D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

I spend as much time correcting typos (or just unclear writing) in previous posts as I do writing new ones.

But by the time you (which is to say, I) fix them, someone has already replied to the un-corrected version

 

[Faolyn]

@iserith has been quite clear that they might use fidgeting as a tell an individual character has, not as an across-the-board indicator of lying. Noticing that this specific character fidgets when they lie is something they’ve said you might learn as the result of a successful Wisdom (Insight) check.

See, that's really not the impression I got at first from them. It was only very recently that iserith started saying that they didn't mean every NPC--even though they had had plenty of chances to correct me early on, or to tell me that I was right when I said to use that as an individual tell, not as a generic catch-all.

If done that way, sure. But keep in mind the whole process here. The DM describes what the character is doing, possibly including some telegraph that something is amiss. You describe your character’s action, with the goal of figuring out if they’re lying. If the result of that action is uncertain, the DM might call for you to make a check. If you succeed in your goal of recognizing that the character is lying, the DM will tell you they’re lying. At no point are you being told that your character thinks the telegraph indicated that the character was lying. That’s something you’re free to put together yourself, or not, as you like.

Sure, normally. But here's what isireth said:

After resolving, say, a Wisdom (Insight) check, then I'm narrating the success or failure of the player's action declaration e.g. "The NPC's fidgeting and stammering indicates a lack of truthfulness..."

So why would I assume in this case that fidgeting and stammering indicate a lack of truthfulness? This isn't isireth saying "you noticed that this NPC fidgets and stammers when he lies." This is outright saying "these things indicate a lie." But as I said, there are many possibilities for both fidgeting and stammering which doesn't include lies at all. But isireth is saying that my character would associate those things with lying.

In addition to fidgeting and stammering, isireth said that on a high roll, the NPC might be looking you straight into the eye. But again, I don't associate a lack of eye contact with lying: not only did I work with developmentally disabled adults for a very long time, many of whom were autistic and didn't like eye contact, but I myself am autistic and don't like eye contact! Now, I suppose I could make a character and give them the trait "looks people straight in the eye to judge their honesty and worth," but really, it's not something I've thought of doing before. So again, isireth is specifically telling me what my character thinks--that this NPC is looking me in the eye and (because of his high Deception roll and my presumably not as good Insight roll) I associate that with honesty.

This is literally the same as "you think he's lying/telling the truth," but with extra description. It's "you think he's lying because he's stammering/telling the truth because he's looking you in the eye." And as I said, I would assume the latter meant that he is lying (because it's a strange detail for the DM to add) or trying to use a gaze attack on me (because it's D&D).

They don’t do it at @iserith’s table because it’s laid out in the table rules that when asked what to do, you declare an action (including goal and approach) not ask a question or request to make an ability check. (Or something along those lines, I don’t know how they word it exactly).

So how exactly would you declare an action with the end goal being to make an Insight check?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Thinking more about this, literally all of @Lanefan's arguments come down to, "But what if somebody is playing in bad faith?" (Which often seems to actually mean, "...playing with a different idea of fun than mine?")

Well, what if the DM is acting in bad faith? What if the DM doesn't want their great plot derailed? What if the DM is overly attached to a favorite NPC? What if the DM thinks a player is being annoying and wants to punish them? What if the DM is bringing in non-D&D grudges? What if, for any of these reasons, the DM decides an NPC is going to persuade/intimidate/deceive/seduce a PC?

Or, how about this: the DM adjudicates how those things work on their characters, and the players adjudicate how those things work on their characters.

 

[Bill Zebub]

See, that's really not the impression I got at first from them. It was only very recently that iserith started saying that they didn't mean every NPC--even though they had had plenty of chances to correct me early on, or to tell me that I was right when I said to use that as an individual tell, not as a generic catch-all.


