Social Skills in d20: GM-requested or Player-suggested?

[Tom Cashel]

Wulf's thread on the imminent TPKs of Barakus got me thinking about social skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Intimidate, to be specific.

How are these handled in the campaign you run or play in?

Situation A. Players meet NPCs. NPCs tell lies. DM rolls NPC Bluff behind the screen and crosses his fingers that the PCs won't think to Sense Motive.

Situation B. Players meet NPCs. NPCs tell lies, and DM asks for a Sense Motive roll, or makes one in secret behind the screen.

My players don't often think to Sense Motive. Do you handle it as something the player has to suggest, or as something the GM requests? If you are most often a player, do you suggest the use of Sense Motive, or do you often forget?

 

[Crothian]

I use both. I might also secretly roll a sense motive check for the PCs if they don't think about it. By using both I remind the players of their abilities. So, early in the campaign I'll remind them to roll sense motiuve and aftera few sessions they will not need prompting as much.

 

[KB9JMQ]

My group has only had the chance to use sense motive a couple of times.
But they did not use it either time. They have used some of the others though.
I have not prodded them to use certian skills at a certian times but I have mentioned they may have ablilities they can use which they havent at the beginning of a session.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Generally:

Party questions NPC, NPC lies. If the party has a no reasonable expectation that the NPC is lying, they'll have to request a Sense Motive roll and tell me why they think he is lying. For example:

The party is chasing a pickpocket. The thief darts into a tavern, but is no where in sight when the party enters. They question the barkeep, who says he didn't see anything. The party asks for a Sense Motive check (or they just assume he's lying and try Intimidate), arguing that the back exit is right next to where the barkeep is standing, the tavern is almost empty, and he couldn't have not seen the pickpocket. Ok, roll, succeed, you see the barkeeps eyes dart towards the heavy curtains. You notice feet sticking out from underneath...

OTOH, if they have a reasonable expectation that they will be lied to (eg asking a captured scout about enemy troop strength), I'll let them request a Sense Motive check without having to provide further justification.

I prefer to have these encounters be more about the role-playing and less about the dice. I like having the skill checks -- don't get me wrong -- but I'd hate to have every encounter be a constant series of dice rolls.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I roll the Bluff behind the screen and assume they are taking 10 on Sense Motive. I have their Sense Motives and a few other skills listed for when I don't want them to know about the rolls. I never plan on having them believe an NPC lies (or disbelieve them for that matter); I find it much more interesting when I don't know what the outcome will be when they encounter an NPC. A PC that has put a lot into Sense Motive, then they won't often fall for lies, making the skill more useful. Making them take 10 when they don't call for it means that I don't have to roll as much, but they can still call for it any time that they want it.

 

[Jacen]

I am just a player, but...

Generally:

Party questions NPC, NPC lies. If the party has a no reasonable expectation that the NPC is lying, they'll have to request a Sense Motive roll and tell me why they think he is lying.

I understand this in a way that a player must have high sense motive to get the character use the skill.

The party is chasing a pickpocket. The thief darts into a tavern, but is no where in sight when the party enters. They question the barkeep, who says he didn't see anything. The party asks for a Sense Motive check (or they just assume he's lying and try Intimidate), arguing that the back exit is right next to where the barkeep is standing, the tavern is almost empty, and he couldn't have not seen the pickpocket. Ok, roll, succeed, you see the barkeeps eyes dart towards the heavy curtains. You notice feet sticking out from underneath...

How they can reason? You didn't tell that bar is empty or door is close to barkeeper. Players doesn't get the input that character gets. That is why I would roll secrtely some dices. But well I am not DM - just a player, but I found it unfair to demand skills from player when character does something.

I prefer to have these encounters be more about the role-playing and less about the dice. I like having the skill checks -- don't get me wrong -- but I'd hate to have every encounter be a constant series of dice rolls.

I might be opening a can of wyrms, but like I told: I find it unfair to demand player do something if character does. Speaking is character is good, but I hate to play me. And now I mean that I have to notice things that DM thinks is obvious and say the correct thing. I am not one with charisma 18, diplomacy 18 and sense motive 10+.

I wouldn't demand players to swing the sword like PC are hitting the troll or say things like like that 20th level sorceror with 25 charisma. Speaking in character is nice flawor but I am not roleplaying me. Thus the dices.

This way high charisma player doesn't get any advantage over others. Hate to see that charismatic players unliterate barbarian doing all the things by "good roleplaying" over other players PC with higer charisma and much more social skill oriented skill usage. I admit that if the DM rolls for everything game would be slow and players not needed. But still balance must be found - maybe only through practising as DM. Or players must enjoy the way DM leads the game.

So as for original message. Definetly B (with hidden rolls to avoid metagaming and re-rolls by asking more and more because now they suspect).

 

[S'mon]

As GM I may request a roll if we're RPing a conversation, I think a PC is using a skill, and I'm uncertain of the outcome - that'd usually be Bluff or Diplomacy. Sense Motive can be requested by player, by RAW it takes a minute to use. If an NPC is using Bluff skill vs the PC, and I wanted to say "He seems trustworthy" or "He seems untrustworthy" then per RAW I would need to roll an opposed roll vs the PC's SM. In that case the SM roll is passive not active. There's nothing forcing the NPC to use Bluff skill though, so in practice SM rolls occur at player's instigation.

 

[S'mon]

Generally:

Party questions NPC, NPC lies. If the party has a no reasonable expectation that the NPC is lying, they'll have to request a Sense Motive roll and tell me why they think he is lying.

I wouldn't force a player to justify the PC's use of SM anymore than I'd force them to justify use of Search. Some people are naturally suspicious of everyone - eg police detectives are basically trained to use their SM whenever questioning people, including 'innocent bystanders'.

 

[Henry]

I usually take the characters' sense motive into account, the same way I would take their combat skills into account rather than the players'. I'll usually roll in secret (sometimes I roll one die and apply all their bonuses in secret, rather than roll a die for each character) and if one or more of the PCs pick up on it, I'll tell them something's not right.

 

[S'mon]

Of course I disagree with the (apparently very common) view that PCs should always be assumed to be acting optimally; which results in the "always on SM" effect. IRL people with very high SM ability can be lied to easily if they have no reason to suspect a lie. The cop questioning the perp will be alert for lies. The cop buying a packet of cigarettes from the corner shop will have no reason to suspect the shopkeeper is lying when he tells him it's $3.36 rather than $2.85.

(Prices are purely illustrative. I have no idea what cigarette tax is currently in US)

As GM, I may choose to be kind to players and say "You're using Search as you go down this corridor, right?" - and it's possible to do the same w SM if you roll it in secret, but that's a GM decision to give the player extra slack, not an inherent part of the rules on Search or SM.