Skills used by players on other players.

[Beowulf]

Thank you.

It’s kind of like saying “saving throw usage”, isn’t it? Sure, you could defend it syntactically, but it has misleading connotations.

 

[Charlaquin]

"A being in the game world intentionally tells the group a lie.

Player B, regardless of their metagame knowledge of if it is a lie or not, seeks confirmation of what their character B can glean using their ability to read people. They wish to act on only knowledge their character would have.

If the being speaking was an NPC, 5e offers a system to resolve this with a Charisma (bluff) vs. either a passive Wisdom (Insight) or an active Wisdom (Insight) roll, depending on the variations of the table."

You’re skipping a step. The system 5e offers to resolve this is not merely a Charisma (deception) check vs a Wisdom (Insight) check. It is that the DM first evaluates whether or not the attempt to discern whether or not the being in question is lying has a possibility of success, a possibility of failure, and a cost or consequence for failure. If it does, then the DM calls for a roll to resolve the uncertainty, of which Charisma (Deception) vs Wisdom (Insight) is one possible example. Otherwise, the DM simply narrates the results, since they are not uncertain.

If you look at the whole system, instead of skipping the step where the possibility of and consequences for the action’s success and failure are evaluated, then it is clear that this system applies whether the lying being is NPC or PC.

There is also the separate issue of who is the active party. To me, the being telling the lie is the one taking action, not PC being lied to. So, really, what I would be evaluating is the possibility that the beings words (their approach) succeed at deceiving the PC (their goal). If the being is an NPC with the magical ability to tell undetectable lies, the action succeeds, no roll required. If the being has a flaw that makes them a terrible liar, the action might fail, no roll required. If the being is a fellow PC, then I would ask the player of the PC being lied to if the lie being told has a reasonable chance of deceiving their character or not. To do otherwise would be to make an exception to the rule that the player decides how their character thinks and acts. In either case, if it is determined that the lie does have a reasonable chance of succeeding and a reasonable chance of failing at deceiving the PC, then I would call for a roll of some kind to be made, possibly with input from the players to help determine what roll would be most appropriate. If the roll results in success, then I allow the player to decide whether their character believes what they are being told or not. To tell them they must believe it would again be to make an exception to the rule that the player decides how their character thinks and acts. If the roll results in failure, then I tell the player that the being is obviously lying.

 

[Satyrn]

If the roll results in success, then yes, the PC is deceived. If it results in failure, then I allow the player to decide whether their character believes what they are being told or not. To tell them they must believe it would again be to make an exception to the rule that the player decides how their character thinks and acts.

I'm guessing you got lost in your own thoughts, because the bolded bits seem contradictory . . . or I'm completely lost in understanding what you're sayIng.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm guessing you got lost in your own thoughts, because the bolded bits seem contradictory . . . or I'm completely lost in understanding what you're sayIng.

You’re correct, I mistyped initially. I caught the error and edited it, but apparently not quickly enough

 

[Guest 6801328]

"A being in the game world intentionally tells the group a lie."

GREAT example. Let's start with that...

The player of the Barbarian listens and nods but doesn't say anything.

GM: "Do you want to do anything...?"

Barbarian: "Nope."

GM: "If you want to see if he's telling the truth I'll have you roll Insight..."

Barbarian: "No, thanks."

GM: "Huh. Do you think he's telling the truth?"

Barbarian: "Maybe."

GM: "Well...what are you going to do?"

Barbarian: "Nothing just yet."

GM: "Ok, well the Being turns to go and..."

Barbarian: "I attack him as soon as his back is turned."

GM: "What...why?"

Barbarian: "Reasons."

GM: "You think he's lying, but your character isn't smart or wise enough to know that!"

Barbarian: "Huh? I didn't say anything about lying. I just want to attack him."

GM: "You can't. You wouldn't do that if you thought he was telling the truth..."

etc.

I'm hoping none of you would be this GM, but if the Barbarian had failed his roll and you thus felt justified in dictating his beliefs, please explain why the player who asks if his character can detect a lie should be more constrained in his choices than a player who chooses (knowing the consequences of failure) to not do so. Is this really what we want to incentivize? Turning D&D into poker?

 

[Blue]

You’re skipping a step. The system 5e offers to resolve this is not merely a Charisma (deception) check vs a Wisdom (Insight) check. It is that the DM first evaluates whether or not the attempt to discern whether or not the being in question is lying has a possibility of success, a possibility of failure, and a cost or consequence for failure. If it does, then the DM calls for a roll to resolve the uncertainty, of which Charisma (Deception) vs Wisdom (Insight) is one possible example. Otherwise, the DM simply narrates the results, since they are not uncertain.

Completely agree. However, I was attempting to set up a scenario where there was a skill check so those were assumed. Sorry, I didn't quote that part of my original comment.

