Sense Motive - passive or active?

[Nail]

However, I do believe, that this concentration is done pretty much automatically (as in you simply cannot shut it off completely), especially if you are trained in that field of expertise. So, even if the concentration is active, I would still see it as a passive skill roll.

Again Thanee proves why she's on my "pay attention to this poster" list.

Sense Motive needs to be a passive roll most of the time. People that are naturally talented, or who have special training, don't "shut off" this sense. It's always on.....and really, that's best/easiest for the DM too.

After all, why would I put effort into a hint (via NPC talk) if it's unlikely to be caught?

And really: I'm a terrible liar; the players see thru my subterfuge all the time.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

My experience of both S'mon and SB as DM's is excellent - both are content to let decent role-playing work when it needs to, and use the social-skills to define what happens in more difficult situations. Part of the big difference between them and other DM's on this forum is that in the games we play we're happier to go with non-optimal choices in order to have more fun.

This may sound odd, but it's more satisfying (to me only!) to have my PC's exist as slightly flawed characters that make mistakes, and to avoid meta-gaming as much as possible. Going back to the Spot/Listen examples, if S'mon asks for a Spot check and I fail it (which happens a lot with my Fighter) then I'm happy to leave it at that and get ambushed. I didn't build a character that's good at spotting stuff, I built a character that's good at fighting stuff. If every time I fail a spot roll I get paranoid, then it stops being so much fun. I let other players have fun by shouting warnings.

I am confused.

To my mind, the main point of letting the dice rule and having assumed passive rolls is to achieve exactly what you describe. When in the doubt, the dice tell me how to separate player & character knowledge. That applies to both combat and social situations.

If we look at Quasqueton's dilemma, we see the fundamental quandary is that a player is implicitly demanding a successful sense motive check to justify a sense motive check. Down that path lies madness. Simply and eaiser for the DM to just give the PC the roll.

 

[StalkingBlue]

...

SB is far too nice to rely on arguments from authority. I mentioned it after she'd already quoted some of her sources. I mean, I only have it on her authority that she came #1 in her, shall we say, 'specialist' class, and that letter asking her to go to Iraq could be a forgery for all I know - and I could be lying (Bluffing) you now... )

Which reminds me.
In our games players may well request SM checks not only to spot a suspected lie, but also conversely to determine that an NPC they aren't quite comfortable trusting is actually telling the truth.

 

[S'mon]

Again Thanee proves why she's on my "pay attention to this poster" list.

Thanee is actually on my 'pay attention to' list too, even though I happen to disagree with her on this point. IRL I think people who think their spidey-sense is always 'on' are the people it's very easy to lie to.

 

[S'mon]

Which reminds me.
In our games players may well request SM checks not only to spot a suspected lie, but also conversely to determine that an NPC they aren't quite comfortable trusting is actually telling the truth.

Yup - like when I requested an SM check on that halfling slave to determine if he seemed as truthful to my PC as he appeared to me, the player.

 

[Thanee]

Which reminds me.
In our games players may well request SM checks not only to spot a suspected lie, but also conversely to determine that an NPC they aren't quite comfortable trusting is actually telling the truth.

Yeah, that would be something I would do active as well, of course.

Isn't that kind of use even stated in the SM skill description?

Bye
Thanee

 

[two]

Thanee is actually on my 'pay attention to' list too, even though I happen to disagree with her on this point. IRL I think people who think their spidey-sense is always 'on' are the people it's very easy to lie to.

The fact that you don't see this comment as problematic is what makes your position, to me, flimsy at best.

How many people do you know IRL that think they have a good "lie detection" sense and whom you have managed to lie to successfully?

How many people in IRL have you even met, period, much less conversed with, and had the chance to "lie to" and discover their predillection for truth discernment or lack therof?

Face it -- you have not met a very wide sample of humanity. None of us have. Period. It's impossible. Plus, of course, who is to say your judgement of what people you have met that you think have "lie detection" active is valid? (maybe you missed a few hundred). How can you tell how easy they are to lie to? (maybe they laughingly accepted your obvious lie and will later turn it around on you). Etc.

