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

[iserith]

No, they cant.

I mean they could, but that shithouse 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 play the character accordingly.

If my NPC fails my Insight vs your PCs Deception, I'll do the exact same thing.

The player always determines what the character thinks, does, and says. They are not compelled to act in any particular way when they are unable to tell if the NPC is lying. A failed Wisdom (Insight) check does not indicate the character believes anything in particular, only that they were not able to detect any untruthfulness in the NPC given observation.

In addition, there is no prerequisite to guarding the door or disabling it. Those things can happen whether Han believes the voice or not (as established by the character) or even if that entire exchange over the intercom never happened. But imagine after failing the check, Han's player says, "Ha! Pulled one over on that guy. Chewie, guard the door in case someone else happens to wander in here and spoil our plans." No good?

 

[Flamestrike]

The player always determines what the character thinks, does, and says.

I agree.

And the Player is required to roleplay that Character, and also not to act on Player knowledge (or else that is metagaming).

If my NPC (Intimidate +10) attempts to Intimidate a PC, with a DC set at 15 (total roll 25) is that PC obliged to roleplay his PC being intimidated (fearful, compliant etc)?

Yes or No?

Han's player says, "Ha! Pulled one over on that guy. Chewie, guard the door in case someone else happens to wander in here and spoil our plans." No good?

Yeah, that's fine. Makes sense in character for him to do so, having regards to Han believing the lie. They are in the Death Star after all.

As long as the player plays the character believing the lie, and doesnt attempt to metagame, that's the important part.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Han's player says, "Ha! Pulled one over on that guy. Chewie, guard the door in case someone else happens to wander in here and spoil our plans." No good?

And of course with an adversarial DM who is trying to dictate what you are/not allowed to do, it makes total sense to express it this way, even if what the player is really thinking is, "I failed my Deception test."

That's one of the many problems with metagame thought policing: it encourages players to be disingenuous about what they are doing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If my NPC (Intimidate +10) attempts to Intimidate a PC, with a DC set at 15 (total roll 25) is that PC obliged to roleplay being intimidated?

Yes or No?

Not in a million years.

Unless the player decided he/she wasn't sure how they want to respond to an NPC attempt to intimidate them, and asked the DM to make a roll. In that case I would consider the result binding just from a social contract standpoint.

 

[Flamestrike]

And of course with an adversarial DM who is trying to dictate what you are/not allowed to do, it makes total sense to express it this way, even if what the player is really thinking is, "I failed my Deception test."

That's one of the many problems with metagame thought policing: it encourages players to be disingenuous about what they are doing.

No, see my reply above.

There is nothing 'adversarial DM' about it. I trust my players to play their character accordingly, and to not metagame. I'm not forcing them to act in a certain way, just informing them that their PC finds the statement by the NPC to be (very Persuasive, Truthful, or Scary) depending on the social skill used, and then trusting them to play their character accordingly.

Just like I do as DM when they use their social skills on my NPCs.

Its a question of mutual trust. It's quite the opposite of the players and DM being 'adversarial' towards each other.

 

[Flamestrike]

Not in a million years.

Fine, then my NPCs are also not required to react appropriately to PC Social skill checks either.

Or both parties can trust each other to actually roleplay the damn game.

If an NPC rolls high on a Persuasion check vs your PC, I trust you to play your PC as if they reacted favorably to that request, just like you trust me to do as DM when you roll high on Persuasion against my NPCs.

 

[iserith]

I agree.

And the Player is required to roleplay that Character, and also not to act on Player knowledge (or else that is metagaming).

If my NPC (Intimidate +10) attempts to Intimidate a PC, with a DC set at 15 (total roll 25) is that PC obliged to roleplay being intimidated?

Yes or No?

Neither. There can't even be a DC or a roll because there's no uncertainty as to the outcome since whatever the player says is how the character reacts. No uncertainty, no ability check for the NPC in the first place. The DM describes the NPC's attempt to be intimidating and the player describes their response, whatever they like. Perhaps they have a flaw that says, "I turn tail and run when things look bad," and they opt to run away. Or a personality trait that says "I blow up at the slight insult" in which case they give the NPC a bit of intimidation back. Either of those could be worth Inspiration.

And anyway, in the example, Han's the one attempting to determine truthfulness through observation, the outcome of which the example's DM determined was uncertain with a meaningful consequence for failure, hence the roll (with the DC set by the NPC's Charisma (Deception) check result). Han failed it, so he was not able to make any determination and is left to decide what to do in the face of not knowing for sure. The player might decide Han believes the voice, perhaps drawing on a flaw of "I'm convinced that no one could ever fool me the way I fool others." Or instead draw on a different flaw that says "I am suspicious of strangers and expect the worst of them..." and have Chewie guard the door just to be safe. Those might even earn Inspiration.

In addition, there is no prerequisite to guarding the door or disabling it. Those things can happen whether Han believes the voice or not (as established by the character) or even if that entire exchange over the intercom never happened. But imagine after failing the check, Han's player says, "Ha! Pulled one over on that guy. Chewie, guard the door in case someone else happens to wander in here and spoil our plans." No good?

So, good or no good?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Fine, then my NPCs are also not required to react appropriately to PC Social skill checks either.

Or both parties can trust each other to actually roleplay the damn game.

If an NPC rolls high on a Persuasion check vs your PC, I trust you to play your PC as if they reacted favorably to that request, just like you trust me to do as DM when you roll high on Persuasion against my NPCs.

Yes, it's 100% reciprocal. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

If I try to persuade/intimidate/deceive one of your NPCs, you should first determine if I succeed or fail automatically. If the outcome is uncertain, you should ask me to make some kind of roll.

Similarly, if one of your NPCs tries to persuade/intimidate/deceive my character, I will first determine whether it automatically succeeds or fails. Maybe I should repeat that: I will first decide whether it automatically succeeds or fails.

You weren't talking about making it asymmetric, were you, where the DM both gets to describe goal and approach for an NPC and decide that it's uncertain and set the DC for the PC target? If so, I guess I'll go take a bio break while you play D&D with yourself because I'm apparently extraneous.

 

[Flamestrike]

Neither. There can't even be a DC or a roll because there's no uncertainty as to the outcome since whatever the player says is how the character reacts. No uncertainty, no ability check for the NPC in the first place.

So social skills on monsters in the PHB dont actually do anything?

Would your position be different if the Intimidate skill expressly granted the Frightened condition on a DC 15, instead of requiring the PC to simply act scared?

Would you allow it to be used vs the PC then?

If so, what is the difference between the two examples? How on earth are they in any way consistent?

 

[Flamestrike]

If I try to persuade/intimidate/deceive one of your NPCs, you should first determine if I succeed or fail automatically. If the outcome is uncertain, you should ask me to make some kind of roll.

And then when I set the DC, and you succeed, I'll just ignore your roll and do what the NPCs were going to do anyway, because 'whats good for the goose is good for the gander'.

Similarly, if one of your NPCs tries to persuade/intimidate/deceive my character, I will first determine whether it automatically succeeds or fails.

Nah. The DM sets the DC for skill checks. Not the player. The players trust the DM to do so fairly.