What ever happened to "role playing?"

[takyris]

...to my original point that the game has turned into roll playing.

There are GMs out there that:
1) Do not alter the DC as a result of the role playing or give extremely minor bonuses. (As I've been saying, this doesn't reward creative play.)
2) Set the DCs at absurdly high levels - (sometimes to the point of railroading the players by default. I'll make the DC for this diplomacy check a 50, so they will have to end up in combat everytime.)
3) Make every action that they don't want you to take require a roll on the dice. - I attempt to get a beer in the bar. Let's set that at a DC 15 diplomacy check. Oh look I rolled a 7 and I only have +5 in diplomacy, I guess I can't order. Give me a break.
4) Make all social skills checks an all or nothing result. As per the above,
5) The higher your skill gets, the higher the DCs get for the same actions.
6) Require a roll for every trivial action.

1) I was with you up until "or give extremely minor bonuses". Second-guessing the DM on whether your roleplaying should get you a +2 or a +4 is not really something we can help you with. We can say how we'd modify the DC in a certain situation, but it's going to be different in every game.
2) Bad DM. He's not actually playing by the rules specifically laid down in the book.
3) Not playing by the rules laid down in the book, unless there are circumstances that you, as a player, are not aware of (ie, finding the bar requires chatting up the locals, since this town is a virtual maze of narrow streets).
4) Bad DM.
5) Bad DM.
6) Bad DM.

So far, you've gotten me to agree that the DMs you saw were bad DMs. They were probably bad DMs back in earlier editions, too.

This combined with:
1) The low number of skill points the PCs get.
2) The high number of skills to take.
3) The sudden addition of skills that you now have no ranks in when a new supplement comes out.
4) The high variability of the d20 role, which is just as likely to roll a 1 as it is to roll a 10.
5) Many of these are cross class skills.

Aha. This helps.

See, these complaints boil down to either "I'm roleplaying a combat-rogue but playing a fighter" or "I have a bad DM".

1 and 2) No. Assuming that you used Point Buy, you had the choice of where to put your ability scores, and you had the choice of what class to take. You chose whether to make your character:

a) The witty, bantering, fast-talking guy who is pretty good with a blade
b) A character who doesn't have much of a way with people, but who is the best swordsmen in the world at his level

If you built your character for b) (High Strength, high Dex, high Con, low Int, low Cha), it is only logical and reasonable that you aren't as good with people as the guy who built his character for a) (Medium Strength, High Dex, average Con, Good Int, Good Charisma) would be.

If this is really a problem for you, then one of three things is true:
- You have built your character in such a way that it is a poor reflection of the personality concept you wish to roleplay
- Your character is too low in level for the concept you wish to roleplay
- Your DM is setting the DCs in such a way that anything less than max'd out ranks is useless.

The first one is your problem. The second is a difference in campaign choices, which involves all the players. The third is a problem that many new DMs have.

3) New skills? Where? I pretty much stick to the core books, and the core books say, "Try not to add new skills. Try to make the existing skills work in new situations." If your character concept is, say, a synthetic gem-maker, and you've been doing that with Craft, and then suddenly a supplement comes out with "Make Synthetic Gems" as a skill, you should ask your DM if you can move some or all of those Craft ranks over into the new skill.

4) Take 10. You can do it with skills just about any time except in combat.

5) Then you should either get a high enough Intelligence to buy a lot of cross-class skills, get feats that improve your use of those skills, or multiclass into a class that gets access those skills. This is similar to 1 and 2, above. Or, if multiclassing is not an option for you for some reason, petition your DM to play a variant character class -- ask your DM if your fighter can lose Climb, Jump, and Craft and gain Bluff and Diplomacy as class skills, for a more swashbucklery Fighter variant.

Can reduce the game down into a frustrating exercise in roll playing. Do you really need to make the players make a diplomacy roll everytime they interact with someone. Do you need to make them make a sense motive roll, if it's obvious the person is lying.