Plus the real point: D&D is supposed to model a wide variety of real-life characters plus fictional characters plus anything else you can think up (a talking popsicle stick, etc.). Bringing in your narrow wedge of experience with a fractional segment of humanity, and basing a rules decision on that, is at best... well.. something I would do, personally, only with the greatest circumspection, and humbly.

 

[Thanee]

...spidey-sense...

I wish I had that... or maybe not!

Of course, one could apply penalties to passive uses to cover the differences, or just use the take 10 option as presented somewhere above.

But I am not saying, that you walk by someone and see him shuffle his feet or something and think 'Ah, that guy is not trustworthy.'

I am saying, that when you talk to someone (which implies some basic concentration to actually listen to him), you also try to discern whether that someone is telling you the truth or not. It's a byproduct of actively listening to him, so to say.

BTW, there is another passive use of Sense Motive under Bluff... Feinting in combat!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't have a problem with that myself. A person who can't get a full sentence out of his mouth without stuttering and who can't think on his feet at all probably shouldn't play a charismatic bard. "Can't we all just um... just...um get along? Diplomacy, DC 45" would not be fun to see on a regular basis.

The more serious challenges to the "role-play it out/don't roll dice" is that it lets players who are charismatic and persuasive but whose characters haven't invested any ranks in bluff, diplomacy, etc to often perform better than players who, while not socially challenged, are not particularly charismatic or persausive but are playing characters with excellent social skills.

It also prevents characters from ever reaching legendary heights of excellence. I tend to think of myself as fairly charismatic and persuasive as well as mentally quick on my feet. I did a lot of debate and public speaking in High School and college and did quite well. So, I can do pretty well at the "role-play your character's persuasive speech" game. However, I am under no illusion that I am likely to be mistaken for Demosthenes, Cicero, William Jennings Bryan, Daniel Webster, John Calhoun, et al. If I want to play a paladin who competes with those luminaries as an orator, I am going to have to rely on the dice for a lot of the effect. (Heck, even if I were as good as them, I'd still have to do that. As I understand it, most of them had at least given serious thought to their speeches before they made them--as a player at the gaming table, I generally don't. Similarly, they would take advantage of the surroundings, stand, gesture, shout, etc in ways that are not suited to the gaming table. And finally, there's a different dynamic to speaking to a group of 4-6 gamers than there is speaking to a group of 5,000 Athenians. In a crowd at an event, there are social dynamics that can carry people along in ways that they won't be carried along around a dinner table).

On the whole, I think it's important to keep there from being too great a disconnect between the role-playing at the table and the die results. Averagely skilled people should be able to play charismatic persuasive characters. A DM who hears my half-orc barbarian (not that I play one) give the Athenian Funeral Oration should have me roll the dice and then move to rectify the imbalance by saying something like "well, in your mind's ear, that's what it was going to sound like. And the crowd was all going to be moved. Really, what came out was a lot more like 'Tharg sad his friends are dead. You sad too. [Gets embarrased, makes his offering quickly and sits down]'" That's a good deal harder to do when the social misfit is trying to play James Bond so I think it's best to try to avoid that situation.

Why prevent someone socially challenged to play a highly charismatic bard? not playing by the RAW remove you that option and it is very sad. Also why charismatic player have an edge on less charismatic player around the table This is completly unfair.

 

[Thanee]

The more serious challenges to the "role-play it out/don't roll dice" is that it lets players who are charismatic and persuasive but whose characters haven't invested any ranks in bluff, diplomacy, etc to often perform better than players who, while not socially challenged, are not particularly charismatic or persausive but are playing characters with excellent social skills.

This however, assumes, that the players actually do play their characters beyond their abilities.

So, while it is a potential problem, it doesn't seem to be an actual problem in this particular group.

Bye
Thanee