Sense Motive - passive or active?

[Thanee]

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.

I guess I am somewhere in the middle then.

I use the game mechanics to decide what happens, if necessary (i.e. to find out, if the character spots a clue with sense motive ), but also decisions are made purely from the mental image of the character (i.e. if my sunite sorceress observes someone destroying pieces of valuable art, she would react with sadness and anger (she can be a bit hot-tempered sometimes ) - there really is no game mechanic to decide those reactions, I cannot make a sadness or anger roll, anyways). Now, if she doesn't succeed in preventing this cruel act of violence, she might become depressed (at least, it's a possibility). I would decide against this, since the game mechanics tell me, that she has a 19 Charisma (23 actually with modifiers). This reflects a very strong personality, not really someone who is likely to be depressed. Of course, I could also relate this to her Will save, which is not that bad either. I might even decide upon a Will save DC and just roll a save, to give her a chance, or just decide on the outcome myself, but based on her stats, that would be a decision for success in this case. In other areas (i.e. when it comes to Fortitude and Endurance, where she certainly lacks) it might go the other way.

Bye
Thanee

 

[shilsen]

What Elder-Basilisk so perfectly said.

 

[two]

What EB said.

If you don't play it as passive, you can't even do the most basic things in a fair way, i.e.

NPC: "Uh, he went a thattaway." Points west.

Fighter: "He want a thattaway!" Points west prepares to run west (fails sense motive roll secretly rolled by GM).

Barbarian: "He went a thattaway!" Points west, prepares to run west. (fails sense motive roll secretly rolled by GM).

Cleric: "He went a thattaway!" Points west, prepares to run west. (fails sense motive roll secretly rolled by GM).

Bard: (makes rather tough sense motive roll, and is informed by the GM that the NPC might not be telling the truth). "Uh guys, maybe he didn't go thattaway. Let's talk some more with this gent. "

I honestly don't see how you would resolve this fairly otherwise.

Remember, the last thing you want to do is penalize players that take non-combat feats and skills! If they are good at sensing motive, let them, without making them say ad nauseum "I use SM on him, I use SM on him, I use SM on him" etc.

 

[Thanee]

To resolve this example there are basically four options:

1) passive sense motive, DM rolls and let's only the players whose characters notice something, know. The bard will be the only one who succeeded and so the others start heading west, but the bard might be able to stop them.

2) active sense motive, players don't ask for a roll. All characters head west, the clue hasn't been noticed, regardless of the characters abilities.

3) active sense motive, some players ask for a roll. Either the other players will then also ask for a sense motive roll, or they will simply accept the outcome (maybe their characters share some sort of hive mind, after all ). The result will then be either the same as 1) or 2), depending on who rolled. Most likely it's like 1), since the bard - with the decent sense motive - will most likely be the one that asked for a roll, or will do so, once someone else asks for a roll. In the end, only prescious time has been wasted, while some players asked for a sense motive roll, then others followed suit, or the clue has been missed, if the right players didn't ask.

4) active sense motive, all players ask for a roll. Same result as 1), just that the players had to ask, instead of the roll being done automatically. This result will obviously not always happen, since it's possible for the players not to ask, in which case the same as in 2) would happen.

Only the passive roll leads to consistent results.

Note, that instead of doing all rolls, you can also simply use only the highest skill rating and roll for it, possibly assigning an automatic bonus for aid another, if you want to do it in one roll. Instead of doing it secretly, you could also ask the players to do the roll, but that will just tip them off and might not lead to the same result. Of course, if the players do not metagame, it's no problem. The only point here is, that the roll should always happen, not only if the players care to ask for one.

Bye
Thanee

 

[DarkMaster]

Note, that instead of doing all rolls, you can also simply use only the highest skill rating and roll for it, possibly assigning an automatic bonus for aid another, if you want to do it in one roll. Instead of doing it secretly, you could also ask the players to do the roll, but that will just tip them off and might not lead to the same result. Of course, if the players do not metagame, it's no problem. The only point here is, that the roll should always happen, not only if the players care to ask for one.

Bye
Thanee

Or have passive check T10 if the PC have no special reason to suspect anything. In my game I use so many secret skill roll during social interaction or for spot listen that I use a dice generator on my laptop, so the PC never know if I looked for some notes or refreshed the prerolled dice. Very often in the scope of a 5 minutes heavy social interaction I can make around 10-20 skill check. It is hard on the DM but usually my player don't feel the effect too much, thanks to my prerolled dice. It is the only way I feel I can be fair to people who invested in social skill.

 

[IceBear]

I think it should be passive. It's unfair to punish a player for not being as good as his character at something. I'm not saying dice rolls should replace all roleplay, but at the same time if someone decided to sink skillpoints into Sense Motive they should benefit from that decision. I know I would be annoyed if I put 10 skill points into Diplomancy and yet the DM only took what I as the player said and how I said it to determine the NPCs reactions.

 

[Thanee]

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.

Even tho this was more aimed to the depression example, I just wanted to point out, that the above does very well work within these boundaries.

The situation includes the sense motive roll and what the characters notice. The reaction to the situation is completely player-driven and can be roleplayed as anything else.

The only difference is, that the roleplaying is based on a situation derived from the characters actual skill and not the players experience.

Bye
Thanee

 

[S'mon]

I think it should be passive. It's unfair to punish a player for not being as good as his character at something.

If as player I forget my PC has Cleave feat (and I often do!) it doesn't get used. If I forget I have +10 Sense Motive it doesn't get used, either.

 

[DarkMaster]

If as player I forget my PC has Cleave feat (and I often do!) it doesn't get used. If I forget I have +10 Sense Motive it doesn't get used, either.

But as a DM I usally don't forget that my player as Cleave

 

[IceBear]

If as player I forget my PC has Cleave feat (and I often do!) it doesn't get used. If I forget I have +10 Sense Motive it doesn't get used, either.

Wow - in that case if I was in your campaign everytime I entered a room with NPCs I'd be asking to make Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive checks. That's a lot of dice rolling. It's a miracle the story can progress at all.

As others pointed out, a lot of the Sense Motive skill is the ability of the character to pick up on clues. If you require the skill to be an active one, then you are putting the focus on the player which is penalizing said player for putting his points in Sense Motive instead of say, Tumble. That, or you as the DM are opening the door to metagaming by basically telling the players that the NPC is suspicious for some reason.

And, like DarkMaster said, as DM I often remind my players when they forget something like cleave.