Sense Motive - passive or active?

[Thanee]

I have better things to do - I already run all the NPCs, I'm not running the PCs too!
I pretty much do trust the players not to metagame roll requests. That said, I'm thinking of adopting secret rolls for Listen & Spot checks (only).

I just think that this is always metagaming (not meant in a really bad way, tho).

The character can only use the sense motive talent, if the player asks for it, which in turn only happens, if the player detects a clue, which he or she would like to further investigate.

The clue itself should be a result of the sense motive roll and not precede it.

That's why I would do the sense motive roll secretly and then roleplay the NPC accordingly. If the player does not get the hint there, I'll tell him or her.

As a player I don't like making a cool speech IC and having it fall flat because I roll '3' on my Diplomacy check.

Of course not.

As a DM, if the player of a character who is great at social interaction roleplays the social interaction, I have no problem to 'assign' a roll for it, basically.

If the player of a character who is great at social interaction, is not so great at roleplaying social interaction, a dice roll will do.

If the player of a character who is not very good at social interaction roleplays the character as if he were, while I do not assign an xp penalty for acting out of character, I would still require a dice roll.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Well, my opinion is exactly the opposite of Stalking Blue and S'mons'. I like that the D&D system now has rules covering something other than how to kill someone.

I also am quite dubious that Stalking Blue and S'mons' obviously very high opinion of their acting abilities is accurate. What they are asking me to believe is that they are such perfect actors, diplomats, and con-men, that they can accurately and reliably portray:
1. A liar so smooth he makes the characters in The Sting look like amatuers
2. A criminal who is making a genuine offer
3. A noble paladin who could convince Darth Vader to leave the Dark Side
4. A professional diplomat who thinks he could convince Darth Vader to leave the Dark Side but actually isn't quite that diplomatic
5. A professional poker player or interrogator who can read every last tick and tell.
6. A practicing cousellor who can see through a lot of BS but still gets fooled every now and then
7. A manic depressive who's learned how to fool the system and manipulate the trained professionals but often can't pull the same tricks on her acquaintances who have known her for years.
8. A man who is genuinely in trouble and is more than a little embarrrassed about asking a stranger for help.
9. A junkie who is pretending to be in trouble and a bit embarrassed about asking a stranger for help.
10. A character who is telling the truth in an intentionally unconvincing manner and then tells another lie that is supposed to sound "almost convincing enough" so that the PCs' belive they've got him sussed out and then tells a lie so convincing that it would fool Hannibal Lector when the PCs think they've finally broken him and gotten the truth.

Apparently, they believe that they are good enough to play 8-9 so that someone skilled at picking lies from the truth would believe them when they're playing 8 but catch the lies in 9. They think they're good enough that the skilled man would think 2 was genuine but, even though there are clues that 1 is not genuine, only a player more skilled in discerning truth from falsehood than the victims in The Sting would be able to pick it out. Apparently, they believe that they can, on the spot come up with a pitch good enough to be worthy of 4 but not good enough to be worthy of 3. Forgive me if I suspect that's a load of BS. If I'm supposed to believe that, I'm supposed to believe that they're smoother than the con men in The Sting, more convincing than Eadric of Deorham, and more discerning than Hannibal Lector. And I'm supposed to believe that they, as individuals, are also so skilled that they know EXACTLY how convincing they are at any particular moment in time and can tune it up or down to match a two point difference in bluff or diplomacy rolls. That requires a lot more skill than it does to simply produce a convincing pitch. And, of course, their acting skill is so great that there is an actual difference between acting like they want to convince someone with a very convincing lie and acting like they want to convince someone--their acting in the first case gives subtle clues that they are acting that aren't present in the second. But I doubt it.

Not only that, they apparently expect the player of a paladin with a +20 diplomacy and a +18 sense motive to be able to read their faces like a book (though of course, their skill at acting is so great that they can make their faces appear to say whatever is appropriate for the NPCs they're playing--including "I'm a liar so convincing that it will fool all ordinary mortals all of the time and all of the party every time but not your paladin this time"). Furthermore, they expect him to be able to come up with a speech so convincing it will make an ancient Red Dragon let them go and deliver it with the sincerity of Johnathan Edwards or the power of William Jennings Brian on a moment's notice. And, of course, the player of Daniel Ocean will have to be able to lie so convincingly that practiced casino managers can't catch him. Forgive me if I somehow doubt that this accurately describes the players in their games.

