Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7742868" data-attributes="member: 16814">As it seems we're largely agreed, I'd just take up the bit from the last paragraph as the remaining grounds of discussion.  Good response, by the way, and thanks.The deception check, I think, is useful only if the PCs are trying to do something to determine truthfulness.  The NPC says whatever the NPC says.  I don't change that based on how well they might have rolled.  Instead, what is said is part of the framing, and the players can declare actions to engage that framing.  In this case, I'd assume they'd state they were looking for signs of dishonesty in the NPC, which would be a WIS (Insight) check in 5e opposed by a CHA (deception) check.  At this point, a fundamental difference in approach may occur as to how to adjudicate the results, but I'll try to bridge the gap.Firstly, there's using Insight as a "truth check."  A success would mean I would reveal to the players if the NPC was lying or telling the truth.  A failure would would mean I tell the players they can't tell one way or the other.  I suppose you could, at this point, decide that a failure meant you, as DM, should tell the player their PC believes the NPC, but what if the NPC is telling the truth -- do you now tell the player the PC disbelieves?  That's weird.  I'd rather go with getting information or not getting information - a success provides information relevant; a failure provides no new information. So, in this case, the deception check by the NPC isn't to make the PCs believe the NPC, but to prevent knowledge that it is a lie (presumably) from being discovered.  The players are still free to decide if the PCs believe or don't.  I've had a lot of success with this method in my games, as it's been my default even back when I though NPCs should roll against PCs.  It provides a way for Insight to be useful without being a 'you must believe' button.  In other systems, I don't think this particular situation can actually arise -- NPCs in most of the games that have been brought up aren't likely to inject a deception check against PCs.  Rather, the PCs actions will result in consequences on failures that may include "you believe him or take stress" mechanics.The second way is the way I've recently adopted:  checks have meaning and change the situation.  In this way, the setup is the same, but there's more consequence to the check.  A success means the players don't just receive information about a lie, but find some concrete information/evidence that the NPC is lying -- they get a solid info chit they can use with other skill checks to prove the statement is a lie.  Usually, I'd present this as the NPC continuing to speak but providing an obviously disprovable statement, or a recollection of a fact that the PC would know that shows out the lie.  On the failure side, though, the PCs would not get any information, but would also now be in a position that they cannot prove the lie at all to others (all other (reasonably involved) NPCs believe the lie) AND the NPC is aware of their distrust (and perhaps others as well, depending on the situation).  This puts the PCs in a decidedly more disadvantaged position with that NPC in the social conflict.I disagree wholly with the argument that a deception check on the NPCs side means PCs believe them.  Even in real life, this isn't true.  I chose to extend belief to others, they never force it upon me.  You may successfully lie to me, but that doesn't me you make me believe you, it means that I have no evidence you're untruthful.  I may, for any number of biases, still choose to view you as untrustworthy.  I do this for the majority of the very charismatic new anchors on the cable news shows (you can choose whichever suits your personal biases, I'm agnostic on which 'side' is worse), for instance.  They can lie like champs (or, if you prefer, spin), but their skill at it doesn't mean I find them any more trustworthy.</blockquote>

Verification