Skills used by players on other players.

[TheCosmicKid]

Yeah, that’s a perfectly valid way to do it, and probably more in line with the RAI. Personally, I’m not a fan of the verbal gymnastics of describing “try to see if someone is lying” as an action. It’s the same as “I think back to my arcane studies to see if I remember anything about these runes.” Its an awkward sentence because you’re trying to describe an automatic mental reflex like memory as an action, and ultimately doesn’t give me any more information about the character’s approach than simply asking to make an Insight check or Arcana check, respectively. I prefer to handle the question of “do I know/notice [thing]?” with a passive check rather than asking players to twist those questions into the form of an action just to avoid having them ask to make a [skill used to notice thing] check.

I think you're overthinking this. Why twist the question into the form of an action?

"Is he lying?"
"Make an Insight check."

"Is there a bad guy hiding in the room?"
"Make a Perception check."

No big deal.

 

[Bawylie]

Well, if anyone remembers the running joke from back on the WotC forums that @Bawylie was the angry GM...
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/theangrygm/the-angry-gm-the-website-the-book

...No.

 

[Bawylie]

This conversation has made me think about how I handle NPCs “using social skills” against PCs and if there’s a better way to handle that. So far, I have basically just not done it. I mostly just act out NPCs social interactions, and the only time I roll a die on their behalf is when they lie, to see if I tell the players that the NPC is clearly lying. Observant players can also sometimes pick up on this and notice that if I roll a d20 while they’re interacting with an NPC, the NPC is lying. And NPCs with proficiency in skills like intimidate end up going to waste. Thus far, I’ve just accepted those drawbacks, but thanks to this thread, I’m going to try something different in my next campaign, which is starting on Monday.

I think I’m going to have players resolve social actions that target them, whether the actor is a PC or an NPC. When I’m playing an NPC, I’ll just act out or paraphrase what they say, and let the players react as they wish, as I do now. When a player isn’t sure how they want their character to react to something, they can ask me to make a check for the NPC to resolve the uncertainty. So, when an NPC says something you think sounds fishy, you can choose to believers it, disbelieve it, or call for them to make a Deception check if you’re unsure. When an NPC says something threatening, you can choose to be frightened or not, or call for them to make an Intimidation to help you decide. Etc.

Trying to think of a situation in which I might roll deception for an NPC.

What springs to mind is: I know my NPC is lying to the PCs. One PC decides to scrutinize the lying NPC for signs of deception. This NPC has like +6 to deception. Now it’s my job to figure out what DC to set for the PC’s action.

Here I might roll to see how well the deception comes off and use that roll as the DC. Or I might just take 8+6 or 10+6 or whatever.

The result of that roll wouldn’t determine what the PC thinks or observes, it would merely set the marker for the difficulty of the task at hand.

 

[Bawylie]

I think you're overthinking this. Why twist the question into the form of an action?

"Is he lying?"
"Make an Insight check."

"Is there a bad guy hiding in the room?"
"Make a Perception check."

No big deal.

Because of take-backsies.

“Is the door trapped?”
“Make a Perception check.”
(Roll, low result)
“As you examine the door, your hand brushes the handle and an electric jolt...”
“Hang on I never said I touched the door. I was just searching for traps.”

That used to be a routine occurrence in games I ran and played in. I now ask for action and intent and set a DC based on what the PC is trying to do and not on what the PC is trying to roll.

“Is the door trapped?”
“What do you do to find out?”
“I just look.”
“There are no obvious signs of a trap, but you’re trained in thieves’ tools and you know darn well that an obvious trap is a bad trap. What do you do?”
“Alright I’m going to use my thieves’ kit to prod the joints, hinges, handle and lock, carefully, for trigger mechanisms.”
“Ok give me that Dex (thieves’ tools roll). If you hit a 15, you’re very careful and you’ll get advantage on any saves vs any traps you may or may not find.”
(Rolls, low)
“Well it’s definitely trapped and you’ve got a pick pushing the trigger. It’s going to go off the moment you let go. What do you do?”

Or (rolls 15)
“It’s definitely trapped and you’ve got a pick pushing the trigger. It’s going to go off the moment you let go, but you have advantage on your save, if needed. What do you do?”

Or (rolls 20)
“It’s definitely trapped and you’ve found the trigger but you haven’t set it off. What do you do?”

 

[Satyrn]

Yeah, that’s a perfectly valid way to do it, and probably more in line with the RAI. Personally, I’m not a fan of the verbal gymnastics of describing “try to see if someone is lying” as an action. It’s the same as “I think back to my arcane studies to see if I remember anything about these runes.” Its an awkward sentence because you’re trying to describe an automatic mental reflex like memory as an action, and ultimately doesn’t give me any more information about the character’s approach than simply asking to make an Insight check or Arcana check, respectively. I prefer to handle the question of “do I know/notice [thing]?” with a passive check rather than asking players to twist those questions into the form of an action just to avoid having them ask to make a [skill used to notice thing] check.

