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

[Liquidsabre]

I'm not demanding they notice things the DM thinks is obvious. I'm asking that they put some minor effort into playing the character instead of just saying 'I roll a sense motive check' after every conversation.

This problem dissolves when these skills are run as sensory/reaction skills, leaving the players free to roleplay their characters as relevant sensory information is handled enitrely by the DM.

But do you expect the DM to fight their battles for them, tell them what feats to use, etc.? Or do you expect some minimal level of initiative on their part? Same deal. I don't expect everyone to be a smooth-talker in real life, but I expect the player to be able to come up with at least the essence of what he's trying to do. Not just 'I roll a Sense Motive - I got a 15 - is he lying?' If I'm going to boil all interactions down to the die roll, I may as well just pre-roll all the encounters and tell them the results.

There is a distinct difference between the sensory skills and active skills. Interactions should involve both types of skill use. So while characters should have a chance to realize they are being distracted by a bluff skill use, they must acitvely choose to try and soothe an NPC with the Dilomacy skill or try to convince them that they are safe to talk to.

INT is a different story, but there's really no way other than the honor system to keep high INT players with low INT characters from exceeding their capabilities. Low INT players with high INT characters are gonna get boned -- the best you can do is nudge and give them hints. But you can't play their characters for them -- they have to use their own initiative. I've no problem with a Low Int Player with a High Int Character saying "My character is very intelligent -- he should be able to figure out the writing" and letting him make a Decipher Script roll. I don't even care if the other players help him out by reminding him. But I'm not going to tell him "Your character is very smart - make a Decipher Script roll".

No need to. As I said, just follow the general rules of sensory information skills (and knowledge skill use triggers) vs. all other skills requiring active use and you should be golden!

 

[Jacen]

Once again just speculationg because I still haven't got any DM practice (since me being 17?? and trying to DM a game to my lill' bro (12?) and one neighbour (13) - of cource with all classic error like favorate NPC etc. Well that wan't great success). Oh does that make my closet (newbie) DM?

Hmm. Cool. Lot of interesting ideas here. I always like getting a peek behind other people's GM screens.

I think players should have to state what they're doing, rather than just sitting back and saying, "Whatever. Just assume I'm doing the smartest, best thing my PC could manage."

Skills aren't about what you are doing. They are how you are doing. And thus I ruled out my secrect DM rolls . Not totaly tough because when you are talking SM is how you are talking. You have to start talk first. So then it is "current situation modifier" directing the result of talk.

For example, you do make the players decide their tactics in combat, despite any special training the PCs might have, right? Or do you make a secret Knowledge (Tactics) roll and then make the PC take the most advantageous action? Of course you don't, even if it would be "better" for the PC, and even if it does ignore any special tactical knowledge the PC might possess.

Had my players taken skills for PC like Knowledge(mass fights), profession(combat leader) etc. I would direct the flow of combat a little. Maybe like when you are starting to charge head along to the stone golem with your dagger you suddenly realize that it might have some damage reduction. Or something that might hint the player that what he is going to do is definetly NOT the best course of action. I wouldn't give too much. And even if I wanted - i am not a great tactican =/

Here's where the player/PC demarcation becomes worthless. Because in fact, there are no PCs. There are just players sitting around a table imagining and describing things.

...things that they know nothing about but they imagine that they know, so that in their imagination they can do things they can't even imagine about. (What the heck did I just say? ) And because of that some die rolls ARE needed.

No, the players don't actually possess all the skills their characters do. But they do have a complete list of those skills in front of them at all times. Shouldn't they be required to make use of those advantages, rather than leaving it to the DM?

Have you ever played after working 4 weeks of worth of hours in two days. No stop and spending that little time you have in some sports trainings. Try to game after that and remember all skills feats and monster you have runed to. Besides I wouldn't want to play in a game where everyone are shouting all time. Spot, spot, spot, spot, listen, sense motive. Diplomacy. And not forgot mounts, familiars, animal companions etc <http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=143>

And if it is left to the DM to decide, why have players at all?

Players make decisions and dm hints if needed. Besideds why to make game bad for that one player who invests into social skills?

 

[Ferrix]

Two things I've found, reading the D20 Modern and D&D 3.5 SRD pages:

Sense Motive does not allow you to detect lies, nor does Bluffing usually take the form of a lie. Bluff is a momentary distraction of some sort, and Sense Motive is the defense against it.

Actually just looking at the SRD you aren't getting the examples given, bluff does cover lying.

Example 1 for the bluff is believable and doesn't affect the target much (+0)
[*]"I don't know what you're talking about, sir. I'm just a simple peasant girl here for the fair."

That seems to me like a lie to me.

The description in the PHB for the bluff skill describes it as being able to make the outrageous and untrue seem plausible. It encompasses acting, conning, fast talking, misdirection, prevarication and misleading body language.

Prevarication is a synonym for lie, fast talking and conning are also in the same category.

The description in the PHB for the sense motive skill describes it as being able to tell when someone is bluffing you, discern hidden mesages, sense when someone is being magically influenced.

