D&D General Should players be aware of their own high and low rolls?

[Bill Zebub]

And if the Voice on the radio (in reaction to Hans failed Deception check) instead said:

Voice: Roger. We'll hold off until you get that leak sorted. Good luck down there! (Secretly dispatches a Stormtrooper squad to the Detention level)

Han only gets to react with a Plan B if he succeeds on an Insight check vs the Voice (or I fail my Deception check with my lie v Han's passive Insight).

Barring a successful insight check from Han (or a failed Deception check by the Voice) far as Han is aware, his lie worked.

I'm also fine if the player suspects stormtroopers are coming and acts on that. For two reasons:
1) It's completely plausible for a player (or a real person) to realize their lie came out badly.
2) Either story path is totally fine. Why is it so important that someone's notion of what's "realistic" is the path that gets chosen?

One thing I think about is how many different outcomes are possible. If you look at the four possiblities: known positive, known negative, false positive, and false negative, how many are supported?

The version where the player believes (incorrectly) that his lie works is still possible with this approach. He might have rolled a 10, and with his bonus thinks he's probably rolled well enough, but is wrong. Or he might have rolled a 15 and think he's totally got it nailed, not realizing the person on the other end has a voice stress analyzer that gives him a huge bonus.

But if the DM is ruling that the player cannot use knowledge of their die roll result, under what scenario is it possible for the character to know they lied badly?

Everyone is entitled to play however they want, of course, and if somebody wants to pretend they don't know they failed the roll (and sometimes I'll do that, too, if it seems especially fun) but in my opinion, and at my table, nobody gets to decide that except the player.

 

[iserith]

Barring a successful insight check from Han (or a failed Deception check by the Voice) far as Han is aware, his lie worked.

Yep, they could choose to have the character think that, if the player wanted. They could choose to have the character act as if it didn't work, too.

 

[Irlo]

How?! It can't be due to background, skills, game play or prior roleplay. Where is this knowledge coming from?

This is just more, "Maybe they might disagree" without telling a how. What outside of the things above is giving this player the idea that his PC knows something?

There very easily can be a difference in expectation about what is common knowledge in the fantasy world. What do PCs know about religions, about factions, about monsters and their proclivities, about geography and history, etc.? The disagreement can be based on those mis-matched assumptions.

 

[Mort]

And if the Voice on the radio (in reaction to Hans failed Deception check) instead said:

Voice: Roger. We'll hold off until you get that leak sorted. Good luck down there! (Secretly dispatches a Stormtrooper squad to the Detention level)

Han only gets to react with a Plan B if he succeeds on an Insight check vs the Voice (or I fail my Deception check with my lie v Han's passive Insight).

Barring a successful insight check from Han (or a failed Deception check by the Voice) far as Han is aware, his lie worked.

This is the disconnect.

Sure the PC thinks the lie worked. But that doesn't mean he had to act in a way the DM wants. The player controls the PCs actions and is free to act, even nonsensically. There are likely consequences for doing so, for example the PC reacts like the lie failed even though by all indications it worked - he may have sabotaged his own efforts!

If DMs position is that the player MUST act a certain way, In essence, the DM is acting for the player to some degree. This crosses a BIG line at some tables.

 

[iserith]

This is the disconnect.

Sure the PC thinks the lie worked. But that doesn't mean he had to act in a way the DM wants. The player controls the PCs actions and is free to act, even nonsensically. There are likely consequences for doing so, for example the PC reacts like the lie failed even though by all indications it worked - he may have sabotaged his own efforts!

If DMs position is that the player MUST act a certain way, In essence, the DM is acting for the player to some degree. This crosses a BIG line at some tables.

All Han really knows is that he couldn't tell if the voice was lying. That still leaves open the possibility they are lying. Han might guard the door as a result, just to be safe, or disable the door to bar the way in. Han might be wasting valuable time doing either of those things if it turns out the voice wasn't lying which could jeopardize his mission. But that's Han's player's risk to take!

 

[Bill Zebub]

All Han really knows is that he couldn't tell if the voice was lying. That still leaves open the possibility they are lying. Han might guard the door as a result, just to be safe, or disable the door to bar the way in. Han might be wasting valuable time doing either of those things if it turns out the voice wasn't lying which could jeopardize his mission. But that's Han's player's risk to take!

Alternately, Han's player could let the GM play Han for him, while he goes to the kitchen to look for more beer.

 

[iserith]

Alternately, Han's player could let the GM play Han for him, while he goes to the kitchen to look for more beer.

Yeah, the DM can play Han... Solo.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm also fine if the player suspects stormtroopers are coming and acts on that.

The player can suspect it all he wants. His character cant; that's what Insight is for (and he failed his insight roll vs the Voices deception).

Playing his character otherwise, is metagaming, and I dont allow that at my table.

 

[Flamestrike]

This is the disconnect.

Sure the PC thinks the lie worked. But that doesn't mean he had to act in a way the DM wants.

No, the Player plays the character that believes the lie.

Just like the DM plays the NPC that believes the lie (on a successful Deception check from a player).

The Player failed his insight check on behalf of his Character and plays the character accordingly (disregarding what the Player knows, or suspects); as a person who thinks he was just told the truth.

If the Player is acting on Player knowledge or suspicion, he's metagaming. He should be acting based on what his character knows to be true (such as from a failed Insight v Deception check).

 

[Flamestrike]

Yep, they could choose to have the character think that, if the player wanted. They could choose to have the character act as if it didn't work, too.

No, they cant.

I mean they could, but that's poor roleplaying, in addition to being metagaming, and has no place at my table.

If your PC fails his Insight vs a Deception, the PC believes the lie to be true, and the Player should roleplay the character accordingly.

If my NPC fails my Insight vs your PCs Deception, I'll do the exact same thing. Roleplay the NPC believing the lie, and acting accordingly.