Sense Motive - passive or active?

[DarkMaster]

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.

I actually agree with you my example was extreme. For sure the game could become pretty boring, but the rules allows it, like the quadraplegic can play a monk or a rogue. And I like to give my player this option. I think it add to the RPG experience instead of limiting it. If the highly charismatic wants to play an low charisma/social skill half orc, the rules will help/force him into that role without me having to keep reminding the player that his 1/2Orc could not come with such a persuasive way, or with such an empowering speech.

 

[IceBear]

BTW - I think we're going a little extreme with the socially inept player visualization too. I haven't met too many RPG players that couldn't put a few words together coherently and those that couldn't just wanted to "kill stuff".

As EB said, if two relatively similar players are at a table (let's say equally capable of making a moving speech) but one of them is playing a paladin and has put a lot of skillpoints in Diplomacy and the other playing a barbarian with no points in Diplomancy, it's unfair to the paladin's players if, from time to time, the barbarian talks someone into something just because his player is equally gifted at speaking.

Yes, in a perfect world the barbarian player would roleplay appropriately, but not all players are equal and the world isn't perfect. By allowing the dice to "modify" the speechs the DM is preventing this from happening. I typically allow my players to make their speech and them modify the dice roll appropriately (to help offset the rolled 3 after a great speech) and to keep the players from not roleplaying and just rolling the dice.

 

[IceBear]

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

Exactly. This was why I wanted to make sure with one of latest posts that they understood that I'm all for them playing the way the works for them but my answers were directed not so much at them (ie, not telling them their style is "wrong") but at the community in general who maybe experiencing said roleplaying "problem".

If players roleplay their characters appropriately, most of this "problem" goes away (though you still have those players who can't reach their character's social abilities themselves and would need the dice to help them)

 

[DarkMaster]

If players roleplay their characters appropriately, most of this "problem" goes away (though you still have those players who can't reach their character's social abilities themselves and would need the dice to help them)

Not sure if I agree, unless you are very close to your PC it is very difficult to act as someone with different level of skills than yours unless you are yourself particularly gifted in perform(acting), knowledge(psychologie) which most of the people I know aren't so we rely on the dice and everybody is very happy.

 

[StalkingBlue]

...

If players roleplay their characters appropriately, most of this "problem" goes away (though you still have those players who can't reach their character's social abilities themselves and would need the dice to help them)

Yup, absolutely. Or of course a bit of slack from the GM, or best of all both.

 

[IceBear]

Not sure if I agree, unless you are very close to your PC it is very difficult to act as someone with different level of skills than yours unless you are yourself particularly gifted in perform(acting), knowledge(psychologie) which most of the people I know aren't so we rely on the dice and everybody is very happy.

Well, I also might not have agreed with my original statement before this thread, but since S'mon, SB and one of their players is saying it's working for them who am I to argue? Bottom line, we don't know the skillset of the real people in their group so we can't judge.

For the general community, I said IF the player roleplay's the character appropriately... IF

SB - of course GM cutting slack help I'm one of the biggest slack cutting GMs out there I just assume it happens (it's outside of the "rules") so I didn't mention it.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I'm not entirely convinced of this. Sometimes, even people who aren't particularly articulate are able to make a moving speech. Sometimes they are able to make a persuasive argument too despite the fact that they wouldn't know a syllogism if they saw one. There's also a fair number of stories of powerful people who were persuaded by common folk not by the power of their argument but because the innocent niavete of the (bad) argument demonstrated something more profound to the person who heard it.

So I'm not convinced that roleplaying characters down to their lack of skill is always role-playing appropriately. It's entirely possible that my hypothetical barbarian could have one of his shining moments of persuasiveness that justifies the articulate speech I gave him. (Natural 20,--wohoo! my diplomacy is a 19).

I don't think it's necessarily poor role-playing if I choose to have the barbarian say something persuasive or moving. (Though it would be if I had him do so all the time).

If players roleplay their characters appropriately, most of this "problem" goes away (though you still have those players who can't reach their character's social abilities themselves and would need the dice to help them)

 

[Thanee]

(Natural 20,--wohoo! my diplomacy is a 19).

I don't think it's necessarily poor role-playing if I choose to have the barbarian say something persuasive or moving.

That's certainly within the barbarian's ability, so why should it be poor roleplaying?

As you said yourself, unless you're doing that all the time...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Quasqueton]

One thing to keep in mind here, regarding the "spidey-sense" passive use of Sense Motive. Most characters don't have ranks in SM. So even their "always on" skill check is about a 10 (assuming Take 10). A character with even just 1 rank in Bluff (or no ranks in the skill, but a 12 Charisma) can Take 10 and get a subtle deception past most people without any real effort.

Most normal/common people in the Real World also wouldn't be considered to have ranks in SM. And they are the dupes for all those who have above average Charisma and/or ranks in Bluff.

I think what throws some DMs, and Players too, is when there is a PC like my 1st-level paladin -- Wisdom 12, Charisma 14, Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Negotiator = Diplomacy +11, Sense Motive +7.

Even though he is only 1st level, he is very well (self) trained in social interaction. Even a crafty con-man is going to have a hard time getting anything over on this guy. This is something that was irking a couple of my fellow Players in our game. They saw their characters as sly bluffers -- 14-16 Charisma, 4 ranks in Bluff = +6-+7. They saw their characters as able to get a deception or misdirection past just about anyone not very much higher level than they. But then they have my paladin in their group, and they find him hard to bluff. He's very socially intuitive, and sensitive to verbal and body language. In effect, he crimps their "style" (but only in regard to bluffing *him* personally).

My character is the seasoned street cop to their wily street conman (and woman).

This also makes it more difficult for a DM to have an NPC mislead a party and make an adventure "more interesting". A PC can sweet talk an NPC in giving up info or helping him, without actually having to do something like go on a little side trek adventure or prove himself.

I am not a strong speaker, nor very sensitive in social interaction in Real Life. Even if the DM was the best actor in the world, I still could not play my paladin by straight role play. I have to roll the dice and let the game mechanics work for me. And the game mechanics say my character is *very* well spoken, and very sensitive to social interaction.

Quasqueton

 

[IceBear]

I'm not entirely convinced of this. Sometimes, even people who aren't particularly articulate are able to make a moving speech. Sometimes they are able to make a persuasive argument too despite the fact that they wouldn't know a syllogism if they saw one. There's also a fair number of stories of powerful people who were persuaded by common folk not by the power of their argument but because the innocent niavete of the (bad) argument demonstrated something more profound to the person who heard it.

So I'm not convinced that roleplaying characters down to their lack of skill is always role-playing appropriately. It's entirely possible that my hypothetical barbarian could have one of his shining moments of persuasiveness that justifies the articulate speech I gave him. (Natural 20,--wohoo! my diplomacy is a 19).

I don't think it's necessarily poor role-playing if I choose to have the barbarian say something persuasive or moving. (Though it would be if I had him do so all the time).

I guess I wasn't very clear about that point as both of you tagged it. What my understanding of SB's group is they tend to let the player's social skill determine if they are successful or not, not the dice, because their players are good at staying within the limits of their character. This quote of mine was a nod of appreciation to their group.

I was never saying it was bad roleplay to have a skilled player make a good speech even if his character couldn't, like Thanee said, FROM TIME TO TIME. I do think that, IN GENERAL, it's better for most of use to let the dice decide when it's that particular time for the character to make that great speech.

Please remember that my posting style is hurried (I tend to post mainly from work) and full of generalities. Just something to keep in mind