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

[JimAde]

I make the NPC's bluff roll in secret. If the NPC is lying, and rolls badly, I then role-play bad lying. If he rolled well, I role-play good lying. If the player then thinks to ask for a sense motive roll, I let him do it (rolling behind a screen). Yes this gives them 2 chances to detect the lie, but it hasn't been a problem so far.

 

[TheEvil]

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.

That is what skill check modifiers are for.

 

[Rystil Arden]

As a DM, I give them SM checks, but they take a penalty if they are not suspicious, like when I roll for them and they don't suspect a Bluff. As a player, I ask for Sense Motives in the middle of everything, including my own interactions with the NPC to how they're taking it so far...

 

[ThirdWizard]

That is what skill check modifiers are for.

Indeed.

Requiring the players to call for Sense Motive rolls when they deem it necessary makes the skill worthless if the player in question has no Sense Motive himself. I don't make players call for rolls in Spot when someone is hiding nearby, I don't make them call for Listen when something is trying to Move Silently, and I don't make them call for Sense Motive when someone is trying to Bluff them.

By the same token, when the PCs start spinning tales, the NPCs also get their Sense Motive even if I don't think their players would think the PCs are lying. [<-- hmm]

 

[Tom Cashel]

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

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.

I wasn't quite able to express this so clearly, but I agree with you S'mon. My players have been trying to get me to "assume" use of the Dodge feat for years, but I keep telling them that I just can't do it. Not just because of the "always...assumed to be acting optimally" thing, but also because that's a lot for the GM to remember.

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."

Requiring the players to call for Sense Motive rolls when they deem it necessary makes the skill worthless if the player in question has no Sense Motive himself. I don't make players call for rolls in Spot when someone is hiding nearby, I don't make them call for Listen when something is trying to Move Silently, and I don't make them call for Sense Motive when someone is trying to Bluff them.

I agree...to a point. It's a thorny issue, because you can't carry it as far as it will go.

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.

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.

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?

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

I might be opening a can of wyrms...

I was hoping someone would...

 

[Liquidsabre]

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.

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.

As a DM I make use of all sensory-based skills* as reaction skills (as they should be). Players rely on and trust that their DM will provide them important and relevant sensory information/input that their character is experiencing. The character's skill modifiers simulating the sensory abilities that the character possesses.

To purposefully deny a player this information (stuff that their character has access to) is not only a break of trust between DM-Player but down right deceitful and an unfortunate common abuse of DM powers.

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.

Unless the price of the cigs or the shopkeeper has some relevancy to the game events and story-line, the game rules are not meant to simulate this sort of real-world interaction. If it was we'd soon be bogged down in die rolls and modifiers to simulate the real-world trivialities that characters experience on a daily basis. So I wouldn't recommend trying to apply them in this way unless you're looking for a headache.

*D&D Sensory skills: Listen, Sense Motive, and Spot. In addition, Knowledge skills may be triggered by relevant sensory information.

 

[Tom Cashel]

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.

Also this, under Sense Motive in 3.5e:

Try Again: No, though you may make a Sense Motive check for each Bluff check made against you.

Seems like this is saying the DM should roll in secret if the players aren't told about the Bluff.

Liquidsabre, pulling out the Sensory skills like that is a very good point.

 

[Liquidsabre]

Liquidsabre, pulling out the Sensory skills like that is a very good point.

Yea but total houserule territory though!

But also one of the most vital rules I've come across as far as running RPGs and simulating the sensory environment of a fictional game world. Not to mention an immensely valuabe tool for building trust between DM and players, something that goes miles towards the creation of healthy gaming environment for all to enjoy.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

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

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'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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Sure he does -- any player has to do is tell me what he wants to do, but the high CHA character's going to have a much better chance to succeed. A high-CHA player isn't going to have any advantage other than an occasional +2 'good rp' bonus.

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".

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't think it has anything to do with house rules.

Bluff makes someone belive "something that you want it to believe" and "is opposed by the target’s Sense Motive check."

Also, if a DM makes you call for Sense Motive to use it, players are just going to start calling it on every NPC conversation, at least, if NPCs are known to lie to them.

EDIT: I see this differently, obviously. Mostly I see it as an opposed roll. The PCs in this case, to me, arn't acting any more than they have to say "I'm trying not to get hit by the charging barbarian" in combat. Someone else is doing, they are reacting. That's why its an opposed roll.