Sense Motive - passive or active?

[Quasqueton]

Actually, the situation that really brought me to ask this question on this forum was when a PC (I'll call the "Bluffer") tried to deceive another PC (I'll call the "Senser"). The situation in question was handled openly at the game table, and all Players heard and saw what happened. But when the Bluffer character rejoined the group, he misrepresented what actually occured. [The DM didn't take anyone aside and handle it secretly because he didn't know there'd be any deception between the PCs.]

The Player of the Senser character called for an opposed Bluff/Sense Motive check to determine if the Senser character recognized that the Bluffer character was being dishonest. The Player of the Bluffer character asked why the Senser character should be suspicious enough to try a SM check. The Player of the Senser character said that because SM is a passive skill, it gets rolled whenever someone uses tries to decieve him.

So, we had a situation where the Players at the table knew the truth, and we had to determine whether the PCs in the game knew there was a deception. In such a case, no matter how good the Bluffer Player was at his "role playing", he can't possibly convince the Senser Player that something else than what he witnessed happened.

So how do you "we don't need no stinking social skill checks because we are great role players" handle one PC bluffing, diplomacizing, and intimidating another PC? Our game group rolls the dice and then role play the results -- either beleiving the bluff, accepting the diplomacy offer, or backing down when intimidated (in a way matching our PCs' personalities).

Edit: for the record, we rarely (if ever to memory) have had PCs try to use diplomacy or intimidate on another PC. Bluff is the only social skill PCs have tried to use against other PCs.

Quasqueton

 

[StalkingBlue]

...So how do you "we don't need no stinking social skill checks because we are great role players" handle ...

Hm, I'd love to discuss this with you, interesting situation you had there; but frankly I'm sick and tired of being patronised, slapped around and insulted. Can you understand that?

 

[Thanee]

[shakes head] You see, I developed my style _because_ it works for me. I did use the other method, years ago when I started GMing - but what I'm doing now suits me and the players I DM for.

Makes sense.

I don't suppose you have ever tried it _our_ way?

Well, we do use active sense motive as well. Both, to be precise.

Bye
Thanee

 

[StalkingBlue]

Well, we do use active sense motive as well. Both, to be precise.

Heh. Interesting. And your experience with it is that it inhibits roleplaying, yes? Really interesting, completely contrary to my experience and I guess to S'mon's, too.

 

[Thanee]

No, it doesn't inhibit roleplaying. Did I say that?

I just think, that it allows the player to better utilize their character's skills, thus base their roleplaying more on the character's abilities. It allows to better mix mechanics and roleplaying IMHO.

It surely has no influence on the quality of the roleplaying itself.

Bye
Thanee

 

[IceBear]

Hm, I'd love to discuss this with you, interesting situation you had there; but frankly I'm sick and tired of being patronised, slapped around and insulted. Can you understand that?

Maybe it's HOW you're saying it as opposed to WHAT you are saying? I have read this thread and honestly tried to be unbiased, but your tone just DRIPS with scorn and disdain. It's hard to have a friendly debate with someone when the other person makes you feel like the scum on the bottom their shoe.

On topic, I would handle it like another poster. Passive Sense Motive would be a Take 10, active would be a dice roll. I believe, in my experience that I've picked up on subtle body language without "trying", but I also believe that maybe I'd have an easier time of it if I actively tried. Fits the style of me and my lowly group of above average players.

 

[S'mon]

So how do you "we don't need no stinking social skill checks because we are great role players" handle one PC bluffing, diplomacizing, and intimidating another PC? Our game group rolls the dice and then role play the results -- either beleiving the bluff, accepting the diplomacy offer, or backing down when intimidated (in a way matching our PCs' personalities).

If a player _requests_ a roll as an aid to roleplaying their PC, yes I will _always let them have the roll_. I would never tell a player "Your PC is conned and even though you the player know it, no you don't get an SM check", that seems unfair & wrong.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Just a 'Play Nice' reminder, folks... try to steer clear of personal observations, hmm?

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[S'mon]

Maybe it's HOW you're saying it as opposed to WHAT you are saying? I have read this thread and honestly tried to be unbiased, but your tone just DRIPS with scorn and disdain. It's hard to have a friendly debate with someone when the other person makes you feel like the scum on the bottom their shoe.

On topic, I would handle it like another poster. Passive Sense Motive would be a Take 10, active would be a dice roll. I believe, in my experience that I've picked up on subtle body language without "trying", but I also believe that maybe I'd have an easier time of it if I actively tried. Fits the style of me and my lowly group of above average players.

Hi Icebear - I don't think SB's ire is directed primarily at you, I think you're at least trying to be polite & reasonable. While I'm not that far removed from most of you in knowledge of how these things 'really' work, SB's own particular background is so far above the rest of us in terms of knowledge of this area that it must be a bit frustrating for her. But of course the main thing is that you - and we - should do what works for us in your/our games. We keep saying that, I don't see how that's a condescending statement at all. I/we don't like being told "If you don't do it this way, you're doing it wrong." That's only natural.

 

[IceBear]

Hi Icebear - I don't think SB's ire is directed primarily at you, I think you're at least trying to be polite & reasonable. While I'm not that far removed from most of you in knowledge of how these things 'really' work, SB's own particular background is so far above the rest of us in terms of knowledge of this area that it must be a bit frustrating for her. But of course the main thing is that you - and we - should do what works for us in your/our games. We keep saying that, I don't see how that's a condescending statement at all. I/we don't like being told "If you don't do it this way, you're doing it wrong." That's only natural.

Oh, I wasn't thinking her comments were directed at me personally. She made a comment about how she was feeling attacked (I assumed by others) and I tried to give some insight into why I think she was. Despite how Hypersmurf took it, I wasn't trying to attack her either but rather offer some constructive criticism.

I also think everyone should play the way that fits their group and they have fun. I'm pretty sure both sides have said that actually. You're posts, for example, don't contain half the scorn hers does so when someone on the other "side" reads her posts they are likely to post in a more emotional manner than constructive. That was the reason for my post. I've been guilty of being too deep into a debate before that I've not seen my emotions taking over.

Anyway, as you noticed, that was my first post on this subject in awhile. Once you explained how your group was I could understand why you played the way you did and as such I had nothing more to say on the subject, so I'll go back to lurking