All of this was really just a foundation to the information I was trying to gather, but has generated response after response about it. In some cases it's understood that the question doesn't have a meaning at their table - they play with a house rule that absolutely disallows any skill, spell, feature or other usage against other PCs. I guess that makes Fireball either ally friendly or unable to be cast if it would catch another PCs.

If you look at the whole system, instead of skipping the step where the possibility of and consequences for the action’s success and failure are evaluated, then it is clear that this system applies whether the lying being is NPC or PC.

Which I agree with. However, since the person I was responding to plays with the houserule disallowing skill use against another PC, I was giving an example of "skill use" that could fit his table.

I'm not going to quote the rest of what you wrote because I agree with it as well. I don't think we're on opposite sides of this, I think I may have given you the wrong impression by tailoring my example to the specific person I was responding to and the house rule he plays with so he could understand my point instead of deflecting it like happened earlier in this thread.

 

[Beowulf]

However, since the person I was responding to plays with the houserule disallowing skill use against another PC...

...the house rule he plays with...

Trying to discredit his viewpoint by repeatedly referring to it as a house rule only makes it look like you are out of arguments.

Using skill checks to force mechanical results that are nowhere specified in the rules could equally be called a house rule.

 

[robus]

What happens when a player tries to Grapple another player?

I dunno - but I sure hope the beer & pretzels aren't in the way!

 

[Blue]

GREAT example. Let's start with that...

The player of the Barbarian listens and nods but doesn't say anything.

I'm hoping none of you would be this GM, but if the Barbarian had failed his roll and you thus felt justified in dictating his beliefs, please explain why the player who asks if his character can detect a lie should be more constrained in his choices than a player who chooses (knowing the consequences of failure) to not do so. Is this really what we want to incentivize? Turning D&D into poker?

The DM never gets to tell the player how to run his character. Well, Session 0 might have "no evil characters" as part of the agreed on social contract, but that's not what we're talking about here. The Barbarian is free to act as they want.

I think your whole example is the DM attempting to dictate what the character does. Heck, that's against the rules in the very beginning of the PHB, page 6: How to play. The DM describes the environment, the players describe what they want to do, the DM narrates the results of the actions. None of it is the DM controls the PC.

So, outside DMs doing things that the rules don't allow and the table definitely shouldn't allow, let me try an example that could happen at my table.

Setting: AL table, not all players are there all the time, some vary by week, and factions with secret agendas is a known thing. Alice's rogue is a member of the Zhents, which have criminal ties.

DM: Alice, your rogue recognizes the Zhentish tattoos on the gang leader as they flee.
Alice: Oh, I need to make sure they get away. My rogue says "We shouldn't follow then, they're probably just hired thugs."
DM: Alice, with the tattoos you're sure that's not true. Can you make a deception check for your rogue?
Alice: 9, plus 2 for CHR and 3 for proficiency since I'm trained ...14
DM: Bob, your cleric with the Observant feat has a higher passive insight. He catches some hint that the rogue isn't telling the truth, the whole truth, so help her Helm.
DM (again): What does everyone do?
Charlene: My barbarian chases the thugs anyhow. Her blood is up and she's still spoiling for a fight.
...

See, the roll isn't used to control characters, it's used to empower them by giving them the information they get for existing in the world. Part of that "how to play", with the DM describing. This is based to some degree on how the players have intended their characters to be in terms of building them. For example, if you are in the dark you'll get a different description if yur character has darkvision. Alice's rogue had a good result, part of her putting a 14-15 in CHR and taking training in deception. Bob, with a high wisdom cleric who definitely wants to notice things that they invested a feat in Observant however is better in this case - needed better than that 9.

In no ways does the DM tell the players their actions. We don't know if Bob will have his cleric say something, pursue, stop others pursuing because he trusts Alice's rogue, or what. Charlene's barbarian is free to pursue the thugs or not, with or without a reason.

All we have done is give the players the information their characters would be able to notice living in the world. That one player put a premium on noticing things, paying an opportunity cost of not taking a different ASI/feat, means that there are times they get more information.

Just like a character who took a language gets to understand it when another character might not. If one character writes a message openly in elvish and shows the party, they don't get to control which of the other PCs know elvish and can read it.

 

[Blue]

Trying to discredit his viewpoint by repeatedly referring to it as a house rule only makes it look like you are out of arguments.

Using skill checks to force mechanical results that are nowhere specified in the rules could equally be called a house rule.

Actually, using ability checks and passive ability checks to give information to players is well documented in the rules. Do you need page numbers and citations?

The house rule I was referring to is that skills (and other things) operate by different rules when applied PC to PC instead of PC to NPC or NPC to PC.

A: I try to lie.
B: Do I notice?

We have a mechanical supported way to answer that question. The mechanics do not make any distinction if A or B is a PC or NPC.

So if they work in all cases, it by the rules.

But if it works like this:

A=PC, B=NPC - rules work as written.
A=NPC, B=PC - rules work as written.
A=PC, B=PC - rules don't work as written.

Then it does not work by the written rules because it's had an exception put into the rules. That's a house rule.