Sure, normally. But here's what isireth said:


So why would I assume in this case that fidgeting and stammering indicate a lack of truthfulness? This isn't isireth saying "you noticed that this NPC fidgets and stammers when he lies." This is outright saying "these things indicate a lie." But as I said, there are many possibilities for both fidgeting and stammering which doesn't include lies at all. But isireth is saying that my character would associate those things with lying.

In addition to fidgeting and stammering, isireth said that on a high roll, the NPC might be looking you straight into the eye. But again, I don't associate a lack of eye contact with lying: not only did I work with developmentally disabled adults for a very long time, many of whom were autistic and didn't like eye contact, but I myself am autistic and don't like eye contact! Now, I suppose I could make a character and give them the trait "looks people straight in the eye to judge their honesty and worth," but really, it's not something I've thought of doing before. So again, isireth is specifically telling me what my character thinks--that this NPC is looking me in the eye and (because of his high Deception roll and my presumably not as good Insight roll) I associate that with honesty.

This is literally the same as "you think he's lying/telling the truth," but with extra description. It's "you think he's lying because he's stammering/telling the truth because he's looking you in the eye." And as I said, I would assume the latter meant that he is lying (because it's a strange detail for the DM to add) or trying to use a gaze attack on me (because it's D&D).


So how exactly would you declare an action with the end goal being to make an Insight check?

Great! So instead of "he refuses to make eye contact" being a sign of lying, it could also be a sign of spectrum disorder. Now it's not a binary lie detector; it's additional information.

FWIW, though, this is one point where I break with @iserith. (And I suspect it's not a major part of their DMing, anyway.)

Instead of (abbreviating here):
"Do I see any signs of lying?"
"Roll"
"23"
"He's fidgeting."
"Ha! He's lying."

I would prefer:
"Do I see any signs of lying?"
"What are you looking for?"
"I dunno...fidgeting, refusal to make eye contact."
"Roll"
"23"
"Yeah, he's fidgeting and refusing to make eye contact."
"Ha, he's lying!"
(DM, thinking, "Actually, he's autistic and has a bad poison ivy rash.")

 

[iserith]

See, that's really not the impression I got at first from them. It was only very recently that iserith started saying that they didn't mean every NPC--even though they had had plenty of chances to correct me early on, or to tell me that I was right when I said to use that as an individual tell, not as a generic catch-all.


Sure, normally. But here's what isireth said:


So why would I assume in this case that fidgeting and stammering indicate a lack of truthfulness? This isn't isireth saying "you noticed that this NPC fidgets and stammers when he lies." This is outright saying "these things indicate a lie." But as I said, there are many possibilities for both fidgeting and stammering which doesn't include lies at all. But isireth is saying that my character would associate those things with lying.

In addition to fidgeting and stammering, isireth said that on a high roll, the NPC might be looking you straight into the eye. But again, I don't associate a lack of eye contact with lying: not only did I work with developmentally disabled adults for a very long time, many of whom were autistic and didn't like eye contact, but I myself am autistic and don't like eye contact! Now, I suppose I could make a character and give them the trait "looks people straight in the eye to judge their honesty and worth," but really, it's not something I've thought of doing before. So again, isireth is specifically telling me what my character thinks--that this NPC is looking me in the eye and (because of his high Deception roll and my presumably not as good Insight roll) I associate that with honesty.

This is literally the same as "you think he's lying/telling the truth," but with extra description. It's "you think he's lying because he's stammering/telling the truth because he's looking you in the eye." And as I said, I would assume the latter meant that he is lying (because it's a strange detail for the DM to add) or trying to use a gaze attack on me (because it's D&D).


So how exactly would you declare an action with the end goal being to make an Insight check?

Ultimately I think a lot of this thread comes down to people who "use skill checks" not understanding the entire process of play supported by the rules and implemented by people like @Swarmkeeper, @Charlaquin, and myself. It seems like it's basically impossible to break through, as if we're speaking different languages. After over a hundred pages of trying, what else can be said that hasn't been made abundantly clear at this point?

 

[iserith]

Great! So instead of "he refuses to make eye contact" being a sign of lying, it could also be a sign of spectrum disorder. Now it's not a binary lie detector; it's additional information.

