Sense Motive - passive or active?

[S'mon]

so how do Sense Motive and Bluff work for the PCs if the DM is banned from rolling the opposing checks for the NPCs?

Per the RAW as I understand it:
NPCs are allowed to roll Sense Motive checks vs PC Bluff attempts, of course.
NPCs are not allowed to roll Bluff attempts vs PC Sense Motive _to convince PCs of anything_. The GM can use a successful NPC Bluff roll to say "he seems truthful', but no more than that.

 

[S'mon]

Obviously SB & me play High-CHA, high-Diplomacy skill NPCs as being charismatic and persuasive, and low-CHA zero-Dip ones as being uncharismatic & unpersuasive. If a PC has high Sense Motive (and brings this to my attention!) I may drop them hints, and I may do rolls to decide whether to do that. I do find though that the 3e system as written is clunky and does not encourage in-character play. I definitely preferred earlier editions in this regard.

 

[DarkMaster]

Heh.

That's why I tend to do passive rolls (including Sense Motive (see above)) secretly, if they would 'tip off' the player, to avoid metagaming.

Bye
Thanee

Most of the skill relying on perception and social, are passive.

 

[DarkMaster]

Obviously SB & me play High-CHA, high-Diplomacy skill NPCs as being charismatic and persuasive, and low-CHA zero-Dip ones as being uncharismatic & unpersuasive. If a PC has high Sense Motive (and brings this to my attention!) I may drop them hints, and I may do rolls to decide whether to do that. I do find though that the 3e system as written is clunky and does not encourage in-character play. I definitely preferred earlier editions in this regard.

Not me because it relied to much on the player and DM skills as opposed to PC and NPC skill.

Player should be there to create the content, but that content has to be delivered by their PC to the NPC and not like before from the player to the DM.

 

[DarkMaster]

Obviously SB & me play High-CHA, high-Diplomacy skill NPCs as being charismatic and persuasive, and low-CHA zero-Dip ones as being uncharismatic & unpersuasive. If a PC has high Sense Motive (and brings this to my attention!) I may drop them hints, and I may do rolls to decide whether to do that. I do find though that the 3e system as written is clunky and does not encourage in-character play. I definitely preferred earlier editions in this regard.

Not me because it relied to much on the player and DM skills as opposed to PC and NPC skill.

Player should be there to create the content, but that content has to be delivered by their PC to the NPC and not like before from the player to the DM.

 

[StalkingBlue]

Well I even roll Diplomacy check against the PC. According to the roll I adjust my description of what is happening and more often than not I am able to achieve the result of the die. I don't want to influence my NPC I want them to influence me as it should be. Otherwise I will make every magic item seller a 10 level fighter with 8 charisma and 0 diplomacy because I can "role play" them. What applies to my PC applies to my NPC.

Interesting. Do you also roll Intimidate checks against PCs and in case of success, tell the player, 'You're terrified, you do as he tells you'?

 

[DarkMaster]

Interesting. Do you also roll Intimidate checks against PCs and in case of success, tell the player, 'You're terrified, you do as he tells you'?

No, It is all a matter of acting with your player, If the intimidate roll is succesfull I will adjust my description, the word used by the NPC and my non-verbal component comunication to make sure that they understand that this guy is not joking, if the roll fail badly, I might even joke with the players on how he is trying to intimidate their PC, I can use a funny accent to impersonate the character, or tell them that the guy is actually shaking when asking question. If it doesn't work I can simply say that their character are quite shaken by the NPC, and expect them to rollplay accordingly and that sometimes lead to interesting situation. Like a paladin captured by the enemy and being tortured by the enemy, he finally crack under pressure and tells everything. Without using the skills or (Charisma vs Wisdom in older edition there is no way you can put your PC in such situation. They will just say, I don't say anything, if they kill me too bad (that is boring). There is no way to simulate around a table with chips, soft drink, beer and dice what the effect of mental or physical torture can have on a character.

Player cannot decide everything for their PC, Their PC have their own limitation. I never saw a player tell me why are you rolling the dice to see if my character can climb this rope, even if they are professional climber, why should they ask question when I do it when the challenge is mental?