No. According to the rules, no. You might think you're slamming 3.x D&D, but you're really slamming bad DMs. You need to make a Diplomacy check when trying to change somebody's attitude, or when the DM feels that it's an important enough encounter to merit a check to see how the person's attitude should change. You need to make a Sense Motive check when somebody attempts to bluff you, and if the bluff is ludicrous, you get a +30 bonus on your Sense Motive check.

Now, if roll playing is your thing and everyone in the group doesn't want anything more than thak. Ok. I would probably find the game boring. But if you have people who are trying to role play, don't just use the mechanic to squash them. If they are being creative, funny, and interactive with your world, where is the harm in that? Shouldn't you be encouraging this in your players? When did role playing become a bad word.

This is, I believe, an inaccurate argument. Nobody here is against roleplaying. Nobody here is against players being funny and creative. Nobody here is against encouraging players to be funny and creative. However, there's a difference between "being against roleplaying" and "forcing you to purchase the skills and abilities to do something if you want your character to be able to do it".

Here's the GM logic I've seen. Player x is role playing and I give them a bonus to their actions based on the role playing. Player y is not role playing, so he gets no bonuses. That's unfair to player y, so I won't give bonuses. I'm arguing that this is unfair to player x who put out the extra effort and endeavored to make the game more fun and interactive.

Where have you seen this? You're describing bad DMs. I'm sorry if that's been your experience. That's a bummer of an experience. I've had those experiences with 2nd Edition and 1st Edition DMs. This is not entirely unlike getting shot with a blue arrow and deciding that the real problem here is that blue things are fundamentally bad. The real problem is not which edition the DM was using -- the real problem was that, by what you've described here, you've got a bummer of a DM.

Now, the question of how much roleplaying should count is always tricky, and it's going to vary from DM to DM. A player who thinks creatively should get a chance to do something special, sure. But it sounds a lot like you want the benefits of a high charisma and a lot of ranks in social interaction scores without actually spending the points to get them. If you're all about the roleplaying, then you should have no problem making your fighter a bit less combat-effective by using some of his feats to boost skills instead of get combat abilities -- or by giving him a level or two of rogue in order to get some skills to accurately reflect your character concept -- or by purchasing some skills cross-class, or petitioning the DM for the chance to play a variant class who loses something in order to get something else.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I guess I'm not seeing how it's discouraging them. For the first time, we actually have a codified system to cover social interactions, and we even have an honest to goodness mechanic to match player acting with character action (namely the circumstance modifier). Couple this with DM XP bonuses for good playing, and you have a system.

I think the reason people think that 3.X discourages role playing, is because there are now rules for role playing. DMs who like to follow the rules without changing them feel compelled to use what is written in the rules.

In previous editions, you might have had a player do a bluff of an NPC and said "So, you are trying to convince him that you are a dragon in disguise. He's dumb, he falls for it."

According to the table in the 3.5 PHB, that is a rather large bluff, with large minuses. Even with a 6 Wisdom, it is likely that someone with an 18 charisma and 4 ranks in bluff (total +8) who gets a -10 or -20 for that (can't remember on the chart right now), ends up having the same, or worse modifier than the 6 Wisdom character has to sense motive.

So, whereas, in previous editions you could just say "There is no rule, so I say it works", now you look down at the dice and say "Sorry, you fail". Sure, you COULD just say "It works" regardless of the dice result, but that's not what the RULES say to do. Some people feel this is cheating.

So, now you have you "house rule" role playing back into the game. Or at least that's how some people see it. I'd much prefer to have rules on it to avoid the arguements we had during the old editions of "But come ON, I said it really nicely, I think he'd agree with me. You are just trying to screw us over, stupid DM!"

I much prefer being a judge and arbitrator of the rules than I do the one who has to take the blame for all the decisions.

Majoru Oakheart

 

[milotha]

1) I was with you up until "or give extremely minor bonuses". Second-guessing the DM on whether your roleplaying should get you a +2 or a +4 is not really something we can help you with. We can say how we'd modify the DC in a certain situation, but it's going to be different in every game.
2) Bad DM. He's not actually playing by the rules specifically laid down in the book.
3) Not playing by the rules laid down in the book, unless there are circumstances that you, as a player, are not aware of (ie, finding the bar requires chatting up the locals, since this town is a virtual maze of narrow streets).
4) Bad DM.
5) Bad DM.
6) Bad DM.

