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

[clearstream]

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.

Absolutely agree.

 

[Quickleaf]

In another thread we discussed the possibility of symmetry in NPC-to-PC social interactions. Symmetry in that context, means that a PC or NPC can make an ability check to influence a PC or NPC. That debate was highly legalistic. However, there were a few cases where disagreements seemed much less vehement. I am curious about those cases, because they may reveal an opportunity to enhance immersion-in-world through improved (but by no means complete) symmetry between player-characters and other characters.

Disregarding RAW and RAI completely for the purposes of this thread, how do you run NPC-to-PC social interactions in respect of just the cases presented in this poll? As you can see, I am hoping we can reveal our "normal" in these cases. Just to set aside fears, there is no slippery-slope entertained here: the cases are as you see them, and any commitments in their regard are not assumed to be commitments to anything further. This is all for 5th edition, in case of doubt.

I answered "other" because while any of those are reasonable statements, they are not the best answer when it comes to how I DM.

I'm muuuch less interested in the amount of dice rolling, and far more interested in the nuance (and repeated presence) of the clues that I'm giving. If I can get that big payoff where a player gets an AH-HAH moment, connecting a couple clues to make a deduction about what's happening or what the truth is, that's rewarding for me and the player. That's what I'm aiming for.

That way when we break out the dice there are clear and thrilling stakes riding on the roll – there's more narrative built up around it – and we can have fun interpreting those results on more of a spectrum.

That's me. YMMV.

 

[overgeeked]

In another thread we discussed the possibility of symmetry in NPC-to-PC social interactions. Symmetry in that context, means that a PC or NPC can make an ability check to influence a PC or NPC. That debate was highly legalistic. However, there were a few cases where disagreements seemed much less vehement. I am curious about those cases, because they may reveal an opportunity to enhance immersion-in-world through improved (but by no means complete) symmetry between player-characters and other characters.

Disregarding RAW and RAI completely for the purposes of this thread, how do you run NPC-to-PC social interactions in respect of just the cases presented in this poll? As you can see, I am hoping we can reveal our "normal" in these cases. Just to set aside fears, there is no slippery-slope entertained here: the cases are as you see them, and any commitments in their regard are not assumed to be commitments to anything further. This is all for 5th edition, in case of doubt.

Social skills are not mind control, nor are they mind reading. The NPC can present however and whatever they choose. If the PCs have reason to question that, they can make a roll. The NPC can try to intimidate, negotiate, persuade, etc, but the PCs' reactions are their own. I also emphasize the roleplaying of social interactions instead of just rolling checks for the PCs as well. It's a roleplaying game, you don't get to skip over the roleplaying.

 

[Charlaquin]

These are phrased in a way that doesn’t accurately reflect how I adjudicate actions “An NPC can give a PC misinformation with a CHA (deception) check” in particular just sounds bizarre to me. Any character can give any other character misinformation, period, you don’t need to make a check first to be able to tell a lie. If a character has a specific goal they want to accomplish by giving another character this information, it might or might not be necessary to make a Charisma check to determine if they succeed in that goal or fail and face some consequence, and if the character is proficient in Deception, it would probably be appropriate to add their proficiency bonus if a roll was required.

All the rest of these statements similarly seem to be construed backwards to me. PCs and NPCs can do whatever they want and have the ability to do. Sometimes, when what they’re doing might fail and has a consequence for failure, they might have to make a check to see which outcome occurs.

 

[clearstream]

These are phrased in a way that doesn’t accurately reflect how I adjudicate actions “An NPC can give a PC misinformation with a CHA (deception) check” in particular just sounds bizarre to me. Any character can give any other character misinformation, period, you don’t need to make a check first to be able to tell a lie. If a character has a specific goal they want to accomplish by giving another character this information, it might or might not be necessary to make a Charisma check to determine if they succeed in that goal or fail and face some consequence, and if the character is proficient in Deception, it would probably be appropriate to add their proficiency bonus if a roll was required.

The framing assumes that, that which you know to be false cannot be misinformation. So the idea is that

1. The NPC puts forward a piece of misinformation - "I saw two green dragons flying overhead day before yesterday"
2. The PCs now unavoidably have that notion in mind - but perhaps they know it to be false?
3. The case assumes that the NPC can avoid the PCs knowing that notion is false with a CHA (Deception) check

You seem to be saying it's plausible to involve CHA (Deception) in some form. I can't see how a new thought isn't given to the PCs (that there could possibly have been two green dragons flying overhead day before yesterday.)

