Skills used by players on other players.

[iserith]

I can tell you that I've had players roll a 1 on a check and told them "Your character is absolutely sure the floating skull is will keep it's bargain" and they happily go along with it.

I wouldn't do this. With a failed check, I would just say the true intentions of the creature are no clearer than they were before. The player can then decide what to do with that. A Wisdom (Insight) check isn't about whether you believe someone or not. It's about whether you can detect changes in body language, speech habits, or mannerisms that provide you information appropriate to your goal. If you fail the check, you can't.

 

[iserith]

When the obvious intention of the post is to ask about a skill check between characters, zeroing in on the word 'think' and giving a non-answer around that doesn't help advance the conversation.

Oh, did my post stop there? I'm pretty sure I added a whole other part that explained further how I handle it at my table.

 

[Charlaquin]

I see your point. I'm not in agreement but it could be me that is the one that is wrong.

I don’t think either of us us necessarily wrong here, this seems like a difference in how we each go about resolving actions, particularly ones that involve hidden information. It may well be that, the way you’d run it, it’s not a matter of agency.

If a DM does a (hidden|passive) perception check and tells a player, "Your character doesn't see anyone" vs. "You see the escaping urchin hidden behind a barrel", the DM am using skills to help me determine what details to describe to the character.

If the Urchin’s stealth check beat the players’ passive perception I wouldn’t say “you don’t see anything.” I just wouldn’t mention that there was anything to see. Likewise, when an NPC lies to a PC, I roll deception for the NPC against the PC’s passive Insight. If the NPC fails, I’d say “he’s clearly lying.” If he fails, I just wouldn’t say anything and let the player come to their own conclusions.

To me it seems the same for "The duke seems to be telling the truth" vs. "You notice the duke is fidgeting and doesn't meet your eye when he tells you that" as a use of Insight.

Yeah, I run it the way I do specifically to avoid situations where I have to say “the duke seems to be telling the truth,” because to me that’s overstepping my bounds. It’s not my place to tell if you your character thinks it seems like someone is telling the truth.

I can tell you that I've had players roll a 1 on a check and told them "Your character is absolutely sure the floating skull is will keep it's bargain" and they happily go along with it.

Yeah, that’s a thing that can happen when you have players roll Insight checks when they think they’re being lied to instead of rolling deception checks for NPCs when they lie to PCs. That’s why I don’t do that. I’m an “the active party always rolls, rolls always represent action” kind of DM. Things like Insight and Knowledge I handle with passive checks.

 

[Ovinomancer]

When the obvious intention of the post is to ask about a skill check between characters, zeroing in on the word 'think' and giving a non-answer around that doesn't help advance the conversation.



Because the question is if a CHARACTER knew if another CHARACTER lied. There's a difference between player knowledge and character knowledge.

Sorry, but can you explain how characters do something without the players saying they do it?

To be frank, this and [MENTION=71699]clearstream[/MENTION]'s examples are "I want to be able to use the mechanics to he 100% sure, with no risk, that I can treat another as if tgey are bad."

Would you be okay with an insight check that, if failed, means you must 100% and with utter, unshakable conviction believe the other character is telling the truth? No, what insight represents is a risk free check to establish the proof to treat another as a bad actor, in this case a liar. That's not interesting enough for a roll.

 

[Beowulf]

The other problem here is that “detecting lies”, like detecting traps, is inherently problematic in RPGs. You simply cannot model it (at least not in interesting ways) with a single die roll, narrated by a human who the players probably know well. (Meaning that it sometimes comes down to DM Dave’s ability to deceive Player Pete, and has nothing to do with the PC and NPC, let alone two PCs).

Thats why I think if you are not going to model it with multiple rolls, uncertainty, false positives and false negatives, and a spectrum of results instead of binary outcomes...and I, for one, am not going to all that trouble...you may as well leave the dice in the bag and let the players roleplay it however they like.

EDIT: I spent longer fixing autocorrect than I did typing that in the first place.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is a great example and I think should be tested in its most distinct case, which is where character B is a Rogue Inquisitive with Ear for Deceit, high Wisdom, and Expertise in Insight, and the lying character is a Barbarian Totem Warrior, with low Charisma and no proficiency in Deception. It won't be common that a group's players will have social/psychological/investigative skills to match that sharp gradient. That is to say, it is plausible here that the characters have relevant capabilities that differ from their players.

You haven't changed anything exceot the one sided-ness of the math. The anticipated outcome isn't any different, just the chance of success. Moving numbers around doesn't actually change the question, just your perception of who should "win".