So far, you've gotten me to agree that the DMs you saw were bad DMs. They were probably bad DMs back in earlier editions, too.



Aha. This helps.

See, these complaints boil down to either "I'm roleplaying a combat-rogue but playing a fighter" or "I have a bad DM".

1 and 2) No. Assuming that you used Point Buy, you had the choice of where to put your ability scores, and you had the choice of what class to take. You chose whether to make your character:

a) The witty, bantering, fast-talking guy who is pretty good with a blade
b) A character who doesn't have much of a way with people, but who is the best swordsmen in the world at his level

If you built your character for b) (High Strength, high Dex, high Con, low Int, low Cha), it is only logical and reasonable that you aren't as good with people as the guy who built his character for a) (Medium Strength, High Dex, average Con, Good Int, Good Charisma) would be.

If this is really a problem for you, then one of three things is true:
- You have built your character in such a way that it is a poor reflection of the personality concept you wish to roleplay
- Your character is too low in level for the concept you wish to roleplay
- Your DM is setting the DCs in such a way that anything less than max'd out ranks is useless.

The first one is your problem. The second is a difference in campaign choices, which involves all the players. The third is a problem that many new DMs have.

3) New skills? Where? I pretty much stick to the core books, and the core books say, "Try not to add new skills. Try to make the existing skills work in new situations." If your character concept is, say, a synthetic gem-maker, and you've been doing that with Craft, and then suddenly a supplement comes out with "Make Synthetic Gems" as a skill, you should ask your DM if you can move some or all of those Craft ranks over into the new skill.

4) Take 10. You can do it with skills just about any time except in combat.

5) Then you should either get a high enough Intelligence to buy a lot of cross-class skills, get feats that improve your use of those skills, or multiclass into a class that gets access those skills. This is similar to 1 and 2, above. Or, if multiclassing is not an option for you for some reason, petition your DM to play a variant character class -- ask your DM if your fighter can lose Climb, Jump, and Craft and gain Bluff and Diplomacy as class skills, for a more swashbucklery Fighter variant.



No. According to the rules, no. You might think you're slamming 3.x D&D, but you're really slamming bad DMs. You need to make a Diplomacy check when trying to change somebody's attitude, or when the DM feels that it's an important enough encounter to merit a check to see how the person's attitude should change. You need to make a Sense Motive check when somebody attempts to bluff you, and if the bluff is ludicrous, you get a +30 bonus on your Sense Motive check.



This is, I believe, an inaccurate argument. Nobody here is against roleplaying. Nobody here is against players being funny and creative. Nobody here is against encouraging players to be funny and creative. However, there's a difference between "being against roleplaying" and "forcing you to purchase the skills and abilities to do something if you want your character to be able to do it".



Where have you seen this? You're describing bad DMs. I'm sorry if that's been your experience. That's a bummer of an experience. I've had those experiences with 2nd Edition and 1st Edition DMs. This is not entirely unlike getting shot with a blue arrow and deciding that the real problem here is that blue things are fundamentally bad. The real problem is not which edition the DM was using -- the real problem was that, by what you've described here, you've got a bummer of a DM.

Now, the question of how much roleplaying should count is always tricky, and it's going to vary from DM to DM. A player who thinks creatively should get a chance to do something special, sure. But it sounds a lot like you want the benefits of a high charisma and a lot of ranks in social interaction scores without actually spending the points to get them. If you're all about the roleplaying, then you should have no problem making your fighter a bit less combat-effective by using some of his feats to boost skills instead of get combat abilities -- or by giving him a level or two of rogue in order to get some skills to accurately reflect your character concept -- or by purchasing some skills cross-class, or petitioning the DM for the chance to play a variant class who loses something in order to get something else.