The verbal gymnastics bit is not the focus of my suggestion. You can replace it with whatever you prefer. My suggestion comes down to making this edit to what you had said:

"So, when an NPC says something you think sounds fishy, you can choose to believers it, disbelieve it, or call for them to make a Deception check ask for an insight check if you’re unsure."

(Man, that should've been my first reply. So much more straightforward. )

 

[Charlaquin]

I think you're overthinking this. Why twist the question into the form of an action?

"Is he lying?"
"Make an Insight check."

"Is there a bad guy hiding in the room?"
"Make a Perception check."

No big deal.

Because I like the consistency of a roll always representing something a character is actively doing in the world (and that has a chance of failure, etc.) Memory, spatial awareness, and social awareness aren’t really active things you do, they’re automatic, subconscious mental processes. That’s why they’re awkward to phrase as actions, because they’re not active. I’d rather put the onus to roll a check on the person telling the lie and use the listener’s passive Wis (insight) as the DC, or include in my notes that characters with passive Int (Arcana) X or higher know what the runes mean.

Nothing against those who prefer to have the player roll in these situations, and as I said before, I’m pretty sure doing so is more closely aligned with the RAI. This is entirely a me thing.

 

[Satyrn]

Yeah, that’s a perfectly valid way to do it, and probably more in line with the RAI. Personally, I’m not a fan of the verbal gymnastics of describing “try to see if someone is lying” as an action. It’s the same as “I think back to my arcane studies to see if I remember anything about these runes.” Its an awkward sentence because you’re trying to describe an automatic mental reflex like memory as an action, and ultimately doesn’t give me any more information about the character’s approach than simply asking to make an Insight check or Arcana check, respectively. I prefer to handle the question of “do I know/notice [thing]?” with a passive check rather than asking players to twist those questions into the form of an action just to avoid having them ask to make a [skill used to notice thing] check.

To put it in iserith’s parlance, I see “try to remember something I know” and “try to notice something in my environment” as things all people are performing constantly, and are therefore better handled with a passive check.

Replying a second time.

You're arguing against your own suggestion with this passive check stuff. It was your idea that the player call for a roll, not mine. I'm just suggesting you have the player call for an insight check for himself instead of a deception check for the NPC.

 

[Charlaquin]

...No.

Sorry, didn’t mean to offend. I just remembered that being a reoccurring joke back in the 5e playtest days. Wouldn’t have brought it up if I had known you didn’t like the comparison.

 

[iserith]

Another thing you can do is stop having all of your NPCs lie to the characters so that you can avoid this:



In other words, make better social interaction challenges. In my games, Wisdom (Insight) comes up when an NPC is trying to keep its agenda or ideal, bond, or flaw hidden and the players, during the interaction, are trading off their part in the conversation to observe the NPC and try to ascertain these elements so they can then turn it to their advantage. Which translates to advantage on subsequent related Charisma checks, if there are any.

And like how I would telegraph a trap during an exploration challenge, I am telegraphing lies in a social interaction challenge. Facts that don't add up. Strange twitch. A stutter. Changing the story. If you're not hinting that the NPC is lying while describing the environment, then you're basically playing gotcha and encouraging the players to "Insight check!" every time they speak to someone, just like how they'll search for traps on every door and 10-foot pole every hallway when you don't telegraph traps. In the absence of information, that is reasonable behavior. If you don't want that behavior, increase the information flow.

As well, make failing an Insight check cost something. In addition to making this a task you have to do at the cost of not contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way, my go-to is that, on a failed attempt, the NPC knows the PC is suspicious which causes him or her to dummy up or at least make it harder to suss out the agenda and ideal, bond, or flaw. It's not just "The NPC has no apparent tells." There's no cost to that result. So of course the players will want to spam it, if they can.

 

[Charlaquin]

The verbal gymnastics bit is not the focus of my suggestion. You can replace it with whatever you prefer. My suggestion comes down to making this edit to what you had said:

"So, when an NPC says something you think sounds fishy, you can choose to believers it, disbelieve it, or call for them to make a Deception check ask for an insight check if you’re unsure."

(Man, that should've been my first reply. So much more straightforward. )

No, I understood that was your suggestion. I just don’t feel that a (rolled) Insight check is appropriate in this situation. At least not for my DMing style. If it works for anyone else’s, that’s cool.

Replying a second time.

You're arguing against your own suggestion with this passive check stuff. It was your idea that the player call for a roll, not mine. I'm just suggesting you have the player call for an insight check for himself instead of a deception check for the NPC.

But having the player call for an Insight check for themself breaks the standard gameplay loop of DM describes situation -> player describes what the character does -> DM determines outcome of action, possibly calling for a roll if necessary to resolve uncertainty -> DM narrates results -> repeat. Having the player call for the NPC to make the roll follows the same gameplay loop, it just reverses the roles. I am describing an action the NPC is taking, and the player is determining the results, possibly calling for a roll to resolve uncertainty.