Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 2039975" data-attributes="member: 5890">Thanks for that. Now that I understand your position, I agree with it to some extent. Personally while I do believe that doing the roleplaying thing can lead to more fun, I've also been burned by it - a DM (who did have a speech impediment, albeit not a stutter) decided that stuttering once on an important fact (when we were talking to an NPC we'd never met before) was enough that if we didn't ask for sense motive checks, we didn't get any. The entire group noted the stutter, but just assumed that it was the DM stuttering rather than the NPC. As a result, we got totally screwed. The DM was kind of surprised in the post-mortem to find that everyone in the party noted the stutter, but didn't bring it up.I also like that you DO still take the skill levels into account. I agree entirely with your philosophy that on a roll the PC is unaware of, it's perfectly fine to make the PC take 10 - my own system usually assumes that the PC will do so unless prohibited. I also agree that modifiers will usually mean that a minor lie will just go straight past most individuals.In fact, the only way my system differs from yours is that I roll the NPC bluff check when I think it's important, rather than the slightly more limited situations you require.I think this is more down to the level of seperation between player and PC that each of us see. I see the PC is what's on paper more than the player with some extra abilities - if he's got a high sense motive, he's always suspicious to some degree. You see the PC as the player with some extra abilities - if the player doesn't specify that he's suspicious, his high sense motive goes to waste. I suppose that's just personal taste.</blockquote>

Verification