Or might you approach it that the lie is automatically undetected unless a PC expresses doubt, i.e. no assumed character in-world intuitions? In which case perhaps it is going to be a WIS (Insight) check?

 

[clearstream]

It's a roleplaying game, you don't get to skip over the roleplaying.

In saying that, would you also say that you don't get to skip over the game?

My thought is that perhaps we are dealing with a sliding scale, where some groups lean more to RP, others more to G. That's simplified, of course, because I believe it possible to employ the G to deliver a specific kind of RP. We might envision RPg, rpG, and RPG, and various flavours thereof.

 

[overgeeked]

The framing assumes that, that which you know to be false cannot be misinformation.

What? That's literally what misinformation is. A lie. Something you know to be false. "Misinformation" is simply the soft language we've "chosen" to use instead of calling lies lies and liars liars.

So the idea is that

1. The NPC puts forward a piece of misinformation - "I saw two green dragons flying overhead day before yesterday"
2. The PCs now unavoidably have that notion in mind - but perhaps they know it to be false?
3. The case assumes that the NPC can avoid the PCs knowing that notion is false with a CHA (Deception) check

You seem to be saying it's plausible to involve CHA (Deception) in some form. I can't see how a new thought isn't given to the PCs (that there could possibly have been two green dragons flying overhead day before yesterday.)

Or might you approach it that the lie is automatically undetected unless a PC expresses doubt, i.e. no assumed character in-world intuitions? In which case perhaps it is going to be a WIS (Insight) check?

You handle it as a DM like you'd handle it as a real person in a real situation. Everything else is secondary, including the mechanics.

 

[overgeeked]

In saying that, would you also say that you don't get to skip over the game?

My thought is that perhaps we are dealing with a sliding scale, where some groups lean more to RP, others more to G. That's simplified, of course, because I believe it possible to employ the G to deliver a specific kind of RP. We might envision RPg, rpG, and RPG, and various flavours thereof.

The mechanics aren't what make it a game. That it's play is what makes it a game. You can still play a roleplaying game without dice or any other randomizer. But it's still a game because it's play. So if you skip over the dice, you're still playing a roleplaying game. If you skip over the roleplaying, you're no longer playing a roleplaying game.

 

[HammerMan]

The mechanics aren't what make it a game. That it's play is what makes it a game. You can still play a roleplaying game without dice or any other randomizer. But it's still a game because it's play. So if you skip over the dice, you're still playing a roleplaying game. If you skip over the roleplaying, you're no longer playing a roleplaying game.

Where I agree with most of what you said, would you agree that we sometimes skip rules for fun at table, and sometimes use the rules for fun at the table?

 

[Charlaquin]

The framing assumes that, that which you know to be false cannot be misinformation. So the idea is that

1. The NPC puts forward a piece of misinformation - "I saw two green dragons flying overhead day before yesterday"
2. The PCs now unavoidably have that notion in mind - but perhaps they know it to be false?

Well if the PCs know the information to be false, then there’s no need to call for a check to resolve the action. The NPC said something that the PCs knew to be false. Now the dramatic question moves on to what are the PCs going to do about it.

3. The case assumes that the NPC can avoid the PCs knowing that notion is false with a CHA (Deception) check

If the PCs know it’s false, they know it’s false. If they don’t know it’s false, they don’t know it’s false. Either way, there’s really no need to make a roll to resolve the outcome, unless there’s some reason that the NPC might fail to convey this misinformation convincingly and give away that it’s false - maybe he’s nervous or something, or he’s making it up on the fly and might accidentally say something that contradicts something else he told them. I don’t know, it’s hard to work with such abstract examples.

You seem to be saying it's plausible to involve CHA (Deception) in some form. I can't see how a new thought isn't given to the PCs (that there could possibly have been two green dragons flying overhead day before yesterday.)

Or might you approach it that the lie is automatically undetected unless a PC expresses doubt, i.e. no assumed character in-world intuitions? In which case perhaps it is going to be a WIS (Insight) check?

If a character suspects another character might be trying to deceive them, they can always declare an action to try and determine the other character’s intentions, by paying attention to their body language, tone of voice, and other such cues. If the outcome of that action is in doubt, Wisdom (Insight) would probably be the best roll to call for to resolve that doubt - likely contested by the other character’s Charisma (Deception) if they are lying.