D&D 5E How do you rule on NPC-to-PC social interactions?

[clearstream]

Agreed. I'm left wondering what you meant by the game designers being "more comfortable with instructing gamers to go ahead and make a check" in the case of Deception.

As compared with Persuasion and Intimidation, where the text is more hedged.

 

[billd91]

One is about the physical reality around the character, the other is about what the character believes to be true.

The physical reality around the character is the purview of the DM. What the character believes to be true is entirely up to the player.

The player cannot simply decide that they're sneaky and no NPCs are aware of their presence, that requires a check. The player can simply decide if they believe an NPC or not, regardless of any check. Putting a check in there gives the statement an objective truth value that is impossible for anyone without telepathy to have. It's not up to the DM what the PC believes, it's up to the player.

One points externally, the other internally. That's the difference.

That's a question of telling someone what they observe vs belief, and insight doesn't have to be different from perception. You just use it to describe whether or not the deceiver (or not if the NPC isn't lying) appears sincere or lacks any tell or indication of lying and then leave it up to the player to decide if their PC believes the NPC's statement or doesn't.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It's the same problem with searching for secret doors. If the player rolls really badly, they'll know (as the player) that they rolled really badly...and magically...their character will somehow be aware of that and spend extra time investigating that bit of wall or call over other people to check that bit of wall for secret doors until someone rolls really high...at which point the characters are all magically aware that a sufficient effort has been put in to be assured that there is, in fact, no secret door here.

Do your players really play like this?

 

[overgeeked]

That's a question of telling someone what they observe vs belief, and insight doesn't have to be different from perception. You just use it to describe whether or not the deceiver (or not if the NPC isn't lying) appears sincere or lacks any tell or indication of lying and then leave it up to the player to decide if their PC believes the NPC's statement or doesn't.

Based on what? The person's history and experience. We're really, really bad about being biased by our history and experience. We're also really, really good at jumping to conclusions and filling in the blanks, as it were. So you and I are talking and I say something but a tiny smile creeps across my face...which makes you instantly think I'm lying. Could be that I've had a stomach pain most of the day and I just silently farted, releasing whatever tension was in my stomach. Could be that I had a stray thought about a happy memory so the smile crept in. Could be that I saw someone in the distance behind you that I recognize. The facts are: we're talking and I smiled when I said something. What that means is an objective truth for me and a complete mystery for you. And there's no way to bridge that gap. All you can do is ask me. Then judge for yourself whether it's true or not. A simple roll certainly wouldn't overcome that gulf.

 

[overgeeked]

Do your players really play like this?

Almost literally every single player I've ever played with in nearly 40 years of gaming...yes. Lots of games. Lots of people. Lots of years. There's been maybe...maybe a handful that didn't.

 

[Hriston]

As compared with Persuasion and Intimidation, where the text is more hedged.

Right. What do you think the difference is, given that they're all subject to the DM's discretion to call for a check?

 

[Charlaquin]

Almost literally every single player I've ever played with in nearly 40 years of gaming...yes. Lots of games. Lots of people. Lots of years. There's been maybe...maybe a handful that didn't.

Yeah, that’s something I have experienced as well. It stopped being a problem when I started using timekeeping and periodic checks for complications to insure failure on such actions always has a meaningful consequence. Sure, you can have everyone search the wall in turn until someone rolls high - it’s not unreasonable for a character to be able to assess their own performance on a task and perhaps ask for help if they feel they’ve done a poor job. But, that time you spend doing so is bringing you ever-closer to the next roll for complications. While you’re taking your time going over a section of wall with a fine-toothed comb, monsters are wandering the dungeon and might run into you.

 

[clearstream]

Right. What do you think the difference is, given that they're all subject to the DM's discretion to call for a check?

The wording is in my view genuinely ambiguous. Much hinges on "might". The discussion is about what the text best supports.

When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check.

Two views have been taken of how to understand "might" in this context.

1. There will be cases in which the DM can call for a check. And there will be cases in which the DM cannot call for a check. Might in this cases means something like - it might happen that a DM is able to call for a check, and if so they might do so.
2. DM can call for a check, but needn't always. Might in this case means it's up to DM.

Proponents of the first view believe that in some cases it is impossible for a DM to call for a check. My stance is that it is always up to the DM whether they decide to call for a check or not, based on surrounding factors (challenges, consequences). This is not to say that I expect a DM to normally call for a check, but our game is very broad - all kinds of circumstances can come into play. So I simply leave it up to DM to manage rules, and players to manage their characters.

 

[clearstream]

Based on what? The person's history and experience. We're really, really bad about being biased by our history and experience. We're also really, really good at jumping to conclusions and filling in the blanks, as it were. So you and I are talking and I say something but a tiny smile creeps across my face...which makes you instantly think I'm lying. Could be that I've had a stomach pain most of the day and I just silently farted, releasing whatever tension was in my stomach. Could be that I had a stray thought about a happy memory so the smile crept in. Could be that I saw someone in the distance behind you that I recognize. The facts are: we're talking and I smiled when I said something. What that means is an objective truth for me and a complete mystery for you. And there's no way to bridge that gap. All you can do is ask me. Then judge for yourself whether it's true or not. A simple roll certainly wouldn't overcome that gulf.

Generally in games, that is one of the uses of randomisation: to take into account the vast number of factors that are supposed to be true in the game-world, but that we have no complete access to.

So my character - living in the world - with say the Observant feat and 20 Wisdom - might notice a lie even if I clearstream at the table didn't notice the DM winking because I was intensely thinking about something else at that particular moment.

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah, that’s something I have experienced as well. It stopped being a problem when I started using timekeeping and periodic checks for complications to insure failure on such actions always has a meaningful consequence. Sure, you can have everyone search the wall in turn until someone rolls high - it’s not unreasonable for a character to be able to assess their own performance on a task and perhaps ask for help if they feel they’ve done a poor job. But, that time you spend doing so is bringing you ever-closer to the next roll for complications. While you’re taking your time going over a section of wall with a fine-toothed comb, monsters are wandering the dungeon and might run into you.

Yeah, I do much the same. Doesn't seem to stop my players though.