Sense Motive: PC vs PC

[irdeggman]

Which should be true for the DM and NPCs as well. The DM should decide his NPC attitudes based on roleplaying, not dice rolling. Dice rolling should only be used in an "on the fence" case.

The mystical Diplomacy skill that only works on NPCs and not PCs is really bizzare.

However, note that Intimidate does not have this "cannot be done on PCs" language, but I suspect the DMG overrules that it can.

But the there is more in the Intimidate skill description

Check: You can change another’s behavior with a successful check. Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear). If you beat your target’s check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.) The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile).

If you fail the check by 5 or more, the target provides you with incorrect or useless information, or otherwise frustrates your efforts.

The target retains its normal attitude and the Intimidate skill description sends you to the Diplomacy skill for details. Which states that you can only change the attitude of NPCs.


Diplomacy

Check: You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party.

A PC can be demoralized via Intimdate though and that is important to keep in mind since that involves "penalties", i.e., the target is "shaken".

And the 3.5 DMG (pg 128) also has the info on NPCs influencing PCs.

"However, NPCs can never influence PC attitudes. The players always make their characters' decisions."

There is a difference between being helpful (as in scared) and having an attitude adjustment.

Basically an NPC can not change (shy of mind altering conditions) the attitude of a PC. The "best" that can happen is the DM tells the player his PC is "intimidated" and "scared to death" of the NPC. Your PC feels it is in his best interest to "help" the NPC. And statements like that should be all that is provided. So the player runs his PC accordingly.

Now if the PC is actually "demoralized" and "shaken" then that is the information that is conveyed as a result of being "scared".

For what its worth I agree with that voodoo Diplomacy table and will generally run NPCs as a PC in this case. But that is a house-rule and not IAW RAW.

 

[irdeggman]

I prefer to have the player roll first and then if they want, role play the result (with possible modifiers if they role play well). This lets the role players role play and the others simply take the die roll.

I actually reverse this order. I have the players role-play and then the result is handled (usually) by a dice roll. I usually apply circumstance modifiers based on the role-playing.

 

[Mort]

I actually reverse this order. I have the players role-play and then the result is handled (usually) by a dice roll. I usually apply circumstance modifiers based on the role-playing.

[sorry for the short threadjack]

Can't this lead to incongruous results?
say your player role-plays the negotion brilliantly (as in he should convince the NPC)- but then he rolls a 1 or a 2. Sure you can ignore the die roll and/or marginalize it with modifers but then why are you rolling? The way I see it - rolling first, noting the result, and then role-playing that result allows the role-players to really get into it (for the good or bad of his character, sometimes it's fun to try and role-play a botched negotiation). Mind you, that's opinion - but it seems to work for the group.

[end threadjack]

As for the OP's question - NPC's (and other players) can sense motive to see when a player is lying or otherwise obfuscating without an issue. It's just that the diplomacy skill can't change the attitude of a PC (but that's really because PC's don't have an "attitude" level like NPC's do, so there's nothing to change).

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

PvP sense motive checks are only really necessary in special situations like Mark Chance described. Otherwise, PCs make their own decisions based on roleplaying. If a humorous situation arises and the players want to roll bluff v. sense motive, that's fine but again not necessary.

 

[blargney the second]

say your player role-plays the negotion brilliantly (as in he should convince the NPC)- but then he rolls a 1 or a 2. Sure you can ignore the die roll and/or marginalize it with modifers but then why are you rolling?

The low result doesn't mean that he negotiated badly, it just means that the NPC has some reason to not be swayed by a great argument. A great argument should give a healthy circumstance modifier to the diplomacy check, so it might even be possible to succeed with a low roll.
-blarg

 

[irdeggman]

[sorry for the short threadjack]

Can't this lead to incongruous results?
say your player role-plays the negotion brilliantly (as in he should convince the NPC)- but then he rolls a 1 or a 2. Sure you can ignore the die roll and/or marginalize it with modifers but then why are you rolling? The way I see it - rolling first, noting the result, and then role-playing that result allows the role-players to really get into it (for the good or bad of his character, sometimes it's fun to try and role-play a botched negotiation). Mind you, that's opinion - but it seems to work for the group.

[end threadjack]

Why?

I didn't say I waive the roll, but that I add a bonus to it.

I add a bonus and the results are based on the roll.

The roll reflects the "skill" being used so that a player can not role-play his way around his PC not being very good at it.

If a player already knows that he's failed then why would he really put it all into role-playing the failure?

I also make the roll at a time in the negotiations where it is appropriate (not necessarily when things could reasonably be considered concluded).

The roll could reflect a faux-pas performed due to lack of skill, etc.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you subscribe to this method, how do you handle the 6 cha half-orc whos player is a smooth talking diplomat and plays the half-orc as such? Yes it's "bad role-playing," but too many DM's let players get away with it and the dice should certainly constrain the player from adopting this approach.

Simple. I remind the player that he has a 6 Cha Orc with no ranks in Diplomacy. If he roleplays way out of character, I'll ignore most of it. For example, a merchant might ignore the Orc in such a case and pay attention to the Bard.

Ditto for the 10 Int player playing the 22 Int Wizard PC. If he says something really stupid, I'll take it with a grain of salt or might even let him know that a 22 Int Wizard wouldn't probably say that for xyz reason. The player will either take the hint, or he'll decide to say it anyway. Oh well.

I have no problem rolling Diplomacy rolls, I just have a problem with rules that are different for PCs than NPCs (such as Diplomacy or Action points).

The way I usually handle Diplomacy and Sense Motive / Bluff is to roleplay it and make a single roll (usually early on just to have a rough idea of where it should go). I will sometimes throw in some "this guy gives the impression of being honest" or "this guy is real friendly" type comments if I deem it necessary. If the players misinterpret what was roleplayed or what I stated (intentionally or not), that's up to them.

 

[Mort]

The low result doesn't mean that he negotiated badly, it just means that the NPC has some reason to not be swayed by a great argument.

It may mean he negotiated badly, it may not, rolling first or rolling after doesn't change that. All rolling first really does is allow the player some insight as to how much ground he has to cover and allows the DM to see the unadjusted roll before the player starts talking. So rolling a 2 and knowing you need a better than brilliant argument or giving that brilliant argument and then being let down by rolling a 1. It's all a matter of perspective.

A great argument should give a healthy circumstance modifier to the diplomacy check, so it might even be possible to succeed with a low roll.
-blarg.

It's debatable how "healthy" that circumstance modifier should be (and should never be over the +2-+4 range) - frankly the characters with the good diplomacy skill (read: high ranks and modifiers) should as a whole succeed much more often than ones with a bad diplomacy skill regardless of the prowess of the player - otherwise metagaming dominates and those good with words can short change social skills. We don't reward the guy who can bend a metal bar in half in real life with a bonus to his strength check against gates and doors!

Now in a game where social skills dominate and the DM wants the "players" do be fully responsible - that's a different issue and can also be fun. but then it's debatabe if they should be rolling at all.

 

[Mort]

If a player already knows that he's failed then why would he really put it all into role-playing the failure?

The player doesn't know he failed - he just knows he rolled poorly - which means he probably failed, but social interactions are not always straightforward so he can still steer the roll in a positive direction.

More importantly if roleplaying is the goal, it really should be its own reward - rolling first means you can roleplay it or not - it's up to the player whether he wants to play it, and yes some people put in their all even if they are likely to fail.

All that said, It really isn't that big a deal and people should do what's comfortable to them and their group.