Skills used by players on other players.

[Oofta]

To be clear then, you are saying that if I (the Rogue Inquisitive character's player) say to you (as DM) "My character suspects she is being lied to. I want to make a Wisdom (Insight) to see if the Barbarian character is deceiving her. My character has Ear for Deceit and Expertise in the skill so she can't get less than a 15 here." As DM you'll allow the Contest of skills to be made and if my result is higher, then you will tell me if the Barbarian character is (or is not, as the case may be) lying?

Personally I would just say that the speaker seems sincere. As far as you can tell they're telling the truth as they know it. Insight is not Zone of Truth any more than persuasion is Charm Person.

 

[Blue]

He did answer, though. There's no check because the player gets to decide what their PC thinks. Period. If they think the other PC is lying, they think that. If their suspicious, they think that. No rolls are called for. In other words, what the PC thinks isn't ever uncertain -- it's what the player says -- so there's never a need to roll.

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.

Why would I reach for dice to resolve if a player is uncertain if another player just lied?

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

 

[Blue]

I would argue that this is still a matter of player agency. If I as DM tell the player they have to believe something an NPC says, then I am removing that player’s ability to decide how their character reacts, thereby removing their agency.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

If someone invests in a skill like deception, I let them do underhanded things behind the other characters because they have invested in that. If a character invests in insight, I let them discover the underhandedneas. I don’t see any point in ignoring rules and mechanics that players have spent their feats and resources on. I will roll insight secretly and I will inform the deceptive player (OOC) that the insightful player is aware of something in advance of telling the insightful player. Then I will hint to the insightful player that something is going on. Insight isn’t some zone of truth but it’s designed to pick up suspicious behaviour.

If the two players want to have it out where there are stakes involved, I make it a contest as I described earlier in this thread.

I certainly wouldn’t allow a character with no deception to continually dupe players that have invested in insight. That just seems unfair.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't know if someone already said it, but persuasion checks don't work like in 3e. You can only shift the attitude into a certain direction making it more likely that you get help. It is still the NPCs decision what to do. So it is still the PCs deciaion what to do.

I think it is totally ok to use persuasion on the other party member so even if you are not the most convincing player, your character might be quite impressive.
I as a DM once just told the other players that what the paladin player said sounded quite well worded and sensible to him. Still everyone's decision what to do.

Your part as a DM is not to force other players to do what they don't want. You can however reward the charismatic player with inspiration for his speach.
And if the other player agrees to go with the faceman despite better player knowledge, this is also a situation where giving inspiration is very appropriate.

That said, pvp is always difficult in an rpg if you are all sitting on the same table since it is difficult to differentiate player and pc knowledge.

 

[iserith]

I am saying that when I and many other players say X we actually mean Y. You are saying no matter what is meant by X you require a player to say Y. It seems to me like if the meaning in both situations is the same then it is coming down to being about how something is being said.

The point is that even when I as a player say "DM tell me if I think he is lying" I don't mean for you to literally do that. It's shorthand for me that means the same thing as "dm I am going to watch him and his reactions to see if I can determine if he is lying".

I require the player to adequately perform their role in the game. They have one thing to do - describe what they want to do and how they want to do it. They require me to adequately perform my role in the game as well - describing the environment, laying out the basic scope of options that present themselves, and narrating the result of the adventurers' actions. (And staying functional after 6 Jamesons.) If any of us fails to do so, the play experience is made worse.

Should you have to make such assumptions about the PC's actions as the DM? I think you can't avoid that completely. I think that as long as the player is generally accepting of the assumptions you make on behalf of his way of phrasing actions then the game works just fine. If the players keep challenging whatever assumptions you are drawing from their shorthand phrases then it's probably time to require them to be more specific.

You can though by asking the players to be reasonably specific about their goal and approach. Not only does this improve the basic conversation of the game in my view, it gets the players really thinking about the scene and adding details from which others can build their own action declarations. It makes it easier for the DM to decide on success, failure, or uncertainty and in the latter case settle on a DC. It also avoids the problem of making bad assumptions altogether. After years of playing this way, a method what I derived from simply reading the rules of the game, I can see no downside.

The game is a structured conversation. It's a better conversation when all parties hold up their end of it.

 

[Beowulf]

I think there’s a problem with the language “use Persuasion on” another player. You don’t use skills on targets in 5e. You try to Persuade somebody. Or you try to jump over a pit. Or recall some lore. If the DM thinks the outcome is both uncertain and meaningful, he may ask for an ability check.

I guess that repeats the gist of what [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and others are saying, but the (mis)phrasing jumps out at me.

 

[iserith]

or open-attendance one-shots (which I’m pretty sure is what Iserith does.)

I run my regular campaign which is about 10 players, 7 of whom are the most active, and 3 who show up for the odd cameo. There are 5 seats per session and the quorum is 4 players. So here I'm very familiar with these players, but the roster does change almost every session. They have two PCs each as well, though they do favor their primary ones chiefly.

I also run scenarios in a West Marches game with multiple DMs. There are about 30 players here. I have no idea who I'm going to get when I announce a session, though about half a given group tends to be people I've run for before or alongside whom I'm played in another DM's West Marches scenario. It's an interesting setup.

Finally, I run one-shots, chiefly to test out new ideas and scenarios that don't fit in my campaigns (yet) and to use it as a recruiting pool for more regular campaigns. I run these one-shots multiple times with different pick-up groups, which is very educational. From these players, I pick the best of the lot and invite them to longer-running games.

 

[iserith]

I think there’s a problem with the language “use Persuasion on” another player. You don’t use skills on targets in 5e. You try to Persuade somebody. Or you try to jump over a pit. Or recall some lore. If the DM thinks the outcome is both uncertain and meaningful, he may ask for an ability check.

I guess that repeats the gist of what [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and others are saying, but the (mis)phrasing jumps out at me.

Yeah, the "Use Skill" thing is definitely an artifact of other games. You can hear it in the way certain posters talk about their games. Not surprisingly, if there is some kind of problem seeking an answer posted on the forums, it's often due at least in part to handling ability checks this way. Which is not to say the method always produces problems. Rather, if there is a problem, you can be almost certain this is the method being employed.

 

[Charlaquin]

To be clear then, you are saying that if I (the Rogue Inquisitive character's player) say to you (as DM) "My character suspects she is being lied to. I want to make a Wisdom (Insight) to see if the Barbarian character is deceiving her. My character has Ear for Deceit and Expertise in the skill so she can't get less than a 15 here." As DM you'll allow the Contest of skills to be made and if my result is higher, then you will tell me if the Barbarian character is (or is not, as the case may be) lying?

I would say “the barbarian is taking a hostile action against your character by lying to them. It’s up to you how you want to resolve that action. If you want to make an Insight check, go ahead. If you want [barbarian’s player] to make a deception check, go ahead and call for it. If you want to rule that his action succeeds or fails without a roll, that’s your call to make.”