D&D 5E How do you rule on NPC-to-PC social interactions?

[overgeeked]

Where I agree with most of what you said, would you agree that we sometimes skip rules for fun at table, and sometimes use the rules for fun at the table?

Absolutely. But the activity doesn't vacillate between "game" and "not game" simply because you do or do not use the rules at a given moment.

 

[clearstream]

What? That's literally what misinformation is. A lie. Something you know to be false. "Misinformation" is simply the soft language we've "chosen" to use instead of calling lies lies and liars liars.

I framed it misinformation with something in mind. Which is concretely that a new notion has been put into the player-characters' minds, that was not there erstwhile. They are thinking something - in this case that a day before yesterday two green dragons flew overhead - that they were not previously, and very likely would not have been had the NPC not proffered it. That new notion might be true, or it might be false. Let's say that as DM we know it is false.

The player-characters live in the game world. And at the same time, some DMs are not actors. So the clues that might give away falsehood that we imagine are present in the game world, are not present in the real world. Just as the longsword we might swing in the game world is not present (usually) in the real world.

There are many ways to resolve this situation. One of them is to make a CHA (Deception) check for the NPC, contested by the PCs' passive WIS (Insight). Or a player might decide they want to call for a WIS (Insight) check on a hunch. That's also fine, right? I find it counter-intuitive to say that either side automatically succeeds, but that too is an option. Another might be to let the players know there is the possibility of a lie. For me as a DM that sort of telegraphing seems undesirable, but I'm not going to say that there are no groups it could work for.

 

[clearstream]

Well if the PCs know the information to be false, then there’s no need to call for a check to resolve the action. The NPC said something that the PCs knew to be false. Now the dramatic question moves on to what are the PCs going to do about it.

Apologies. By "perhaps they know it is false" I mean to say that there is the possibility that they come to know it is false. They could decide it was false, unprompted. We should then consider the counter-case, another day and some other dragons that really did fly overhead. It seems to me that deciding some NPC conversation is false and some true isn't that beneficial for the PCs: they really want a means to confirm it if possible.

 

[Charlaquin]

Apologies. By "perhaps they know it is false" I mean to say that there is the possibility that they come to know it is false. They could decide it was false, unprompted. We should then consider the counter-case, another day and some other dragons that really did fly overhead. It seems to me that deciding some NPC conversation is false and some true isn't that beneficial for the PCs: they really want a means to confirm it if possible.

Ah. Yes, indeed the players could decide it’s false unprompted. In my view, that’s a decision about what the character thinks, which should be left up to the players, not the dice. However, having decided that they suspect it’s false, the players could of course decide to do something to try and confirm that - perhaps examining the NPC’s body language and mannerisms to try and discern clues about his intentions. At that point, it might be appropriate to call for a check to resolve the action - I think Wisdom (Insight) contested by Charisma (Deception) would be particularly appropriate. If the player succeeds, they would accomplish their goal of detecting some indication of the NPC’s intentions in their body language, which I would then describe. If they failed, they would not succeed in their goal so I would not describe any such clue, and there would be some consequence for failure - perhaps the NPC notices that the PCs are suspicious of him, and becomes hostile. Whatever the consequence may be, I think it’s best practice for the DM to inform the players of that potential consequence before they commit to making the roll.

 

[overgeeked]

I framed it misinformation with something in mind. Which is concretely that a new notion has been put into the player-characters' minds, that was not there erstwhile. They are thinking something - in this case that a day before yesterday two green dragons flew overhead - that they were not previously, and very likely would not have been had the NPC not proffered it. That new notion might be true, or it might be false. Let's say that as DM we know it is false.

The player-characters live in the game world. And at the same time, some DMs are not actors. So the clues that might give away falsehood that we imagine are present in the game world, are not present in the real world. Just as the longsword we might swing in the game world is not present (usually) in the real world.

There are many ways to resolve this situation. One of them is to make a CHA (Deception) check for the NPC, contested by the PCs' passive WIS (Insight). Or a player might decide they want to call for a WIS (Insight) check on a hunch. That's also fine, right? I find it counter-intuitive to say that either side automatically succeeds, but that too is an option. Another might be to let the players know there is the possibility of a lie. For me as a DM that sort of telegraphing seems undesirable, but I'm not going to say that there are no groups it could work for.