 

[Zappo]

I use Sense Motive not only to oppose Bluff, but also (with a fixed DC) to see if the PC can get some information from the body language or tone of the NPC. "He doesn't seem to be lying, but he does look nervous". "He looks very happy about this". That sort of things.

As for active vs. passive, I do both. There is no fixed rule, but generally I call for a roll when the NPC is outright lying, or when the outcome is potentially important. If he's just colouring up the truth, or if the outcome is irrelevant anyway, I often don't roll Bluff until a PC calls for Sense Motive. Similarly, it would be pretty pointless to ask Sense Motive at every sentence; I only make a new Bluff roll when a new important topic comes up.

 

[StalkingBlue]

...If it doesn't work I can simply say that their character are quite shaken by the NPC, and expect them to rollplay accordingly and that sometimes lead to interesting situation. Like a paladin captured by the enemy and being tortured by the enemy, he finally crack under pressure and tells everything. Without using the skills or (Charisma vs Wisdom in older edition there is no way you can put your PC in such situation. They will just say, I don't say anything, if they kill me too bad (that is boring). There is no way to simulate around a table with chips, soft drink, beer and dice what the effect of mental or physical torture can have on a character. ...

Whoah. Our gaming experiences couldn't be more different.
We're moving away from discussing rules and into discussing gaming styles, and I don't mean to put my style over yours by what I say, merely to explain where I think we differ, but:
Of _course_ I've seen players have their PCs respond plausibly to in-game pressure, and done the same with PCs I've played! And of _course_ I wouldn't dictate what a PC does under pressure (short of mind-control magic effects).

In my game I currently have two PCs in the hands of a villain. The PCs have an extremely close personal bond, and each of them is a fanatic believer in their cause. My villain of course thinks of them as terrorists - the PCs OTOH say they're freedom fighters. If my villain were to torture either of them for information, my guess is they'd die rather than talk. If on the other hand he were to realise just how close they are to each other and start torturing (even threatening?) one of them in front of the other, that might yield very different results.

I can't disclose at this point what he's actually planning to do or whether I expect any of this to come up in the session (we're playing tonight!), but there's no way I'd deprive the players of their freedom to decide what their PCs will do if faced with either situation - or with anything else involving RP interaction that either my villain or any of the PCs might come up with.

 

[DarkMaster]

Whoah. Our gaming experiences couldn't be more different.
We're moving away from discussing rules and into discussing gaming styles, and I don't mean to put my style over yours by what I say, merely to explain where I think we differ, but:
Of _course_ I've seen players have their PCs respond plausibly to in-game pressure, and done the same with PCs I've played! And of _course_ I wouldn't dictate what a PC does under pressure (short of mind-control magic effects).

In my game I currently have two PCs in the hands of a villain. The PCs have an extremely close personal bond, and each of them is a fanatic believer in their cause. My villain of course thinks of them as terrorists - the PCs OTOH say they're freedom fighters. If my villain were to torture either of them for information, my guess is they'd die rather than talk. If on the other hand he were to realise just how close they are to each other and start torturing (even threatening?) one of them in front of the other, that might yield very different results.

I can't disclose at this point what he's actually planning to do or whether I expect any of this to come up in the session (we're playing tonight!), but there's no way I'd deprive the players of their freedom to decide what their PCs will do if faced with either situation - or with anything else involving RP interaction that either my villain or any of the PCs might come up with.

how do you handle fight without depriving them their right to live. People can be attacked physically and emotionaly. Emotional attack can have very unpredictable results. I am sure nobody would want to go in depression. A colleague at work just got into depression let's assume for a moment that he is a PC, I am pretty sure that his "player would never want him to get depressed, so that he can collect more money, enjoy life ect". But all these personal attack, problem at work, death of his father rocky relationship finally got a toll on him. If you were the DM how would you handle this situation?

I am not saying I forces player to act like NPC all the time but on certains occasion things are bigger than what their character can handle. a 2nd level rogue with a low wisdom will probably quickly crack when the 6th level maxed Intimidate question him, wether or not his player wants it (obviously I will roll the dice, but chances are high that he failed) Same as if the 2nd level rogue would have go 1 on 1 with a 6th level fighter and nobody complains about it.