Sense Motive - passive or active?

[S'mon]

While life is unfair, I have to disagree with your philosophy here. This is a game with rules that are supposed to be balanced. I consider social skills to be part of the game rules, and to be as balanced as the character classes.

Again, just my look on it. I'm not saying yours is wrong.

The game is balanced. The players aren't. SB knows way more about security & counter-surveillance than I'll ever do. I know more about moral rights in copyright (not so useful for most RPGs) - I also know more about military history & tactics. Tallarn is a professional actor. We all have different strengths & weaknesses. They affect how we play, and often whether we succeed or fail.

 

[IceBear]

I guess we use dice & stats as an aid. Sometimes roleplay counts more, sometimes dice.

And in all honesty, I bet that's no different than most of the other groups out there. I hope you didn't get the impression we were all dice and rules and forget about the roleplay and fun This is why I kept saying this isn't black and white and that none of us can truly understand another group's playstyle until we've played in that group for awhile.

 

[IceBear]

The game is balanced. The players aren't. SB knows way more about security & counter-surveillance than I'll ever do. I know more about moral rights in copyright (not so useful for most RPGs) - I also know more about military history & tactics. Tallarn is a professional actor. We all have different strengths & weaknesses. They affect how we play, and often whether we succeed or fail.

I understand that. I wasn't trying to judge you or your group.

Again, to the general community the life is unfair comment isn't accurately portraying the rules. The rules are meant to be the balancer. The life is unfair in a game tends to come from poor dice rolls, not from external factors.

You're a brand new DM with brand new players and you're reading this thread. Would you rather them learn the roleplaying ropes and use dice to help them keep as many things "fair" between them until they get enough experience to do it as fits them, or try it without the dice and possibly alienate some players who go on to not want to play the game anymore?

I'd rather allow the rules and dice level the playing field until everyone is comfortable with what their "style" is

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Life, y'know, is unfair, and all that. Men are created unequal, we have unequal rights, some of us don't get life , liberty or even much chance to pursue happiness.

You certainly are more than welcome to play the game any way it works for you, but this is a completely illogical argument for justifying your set of house rules.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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).

That's why I firmly believe in the "Roll, then speak" principle for using social skills.

If the barbarian with the 6 Charisma rolls a Natural 20 on his Diplomacy check, that's a total of 19, and the speech should be rendered by the player in such a fashion as to justify that 19.

If the bard with the +7 modifier rolls a Natural 1, that's a total of 8... which is less inspiring than the average teenager trying to convince Dad to let him borrow the keys to the warhorse on a Friday night... and a ringing masterpiece of oratory would be inappropriate.

NB I almost (edit: "almost always" I meant) treat skills as boosts/additional abioities to the player's own roleplay abilities...

Shouldn't they be a boost to the character's abilities?

Isn't that what Cha: 15 is supposed to represent?

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

If the barbarian with the 6 Charisma rolls a Natural 20 on his Diplomacy check, that's a total of 19, and the speech should be rendered by the player in such a fashion as to justify that 19.

Why did the barbarian put 2 points into diplomacy?

I haven't read the whole thread, so I'll just answer the title's question:

I use it as both. When player's are conversing with an NPC I will sometimes ask for sense motive checks. If they ask for checks themselves, I let them roll one to get a general idea of what the NPC is wanting, feeling, etc.

 

[S'mon]

That's why I firmly believe in the "Roll, then speak" principle for using social skills.

If the barbarian with the 6 Charisma rolls a Natural 20 on his Diplomacy check, that's a total of 19, and the speech should be rendered by the player in such a fashion as to justify that 19.

If the bard with the +7 modifier rolls a Natural 1, that's a total of 8... which is less inspiring than the average teenager trying to convince Dad to let him borrow the keys to the warhorse on a Friday night... and a ringing masterpiece of oratory would be inappropriate.

That's the problem with the d20 system, especially at low levels - too much variance in areas where IRL there's little. A strong guy is always strong, a smooth-talker is almost always smooth, but poor rolls can overwhelm that and give to me highly implausible results.

Anyway, for me speaking-to-a-roll might be good Simulation but would be No Fun & I'd never do it that way in my games. I expect players to normally play to the best of _their_ ability AS WELL AS to the best of their PCs' abilities.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I expect players to normally play to the best of _their_ ability AS WELL AS to the best of their PCs' abilities.

Whereas if I'm playing the illiterate 7 Int barbarian, and I figure out the cipher disguising the password in the fragment of scripture found in the evil priestess' quarters, I'm not going to have the barbarian say anything.

But I will make a suggestion to the player of the 21 Int Arcane Trickster with 12 ranks in Decipher Script... because while the player might have missed the code, it's unlikely his character would.

For me to have the barbarian reveal the answer is not playing the role of that character.

-Hyp.

 

[S'mon]

Whereas if I'm playing the illiterate 7 Int barbarian, and I figure out the cipher disguising the password in the fragment of scripture found in the evil priestess' quarters, I'm not going to have the barbarian say anything.

But I will make a suggestion to the player of the 21 Int Arcane Trickster with 12 ranks in Decipher Script... because while the player might have missed the code, it's unlikely his character would.

For me to have the barbarian reveal the answer is not playing the role of that character.

-Hyp.

Yep, if the GM allows it the way to do it is make suggestion OOC. Personally I treat playing Int 7 barbarian as a chance to chill out & not worry about riddles! OTOH if I had to make a rousing speech to my Horde before battle, even if my PC had zero Diplomacy or whatever I'd still do my best to do a good barbaric speech.

Edit: Whatever the stats say, fantasy heroes are cool - they should look cool in play, like Ron Edwards says in 'Sorcerer & Sword'. You can be cool in a Diplomacy-0 way: "I have no tongue for this, Crom, but..."

 

[Thanee]

That's the problem with the d20 system, especially at low levels - too much variance in areas where IRL there's little. A strong guy is always strong, a smooth-talker is almost always smooth, but poor rolls can overwhelm that and give to me highly implausible results.

I think that's what the take 10 rule is meant for, that you can get reliable average effects.

Bye
Thanee