Sense Motive - passive or active?

[S'mon]

The only way I guess to convert you is to have play one of my game. I am pretty sure you would not see a difference. I also just started my first Pbp campaign and there are already a few excellent example of how I use skill check. The only problem is that I don't let any trace of them on these board. In the first two pages there is at least 10 skill check roll and the players are more or less aware of them and I don't think they feel restraint at all (maybe perhaps by the way I introduced them to the story, but I wanted to quickly start)

When I run a PBEM game of course I do all the rolls myself; without being asked to make a Sense Motive or whatever roll, it's a completely different sort of game from tabletop. A good PBEM GM keeps the rules out of sight as far as possible, players should be able to play completely immersively.

In PBEM play the GM has all the PCs' character sheets and keeps track of everything on them. In my tabletop games (and most other peoples') the players have the character sheets and keep track of them, maybe with occasional audits.

 

[IceBear]

Hint: read my whole post. More explicit hint: check the second smiley.

The second smiley was a wink. Since you come across as smug and sarcastic (maybe you don't mean to, but it's how you come across to me) I don't think you're agreeing with me. Remember, you and S'mon are the intelligent ones, I'm an idiot.

 

[IceBear]

In my tabletop games (and most other peoples') the players have the character sheets and keep track of them, maybe with occasional audits.

But I have every players' AC, HP, Saving Throws and Skills recorded for my reference too.

I mainly use it so I know how many hitpoints someone has left. My description of a 1hp blow when the character is at 50hp is radically different than when he is at 5hp.

 

[S'mon]

If, however, the worst RL speaker in my group wanted to play a diplomat, then I owe it to him, as his DM, to enforce the rules in such a way that the half-orc barbarian with 3 Charisma isn't the one who gets to smooth talk their way out of everything because his player in RL is the most charismatic.

I would like to agree with you, but in reality it is _painful_ for me when certain players attempt to play 'smooth, sophisticated, charming' types, especially dashing romeo & swashbuckler types. The cringe-inducing experience greatly reduces _my_ fun and the fun of other players at the table. In the final analysis, if a player _can't_ play certain character types in a way that is at least acceptable to the other players & GM, I don't want them playing that sort of character. Likewise I don't want a GM who can't do IC roleplay reasonably well.

 

[IceBear]

I would like to agree with you, but in reality it is _painful_ for me when certain players attempt to play 'smooth, sophisticated, charming' types, especially dashing romeo & swashbuckler types. The cringe-inducing experience greatly reduces _my_ fun and the fun of other players at the table. In the final analysis, if a player _can't_ play certain character types in a way that is at least acceptable to the other players & GM, I don't want them playing that sort of character. Likewise I don't want a GM who can't do IC roleplay reasonably well.

Ok - at least I understand where you're coming from. I don't agree with it, but I understand and respect it.

I actually find it painful when most people try to act in character too much, so SB was right, we wouldn't jive in a group. I'm more of a 3rd person perspective person. I can do 1st person if I have to, but I feel too self-conscious and embarassed when I do (at least until I really get to know the other players) as I am a shy and not socially-secure person. I still manage to have fun in a group with a really charismatic extrovert who is always in character and he has fun in my games as well. No biggie, different people mean different styles.

 

[S'mon]

You do know that not every group has that luxury of being blessed with incredibly wellrounded people?

Yeah... we got rid of the player who wasn't. :\
It makes me sound like an elitest snob, but in the final analysis I GM & play to have fun. I have fun playing and GMing with likable socially well-adjusted people who are capable of role-playing their characters, if not 'perfectly', at least enjoyably for myself and the others at the table. So I want to see wise & thoughtful wizards played as wise & thoughtful, dashing suave-talkers should be played as dashing & suave-talking, monosyllabic greatsword-swingers as just that, and so on. Naturally some kinds of characters suit some people better than others, and SB and me show pretty broad latitude in what we regard as acceptable I think - we're willing to 'fill in the blanks' if the player makes a decent effort. But a CHA 18 PC played by a CHA 3 player just sometimes isn't something I want in my game.

 

[IceBear]

Yeah... we got rid of the player who wasn't. :\
It makes me sound like an elitest snob, but in the final analysis I GM & play to have fun. I have fun playing and GMing with likable socially well-adjusted people who are capable of role-playing their characters, if not 'perfectly', at least enjoyably for myself and the others at the table. So I want to see wise & thoughtful wizards played as wise & thoughtful, dashing suave-talkers should be played as dashing & suave-talking, monosyllabic greatsword-swingers as just that, and so on. Naturally some kinds of characters suit some people better than others, and SB and me show pretty broad latitude in what we regard as acceptable I think - we're willing to 'fill in the blanks' if the player makes a decent effort. But a CHA 18 PC played by a CHA 3 player just sometimes isn't something I want in my game.

Again, I understand you don't have to explain yourself to me. I've been playing a long time so many players are starting to want to "break the mould" and play something different, and I'll do my best to help them if they want.

Anyway, I'm obviously not in your league, so I'll go elsewhere at this point. Good gaming, and have fun.

 

[S'mon]

You seemed to have ignored not judging anyone's style by a few posts on these forums. I bet you actually use passive rolls from time to time (but rarely) just like I use active from time to time too.

Certainly I'll often tell a player who's stated a course of action "make a skill check"; if they ask "does he seem truthful?" I'll say "Make a sense motive check?". Normally of course they have no reason to doubt an NPC's veracity and won't bother requesting a check; but if they're interrogating someone they certainly will.

 

[Quasqueton]

My Nature Witch in S'mon's Borderlands game has ranks not only in Diplomacy but also in Intimidate, a cross-class skill for her. And I get to use both. A lot.

I'm curious how exactly you do this, mechanically, in your games.

Quasqueton

 

[two]

Yeah... we got rid of the player who wasn't. :\
It makes me sound like an elitest snob, but in the final analysis I GM & play to have fun. I have fun playing and GMing with likable socially well-adjusted people who are capable of role-playing their characters, if not 'perfectly', at least enjoyably for myself and the others at the table. So I want to see wise & thoughtful wizards played as wise & thoughtful, dashing suave-talkers should be played as dashing & suave-talking, monosyllabic greatsword-swingers as just that, and so on. Naturally some kinds of characters suit some people better than others, and SB and me show pretty broad latitude in what we regard as acceptable I think - we're willing to 'fill in the blanks' if the player makes a decent effort. But a CHA 18 PC played by a CHA 3 player just sometimes isn't something I want in my game.

Ah, well, now I see where you are coming from. Must be pretty tricky during character creation and all. You know, matching high wisdom players with high wisdom characters, high charisma players with high charisma characters, high intelligence with high intelligence, etc. I would love to be at your table when a DC25 tumble is enacted. I assume everyone is physically fit enough to do these sorts of things; a die roll would be so, well, out of character.

I also see why you are reluctant to explain how you would run my terribly simple "he went thattaway example" because strictly speaking I'm sure you accomplish this outside the rules, i.e. the +10 Sense Motive PC and the +0 Sense Motive PC are in the same boat. It's the pilot that matters.

To each his own. House rules are a glorious thing.