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

[Lyxen]

More relevant to your ongoing conversation, I do agree largely with you, roleplaying is important and we should never limit player agency.

Amd for me, it's the reverse. It's a roleplaying game, so we should never limit roleplaying (except of course for wangrods and other people detracting on purpose or through egotism from other player's fun, but it's another matter), but player agency never was (and is certainly not, even today) a holy grail of roleplaying. Players trust (or should trust) their DM) that their DM is doing what is best for their overall fun, and never losing control of your character is not a mandatory part of that, on the contrary, some players (in particular mature ones) love it when they are controlled or manipulated, as they know that they can still express their roleplay even in these situations, and maybe with a fresh perspective on it.

That all said...while player agency is paramount, I should clarify that as a DM I don't ever roll a deception check for an NPC to lie unless I hear the phrase "Can I check to see if they is lying?"

And at our tables, we absolutely hate that sentence, it is banned. Why ? Because the players are supposed to describe the actions of their characters. Pray tell, what action is he doing to get that check ? On top of the lack of verisimilitude there, I would also point out that its' not what the 5e rules say. You roleplay and describe the actions of your character, and the DM might grant you a check if he thinks that your actions warrant one.

This is why we do or don't roll a deception check on the part of the NPC based on the story, thea abilities, the Role of the Dice, etc. and we usually apply passive insight on it, with various information provided on the result of that check. It has the advantage of being fair, support verisimilitude, make players and NPCs abilities matter, but it's also extremely quick, doesn't disturb roleplay and does not give players a sort of magic bullet that corresponds to nothing in the game world.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

But why? Why is it any different, in terms of negating player agency, whether the source of the coercion is magical?

A couple of things could answer this:
1) Spells (aside from cantrips which are limited in scope/power) come at a resource cost where as ability checks do not. Something like a dominate person spell means the party isn't eating a powerful aoe damage spell and in 5e also often uses the caster's concentration slot so they actively limiting themselves should a fight break out with this NPC against the party.

Additionally in regards to just mechanics every spell that asserts any form of mental control over a player's character has a saving throw and follow other rules mechanics like being able to be dispelled. And even with all this players will often read the effects with a fine toothed comb just to see how minimally they have alter the roleplaying to avoid hurting their friend's characters or basically being "left out" a fight (which is objectively understandable).

2) For some people with certain traumas certain spells or effects might be off-limits and as a DM you should respect this. You should be having a conversation as part of session zero as to what sort of storylines, monsters, etc are each players hard or soft limits and respect them. We're playing a game for fun, not torturing the arachnophobe by forcing him to fight spiders with graphic pictures and descriptions or the victim of sexual assault from having to relive that by literally taking control of their character's actions. I'm speaking here in extremes because we do have to keep in mind people's different hangups, d&d is a group game. For certain players certain spells might just be off limits.

Hell even if we're not talking trauma there are limits, some players might not like the idea of a DM doing something like having a villain dominate person them and go on a murder/crime spree in town. I mean attacking the party for a bit is one thing, but forcing the oath of devotion paladin to burn down an orphanage, or the character who is all about their family kill them with their own hands? Might not be appropriate for all groups.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

In a nutshell...

Yes to some of those...but IN ALL CASES, the Players are NEVER PRIVVY TO THE ROLL OR RESULTS! I just use those results for myself to deal with the roleplaying aspect of the NPC's.

For example, I might give an NPC a roll to "disguise themselves as a beggar" even though the PC might actually know this NPC is a member of the Grey Watch (specialized guardsmen tasked with gathering intel on the Thieves and Assassins guilds of a large city, for example). I roll, check result, and RP appropriately. The Players never know what I'm rolling or why.

So, yeah, just wanted to clear that up in case people are assuming the DM...well, me as DM at any rate.... isn't just blurting out "Ok, you walk buy a beggar on the street...hey, what's your passive Insight?". That's a dead give away. So I already know what it is and make the roll secretly.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

Amd for me, it's the reverse. It's a roleplaying game, so we should never limit roleplaying (except of course for wangrods and other people detracting on purpose or through egotism from other player's fun, but it's another matter), but player agency never was (and is certainly not, even today) a holy grail of roleplaying. Players trust (or should trust) their DM) that their DM is doing what is best for their overall fun, and never losing control of your character is not a mandatory part of that, on the contrary, some players (in particular mature ones) love it when they are controlled or manipulated, as they know that they can still express their roleplay even in these situations, and maybe with a fresh perspective on it.



