D&D 5E Charisma to prevent giving out info during interrogation?

[Bill Zebub]

In my games, unless magically compelled, the players decide what their characters think, say, and do, full stop.

Yup. If the player wants to roll some dice because they can't decide quite what to do, fine, but I won't enforce any result of those dice. How they interpret it is up to them.

If they imagine their character being able to withstand the pain, that's their call. If they imagine their character folding like a wet newspaper, that's their call.

 

[ECMO3]

In my games, unless magically compelled, the players decide what their characters think, say, and do, full stop.

Players can give out information they don't want to give out without telling someone.

That is most of what the deception skill is about. You lie to the town watch and say it was someone else that broke into the kings treasury - deception check vs insight.

If you fail you still "gave out information" and let the watch know it was you even though you said it was not you.

 

[iserith]

Players can give out information they don't want to give out without telling someone.

That is most of what the deception skill is about. You lie to the town watch and say it was someone else that broke into the kings treasury - deception check vs insight.

If you fail you still "gave out information" and let the watch know it was you even though you said it was not you.

At best, an NPC can discern that a PC is lying on a failed check. But that's all. And it's still the player's choice to lie and take the risk. That's a different scenario than an NPC putting the thumbscrew to the PC and me saying the PC gives up the goods, roll or no roll.

 

[Asisreo]

At best, an NPC can discern that a PC is lying on a failed check. But that's all. And it's still the player's choice to lie and take the risk. That's a different scenario than an NPC putting the thumbscrew to the PC and me saying the PC gives up the goods, roll or no roll.

I suppose it depends on perspective. The reason why you have players roll for deception isn't that something is compelling them to be conspicuous, it's that they have a chance of involuntarily messing up somehow and they are putting in efforts to seem genuine.

If you're perspective is that the characters can easily choose to remain silent, then it makes sense that you'd have the players decide.

 

[iserith]

I suppose it depends on perspective. The reason why you have players roll for deception isn't that something is compelling them to be conspicuous, it's that they have a chance of involuntarily messing up somehow and they are putting in efforts to seem genuine.

If you're perspective is that the characters can easily choose to remain silent, then it makes sense that you'd have the players decide.

The reason for the roll, if there's a roll at all, is that there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure given the attempted task in context. It could be for any number of reasons that the outcome is uncertain and any number of consequences may happen upon failure (including progress combined with a setback rather than outright failure to deceive), not just what you say above.

The players get to decide whether to tell the truth, lie, or remain silent. What I can't do as DM is say their character gave up some bit of information because they're being tortured. That's for the player to say.

 

[Yora]

I would say Wisdom applies to not revealing anything.
Charisma applies to making the interrogators think you don't know anything.

 

[Reynard]

Everyone breaks eventually, but that doesn't mean they are truthful. Instead, they tend to tell the Inquisition what it wants to hear just to get the screws to stop turning.

If I were inclined to try and model it in game (which I probably wouldn't be) I would use a PF1E condition track that you can't escape and with an ever increasing penalty. That way all a victim can do is hold out long enough to escape or die.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I suppose it depends on perspective. The reason why you have players roll for deception isn't that something is compelling them to be conspicuous, it's that they have a chance of involuntarily messing up somehow and they are putting in efforts to seem genuine.

Sure, there’s a chance they’ll succumb. And a chance they’ll stay strong. I’m happy to let the player decide what those chances are, and how it resolves.

If you're perspective is that the characters can easily choose to remain silent, then it makes sense that you'd have the players decide.

Is there an unspoken assumption that players will decide their characters will remain silent for purely gamist reasons? And, sure, they might. My view is that:
1) I don’t want to waste time and emotional energy worrying about player motivations.
2) If I DM myself into a corner where the outcome of the interrogation is going to have a major impact on the story, that’s my fault. I’m not going to take away player agency to fix my mistake.

 

[Asisreo]

The reason for the roll, if there's a roll at all, is that there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure given the attempted task in context. It could be for any number of reasons that the outcome is uncertain and any number of consequences may happen upon failure (including progress combined with a setback rather than outright failure to deceive), not just what you say above.

The players get to decide whether to tell the truth, lie, or remain silent. What I can't do as DM is say their character gave up some bit of information because they're being tortured. That's for the player to say.

Is there an unspoken assumption that players will decide their characters will remain silent for purely gamist reasons? And, sure, they might. My view is that:
1) I don’t want to waste time and emotional energy worrying about player motivations.
2) If I DM myself into a corner where the outcome of the interrogation is going to have a major impact on the story, that’s my fault. I’m not going to take away player agency to fix my mistake.

Hmm...I appreciate the elaboration of your personal DM style, but let me steer the question in a different direction with an example and perspective-shift.

Imagine you're playing a game and you've been captured by a fiend. The fiend is under oath that they cannot kill any humanoids, but they use a loophole to torture you for information. You provoked the fiend, purposefully, but you didn't know that the fiend was as strong as they were.

As a player, you don't actually know the fiend can't kill you, but you are aware that I, the DM, has promised in session 0 that I wouldn't outright kill without reasonable opportunity to survive.

During the interrogation, would you willingly give up information, be it correct or incorrect?

And if I, the DM, told you to make some form of roll with a DC 13 to not say anything, would you feel that unacceptable?

Also, in this model, if you fail the roll, your character is free to say anything the player chooses, they just can't stay quiet.

 

[iserith]

Hmm...I appreciate the elaboration of your personal DM style, but let me steer the question in a different direction with an example and perspective-shift.

Imagine you're playing a game and you've been captured by a fiend. The fiend is under oath that they cannot kill any humanoids, but they use a loophole to torture you for information. You provoked the fiend, purposefully, but you didn't know that the fiend was as strong as they were.

As a player, you don't actually know the fiend can't kill you, but you are aware that I, the DM, has promised in session 0 that I wouldn't outright kill without reasonable opportunity to survive.

During the interrogation, would you willingly give up information, be it correct or incorrect?

I might or I might not, depending on whether I thought either choice would be more fun and contribute to an exciting, memorable story. As a player, I don't have a predetermined choice here.

And if I, the DM, told you to make some form of roll with a DC 13 to not say anything, would you feel that unacceptable?

Also, in this model, if you fail the roll, your character is free to say anything the player chooses, they just can't stay quiet.

I would find that to be an unacceptable intrusion upon my right to play my character as I see fit. If you want that to be a thing that happens, make it into a spell or the like, give me a saving throw, and some sense of what is at stake so I can make an informed decision about what resources I want to spend to avoid a bad result (Inspiration, for example).