Perhaps both of these DMs are fine, skilled actors, gifted persuaders, convincing liars, and have great insight into human motivations. Perhaps they can come up with a reasonably convincing speech on the spur of the moment. Perhaps they cheat a little bit and play the "amazingly smooth liar with a +22 bluff check" as if he were simply telling the truth rather than as if he were lying convincingly. If their players like that, I suppose it works for them. However, you'll note that this serves to keep all of the social interaction skills at commonplace, ordinary levels. Nobody will be able to play Savanarolla nor will the DM be able to use him because odds are good that neither S'mon, Stalking Blue, nor their players are actually as persausive as Savanarolla. Nor will Ortwin of Jihu (see Sepulchrave's Story Hour for the best liar in the world) or Loki appear in their games. No-one will be able to play a character who, like the perfect poker player of some movies, can read the slightest movement of an eyebrow because odds are good that none of their players are that perfect poker player--and even if they were, odds are good that the DM's acting, however, convincing, doesn't convey all of the same clues that a real individual's speech would. (Heck, even the placement at a gaming table behind dice, books, and possibly a DM's screen eliminates a lot of the clues that such a person would study in every day situations). By relying upon the social skills of the player and the DM, they prevent their PCs from possessing any of the legendary skills that are a part of D&D.

That's what dice are for.

I don't punch players in place of attack rolls when I'm playing a high level monk for several reasons beyond the obvious it's not fun to start a fight with friends. 1. I'm not a 20th level monk. 2. None of them are 18th level fighters. 3. They're not actually wearing fullplate. 4. There's not a 20' river of lava in between us at the start of the round. 5. I'm no longer in top fighting shape. 6. I still remember too much of my training to actually throw a punch like most white belts do. I have dice to determine how well a first level or a 20th level monk leaps over the lava and throws the punch.

 

[DarkMaster]

Well, my opinion is exactly the opposite of Stalking Blue and S'mons'. I like that the D&D system now has rules covering something other than how to kill someone.

I also am quite dubious that Stalking Blue and S'mons' obviously very high opinion of their acting abilities is accurate. What they are asking me to believe is that they are such perfect actors, diplomats, and con-men, that they can accurately and reliably portray:
1. A liar so smooth he makes the characters in The Sting look like amatuers
2. A criminal who is making a genuine offer
3. A noble paladin who could convince Darth Vader to leave the Dark Side
4. A professional diplomat who thinks he could convince Darth Vader to leave the Dark Side but actually isn't quite that diplomatic
5. A professional poker player or interrogator who can read every last tick and tell.
6. A practicing cousellor who can see through a lot of BS but still gets fooled every now and then
7. A manic depressive who's learned how to fool the system and manipulate the trained professionals but often can't pull the same tricks on her acquaintances who have known her for years.
8. A man who is genuinely in trouble and is more than a little embarrrassed about asking a stranger for help.
9. A junkie who is pretending to be in trouble and a bit embarrassed about asking a stranger for help.
10. A character who is telling the truth in an intentionally unconvincing manner and then tells another lie that is supposed to sound "almost convincing enough" so that the PCs' belive they've got him sussed out and then tells a lie so convincing that it would fool Hannibal Lector when the PCs think they've finally broken him and gotten the truth.

Apparently, they believe that they are good enough to play 8-9 so that someone skilled at picking lies from the truth would believe them when they're playing 8 but catch the lies in 9. They think they're good enough that the skilled man would think 2 was genuine but, even though there are clues that 1 is not genuine, only a player more skilled in discerning truth from falsehood than the victims in The Sting would be able to pick it out. Apparently, they believe that they can, on the spot come up with a pitch good enough to be worthy of 4 but not good enough to be worthy of 3. Forgive me if I suspect that's a load of BS. If I'm supposed to believe that, I'm supposed to believe that they're smoother than the con men in The Sting, more convincing than Eadric of Deorham, and more discerning than Hannibal Lector. And I'm supposed to believe that they, as individuals, are also so skilled that they know EXACTLY how convincing they are at any particular moment in time and can tune it up or down to match a two point difference in bluff or diplomacy rolls. That requires a lot more skill than it does to simply produce a convincing pitch. And, of course, their acting skill is so great that there is an actual difference between acting like they want to convince someone with a very convincing lie and acting like they want to convince someone--their acting in the first case gives subtle clues that they are acting that aren't present in the second. But I doubt it.

Not only that, they apparently expect the player of a paladin with a +20 diplomacy and a +18 sense motive to be able to read their faces like a book (though of course, their skill at acting is so great that they can make their faces appear to say whatever is appropriate for the NPCs they're playing--including "I'm a liar so convincing that it will fool all ordinary mortals all of the time and all of the party every time but not your paladin this time"). Furthermore, they expect him to be able to come up with a speech so convincing it will make an ancient Red Dragon let them go and deliver it with the sincerity of Johnathan Edwards or the power of William Jennings Brian on a moment's notice. And, of course, the player of Daniel Ocean will have to be able to lie so convincingly that practiced casino managers can't catch him. Forgive me if I somehow doubt that this accurately describes the players in their games.