And at our tables, we absolutely hate that sentence, it is banned. Why ? Because the players are supposed to describe the actions of their characters. Pray tell, what action is he doing to get that check ? On top of the lack of verisimilitude there, I would also point out that its' not what the 5e rules say. You roleplay and describe the actions of your character, and the DM might grant you a check if he thinks that your actions warrant one.

This is why we do or don't roll a deception check on the part of the NPC based on the story, thea abilities, the Role of the Dice, etc. and we usually apply passive insight on it, with various information provided on the result of that check. It has the advantage of being fair, support verisimilitude, make players and NPCs abilities matter, but it's also extremely quick, doesn't disturb roleplay and does not give players a sort of magic bullet that corresponds to nothing in the game world.

And you are welcome play as you wish. It is hardly a magic bullet by any means, merely a way for the players to check with me to assess if they think an NPC might be lying. My players don't ask to roll a check, they merely are expressing what they wish to do in character and I simply ask for the check myself.

What it does in fact do for my table is provide my severely introverted and autistic player which has on multiple occasions told me he is "outright incapable of reading social cues" (his words not mine) a means of actually participating in any sort of roleplaying scene. Without said option he likely would not be able to even play the game at all and my table would be lesser for it.

Despite that player's limitations we are still largely a roleplaying heavy group and it's not even uncommon for us to go multiple sessions with zero combat and enjoy every minute. And often that player is quite good at coming up with all sorts of fun character moments or unorthodox ways of assessing some sort of puzzle or situation much to the groups joy. So yeah, if all it takes is letting a player ask if they can roll to check if an NPC is lying, I am more than happy to change any rules to make the game more inclusive as far as I'm concerned.

To each their own is all I'm saying.

 

[overgeeked]

The thing about rules though, they are a useful metric and tool for keeping the game running balanced and fair with at least some sort of stakes being possible. The rules are there to make it so one a## of a player doesn't just go "I just poke the dragon and make it's head explode and then go home and build a castle with nothing but my left foot and a pile of string."

That's the DM, not the rules. And it's generally in spite of rather than because of the rules that things run balanced and fair. The more rules, the more complicated the game, and the more likely you are to have explicitly unbalanced and unfair choices, options, and rules interactions.

Beer and pretzels Monty python-esque silly games with zero stakes can be fun and all but some people actually do enjoy a game with a more grounded/serious tone and the challenge of worldbuilding limitations and logical consistency. That fictional castle for them feels better if it's earned through blood, sweat, and tears even if they are also [hopefully] fictional. I for one enjoy a moderation of all extremes, but the point is the rules are good at facilitating these sorts of things.

Again, that's a function of having a competent DM, not using a robust rule set.

More relevant to your ongoing conversation, I do agree largely with you, roleplaying is important and we should never limit player agency. However I do point out the issue with relying too much on sheer roleplaying... not every person is a Shakespearean level actor, and should not be expected to be in order to play the game (especially as a high charisma character).

Roleplaying is making choices for your character, not necessarily acting, and certainly not "doing the voice".

This is especially true if you have players or a DM that is in anyway neurodivergant. Social anxiety and autism are both far more common in the hobby than people think, just as couple examples, and in some cases it may be difficult for certain players to speak well or confidently. There is a reason we don't ask people to bench press the couch on every strength check. Not to mention with deception in particular it is sort of an awkward thing; I don't tend to spend large portions of my limited free time willingly associating with those who tend to be good and habitual liars. Strange standards to have I know.

Roleplaying is not limited to Shakespearean acting or "doing the voice". Roleplaying is making choices for your character. You don't have to speak in first person to roleplay; you don't have to do a funny voice to roleplay. You're still roleplaying if you tell me what you're doing and how you're doing it instead of first-person speechifying at me as the DM. "You want to bribe the guard to let you through? Are you using any other leverage? No, okay. How much is the bribe?" Makes checks or doesn't. "You get by the guard and your purse is X gold lighter." Still roleplaying.

In terms of actual mechanics as a DM I typically just ask a player what their intentions are if I suspect they are trying to pull some sort of lie in character or are having trouble expressing what they are going for. It is not a good goal for players to try and outwit or surprise their DM, and a quick check with the player out of character as to what they are trying to do really helps for determining which checks to call for.

It also helps to move the game along without needing to resort to mechanics or checks. It's not about outwitting or surprising the DM. It's about roleplaying. The point is to engage with the world via roleplaying your character. The point is not throwing dice until you win.