This has been true under multiple GMs with multiple characters and multiple concepts. Making broad generalizations as to the types of characters I play is just silly. This has happened even with a rogue with a high int and cha. If your skills weren't maxed out, you were basically useless. It has nothing to do with how you build your character, it has to do with how the game is run and the game mechanic itself. As for taking 10, if the DC is set at 25, even taking ten for most characters isn't going to work.

Yes, I agree that this is bad GMing. That is the whole reason that I am posting. I'm alerting other GMs and players to the potential consequences of their rulings, actions, and decisions as to how to play the skills. If you feel that this doesn't apply to you, then good.

However, I've played with GMs that outright said one thing and did another. It's easy to talk the talk on a board, but do they really walk the walk at game time?! Surely no GM can't have every DC for every possible action and NPC combination mapped out before hand?

Another point is this, the social skills have become another railroad technique for GMs. They make the DCs too high, the bonuses for role playing none or minimal, and then you are predestined not to achieve success. Many of them don't even realize they are doing it.

 

[takyris]

This has been true under multiple GMs with multiple characters and multiple concepts. Making broad generalizations as to the types of characters I play is just silly.

As long as we agree that broad generalizations are silly, I'm a happy camper.

This has happened even with a rogue with a high int and cha. If your skills weren't maxed out, you were basically useless. It has nothing to do with how you build your character, it has to do with how the game is run and the game mechanic itself. As for taking 10, if the DC is set at 25, even taking ten for most characters isn't going to work.

How the game is run, yes. The game mechanic itself, no. As for your rogue being essentially useless if his skills weren't maxed out, I have to say that it sounds unlikely, unless you were a) playing with a bad DM, or b) playing in a campaign that really wasn't geared to charismatic stuff altering the plot. Some campaigns aren't aimed that way -- the DM is planning on a dungeon hack, and hasn't prepared for anything like a charismatic rogue character. You can avoid that problem with good GM/Player communication.

Maybe you can provide us with some hard examples of things that you found problematic. What class was your character? What was your bonus to bluff checks? Is there any chance that the DM could come give his side of the story as well? There's always the possibility that the person you were frustrated at not being able to bluff was reading your mind, or had hard facts that made your bluff impossible, even though from what you knew, it was decent.

Don't get me wrong. I've gamed with bad DMs. But, your recent statements to the contrary, you were saying that 3rd Edition promoted this kind of bad playing, and I don't really think that it does. It might make it harder for the DM to let you do that really cool thing, because there are now rules that show how hard it is to do that really cool thing, but it also makes it harder for the DM to arbitrarily give your character a disadvantage he doesn't deserve.

Yes, I agree that this is bad GMing. That is the whole reason that I am posting. I'm alerting other GMs and players to the potential consequences of their rulings, actions, and decisions as to how to play the skills. If you feel that this doesn't apply to you, then good.

I don't feel that it doesn't apply to me, because hey, the possibility for bad DMing is always there. I just want to figure out exactly what we're talking about.

However, I've played with GMs that outright said one thing and did another. It's easy to talk the talk on a board, but they really walk the walk at game time?! Surely no GM can't have every DC for every possible action and NPC combination mapped out before hand?

Not sure where you're going with this. If you need to vent, that's fine, but I don't see an absolute connection between "GMs might talk about being fair on the boards and then be unfair in real life" and "GM can't have everything prepared". The "talk on a board" comment, aside from sounding a bit like a veiled implication that I'm misrepresenting myself, doesn't make sense to me. If I'm going to brag and blow my horn on the board, I'm going to talk about the cool monsters I made and how the PCs fell for my evil plots, while omitting the "And then the stupid player made a Diplomacy check of 37 and my bad guy turned Friendly, dangit" moments. I'm not likely to game with anybody here any time in the near future. I don't really rack up any street cred by talking about how fair and impartial I am. I mean, I guess I could be holier-than-thou about stuff, but a lot of people already know what stuff I'm good at (villain motivations, character builds) and what stuff I'm lousy at (environment-building).