FWIW, though, this is one point where I break with @iserith. (And I suspect it's not a major part of their DMing, anyway.)

Instead of (abbreviating here):
"Do I see any signs of lying?"
"Roll"
"23"
"He's fidgeting."
"Ha! He's lying."

I would prefer:
"Do I see any signs of lying?"
"What are you looking for?"
"I dunno...fidgeting, refusal to make eye contact."
"Roll"
"23"
"Yeah, he's fidgeting and refusing to make eye contact."
"Ha, he's lying!"
(DM, thinking, "Actually, he's autistic and has a bad poison ivy rash.")

In my games, I say and describe things as they are. The players describe actions. Roll, if any. Then narrate result. But the result has to reflect the action the player described. If a Wisdom (Insight) check is applied to resolve the action in the example, then the action must have been in line with what the rules say a Wisdom (Insight) check resolves. Hence, truthfulness or lack thereof is confirmed by the body language, speech habits, or mannerisms already described. The problem, I think, is that the "use skills" posters conflate check with action and vice versa, rather than consider what described action must have prompted the call for a check in the first place. So when short-handing or glossing over it in the example with an expectation the other person gets the process, suddenly it's "You're saying what my character thinks!" No, in fact, I'm acknowledging and narrating the result of the action you yourself just described!

Or something like that. Again, it's like we're speaking different languages. And more fool me for thinking an example would bring any sort of clarity to the discussion.

 

[Charlaquin]

So how exactly would you declare an action with the end goal being to make an Insight check?

I wouldn’t, because my goal is not to make checks but to accomplish things in the world, which a check might be required for me to be able to do, but automatic success will allow me to do. So, I would ask myself “what do I hope will happen if I succeed on the check?” Whatever the answer is, that’s my goal. So, in this case “I want to try and figure out if the character is lying.” Then I would ask myself “by what means is my character most likely to be able to accomplish that goal?” One important factor in answering that question is what my character will have a good chance of succeeding at if a roll ends up being necessary. So, for example, if I’m trained in Insight, I know I’ll have a better chance of succeeding if I can apply that proficiency than if I can’t, so I might want to use an approach that (to quote the PHB entry on the Insight skill) “involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.” Another important factor is details of the environment. So, if the DM has described the NPC as fidgeting, I know that could relate to one of this NPC’s personal characteristics - even if the DM doesn’t give their NPCs BIFTs, that fidget is still a potential “in” that I can use to try and achieve my goals.

Putting this all together, I might describe an action such as “I try to figure out if he’s lying by watching for if there’s a pattern to when he fidgets.” The worst thing that could happen is I have to make a check. The best thing that could happen is I find out he’s lying without having to make a check.

 

[Charlaquin]

And because I anticipate someone is going to say this: no, automatic failure is not the worst possible outcome, because automatic failure generally means no change in circumstances. If I can’t learn if the character is lying by watching for patterns in his fidgeting, I lose nothing for trying. I didn’t know if he was lying before, and I don’t know if he’s lying after. But because failed checks come with a cost or consequence, I do stand to lose something on a failed check.

 

[Seramus]

Heck, some people even consider failure to be interesting. A new quirk or direction for the plot to go!

 

[Charlaquin]

Heck, some people even consider failure to be interesting. A new quirk or direction for the plot to go!

True! Although if I’m honest, an interesting failure is a consolation prize. I want to succeed. I want my character to accomplish their goals. I don’t mind when they fail because, on a macro level, the game is more interesting if the characters fail some of the time than if they always succeed. But on the micro level, I would always rather succeed at any individual action or goal than fail at it.

And that tension between wanting to succeed at any given individual challenge, but also wanting an interesting story where the characters experience setbacks as well as victories, is why we use dice. They provide us with the opportunity to fail and experience setbacks based on factors beyond our control. So we can dedicate all our efforts to trying to succeed, and still fail sometimes, without it feeling arbitrary.