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

[overgeeked]

Generally in games, that is one of the uses of randomisation: to take into account the vast number of factors that are supposed to be true in the game-world, but that we have no complete access to.

So my character - living in the world - with say the Observant feat and 20 Wisdom - might notice a lie even if I clearstream at the table didn't notice the DM winking because I was intensely thinking about something else at that particular moment.

That's the crux of my issue with it. Short of telepathy, no one can know if something's a lie just by listen to the speaker or watching their face and body language. You're interpreting various things about the other person and extrapolating what those things mean...but not only do you not actually know what they mean, it's impossible for you to know what they mean...short of telepathy. WIS 20 and the observant feat are not telepathy. An insight check isn't telepathy. So whether the character thinks someone is lying or not is entirely up to the player to decide. There's no roll they can make that will reveal the objective truth of the matter...short of telepathy and/or magic.

 

[clearstream]

That's the crux of my issue with it. Short of telepathy, no one can know if something's a lie just by listen to the speaker or watching their face and body language. You're interpreting various things about the other person and extrapolating what those things mean...but not only do you not actually know what they mean, it's impossible for you to know what they mean...short of telepathy. WIS 20 and the observant feat are not telepathy. An insight check isn't telepathy. So whether the character thinks someone is lying or not is entirely up to the player to decide. There's no roll they can make that will reveal the objective truth of the matter...short of telepathy and/or magic.

Agreed, they don't know the objective truth. They do know - if their passive is good enough - that something could be up. What they do with that is up to them.

 

[billd91]

Based on what? The person's history and experience. We're really, really bad about being biased by our history and experience. We're also really, really good at jumping to conclusions and filling in the blanks, as it were. So you and I are talking and I say something but a tiny smile creeps across my face...which makes you instantly think I'm lying. Could be that I've had a stomach pain most of the day and I just silently farted, releasing whatever tension was in my stomach. Could be that I had a stray thought about a happy memory so the smile crept in. Could be that I saw someone in the distance behind you that I recognize. The facts are: we're talking and I smiled when I said something. What that means is an objective truth for me and a complete mystery for you. And there's no way to bridge that gap. All you can do is ask me. Then judge for yourself whether it's true or not. A simple roll certainly wouldn't overcome that gulf.

Wouldn’t do much about picking a lock, finding a secret door, or all sorts of other things. So why is this different?

 

[overgeeked]

Wouldn’t do much about picking a lock, finding a secret door, or all sorts of other things. So why is this different?

Because picking a lock is a physical skill you can learn. So is searching for secret doors. Telepathy is not.

 

[Lanefan]

Other.

The mechanics referenced do not exist in my game. If a player/PC thinks there's a deception or similar going on then they can make a perception roll of some sort, but the impetus comes from the player side, not the DM.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, I do much the same. Doesn't seem to stop my players though.

Well, sure, if the players are willing to take that risk, that’s their decision to make.

 

[Hriston]

The wording is in my view genuinely ambiguous. Much hinges on "might". The discussion is about what the text best supports.


Two views have been taken of how to understand "might" in this context.

1. There will be cases in which the DM can call for a check. And there will be cases in which the DM cannot call for a check. Might in this cases means something like - it might happen that a DM is able to call for a check, and if so they might do so.
2. DM can call for a check, but needn't always. Might in this case means it's up to DM.

Proponents of the first view believe that in some cases it is impossible for a DM to call for a check. My stance is that it is always up to the DM whether they decide to call for a check or not, based on surrounding factors (challenges, consequences). This is not to say that I expect a DM to normally call for a check, but our game is very broad - all kinds of circumstances can come into play. So I simply leave it up to DM to manage rules, and players to manage their characters.

Okay, but you seemed to be putting some weight of meaning on the absence of the word might under Deception, and I have no idea what you think that signifies now. I note that it is similarly absent under Performance which follows the same formula. My take is that the variation in the phrasing of the skill descriptions is for stylistic purposes, to avoid monotony, and nothing more.

 

[overgeeked]

Agreed, they don't know the objective truth. They do know - if their passive is good enough - that something could be up. What they do with that is up to them.

The problem is whatever you say as the DM tends to be taken as objective truth. Or you resort to "signalling" words like "seems" "appears" "probably" etc which will perk up the players' ears and cause them to dig in, much like failing a check to search for secret doors. "He's lying" is different than "he appears to be lying" which is different than "he's telling the truth" which is different than "he appears to be telling the truth". Lying and telling the truth are objective statements from the DM that the character simply cannot know short of telepathy or magic. Which only leaves "appears" or similar signalling words. So if that's the only reasonable or valid response you have as the DM, an NPC appears to be telling the truth or appears to be lying...why bother with a check or even a passive skill? Just give the player that info or let them decide for themselves, which they can still do regardless of the roll or what you tell them. So again, there's no purpose to the check. It doesn't actually reveal any solid info. It's a gut check, basically. The player has a gut, they can use it.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Almost literally every single player I've ever played with in nearly 40 years of gaming...yes. Lots of games. Lots of people. Lots of years. There's been maybe...maybe a handful that didn't.

Yeah, that’s something I have experienced as well. It stopped being a problem when I started using timekeeping and periodic checks for complications to insure failure on such actions always has a meaningful consequence. Sure, you can have everyone search the wall in turn until someone rolls high - it’s not unreasonable for a character to be able to assess their own performance on a task and perhaps ask for help if they feel they’ve done a poor job. But, that time you spend doing so is bringing you ever-closer to the next roll for complications. While you’re taking your time going over a section of wall with a fine-toothed comb, monsters are wandering the dungeon and might run into you.

You both have my deepest condolences. I've seen the occasional player act like this, and I've found it can be somewhat disruptive when they do.

That's the crux of my issue with it. Short of telepathy, no one can know if something's a lie just by listen to the speaker or watching their face and body language.

Isn't that specifically one of the things that Wisdom (Insight) is listed as doing.

You're interpreting various things about the other person and extrapolating what those things mean...but not only do you not actually know what they mean, it's impossible for you to know what they mean...short of telepathy. WIS 20 and the observant feat are not telepathy. An insight check isn't telepathy. So whether the character thinks someone is lying or not is entirely up to the player to decide. There's no roll they can make that will reveal the objective truth of the matter...short of telepathy and/or magic.

They're're not going to get the objective truth of the matter. But by reading body language, speech habits and changes in mannerisms, a character may be able to tell whether what something someone is telling you is what they subjectively believe is the truth, or whether they are trying to deceive you.
Realising that someone is lying doesn't always tell you what the actual truth is.

 

[overgeeked]

They're not going to get the objective truth of the matter.

Except impossible knowledge that the NPC is in fact lying or in fact telling the truth.

But by reading body language, speech habits and changes in mannerisms, a character may be able to tell whether what something someone is telling you is what they subjectively believe is the truth, or whether they are trying to deceive you.

Not really, no. It's all 100% interpretation. There's nothing objective about it. You can't listen to a person and know they're lying without magic or telepathy. You can think they're lying or think they're telling the truth. That's not the same as objectively knowing for a fact that they're lying or telling the truth.

Realising that someone is lying doesn't always tell you what the actual truth is.

It's a guess that they're lying. Not a realization. Not knowledge. Not objective fact. It's literally impossible to determine if someone's lying by watching or listening to them speak...without telepathy or magic.