That all said...while player agency is paramount, I should clarify that as a DM I don't ever roll a deception check for an NPC to lie unless I hear the phrase "Can I check to see if they is lying?" Or something similar. I can and frequently do give my players false info mixed in with the truth often to hilarious consequences. But my players have all been told this we we started the game, and I carefully consider what each NPC's motivations are and what knowledge they do or do not possess. Using an example you had, if someone actually did believe they saw aliens flying over town I'd just have the NPC say it, then the players are free to ask if they think he's telling the truth or not. Our table tends to interpret a good insight rolls as "You get the feeling he either genuinely believes he saw aliens or he is a hell of a good liar."

Right. Difference is, I don't bother with the roll. The NPC is always free to lie; the PC is always free to disbelieve. Insight isn't a magic button that objectively tells the player what's actually, really, objectively true. At most it tells you if something is a lie or not. That's it. If you use it.

I deliberately leave it open and vague for the players to interpret which answer is the one they wish to pick their character to believe. I do this consistently because when I do have NPCs that are genuinely good liars it means I can actually get away with false information if a rolled deception check is good.

Or you skip the roll and present the information as true.

 

[Lyxen]

And you are welcome play as you wish. It is hardly a magic bullet by any means, merely a way for the players to check with me to assess if they think an NPC might be lying. My players don't ask to roll a check, they merely are expressing what they wish to do in character and I simply ask for the check myself.

And my point is that it's not "in charracter", what are the character specifically doing at that point to warrant a check ? It's a pure game artifact.

What it does in fact do for my table is provide my severely introverted and autistic player which has on multiple occasions told me he is "outright incapable of reading social cues" (his words not mine) a means of actually participating in any sort of roleplaying scene. Without said option he likely would not be able to even play the game at all and my table would be lesser for it.

The thing is that at our tables, it's automatic based on his passive insight, giving him information based on his character. I can understand wanting to engage him based on a technical artifact of the game, but it does not change the nature of what it is.

To each their own is all I'm saying.

I'm fine with that, still see above.

 

[Lyxen]

Right. Difference is, I don't bother with the roll. The NPC is always free to lie; the PC is always free to disbelieve. Insight isn't a magic button that objectively tells the player what's actually, really, objectively true. At most it tells you if something is a lie or not. That's it. If you use it.

And, using that reasoning, a PC is always free to lie, and the DM, playing the NPC, always free to disbelieve him, which means that Deception is actually useless in the game, making insight useless as well. On top of which, it means that the player is actually playing himself and the DM is playing the NPCs as himself, with only their own skills at lying and detecting lies. To each his own, but the perspective at our tables is that playing a character also means taking into account the character's stats, his strengths and weaknesses. In addition to roleplaying, this allows us to play an equal opportunity game where you don't need to be a diplomat to play a social guy, for example.

 

[clearstream]

That's the DM, not the rules. And it's generally in spite of rather than because of the rules that things run balanced and fair. The more rules, the more complicated the game, and the more likely you are to have explicitly unbalanced and unfair choices, options, and rules interactions.

Again, that's a function of having a competent DM, not using a robust rule set.

Roleplaying is making choices for your character, not necessarily acting, and certainly not "doing the voice".

Roleplaying is not limited to Shakespearean acting or "doing the voice". Roleplaying is making choices for your character. You don't have to speak in first person to roleplay; you don't have to do a funny voice to roleplay. You're still roleplaying if you tell me what you're doing and how you're doing it instead of first-person speechifying at me as the DM. "You want to bribe the guard to let you through? Are you using any other leverage? No, okay. How much is the bribe?" Makes checks or doesn't. "You get by the guard and your purse is X gold lighter." Still roleplaying.

It also helps to move the game along without needing to resort to mechanics or checks. It's not about outwitting or surprising the DM. It's about roleplaying. The point is to engage with the world via roleplaying your character. The point is not throwing dice until you win.

Right. Difference is, I don't bother with the roll. The NPC is always free to lie; the PC is always free to disbelieve. Insight isn't a magic button that objectively tells the player what's actually, really, objectively true. At most it tells you if something is a lie or not. That's it. If you use it.

Or you skip the roll and present the information as true.

Stealth?

[Note the edit. I intended to address @overgeeked!]

 

[overgeeked]

Stealth?

What about it?

 

[clearstream]

What about it?

Just wondering why it goes differently for Stealth v Perception than Deception v Insight?