Perhaps both of these DMs are fine, skilled actors, gifted persuaders, convincing liars, and have great insight into human motivations. Perhaps they can come up with a reasonably convincing speech on the spur of the moment. Perhaps they cheat a little bit and play the "amazingly smooth liar with a +22 bluff check" as if he were simply telling the truth rather than as if he were lying convincingly. If their players like that, I suppose it works for them. However, you'll note that this serves to keep all of the social interaction skills at commonplace, ordinary levels. Nobody will be able to play Savanarolla nor will the DM be able to use him because odds are good that neither S'mon, Stalking Blue, nor their players are actually as persausive as Savanarolla. Nor will Ortwin of Jihu (see Sepulchrave's Story Hour for the best liar in the world) or Loki appear in their games. No-one will be able to play a character who, like the perfect poker player of some movies, can read the slightest movement of an eyebrow because odds are good that none of their players are that perfect poker player--and even if they were, odds are good that the DM's acting, however, convincing, doesn't convey all of the same clues that a real individual's speech would. (Heck, even the placement at a gaming table behind dice, books, and possibly a DM's screen eliminates a lot of the clues that such a person would study in every day situations). By relying upon the social skills of the player and the DM, they prevent their PCs from possessing any of the legendary skills that are a part of D&D.

That's what dice are for.

I don't punch players in place of attack rolls when I'm playing a high level monk for several reasons beyond the obvious it's not fun to start a fight with friends. 1. I'm not a 20th level monk. 2. None of them are 18th level fighters. 3. They're not actually wearing fullplate. 4. There's not a 20' river of lava in between us at the start of the round. 5. I'm no longer in top fighting shape. 6. I still remember too much of my training to actually throw a punch like most white belts do. I have dice to determine how well a first level or a 20th level monk leaps over the lava and throws the punch.

Beautiful!!!!
I agree 100%, I just don't have the writing skill to put it that nicely

 

[Mort]

I also agree with Elder-Basilisk - that was a very complete post.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Our general rule of thumb is that PCs and NPCs automatically get any potentially important skill check that they could logically earn without meaningful cost. So if the NPC Bluffs, we always get a Sense Motive check. Otherwise the DM will need to field a chorus of paranoid ravings incessantly interrupting every social encounter.

The bottom line is it is not the DM's place to decide a PC is being complacent unless the player decides so.

However, we do sometimes ask for specific checks for specific information. Frex, using Sense Motive to get a hunch on the honesty of an NPC. "He does not seem particularly honest or dishonest. But he is annoyed by your pestering questions." I suppose I could ask for that info on every NPC, but truthfully, I could care less about most NPCs.

 

[S'mon]

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...

You should see our games!
Especially last night's...

 

[S'mon]

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?

You're playing a different game from us - what would be called a 'pure Gamist' game, where players make all decisions for their PCs with optimum 'success' in mind. We're thinking more in Narrativist or Simulationist terms - what would make a good story, or how my PC _would_ react to events, not what would be the optimum-outcome way for her to act.

So, I *as a player* certainly have had my PCs get depressed at times, eg when a loved one dies (which happens in SB's Midnight game rather a lot!) - and I do mean actually depressed, to the extent that it will hinder their in-game functioning. This happens quite frequently in novels, even the sword & sorcery on which D&D is based - Moorcock's heroes especially often have angst-ridden bouts of apathetic depression, usually after accidentally killing their girlfriends or erasing them from the timeline. If it's well done it can strengthen the character and the story.

 

[S'mon]

If the player of a character who is not very good at social interaction roleplays the character as if he were, while I do not assign an xp penalty for acting out of character...

You better be careful, the GM police frown on that kind of laxity when it comes to not docking XP for poor roleplaying, you could have your license revoked...

 

[S'mon]

ElderBasilisk - nice rant, I'm impressed!

I think you're missing the point. For us the rules, including NPC stats, are there to support the GM's running of the game, not vice versa. No NPC 'has' a +30 Diplomacy score unless we actually give them a +30 to a Diplomacy role when it's rolled in play. Rules are primaily for players, for their PCs, to help them interact with the environment, and for the GM when they need a rules calling on something - combat, especially, can benefit from complex rules. So a PC can have '+25 Diplomacy' - that means they'll always roll +25 on d20 Diplomacy checks; but NPCs are more like Schrodinger's cats, you can't nail them down until & unless their stats are actually used - of course we normally detail combat stats, at least, and we aim to be consistent in our rulings. For us the rules are not a Platonic Ideal that defines the universe, merely an aid to running a good RPG.

 

[Thanee]

You better be careful, the GM police frown on that kind of laxity when it comes to not docking XP for poor roleplaying, you could have your license revoked...

No problem, I have a grade A rule 0 license.

Anyways, I do not reward 'good' roleplaying or punish 'bad' roleplaying. Roleplaying is roleplaying. I do punish bad in character playing (like above by forcing a die roll instead of accepting the player's beautiful speech, if the character would not be able to express himself that way - other players must 'pay' resources to get that ability, too, so everyone has to).

Bye
Thanee