So, if it tells you when someone is bluffing you, it can invariably tell when someone is lying to you.

 

[Henry]

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.

To me, the cop failed his d20 roll, partly because of the penalty assigned for him not being aware; kinda like the idea of assigning a -10 to listen checks if asleep.

Now, the shop clerk could have flubbed it, hemmed and hawed when he lied, which meant the cop rolled a high d20 roll, and was made suspicious by the clerk's flub.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

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'.

Exactly. "This person was in the area when the crime is committed, he might be involved" is a perfectly valid reason for why the character would use Sense Motive. But if the detective walked into the 7-11 and ordered a Slurpie, I wouldn't roll a Sense Motive check and tell him "Oh, and you think Apu is cheating on his taxes".

Similar with Search. I've described the room, the player has to tell me *where* he is searching (or he has to say he's searching the whole room and take the requisite amount of time).

Only under specific circumstances will I make rolls for players -- Spot checks to see the assassin sneaking up, Listen to hear a cry for help, maybe Knowledge if they are stuck and I want to nudge them along. But I firmly believe the players should have to do more with their skills than decide where to place the points when they level up.

Edit: Um, if any of this seems answered or addressed in other posts, it's cause it's taking me hours to complete a post today. I hate work.

 

[Jacen]

I don't want to criticize your DM:ing. It is definetly is better than mine, but you (and many others) just have some points that I don't understand or don't like. So it is not meant personaly, just trying to critizise someting so that I get an explonation and might even learn something new =).

I would have described the tavern, and answered any questions the PCs had. I just didn't feel like typing in the whole scenario

My bad. But if players need some hint or reason to suspect, are they always given one?

I'm asking that they put some minor effort into playing the character instead of just saying 'I roll a sense motive check' after every conversation. I wouldn't let them use 'Bluff' without a reasonable lie, either. It doesn't have to be all pretty and 'in character', it just has to be reasonable. "I swear I didn't see anything -- I was down in the cellar fetching wine" is just as good as "I try to bluff and convince them I was somewhere else." Except for probably getting a bonus if they come up with a really good excuse.

Wasn't sense motive oppossed to bluff? Thus let them roll as much as they like. No bluf no benefit or something. I understand the reason for giving bonus from being in character, but if that is cross class skill two points means 4 points used. If fighter with int 14 that is all skill points from one level. That is quite much.

But do you expect the DM to fight their battles for them, tell them what feats to use, etc.? Or do you expect some minimal level of initiative on their part?

No and yes. I most likely would give some tips should the PC have the knowledge. It IS up to players but I hate if situations goes bad because I coldn't speak good enough in character despite spending whole a lot of points to specific skill. My best diplomatic might be offending (and giving minuses) in DM's mind.

If I'm going to boil all interactions down to the die roll, I may as well just pre-roll all the encounters and tell them the results.

...

A high-CHA player isn't going to have any advantage other than an occasional +2 'good rp' bonus.

That is the reason I like to play with ppl who plays and interacts acording to die results. I know that it is possible to roll too much, but still I found it disturbing that someone who puts points to skills he uses might "lose" levels worth of points compared to someone who is always full of ideas and charisma. If he is getting much bonuses it can but some bitterness between players. There has been a game where I put skill points to some obscure skill (don't remember the details, to many years passed) and because of custom gaming world that was needed. Well there were player who had real life information about things related to that. You can guess that I felt points wasted. And that being group of friends - well the game is not that important that I would start whining and in worst case messing with RL friendships.

INT is a different story, but there's really no way other than the honor system to keep high INT players with low INT characters from exceeding their capabilities.

That is reason why good gaming grop is worth of its weigth in gold. =) So a group who does speak in character (even they know they get no bunises), tries to play PC without metagaming is something I have in mind - might be just a dream.

Well best thing for me to do would be to start DM and get some personal experience about how different things works. But it is always the time I am lacking. So many things to do. But I have to say that this thread has given something to think. What I was thinking (rolling, playing, rolling) is good in my mind but it can easily be taken into extreme. Extreme ends are never good, so DM has to balance between ends. That takes time and experience because each group is different.

Untill I get some some gaming experience saying otherwise I still would give hidden roll for sense motive without asking If I would know that DM doesn't use my PC's skills automaticly I would be talling all time "I sense motive, Diplomacy etc"

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

What it comes down to for me is that either the players can be driving factor, or the characters. I'd rather have it be the players. It's a lot more fun for everyone when a player comes up with a cool idea on his own than when a die roll determines the course of action.

I remember one game where one of the quiet, kinda shy players came up with a beautiful, drop-dead guaranteed to work bluff, so good that I let it succeed without making her roll. The entire group was cheering her on. It was such a rush to see her step up and grab the spotlight, and she told me later it was the most fun she'd ever had playing. Even better, it encouraged her to participate more, which made the whole group better.

The more times something like that happens, the better. And I don't think its going to happen if I'm making all the die rolls and just reporting the results.