I find it counterintuitive that the first recourse is the mechanics. To me, that's backwards. Fiction first, then mechanics (if needed...and they're generally not needed). If some NPC tells my character they saw something incredible that was or should have been clearly visible to dozens of people, I'm going to have my character ask around town. When literally no one else confirms that story, I'll assume the NPC is a liar. Or just have my character look around to see signs that anyone else saw a dragon. Is the entire town in an absolute panic. Well, then it's either a lie or the dragon's friendly. Then I'll wonder why they lied or go to the bar and ask how many drinks that NPC had the night they "saw a dragon". Just like in real life.

If you tell me you saw a spaceship hover over your city center two days ago, I'm going to ask around to see if anyone confirms that. My sense of whether you're being honest or not largely depends on the outrageousness of your claim and how important that fact is to my life going forward. Like if you say you saw Keith Richards doing a line of coke off a hooker's butt, I'll likely say "wow" and go on with my day whether I believe you or not. But the validity of that claim is largely irrelevant to my life going forward. If you say there's an alien spacecraft sucking up people at random I'm going to try to confirm that before I do anything to safeguard myself from the alien menace.

 

[clearstream]

Ah. Yes, indeed the players could decide it’s false unprompted. In my view, that’s a decision about what the character thinks, which should be left up to the players, not the dice. However, having decided that they suspect it’s false, the players could of course decide to do something to try and confirm that - perhaps examining the NPC’s body language and mannerisms to try and discern clues about his intentions. At that point, it might be appropriate to call for a check to resolve the action - I think Wisdom (Insight) contested by Charisma (Deception) would be particularly appropriate. If the player succeeds, they would accomplish their goal of detecting some indication of the NPC’s intentions in their body language, which I would then describe. If they failed, they would not succeed in their goal so I would not describe any such clue, and there would be some consequence for failure - perhaps the NPC notices that the PCs are suspicious of him, and becomes hostile. Whatever the consequence may be, I think it’s best practice for the DM to inform the players of that potential consequence before they commit to making the roll.

I am thinking also of the case where the players do not decide it is false unprompted. So they don't express doubts or enquire further. Does the NPC succeed automatically?

 

[clearstream]

I find it counterintuitive that the first recourse is the mechanics. To me, that's backwards. Fiction first, then mechanics (if needed...and they're generally not needed).

That's a valid mode of play. I don't apply it in D&D, but do in other games. I relish the rules in D&D

If some NPC tells my character they saw something incredible that was or should have been clearly visible to dozens of people, I'm going to have my character ask around town. When literally no one else confirms that story, I'll assume the NPC is a liar. Or just have my character look around to see signs that anyone else saw a dragon. Is the entire town in an absolute panic. Well, then it's either a lie or the dragon's friendly. Then I'll wonder why they lied or go to the bar and ask how many drinks that NPC had the night they "saw a dragon". Just like in real life.

I didn't choose the best example! I agree, were it dragons that might be a big deal. Let's say it is something that would happen to have relevance for the adventurers, but isn't going to shake the local community.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am thinking also of the case where the players do not decide it is false unprompted. So they don't express doubts or enquire further. Does the NPC succeed automatically?

The NPC already succeeded at telling the PCs a thing that isn’t true. If the players think it’s true, then that’s what they think. There’s really nothing there to adjudicate. Of course, I would say that having an NPC tell a lie without any contextual indication that they’re doing so is akin to putting a trap in a dungeon without including any contextual indication of its presence. I believe the common term for it is a “gotcha.”

 

[overgeeked]

That's a valid mode of play. I don't apply it in D&D, but do in other games. I relish the rules in D&D.

To each their own. I basically despise most rules, but especially D&D's rules. They're largely cruft that could be jettisoned and nothing important would be lost. They're a scaffolding that gets in the way more than they help, in my experience.

I didn't choose the best example! I agree, were it dragons that might be a big deal. Let's say it is something that would happen to have relevance for the adventurers, but isn't going to shake the local community.

Well, anything less than utterly catastrophic would matter less and less. So the need to know if it's true or false diminishes. If someone stole a cheese wheel from the cheesemonger...no one but the cheesemonger will care. If your NPC is hiring me to find the cheese wheel, I'll play along as long as I can to get paid, the truth value of the statement be damned.

Bottom line is rolling to find out is kind of a bad crutch. If the player rolls high, they'll assume that whatever you tell them is true. If they roll low, they'll assume that whatever you tell them is false. It's a great way to mess with your players, but as a means to relaying accurate information from the DM to the players, it's really kinda bad.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

My feeling is that it's okay for a GM to roll social skill checks, but players still get to interpret what a result means. I trust players not to completely circumvent a result without a discussion (barring the possibility that I've crossed a line requiring the X-card), and players trust me not to take control of their character away without permission.