NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[TaranTheWanderer]

Edit: this ^

You RP your interaction with the PCs.

If the PCs ask if there are any 'tells' that the NPC is deceiving them, you have the NPCs deception roll (rolled prior to the encounter - or set a passive DC - ) against their insight.

Then you can say, "there's something fishy about what they're saying" or "they are leaving out something" or "they aren't telling you everything."

But you don't say,

"you believe everything they say."

I mean, the NPC could be telling the full truth and the PCs will still think they're lying. You don't control that. Chances are, though, that the PCs will be skeptical of whatever the NPC is saying and will ask for a roll - or describe how they're trying to asking leading questions to get the NPC to slip up. If they successfully make an appropriate check, you can give them a hint. Otherwise, you say, "You can't tell if they're lying or not." or "Their story seems legit".

It's still up to them to believe the NPC.

 

[billd91]

I think deception is different from fear and similar effects in that fear is a gut reaction whereas deception operates at an intellectual level.

From an in-game perspective, there is no difference. Gut reaction vs intellectual level is just a rationalization. In both cases, the NPC makes a check, the PC makes a defensive one. Moreover, it's largely how this sort of thing works against NPCs.

From a practical perspective in administering a game, it's true that you can't really enforce this kind of thing without a lot of resentment - thus players are free to choose how they behave in social interactions in D&D.

If the players can tell that an NPC is not being truthful, they should be able to react accordingly.

There's the rub, right? How can they tell the NPC isn't being truthful? By beating the NPC's deception check with a better Insight one. But wait, that doesn't even say they're outright lying - just maybe hiding something or not telling the whole story.
Players being suspicious of any NPC run by the DM over any particular topic isn't them being able to "tell an NPC is not being truthful". It's just the players being the suspicious lot that they are...

Another example would be NPC persuasion. Should an NPC be able to convince a PC to give up their prized magic item simply on a roll of the dice? I'm guessing most players wouldn't voluntarily do that.

Sure, but then, in the interest of fairness, you probably shouldn't do the same with an NPC either. Persuasion can be helpful in getting an NPC to get on your side or be helpful - but that shouldn't make them doormats.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've never met a PC that didn't think an NPC was lying to them.

That is normal paranoia, but their Wisdom/Insight is there to give them confidence. If a PC has a streak of excellent roll results on sensing lies and still chooses to disbelieve everyone even if registering as honest, they are probably just going to botch quests or waste resources by doing the wrong thing, so let it be. It's the equivalent of a PC that wastes actions and keeps attacking and dead monsters because he can't believe it's really dead... their choice.

 

[cranberry]

Lot's of food for thought! Thanks everyone!

 

[aco175]

There seems to also be similarities to other threads with riddles and puzzles. Player knowledge and PCs knowledge and when to allow a skill check. Arguments such as my genius wizard should be able to know this riddle over my average player mind can be the same as my PC insight of 30 should know something over me just not believing the DM.

 

[KYRON45]

The problem with social skill checks is simple. It's a terrible mechanic.
A skilled liar, someone who doesn't know they are lying, someone that doesn't believe they are lying or someone who may not be lying now, but then manipulates what is true into a lie...there is no successful roll that will accomodate for that.
All the insight or perception or deception (or any social skill) check is doing is convincing the player rolling the check that they have succeeded.

If you think about it, it's the same with action related skill checks. If you search for traps you can pass the skill check, but that's just you being really really sure that there is no trap. How many funeral homes make their living on people having been sure they could do that thing that ended up exploding them? Wow, that got dark fast.

What's your point? Some of you may be asking....I'm often told that I don't have one so take from this diatribe what you will.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I actually like the link between searching for traps and knowing if someone is lying.

If you fail to find a trap, the DM says, “you don’t find a trap.” It’s still up to the player to decide to forge ahead or to try some other tactic to discovering one or just trusting there isn’t one.

The same with deception: “he seems to be telling the truth”

If they find a trap, they still may not know how to deal with it or disable it. And they still have the choice to avoid it or trust their luck and go through it.

Or they can look down an untrappped hallway and decide it “probably trapped” and treat it as such by avoiding it completely. They can just assume someone is lying even if that NPC is telling the truth.

 

[Blue]

Interesting distinction here. The player is in charge of making the choices (persuading someone) while the dice are in charge of deciding quality (as though the character had a silver tongue). So what happens when the player makes a choice about quality? Or what if a quality decision of the dice limits the choices of the player?

Um, this is the bog standard case that happens multiple times per session. If the dice say an attack was a miss, the player can't declare the quality of a hit. If the damage rolled was low, they can't say the hit was a higher quality and did more damage. The dice are what we all agree are used to determine uncertainty, so what you are asking is 100% normal, 100% agreed on by everyone at the table.

There's no case in a DRPG in which the players are irrelevant. Unless there are no players. But then it's not a game.

You are taking what I said out of context. The player isn't affected by the game mechanics, the character is. Neverf do yuo cut a player because the PC took 5 points of damage. The player does not cast a Magic Missile spell. The player is not in the context of those game mechanics and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion of them.

That's hardly absurd.

That a persuasion check can convince anyone regardless of who they are to give up their favorite magic item. It most assuredly is absurd.

Again, the context was clearly spelled out and your response wasn't appropriate because it wasn't taken into consideration. You're normally a thoughtful poster, were you rushing?

 

[GMMichael]

The dice are what we all agree are used to determine uncertainty, so what you are asking is 100% normal, 100% agreed on by everyone at the table.

At the D&D table. In some games, a player decides that she damages an NPC, and the dice say, "no, you didn't. " In others, the dice say "okay, but not very well."

You are taking what I said out of context. The player isn't affected by the game mechanics, the character is. Neverf do yuo cut a player because the PC took 5 points of damage. The player does not cast a Magic Missile spell. The player is not in the context of those game mechanics and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion of them.

No, you don't cut a player. But you do threaten, bribe, mislead, and reward a player. As I said earlier, player and character act with the same mind. So a rule that says a PC is deceived affects both player and character, to one degree or another.

That a persuasion check can convince anyone regardless of who they are to give up their favorite magic item. It most assuredly is absurd.

Tell that to Obi Wan Kenobi.

Again, the context was clearly spelled out and your response wasn't appropriate because it wasn't taken into consideration. You're normally a thoughtful poster, were you rushing?

Thanks, I like to keep people on their toes

 

[KYRON45]

At the D&D table. In some games, a player decides that she damages an NPC, and the dice say, "no, you didn't. " In others, the dice say "okay, but not very well."


No, you don't cut a player. But you do threaten, bribe, mislead, and reward a player. As I said earlier, player and character act with the same mind. So a rule that says a PC is deceived affects both player and character, to one degree or another.


Tell that to Obi Wan Kenobi.



Thanks, I like to keep people on their toes

Obi Wan Kenobi used a spell*...not skill check.
It was hard for me to type that because i'm not that much of a SW fan.

*open the flood gates.