D&D General Renamed Thread: "The Illusion of Agency"

[MichaelSomething]

FKR! FKR! FKR!

 

[Bill Zebub]

That’s kind of fun, though I’m always hesitant with giving players false information on a knowledge check. I think there’s a lot of value in being able to maintain a clear line that you can always trust information given directly by the DM to be accurate, whereas information given via NPCs may or may not be.

Solved:

 

[Piperken]

At my tables most communication between players is in-character, and thus I never need to worry about the "Can I try?" "Oh, can I try?" scenario. If the group is talking and someone comes up with an idea, then obviously it is now information that the entire group that is physically present has access to. So if someone mentions something that might require an Intelligence (History) check to give information on... then everyone there rolls and information will be doled out based on how well the characters rolled...

...Long story short... ability checks are basically an alternative method for determining how much I will improvise and give out rather than my own gut feeling.

This is how I've handled what do I know about creature encountered, object, person of great renown etc when the party is present.

If characters devise another way to make another attempt on a locked door (e.g. kicking it down), and there's time to do it, I'll allow them.

They can also try to persuade, deceive or intimidate the same NPC/monster more than once in the same scene.

 

[Piperken]

Separately, an anecdote I feel has bearing to this topic:

The rogue at my table attempted to climb the wall in a room, in front of the rest of their party. They failed to do so after three consecutive attempts.

What was the consequence?

Their reputation.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is how I've handled what do I know about creature encountered, object, person of great renown etc when the party is present.

If characters devise another way to make another attempt on a locked door (e.g. kicking it down), and there's time to do it, I'll allow them.

They can also try to persuade, deceive or intimidate the same NPC/monster more than once in the same scene.

Really for me... ability checks and skills are there for only one true purpose-- roadblocks to the story. To slow down how quickly the party gains knowledge or advancement towards their goals. Which means I guess if I was to think about it, every check I throw up does in fact have a "consequence of failure"... the characters just don't get perfect information or advancement of their goals the instant they want it. Instead... they oftentimes have to wait before moving forward.

Something like a locked door? That's just a roadblock in the narrative. The party wants know know what's behind it or move past it... the lock tells them they can't until they "solve" the lock issue. Whether that's picking the lock, breaking the door down, finding another path around the door, casting a Knock spell, digging a hole through the wall etc. etc., these are just are delays to the forward momentum to the story. At some point they probably all WILL get past it somehow and somewhen depending on how important it is to them to move forward in the narrative... and thus the mechanics behind "solving" the issue don't really matter. The game mechanics aren't the "encounter"... what lies past it is. And thus the game mechanics used to get past it can be as simple or as intricate as I want it to be.

Same thing with social ability checks... the die roll is not the reason for the social encounter, the conversation and the acquisition of information is. The NPCs are merely the roadblocks to the characters getting what they want. So if the players in-character can convince, intimidate, or deceive the NPCs they deal with with reasoned argument, intimidating effect, subtle manipulation (as per how I play each NPC and what I think are good verbal communications given to me by the players)... there's a good chance I might not even bother asking for a check. The players got past the roadblock of an NPC without even needing to roll. Or if their exaltations were okay but not totally convincing, then I might have them roll an ability check to help "grease the wheels" on the discussion as it were-- that way it's not always just about me as the DM making the arbitrary decisions on whether their social acumen was "good enough". Oftentimes it might be... other times I'll have them roll. And if they fail their roll, then their current tactic is not working and they'll need to find some other way around the situation, then same way they might need to get around the locked door. But at the end of the day... the entire purpose of this is to move them forward in the story, not to just "play the game mechanics". Which I know is an anathema to a lot of other players... they feel the roleplaying "game" is the actual game mechanics and thus are what are truly the important part of the whole thing-- the rolling of dice and the success and failing of rolls. Which to me is what I call the board gamification of D&D and misses the point of what makes an RPG an RPG. The game isn't about rolling dice... rolling dice is just one facet of how the characters move forward in the narrative.

 

[TiQuinn]

No rolling Insight to detect lies

So, I’m not a fan of using Insight to outright detect lies either, however, there is something to be said for the ability for a PC to pick up on an NPC’s demeanor, body language, and to borrow from poker, their “tells” in the course of a social interaction.

Would you use Insight to allow players to determine those kinds of things with failure being a misinterpretation, and if not, how would you propose to do it?

 

[payn]

For the "can I try?...me too?" situation it depends for me. When it comes to knwoledge checks, im down for the group discussion and anybody can roll. The intimidate example is a bif different for me. I play PF1 alot still and their is aiding another. Id allow a shot at trying to get a high bonus for one person. Though, if a person tries to intimidate and the next is like let me try, the NPC is just going to reply, "I just told that guy I dont care if you out my secret!" This situation calls for another approach and/or skill attempt.

Although, I kind of like the idea of giving some metacurrency to the players to reroll checks....by other players. For example, a potential once a session benny that the intimidate player could spend to allow the first player to try again. If it promotes folks playing their characters and the players cheering on one another, im all for it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Separately, an anecdote I feel has bearing to this topic:

The rogue at my table attempted to climb the wall in a room, in front of the rest of their party. They failed to do so after three consecutive attempts.

What was the consequence?

Their reputation.

I would TOTALLY have the locals at a tavern...not the next tavern; you gotta save this one...be all, "Aren't you the guy who failed to climb that wall three times in a row?"

 

[Bill Zebub]

So, I’m not a fan of using Insight to outright detect lies either, however, there is something to be said for the ability for a PC to pick up on an NPC’s demeanor, body language, and to borrow from poker, their “tells” in the course of a social interaction.

Would you use Insight to allow players to determine those kinds of things with failure being a misinterpretation, and if not, how would you propose to do it?

This is a really tough one, and I've never found a solution to it that I like.

The reality is that humans suck at detecting lies from people they don't know well. (And apparently cops who think they are good at it tend to be worse than average.). The only effective way to find out if a stranger is lying is to remember (or record) everything they say and then try to get them tangled up in their own lies.

So....in terms of the game I would think this would mean to know something about your NPC, and then try to get them to lie about something you know the truth about.

But, "Can I tell if he's lying?" My answer is, "Do you have a 2nd level paladin spell?" (No, I'm not actually that snarky.)

 

[TiQuinn]

This is a really tough one, and I've never found a solution to it that I like.

The reality is that humans suck at detecting lies from people they don't know well. (And apparently cops who think they are good at it tend to be worse than average.). The only effective way to find out if a stranger is lying is to remember (or record) everything they say and then try to get them tangled up in their own lies.

So....in terms of the game I would think this would mean to know something about your NPC, and then try to get them to lie about something you know the truth about.

But, "Can I tell if he's lying?" My answer is, "Do you have a 2nd level paladin spell?" (No, I'm not actually that snarky.)

Yeah, I agree on the spell. The spell exists for a reason and one of my pet peeves is when a spell is substituted with an ability, especially for something like this.

I try to have fun with the Insight check by giving the player some information about what they notice in the NPC’s demeanor but let them interpret what they could mean, even if it’s potentially wrong. So far, it’s worked well and my players like it.