Your comment about being prepared, though, is interesting. In many cases, 3.x requires LESS preparation. I mean, assuming that you have the sheet for a particular character or monster, you don't HAVE to come up with a number on what it'll take to bluff or diplome him. You can just say, "Okay, he's Unfriendly, because he doesn't like humans, and, since his Sense Motive score is +3, a Take-Ten average will net out to 13, before plausibility modifiers." The book already has the charts in there for the levels of plausibility -- if you try to bluff this guy with something that's really hard to believe, he gets a +10 on his check, so all I have to do is listen to your bluff and then decide whether it puts him at any risk, and if so, how much. I don't have to pull a number out of thin air.

And if the issue here is what modifiers your DM puts on it, then the real issue here is DM trust. If you don't trust your DM, then you shouldn't be playing with him. It's not going to be fun for you, and it's not going to be fun for the DM once he senses the waves of irritation and distrust flowing toward him from your direction.

Another point is this, the social skills have become another railroad technique for GMs. They make the DCs too high, the bonuses for role playing none or minimal, and then you are predestined not achieve success. Many of them don't realize they are doing it.

But in earlier editions, where the were no hard and fast rules, the DM could simply say "He convinces you to go excavate the haunted ruins," and you wouldn't even have numbers to back you up when you said, "Uh, don't I get a Sense Motive check or Will Save or something?"

Now, for a DM to railroad you, he has to essentially admit that he is bending the rules -- he has to give the villain some enormous bonus on his Bluff check, or he has to say "And you believe him, regardless of what you roll." Everyone is constrained by the rules here. It becomes pretty apparent to most experienced players when the DM is breaking the rules in order to force a particular plot event. Your hands might be tied by the new rules, but so are the DM's, and while the DM can choose to break the rules at any time, he knows that the players know that he's doing it most of the time, and won't put up with it if it takes away from their enjoyment of the game.

I can see that you feel very strongly about this, and I hope you're having fun in some group, whatever edition they're playing. I just don't see how the edition you're playing is leading to the bad-DM behavior. In any event, I wish you the best of luck.

 

[milotha]

As long as we agree that broad generalizations are silly, I'm a happy camper.



How the game is run, yes. The game mechanic itself, no. As for your rogue being essentially useless if his skills weren't maxed out, I have to say that it sounds unlikely, unless you were a) playing with a bad DM, or b) playing in a campaign that really wasn't geared to charismatic stuff altering the plot. Some campaigns aren't aimed that way -- the DM is planning on a dungeon hack, and hasn't prepared for anything like a charismatic rogue character. You can avoid that problem with good GM/Player communication.

Maybe you can provide us with some hard examples of things that you found problematic. What class was your character? What was your bonus to bluff checks? Is there any chance that the DM could come give his side of the story as well? There's always the possibility that the person you were frustrated at not being able to bluff was reading your mind, or had hard facts that made your bluff impossible, even though from what you knew, it was decent.

Don't get me wrong. I've gamed with bad DMs. But, your recent statements to the contrary, you were saying that 3rd Edition promoted this kind of bad playing, and I don't really think that it does. It might make it harder for the DM to let you do that really cool thing, because there are now rules that show how hard it is to do that really cool thing, but it also makes it harder for the DM to arbitrarily give your character a disadvantage he doesn't deserve.



I don't feel that it doesn't apply to me, because hey, the possibility for bad DMing is always there. I just want to figure out exactly what we're talking about.



Not sure where you're going with this. If you need to vent, that's fine, but I don't see an absolute connection between "GMs might talk about being fair on the boards and then be unfair in real life" and "GM can't have everything prepared". The "talk on a board" comment, aside from sounding a bit like a veiled implication that I'm misrepresenting myself, doesn't make sense to me. If I'm going to brag and blow my horn on the board, I'm going to talk about the cool monsters I made and how the PCs fell for my evil plots, while omitting the "And then the stupid player made a Diplomacy check of 37 and my bad guy turned Friendly, dangit" moments. I'm not likely to game with anybody here any time in the near future. I don't really rack up any street cred by talking about how fair and impartial I am. I mean, I guess I could be holier-than-thou about stuff, but a lot of people already know what stuff I'm good at (villain motivations, character builds) and what stuff I'm lousy at (environment-building).

