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

[HammerMan]

Scenario: NPC sells weapons. He claims that his greatsword is of special quality (but the DM knows the guy is a liar), and wants to sell it to the PC at 5x the listed price in the PHB, even though in reality it's just an ordinary greatsword.
The PCs are interested to buy a greatsword, especially if it has special properties (and let's assume they cannot check it for magic properties and aren't proficient in smith's tools).

Now the NPC makes a deception check and rolls a natural 20, for a total of 27. Does that mean that the PC must now buy the sword at 5x the market price, even if the player behind the PC suspects that he's being deceived? I would consider that player "forced" to buy that sword.

I think that the player should have freedom to refuse that sword at all times, no matter what the DM rolls. It's up to the DM to put up some decent roleplay. And in addition, the player can attempt to see through the lies with an Insight check.

Where I 100% agree it should not force them to buy it, it WOULD mean I would tell them "Your pretty sure this thing is the best by how he is describing it" or something to that effect.

I don't think a lie or a bluff forces them to do anything, but they shouldn't (and I have not seen many, although maybe a few times) be like 'naw I see right through it' unless they A) have a special ability to overcome the bluff, or B) beat the NPC 27 on an insight (or similar maybe in this case also a smith tools+ Wis or Int) check

I cannot force my players to go anywhere. I have multiple lists of random things: Random names for NPCs, random shops, pubs including price lists, random village names. And importantly, I accept that the players choose the mission. They may rewrite the entire plot as they stumble through the world.

yup me too... that sounds like most of my games.

If the NPC rolls a very high persuasion check, shouldn't the player fall for that charismatic idea and follow along? If so, if the DM rolls high, the player is forced to roleplay.

gotcha.

 

[Umbran]

I quite like that. The supreme torturer can't make you talk, but they sure as hell know if you lie to them.

Yes, well, when someone gets to actual torture, the dynamic changes. The subject is under so much stress that you lose the advantage - body language gets muddled. And, if the PC subject happens upon something the torturer wants to hear, the subject gets advantage on that deception against the NPC. Actual torture is an unreliable source of information.

If someone goes into full interrogation, without physical torture, we're talking a skill challenge - a long interview using Intimidation, Persuasion, Insight and Investigation. If successful, at the end the interviewer has a chance to divine the truth, even if the subject never said it outright, or the fact that the subject does not know the truth.

Clerics and Zone of Truth should not be the only way to get to the point, hey what?

 

[HammerMan]

Have you ever noticed any meta-game gotchas? Such as the PC knowing they just rolled Insight and experiencing a degree of internal dilemma? That might not be a strong, subversive or bad faith dilemma.

we are so upfront with each other in my group it isn't much of an issue

It might be something like - I may have been going to lean into not trusting this NPC, but now that I have rolled Insight it's hard for me to do that with a completely clear conscience, so I guess I better just trust them.

 

[HammerMan]

Right. The DM can certainly rely on a dice roll to decide how to present information. Assuming the goal is for the PC to believe it’s a quality sword, there are two ways to go about this:

A) Tell the player, “I have determined that your character believes X. Please roleplay accordingly.”
B) Try to make the player believe X.

Why would anybody choose A?

because the players and the DM may have known each other for 30-10 years depending on player and see no reason to play word games to 'make them believe' something... or because they CAN'T make them believe something, so they default to the game rules "this guy is a MUCH better lier then I am writer/actor" or even just short hand to make less work. (do I spend my time investing in the best lie that will get them to believe it when it is a minor moment, or do I work on other stuff that is more important?)

 

[HammerMan]

An NPC can pry information from a PC, with a CHA (Intimidation) check.

Not quite. An NPC can intimidate the PC with a CHA (intimidation) check. Then, when the PC gives an answer to a question, I am apt to give the NPC advantage on their Insight check to know if the PC was lying.

good compromise. I like it... totally stealing that idea.

 

[HammerMan]

That's not really the way that works.

Torturers usually elicit responses, but are no better off on knowing whether they are actually lied to or not. Most responses will be emphatic and as convincing as possible to get the torture to stop, whether they are actual confessions or false confessions because that is what the tortured person believes the torturer wants to hear them say.

I mean in the real world we know torture doesn't work most times... psychological tricks work way better... but I don't want to invest in learning psychological tricks to play my game, so I default to the skills

 

[Umbran]

psychological tricks work way better... but I don't want to invest in learning psychological tricks to play my game, so I default to the skills

That's why I move such stuff to a skill challenge. The player can describe the general approach they take, without having to know the details of how such manipulation works.

 

[clearstream]

I describe the NPC as they appear, offering subtle clues that something is off during the interaction. Just like I would telegraph the presence of a trap in a dungeon. The players, if they're paying attention, can then take action to tease out what's going on. Their stated actions might result in a Wisdom (Insight) check or perhaps Intelligence (Investigation), if that best fits their goal and approach.

I've experienced wonderful games using that approach. It's harder in these times of lockdown, and with VTTs! Also, I have seen disparity - like very fun games - but just played at a slightly more abstracted level.

 

[clearstream]

Yes, well, when someone gets to actual torture, the dynamic changes. The subject is under so much stress that you lose the advantage - body language gets muddled. And, if the PC subject happens upon something the torturer wants to hear, the subject gets advantage on that deception against the NPC. Actual torture is an unreliable source of information.

For sure. In my game-world (alternate-Faerun) torture mainly figures off-screen, as a means of disruption, provocation or cowing of populations.

If someone goes into full interrogation, without physical torture, we're talking a skill challenge - a long interview using Intimidation, Persuasion, Insight and Investigation. If successful, at the end the interviewer has a chance to divine the truth, even if the subject never said it outright, or the fact that the subject does not know the truth.

I sometimes do similar.

Clerics and Zone of Truth should not be the only way to get to the point, hey what?

Gets back to your demographics, rests, and cultural assumptions. Does a group's world have many 3rd level or higher casters? Is it customary to use spells for political or judiciary ends. What is the rest cadence (longer rests mean fewer spells in the wild)?

 

[clearstream]

But it only really works if the player genuinely wants to avoid the consequences.

From reading what other people write, it seems that groups can differ quite profoundly on how seriously an NPC can ever really threaten a PC.