I note that one move commentators make is to shift the example to "player-to-player," or a conflation of player and character as in "PC-to-PC". I've only started digging into that, but I suspect it either doesn't stand up to scrutiny or something else is going on. What seems to be happening is the shift or conflation is used in some cases, but broken or ignored in other cases. That is, in some cases game mechanics apply character-to-character, but in others there is a shift or conflation used to waive the mechanics. The defining line for where to make that shift appears to vary, commentator to commentator: making it a good example of an exogenous rule (following Bjork and Holopainen's categorisation).

Sure, it's different. But you haven't nade the case for why it shouldn't be. The rules clearly state tgat it's tge player who has sole power to determine what a character thinks, and there's no clear exception to this outside of magic. So, the rule differs on a clear basis and yet you keep asking if this situation or that is enough to void the rule. It's very odd. Not that you can't do it how you want, but that you think a new extreme example will somehow change the thinking that only players say what their characters think.

We could take your example and spin it into the high skill mastermind trying to convince the low skill barbarian into murdering a child by lying convincingly that it's really a demon in disguise. Should the barbarian player be made to believe the rogue player? If not, why should the rogue player get to be told what his character thinks in your example using the same mechanics?

 

[Beowulf]

When the obvious intention of the post is to ask about a skill check between characters, zeroing in on the word 'think' and giving a non-answer around that doesn't help advance the conversation.

But you were asking him to give a ruling in a way that he simply doesn’t play. It was on obvious catch-22: either he sides with you, or he makes a choice that is easy to poke holes in. Which I’m guessing you were prepared to do.

He basically said, “The way I play I don’t face those choices.”

In other words, his passive Perception was higher than the DC of the trap.

EDIT: I’m loving this analogy because it’s an analogue to the question at stake. He chose to not go down the hallway with the trap, thwarting your plot, and now you’re basically trying to tell him he MUST go down the hallway. Loss of agency!

 

[Blue]

But you were asking him to give a ruling in a way that he simply doesn’t play. It was on obvious catch-22: either he sides with you, or he makes a choice that is easy to poke holes in. Which I’m guessing you were prepared to do.

Thanks for pre-judging. If you notice I haven't taken sides anywhere else in this thread. I was attempting to get information about this when it wasn't player agency at risk.

I am unaware that there was any requirement that he needed to respond to a question that did not apply to him or his table.

He basically said, “The way I play I don’t face those choices.”

Exactly. And therefore I correctly called him out for not adding to the discussion.

In other words, his passive Perception was higher than the DC of the trap.

Again pre-judging for the trap.

 

[clearstream]

Sorry, but can you explain how characters do something without the players saying they do it?

To be frank, this and [MENTION=71699]clearstream[/MENTION]'s examples are "I want to be able to use the mechanics to be 100% sure, with no risk, that I can treat another as if they are bad."

Would you be okay with an insight check that, if failed, means you must 100% and with utter, unshakable conviction believe the other character is telling the truth? No, what insight represents is a risk free check to establish the proof to treat another as a bad actor, in this case a liar. That's not interesting enough for a roll.

One distinct use of Insight, called out in the RAW, is to determine true intentions, such as when "searching out a lie". A good mechanic to apply in my case is a Contest: Rogue's Wisdom (Insight) against Barbarian's Charisma (Deception). A DM might arbitrate as follows -

If B's result is higher, then R is deceived into believing that B thinks she's presenting the truth. "You trust her on this score; she's on the up-and-up."
If R's result is higher, then R's perspicacity reveals whether B thinks she's presenting a truth, or a falsehood.
On a draw, things stay as they were (no information, either way).

The Contest result is uncertain, unless there is a disparity of 20 points between the characters (so that a draw is ruled out and one or other always wins). The result is interesting because players have said that their characters care about it. Perhaps they want to know if the Barbarian is planning to sell them out to the evil Sorceress?! The risk, for B, is being seen through. The risk, for R, is having to believe that particular lie. Regarding "unshakable conviction". I don't think a single contest should usually lead to "unshakable" convictions, but this could be a good place to use optional rules such as Degrees of Failure from the DMG.

A DM might choose to make these rolls on behalf of the players. The benefit is obvious if the liar gets the higher result: it prevents other characters treating "deceived" as equal to "no information". Unfortunately it penalises the character using insight, because they can't differentiate a getting the lower result, from getting the higher result where the other character also turned out to be honest. My experience at the table has been that it's usually more fun just to let players make their own rolls, in the open.

 

[iserith]

Exactly. And therefore I correctly called him out for not adding to the discussion.

How is it not adding to the discussion to show how to play in a way that avoids the problem entirely?