Your comment about being prepared, though, is interesting. In many cases, 3.x requires LESS preparation. I mean, assuming that you have the sheet for a particular character or monster, you don't HAVE to come up with a number on what it'll take to bluff or diplome him. You can just say, "Okay, he's Unfriendly, because he doesn't like humans, and, since his Sense Motive score is +3, a Take-Ten average will net out to 13, before plausibility modifiers." The book already has the charts in there for the levels of plausibility -- if you try to bluff this guy with something that's really hard to believe, he gets a +10 on his check, so all I have to do is listen to your bluff and then decide whether it puts him at any risk, and if so, how much. I don't have to pull a number out of thin air.

And if the issue here is what modifiers your DM puts on it, then the real issue here is DM trust. If you don't trust your DM, then you shouldn't be playing with him. It's not going to be fun for you, and it's not going to be fun for the DM once he senses the waves of irritation and distrust flowing toward him from your direction.



But in earlier editions, where the were no hard and fast rules, the DM could simply say "He convinces you to go excavate the haunted ruins," and you wouldn't even have numbers to back you up when you said, "Uh, don't I get a Sense Motive check or Will Save or something?"

Now, for a DM to railroad you, he has to essentially admit that he is bending the rules -- he has to give the villain some enormous bonus on his Bluff check, or he has to say "And you believe him, regardless of what you roll." Everyone is constrained by the rules here. It becomes pretty apparent to most experienced players when the DM is breaking the rules in order to force a particular plot event. Your hands might be tied by the new rules, but so are the DM's, and while the DM can choose to break the rules at any time, he knows that the players know that he's doing it most of the time, and won't put up with it if it takes away from their enjoyment of the game.

I can see that you feel very strongly about this, and I hope you're having fun in some group, whatever edition they're playing. I just don't see how the edition you're playing is leading to the bad-DM behavior. In any event, I wish you the best of luck.

This isn't aimed at you in particular, I've just been replying to your posts. There are lots of other GMs and players out there who read, post, and lurk on these forums. If I can prevent one GM from going down this path, then I've done a group of players a world of good. If I make one person stop and consider what they are actually doing, then that is good. If I made one person realize that they only pay lip service to not railroading the players with high DCs, then good. I'm not saying that you in particular are doing this.

As I've stated before, I find the DCs that many GMs set to be problematic. I've had DCs set to 20 for diplomacy checks just to purchase common items at book price. I've had GMs set the diplomacy DC at what must have been over 35 get get spells as a wizard from the local mages guild that they were members of in what was supposed to be a normal mana world. I've had DCs set to over 30 to intimidate a non spell caster mercenary we have tied up with a knife to his throat after playing good cop bad cop on him. I've seen diplomacy roles of 40 or above be ineffectual in our home town to get non magical assistance from a lawful good temple that asked us to do something for them. Why? Because the GM didn't want us to do these things.

Now, why do I know this for one campaign, well, at one point I discussed some of my problems with the GM, and after a bit I realized that he was just rationalizing away these things because he didn't want us to do these things. He basically admitted that he didn't want us doing them, so this was his method of stopping us. I finally just quit the campaign because it was an exercise in futility.

Now why am I blaming 3.X.

1) These things didn't happen like this for me under the previous editions. Now, as I stated I think in my first post, perhaps this was an abberation. I was never forced into having rolls decide entire negotiations. Plus, I found that in previous editions the GMs were far more likely to actually listen to what the players were doing, and then try to respond to it. Your Experience May Vary.

2) I think that having a mechanic serves as a shield for the GMs. They go, well I set a DC. So, what if none of the players could reach it. This makes them feel as if they themselves aren't preventing the players, but the dice and the mechanic are. So, what if the DC was completely unreasonable. So what if the players with max skill ranks had to roll a 20 to reach it. Just because the rules for DCs are written up in the book, it doesn't mean that all GMs are following these rules. Things get ignored, forgotten, or house ruled. Plus if the DC is kept secret how can you argue with it- you don't.

