NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[Bill Zebub]

I disagree its trivial. Unless you distrust the GM involved, I don't find it any more trivial than "You can't tell there's a trap" and "You don't think there's a trap."

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

I agree that if the DM is carefully choosing their words, and what they mean by it is that the player's character believes the NPC and should behave accordingly, then it's an important distinction.

But the DM might also just be slopping about choosing their words, which I suspect is what happens. (Either that or the DMs I've encountered seethe on the inside about the terrible roleplayers the universe has saddled them with...)

 

[TwoSix]

Unfortunately, not all DMs ser what the players see. I've had to tell DMs after such a roll that I was ignoring the result, because X, Y, and Z showed the result to be nonsensical. Fortunately they agreed with me, but if they hadn't there would have been a major issue.

Sure, but again, that isn't the concept that's at fault. That's just a "sometimes people make mistakes when playing" issue.

I've certainly narrated things after checks that needed to be retconned because someone remembered a piece of the fiction that contradicted what we had just said. Stuff happens.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I disagree its trivial. Unless you distrust the GM involved, I don't find it any more trivial than "You can't tell there's a trap" and "You don't think there's a trap."

I agree that it is a rather big difference. So do people treat perception and investigation checks to detect traps and other dangers like some suggest deception should be treated? Meaning that if the PCs roll low, they must act like they think there is no trap, rather than that they don't know whether there is one? Like they could not poke things with ten foot pole or take other precautions because they failed their notice roll?

 

[payn]

I disagree its trivial. Unless you distrust the GM involved, I don't find it any more trivial than "You can't tell there's a trap" and "You don't think there's a trap."

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

I agree that if the DM is carefully choosing their words, and what they mean by it is that the player's character believes the NPC and should behave accordingly, then it's an important distinction.

But the DM might also just be slopping about choosing their words, which I suspect is what happens. (Either that or the DMs I've encountered seethe on the inside about the terrible roleplayers the universe has saddled them with...)

If your GMs are giving out bad information, they're giving out bad information. Those two sentences do not mean the same thing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree that it is a rather big difference. So do people treat perception and investigation checks to detect traps and other dangers like some suggest deception should be treated? Meaning that if the PCs roll low, they must act like they think there is no trap, rather than that they don't know whether there is one? Like they could not poke things with ten foot pole or take other precautions because they failed their notice roll?

I'd suggest people who are chronically making perception rolls and then ignoring them are, at the very least, wasting people's time. If you're going to do that anyway, what was the point in asking for the roll?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'd suggest people who are chronically making perception rolls and then ignoring them are, at the very least, wasting people's time. If you're going to do that anyway, what was the point in asking for the roll?

The roll is for "do I notice something" not for "do I believe something is there." Certainly it is possible to not notice a trap but still suspect that there might be one? Like I have pretty poor perception in RL, I certainly do not trust that just because I don't notice something it cannot exist! And of course it is possible that you succeed and there is trap. So then you know, so it makes sense to roll.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I agree that it is a rather big difference. So do people treat perception and investigation checks to detect traps and other dangers like some suggest deception should be treated? Meaning that if the PCs roll low, they must act like they think there is no trap, rather than that they don't know whether there is one? Like they could not poke things with ten foot pole or take other precautions because they failed their notice roll?

This is one of the reasons i feel sometimes players shouldn’t be aware of their rolls, so they can’t ‘know’ they failed a perception or investigation or insight, they need to take what their GM tells them as what they get.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The roll is for "do I notice something" not for "do I believe something is there." Certainly it is possible to not notice a trap but still suspect that there might be one? Like I have pretty poor perception in RL, I certainly do not trust that just because I don't notice something it cannot exist! And of course it is possible that you succeed and there is trap. So then you know, so it makes sense to roll.

Then again, I repeat, if you're going to ignore the information anyway, why are we rolling? After all, false positives are possible too.

At some point you're going to do something with the information provided or you aren't. If you aren't, the time spent on resolution is pointless.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is one of the reasons i feel sometimes players shouldn’t be aware of their rolls, so they can’t ‘know’ they failed a perception or investigation or insight, they need to take what their GM tells them as what they get.

Which is why a lot of people do make those secret rolls, even among GMs who otherwise roll everything out in the open.