Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 6870112">Ok, here's my response to the Eloelle/Bruce lie-detection thing:I'll preface the preface by saying that when I'm DMing "Insight" is not a lie-detection skill.  (Otherwise why even have Zone of Truth as a spell?)  On a successful roll I tell the player what hints they pick up on, but I don't say, "Yeah, you think she's telling the truth.  But that's neither here nor there.Assuming that Insight *is* a lie-detection ability, I further don't ever use "social PvP" between players in my games.  Not saying those who do so are playing wrong, but that's just contrary to what I think the spirit of the game should be.  Players are supposed to be cooperating in a fiction, and if they feel the need to Deceive or Persuade (or detect lies) between characters, then something is going wrong at the table.  Yes, in fiction there are often conflicts between heroes, but those should be resolved narratively in my opinion.  If a player loses control of his character (let's say he's playing Boromir and he rolls badly to resist the lure of the Ring) then the DM should take over his character until it passes.Again, not The One True way, but it is the way I play and so that's the context within which I think about things like...well, Eloelle.Ok, so now let's say we're in a game where Insight *is* lie detection, and "social PvP" is ok.  Eloelle has just publicly failed her Int check, and declares, "Ha!  My superior intellect has solved the riddle, but...what's this...my patron whispers in my ear and tells me it is vital to keep the secret; it is all part of his plan. Blast!  I do hate having to pretend to be as feeble-minded as my foolish companions, but so be it.  Eloelle shrugs and says, 'No, idea.'"What does Bruce’s player do next?  First, let's assume he acknowledges the distinction between in-character narration and in-character talking, and agrees that his character did not "hear" her little monologue.  Perhaps he says, "You know, Eloelle is always using these big fancy words, and mentioning how she is both an Invoker AND a Summoner (really!), and how she studied in Waterdeep and Silverymoon and Khitai and has been to Elminster's house...I think she's hiding something.  Probably her 'patron'...who none of us have ever actually met, now that I think about it...is telling her what to do again.  I'm going to roll Insight and see if she's lying.So he rolls and gets a natural 20.  Eloelle rolls Deception and gets a 1.  Oops.  So now Bruce knows that she's lying, right?  You can't even really adjudicate it with "Seems like she's not telling you the whole story" or "She won't make eye contact with you" because the player already knows the truth, so it’s kind of hard to be evasive with the answer.  At this point it’s binary: Bruce either knows or doesn’t know.I would suggest that by making the die roll Bruce’s player is really just looking for “permission from the dice” to give his character that information.  Sort of like asking the DM, “Do I know about trolls and fire?” And the DM says, “Make a Nature check.”  “Sweet...17.  I get some torches ready.”At this point I would call this adversarial playing.  It’s plausible that Bruce wouldn’t suspect anything, and if Bruce’s player were supporting Eloelle’s player in roleplaying her character concept, he could easily choose to not be suspicious at all.  He shouldn’t (I should hope) have any annoyance that “Eloelle can get us out of this mess but she’s refusing to share the secret” because, mechanically, she doesn’t know the secret.  She failed the roll. She told the story around the table about her patron etc. to entertain the table, not to change the mechanics.But at the same time, if Eloelle’s player is allowed to roleplay in a way that bothers Bruce’s player, I suppose he has every ‘right’ to reciprocate by roleplaying in a way that bothers her, in the sense that when somebody cuts you off on the highway you’re justified in tailgating them with your high beams on.  So he uses Insight and knows Eloelle is lying.If that’s what this has come to, if Bruce’s player really won’t cooperate with me on playing this character, and the DM won't back me up, then I'd go all Hamlet on them.  if I were playing Eloelle I would simply say, “Nope, I’m not lying.  I failed the roll and I don’t know the answer.  Eloelle makes up stories because she feels really insecure about her low Intelligence, and I was acting that out so you could be entertained by the crazy stories that she tells herself.  Honestly, she’s delusional.  It’s sad.” And so on, until Bruce’s player dropped it.And then I’d give my best maniacal cackle and rub my hands together with glee.  And then as we moved on to the next scene I’d whisper, just loudly enough for the rest of the table to hear, “Fools…”</blockquote>

Verification