3) Rolling for everything, including simple actions. This didn't happen under previous editions for me. Once again Your Experiences May Vary.

4) I find it really sad that the way the skills and the skill points are stuctured reduces the amount of role playing that you can do if your class doesn't give you the skills or the skill points. I find that the number of skill points narrows the character concepts and reduces the role playing potential. Yes, I understand balance, but was this level or reduction really necessary?

5) Lastly, the "I bluff the guy I got a 17 does it work" mentality gets old. It's sad that this is allowed to work.

Anyway, as for bluffing the players. I have to say in 1e and 2e, we would have just said "No, we don't fall for it", and without a magic geas or other powerful spell, we wouldn't have obeyed the GM. That's too much railroading, and most players won't tolerate it.

Yes, we do have a 3.5/3.0 mix edition that I play and enjoy mightily. I never said that it prevents role playing, I only contend that it encourages roll playing over role playing for some of the GMs out there.

Anyway, best wishes in all. I appologize if you took my posts as personally aimed at you. They were not.

 

[IceBear]

Good thing that the DMG specifically states that you can't have NPCs Bluff or Intimidate PCs (ie, a DM can't say well, he Intimidates you into surrendering). A PC ALWAYS gets to make a choice.

 

[kamosa]

Good thing that the DMG specifically states that you can't have NPCs Bluff or Intimidate PCs (ie, a DM can't say well, he Intimidates you into surrendering). A PC ALWAYS gets to make a choice.

Then what good is the sense motives skill? If the NPC's can't bluff, what mechanic do they use to try to lie to the PC's? I seem to have also been in lots of games where the NPC's are trying to pull something over on the players, and we used Sense Motives to try to figure out what is going on.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Then what good is the sense motives skill? If the NPC's can't bluff, what mechanic do they use to try to lie to the PC's?

They can't. The rules are very much with the players in this regard. While players can fall back on "well, I'm not charismatic myself, so I need these skills for my character", the GM is has to deal with all the shortcomings that players are immune to.

Which, consequently, is why I keep a tight reign on these Skills, including how, when, and why they're used.

 

[IceBear]

Then what good is the sense motives skill? If the NPC's can't bluff, what mechanic do they use to try to lie to the PC's? I seem to have also been in lots of games where the NPC's are trying to pull something over on the players, and we used Sense Motives to try to figure out what is going on.

That's not what I meant. The original poster was implying the dice rolls could allow an NPC to TELL a PC what to do.

A NPC could use Bluff to lie to a PC and the PC could use SM to determine if he was telling the truth or not. That's legal. An NPC coming up to a PC and saying "I am Elimister - surrender or die" is a Bluff. If the PC fails his Sense Motive check all you as a DM can tell the PC is that as far as he can tell the NPC is telling the truth, so it's up to the player to decide if he wants to surrender or not. The DM can't tell the PC - "You believe him and therefore surrender". That's what I meant.

 

[Deadguy]

Then what good is the sense motives skill? If the NPC's can't bluff, what mechanic do they use to try to lie to the PC's? I seem to have also been in lots of games where the NPC's are trying to pull something over on the players, and we used Sense Motives to try to figure out what is going on.

Actually what it says is that NPCs can't use their skills (making specific note of the use of Charisma or Diplomacy checks) to influence PC attitude (see p128, DMG). Attitude here has a technical usage, referring to the PHB, p72. This is the measure of hostility or friendliness that the NPC harbours for the PC(s).

So in fact all the DMG really says is that it is always up to the player to decide whether or not his PC likes any given NPC! Excluding specific magics, that doesn't seem unreasonable.

An NPC can still use Bluff to lie to a PC, and a PC uses Sense Motive to detect it. They can use Diplomacy to negotiate prices with a PC (though PCs always have a choice ultimately whether to buy and sell at any given price). The only one that doesn't work well is Intimidate, though the idemoralize combat option can work just fine against PCs. It's just that players always seem to resent their characters being intimidated...

So, overall, Kamosa, there isn't, in the RAW, any of the problems you seem to suggest.