Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Million Dollar TTRPG Crowdfunders
Most Anticipated Tabletop RPGs Of The Year
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Sense Motive - passive or active?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Quasqueton" data-source="post: 1532553" data-attributes="member: 3854"><p>Actually, the situation that really brought me to ask this question on this forum was when a PC (I'll call the "Bluffer") tried to deceive another PC (I'll call the "Senser"). The situation in question was handled openly at the game table, and all Players heard and saw what happened. But when the Bluffer character rejoined the group, he misrepresented what actually occured. [The DM didn't take anyone aside and handle it secretly because he didn't know there'd be any deception between the PCs.]</p><p></p><p>The Player of the Senser character called for an opposed Bluff/Sense Motive check to determine if the Senser character recognized that the Bluffer character was being dishonest. The Player of the Bluffer character asked why the Senser character should be suspicious enough to try a SM check. The Player of the Senser character said that because SM is a passive skill, it gets rolled whenever someone uses tries to decieve him.</p><p></p><p>So, we had a situation where the Players at the table knew the truth, and we had to determine whether the PCs in the game knew there was a deception. In such a case, no matter how good the Bluffer Player was at his "role playing", he can't possibly convince the Senser Player that something else than what he witnessed happened.</p><p></p><p>So how do you "we don't need no stinking social skill checks because we are great role players" handle one PC bluffing, diplomacizing, and intimidating another PC? Our game group rolls the dice and then role play the results -- either beleiving the bluff, accepting the diplomacy offer, or backing down when intimidated (in a way matching our PCs' personalities).</p><p></p><p>Edit: for the record, we rarely (if ever to memory) have had PCs try to use diplomacy or intimidate on another PC. Bluff is the only social skill PCs have tried to use against other PCs.</p><p></p><p>Quasqueton</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quasqueton, post: 1532553, member: 3854"] Actually, the situation that really brought me to ask this question on this forum was when a PC (I'll call the "Bluffer") tried to deceive another PC (I'll call the "Senser"). The situation in question was handled openly at the game table, and all Players heard and saw what happened. But when the Bluffer character rejoined the group, he misrepresented what actually occured. [The DM didn't take anyone aside and handle it secretly because he didn't know there'd be any deception between the PCs.] The Player of the Senser character called for an opposed Bluff/Sense Motive check to determine if the Senser character recognized that the Bluffer character was being dishonest. The Player of the Bluffer character asked why the Senser character should be suspicious enough to try a SM check. The Player of the Senser character said that because SM is a passive skill, it gets rolled whenever someone uses tries to decieve him. So, we had a situation where the Players at the table knew the truth, and we had to determine whether the PCs in the game knew there was a deception. In such a case, no matter how good the Bluffer Player was at his "role playing", he can't possibly convince the Senser Player that something else than what he witnessed happened. So how do you "we don't need no stinking social skill checks because we are great role players" handle one PC bluffing, diplomacizing, and intimidating another PC? Our game group rolls the dice and then role play the results -- either beleiving the bluff, accepting the diplomacy offer, or backing down when intimidated (in a way matching our PCs' personalities). Edit: for the record, we rarely (if ever to memory) have had PCs try to use diplomacy or intimidate on another PC. Bluff is the only social skill PCs have tried to use against other PCs. Quasqueton [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Sense Motive - passive or active?
Top