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

[MostlyHarmless42]

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.

This still doesn't address my core concern from earlier then: how to you propose you avoid punishing players who are not naturally charismatic? Why should an autistic or socially anxious player be effectively barred from playing a charisma character when we don't require the fighter to actually learn to sword fight or force the wizard to perform calculus every time they want to prepare a spell? Why should a DM's entire group suffer in every roleplaying/investigation encounter simply because their DM isn't a professional voice actor or an author in breadth of vocabulary? Or why should that same DM effectively be barred from having any deceptive villains simply because their poker face doesn't match that of a trained master spy?

Or the opposite on the player side of things: why should the minmaxing player get the benefits of all their characters having an 18 charisma simply because the player themselves is a born liar/manipulator even if they've loudly declared at the table that "charisma is worthless and their dump stat"?

I'm not talking in hyperbole here. I want you to answer these questions because frankly your posts seem to indicate a frankly outrageous expectation for most players in terms of mental stats and it borders dangerously on ableism.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Given your notion that differences in the rules are stylistic, it will be difficult for us to make progress. As that seems to argue that differences in wording may be arbitrarily free of meaning.

My take is that Intimidation and Persuasion must be seen in one light, given their parallel wording, and Performance and Deception in another, again down to their parallel wording.

Thank you for the discussion.

 

[clearstream]

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

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.

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.

I suggest that depends on whether you take 5th edition to be a simulation. For me, it is enough that Insight reads:

Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.

In the world of 5th edition, you can determine the true intentions of a creature from body language, speech habits and changes in mannerisms. Perhaps we really should imagine that every creature in the game-world has some measure of telepathy A DM is encouraged to change anything - rules included - that doesn't deliver on how they picture their game-world.

 

[Lyxen]

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.

I'm curious to understand why you think this is the case. In particular the play loop clearly indicates that some actions are initiated by the NPCs controlled by the DM...

 

[Lanefan]

I'm curious to understand why you think this is the case. In particular the play loop clearly indicates that some actions are initiated by the NPCs controlled by the DM...

I guess I see the play loop as not being quite as formal a structure as some seem to.

Yes some "actions" are initiated by NPCs but in those cases that initiation almost invariably takes the form of me-as-DM describing what they're doing and then seeing if there's any player-side reaction or response.

Edit to add: the above is unclear as hell - let me try again.

In the example of the potentially-lying NPC, I-as-DM say what the NPC says and then if there's anything to add on e.g. "She looked uncomfortable while saying that" I say that too. I then stop there and see if there's any player-side response e.g. "Sure, ma'am, whatever you say!" or "I don't entirely believe her - I think she's lying", and in turn I reply to that response. But the action of trying to tell if she's lying has to come from the players, not from me.

If the players don't respond then I assume either a) they've been fooled or b) my speech-as-NPC has bored them all to sleep (wouldn't be the first time!) and in either case I just carry on.

 

[Lyxen]

I guess I see the play loop as not being quite as formal a structure as some seem to.

I think I agree with you there, which is why I was wondering why NPC-Initiated actions should be available at any point in time (except probably during the more rigid combat phase where these are mostly during the NPC/Monster turn, although they are also allowed reactions or special actions like legendary ones.)

Yes some "actions" are initiated by NPCs but in those cases that initiation almost invariably takes the form of me-as-DM describing what they're doing and then seeing if there's any player-side reaction or response.

I see no problem with that at all, rather the contrary, it makes for a living world.

Edit to add: the above is unclear as hell - let me try again.

In the example of the potentially-lying NPC, I-as-DM say what the NPC says and then if there's anything to add on e.g. "She looked uncomfortable while saying that" I say that too. I then stop there and see if there's any player-side response e.g. "Sure, ma'am, whatever you say!" or "I don't entirely believe her - I think she's lying", and in turn I reply to that response. But the action of trying to tell if she's lying has to come from the players, not from me.

But the initial attempt at deception comes from you, and it's absolutely symmetrical when a PC tries to lie to an NPC, right ?

If the players don't respond then I assume either a) they've been fooled or b) my speech-as-NPC has bored them all to sleep (wouldn't be the first time!) and in either case I just carry on.

Which is the same thing for the PCs when trying to lie to an NPC, if nothing untoward happens, they just carry on...

 

[Hriston]

Given your notion that differences in the rules are stylistic, it will be difficult for us to make progress. As that seems to argue that differences in wording may be arbitrarily free of meaning.

My take is that Intimidation and Persuasion must be seen in one light, given their parallel wording, and Performance and Deception in another, again down to their parallel wording.

Thank you for the discussion.

You haven’t, as far as I can tell, said what you think those lights are, so I don’t see what kind of discussion could be had about it.

 

[Argyle King]

Can a NPC lie? Yes

While figuring that out is most often accompanied by a PC rolling, I believe there are some circumstances under which the NPC's skill at deception is relevant to determining how difficult the PC's roll may be.

There are some circumstances in which I would handle the situation as an opposed roll.

Is a PC required to believe a lie? No

A roll to deceive simply means that the PCs cannot determine whether the NPC is lying. A player could still decide to not believe what the NPC says.

Likewise, I could roll a perception check and fail to notice enemies hiding in a room, but still not feel comfortable walking into the room without my shield raised.

 

[S'mon]

This still doesn't address my core concern from earlier then: how to you propose you avoid punishing players who are not naturally charismatic? Why should an autistic or socially anxious player be effectively barred from playing a charisma character when we don't require the fighter to actually learn to sword fight or force the wizard to perform calculus every time they want to prepare a spell? Why should a DM's entire group suffer in every roleplaying/investigation encounter simply because their DM isn't a professional voice actor or an author in breadth of vocabulary? Or why should that same DM effectively be barred from having any deceptive villains simply because their poker face doesn't match that of a trained master spy?

Or the opposite on the player side of things: why should the minmaxing player get the benefits of all their characters having an 18 charisma simply because the player themselves is a born liar/manipulator even if they've loudly declared at the table that "charisma is worthless and their dump stat"?

I'm not talking in hyperbole here. I want you to answer these questions because frankly your posts seem to indicate a frankly outrageous expectation for most players in terms of mental stats and it borders dangerously on ableism.

Does the game challenge player abilities? If so, which abilities? Old school D&D definitely seems designed to challenge player mental abilities, just like the war games it grew out of. An RPG doesn't have to do that, but it's certainly a well established play mode. A particular game might challenge player abilities at deception, persuasion etc. Or it might not. Neither approach seems wrong to me.

 

[clearstream]

You haven’t, as far as I can tell, said what you think those lights are, so I don’t see what kind of discussion could be had about it.

The designers are more definite on Deception and Performance. Go ahead and do this, they say. Frank assertion: this is what your check does.

On Intimidation and Persuation, they hedge. You might do this, they say. There's an implication that there are many circumstances where you will decide not to.

That view is buttressed by comments by the designers about these rules elsewhere, such as Sage Advice.