs Sense Motive ) and points SSE....

 

[irdeggman]

Yes but it will not force the PCs to act in a certain way. It can be used to provide information or a "flavor" for the information but it can never "determine" how a PC acts - that is by RAW always a player decision unless under some sort of compulsion.

 

[taliesin15]

I totally favor the secret roll method. Surely if say the Rogue was attempting to Pick Pocket one of the Mages, you would as DM oppose his/her d20 roll with a Spot check? It would be a dead giveaway to have that player roll d20 for no reason.

An alternative is you have all the players roll d20s a number of times at the start of each gaming session, and you just keep the list of their rolls behind your DM Screen or with your notes and cross them off each time there's a Spot opportunity (or some similar "passive" use of skills).

 

[azhrei_fje]

Thanks for the feedback, folks.

I like the secret rolls as it doesn't telegraph to the players that something is going on. We play using MapTool so I can put some textual notes along with the roll and have it for reference later. I'm not fascist about keeping the players in-character during the game, but I think it helps to remove the dice rolls as much as possible and let the players concentrate on their characters emotions and goals.

In other campaigns I've done the "pre-roll some d20's for me" but that's a pain to keep track of.

 

[s-dub]

So is the rogue CN?

 

[Kask]

I don't get involved in intra party matters. I have no idea if the players use these skill rolls. I only get involved when NPCs & monsters interact with PCs.
DM's don't run PCs.

 

[azhrei_fje]

So is the rogue CN?

Heh-heh, he is now. The player thinks he's TN (sigh).

I don't get involved in intra party matters. I have no idea if the players use these skill rolls. I only get involved when NPCs & monsters interact with PCs.

DM's don't run PCs.

Agreed. As a previous poster stated, the GM should make the roll and tell the player what his character does or does not perceive (that's the GM's job, after all), but the decision on how to act on that information belongs to the player. Always.

I've had a couple players tell me they'd like to lose the character in a ditch somewhere. At least, I think they were talking about the character...

We also have an agreement amongst the party about other people playing their character when they can't attend a game session. Basically, each player has given "power of attorney" to another player (or me) to take over their PC. But that's a separate thread...