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

[clearstream]

The NPC already succeeded at telling the PCs a thing that isn’t true. If the players think it’s true, then that’s what they think. There’s really nothing there to adjudicate.

When you say "already succeeded", you mean the NPC was able to automatically deceive the PCs without needing a check? This is in the case of a DM who isn't an actor, ie doesn't act out their NPCs.

That is, are you saying that NPCs can't fail in deceiving PCs unless the PCs announce doubts?

 

[Charlaquin]

When you say "already succeeded", you mean the NPC was able to automatically deceive the PCs without needing a check? This is in the case of a DM who isn't an actor, ie doesn't act out their NPCs.

That is, are you saying that NPCs can't fail in deceiving PCs unless the PCs announce doubts?

No, I mean they said a thing that wasn’t true. In my evaluation, that doesn’t really have a chance of failure, so there’s no need to roll for it. Arguably, if they had a specific goal in mind to which lying to the PCs was their approach, I suppose that might call for a roll to resolve, but I imagine such a goal would involve getting them to do or think something specific, and we’ve been over my thoughts on that matter in quite some depth recently

No, the way I see the scene playing out is, I describe what the NPC tells the PCs, probably including some kind of telegraph if it isn’t true. If the players decide their characters believe it then they believe it. If they decide they don’t believe it then they don’t believe it. If they decide to take some action to try and confirm their suspicions, they can describe it (with a clear statement of goal and an approach) and I’ll resolve that as I would any other action. I imagine a Wisdom (Insight) vs Charisma (Deception) contest would likely be the best way to do that, but it would depend on the specifics of the action.

 

[clearstream]

No, I mean they said a thing that wasn’t true. In my evaluation, that doesn’t really have a chance of failure, so there’s no need to roll for it. Arguably, if they had a specific goal in mind to which lying to the PCs was their approach, I suppose that might call for a roll to resolve, but I imagine such a goal would involve getting them to do or think something specific, and we’ve been over my thoughts on that matter in quite some depth recently

No, the way I see the scene playing out is, I describe what the NPC tells the PCs, probably including some kind of telegraph if it isn’t true. If the players decide their characters believe it then they believe it. If they decide they don’t believe it then they don’t believe it. If they decide to take some action to try and confirm their suspicions, they can describe it (with a clear statement of goal and an approach) and I’ll resolve that as I would any other action. I imagine a Wisdom (Insight) vs Charisma (Deception) contest would likely be the best way to do that, but it would depend on the specifics of the action.

Obtuse, but I admire your skill at evading inconsistencies with your position

I would simply make the check. As you say, we've been over why in some depth... and to my mind barely scratched the surface!

 

[Charlaquin]

Obtuse, but I admire your skill at evading inconsistencies with your position

It’s really quite straightforward, but go off I guess.

 

[clearstream]

Looking at results as of this morning. It feels like NPC uses of Deception against PCs could be fairly normal. Something I noticed recently is that the wording of Deception is different from that of Intimidation and Persuasion.

Deception - Your Charisma (Deception) check determines whether you can convincingly hide the truth, either verbally or through your actions.

Which contrasts with

Intimidation - When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check.

Perhaps the game designers felt on better footing with Deception. So they were more comfortable with instructing gamers to go ahead and make a check. @Hriston for vis.

 

[clearstream]

It’s really quite straightforward, but go off I guess.

See my post above. When you look at the wordings it feels like Deception is in a different category from Intimidation and Persuasion. Deception is more - this is what the check does. The others are more - maybe you'll need a check.

From this poll and other discussion, it feels like many DMs are comfortable misleading player-characters. There are different ideas about the best way to do that, of course. Most DMs draw the line at ability checks being used to say what a player-character will do (overriding player will in that instance.) Perhaps because there are no clear limits on how that could be used (in contrast to say a spell that has the same result.)

Thinking idly about social interactions as a game mechanism, one may see Insight as a defense, Deception deciding belief or disbelief, and Intimidation and Persuasion influencing actor choices. The outcome of an Intimidation or Persuasion check can be that an actor has to make a given choice. Whereas the outcome of a Deception check can be that an actor has misinformation: they're mislead in some respect. Insight guards against Deception.

What is harder to see in respect of game qua game, is whether or how misinformation is supposed to interact with influencing? Something I have been investigating is the possibility that something is tacitly required in order to exert influence: a believable threat for Intimidation, or a believable benefit for Persuasion. Deception then has an obvious part to play.

It's not that I believe these skills must work together as a mechanism, or were necessarily designed that way, but I think they may do and that there are some opportunities around that. My overall theory of D&D mechanisms is still evolving, as I believe it must accommodate some things that are not accommodated in your current theory. Not so much saying that your theory is wrong, but it seems incomplete or wrong in parts. When one has that kind of intuition it often turns out that there is some consideration that hasn't turned up or been unpacked yet. I had wondered if Deception could be such a consideration seeing as only by weasel-wording could one really avoid a check feeling very reasonable. Now I think Deception is just in a different category... but then maybe that category itself is a challenge to your theory?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

[a] PC's reaction is up to them, barring Suggestion-level mind control.​

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

 

[S'mon]

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

Yes?
I don't let skill checks fundamentally change a character's personality & actions. NPC or PC. Intimidate makes characters scared, it's not "reveal information" any more than Persuasion or Deception. Skills aren't magic and they don't change what is possible. This isn't really about treating PCs & NPCs differently AFAICS. The agency I respect is the player agency in determining their PC's personality and what they care about. If an NPC rolled 30 on Intimidate I might insist the PC was scared of them. I would never insist that the PC therefore had to reveal information to them.

Example: Start of Star Wars. Vader uses Intimidate on the Rebel Captain. He clearly rolls extremely high! The Captain is certainly scared while being choked to death - yet still refuses to cooperate.

A Suggestion spell is more like the Imperial mind probe used on Leia. In that case she makes her save, but different rules clearly apply. Or Obi-Wan's "these are not the droids you're looking for" - an actual Suggestion, used successfully.

 

[clearstream]

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

The general thinking is that ability checks are too broad. So a spell tends to have tightly defined usage, ranges, targets, durations and so on. While ability checks are pretty open.

I guess there is an asymmetry too, in that a DM can change anything about the game world that doesn't suit them - i.e. decide an ability doesn't override an NPC's will if they don't want it to. Whereas - were ability checks able to override their will - players wouldn't have any similar fiat.

Players can accept that where it is well defined. Not quite so much when it is completely open. Even though I agree with you that the outcome can be pretty similar. Especially as the DM could just as well have given the NPC a spell or power to have that same result!

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

To each their own. I basically despise most rules, but especially D&D's rules. They're largely cruft that could be jettisoned and nothing important would be lost. They're a scaffolding that gets in the way more than they help, in my experience.

Well, anything less than utterly catastrophic would matter less and less. So the need to know if it's true or false diminishes. If someone stole a cheese wheel from the cheesemonger...no one but the cheesemonger will care. If your NPC is hiring me to find the cheese wheel, I'll play along as long as I can to get paid, the truth value of the statement be damned.

Bottom line is rolling to find out is kind of a bad crutch. If the player rolls high, they'll assume that whatever you tell them is true. If they roll low, they'll assume that whatever you tell them is false. It's a great way to mess with your players, but as a means to relaying accurate information from the DM to the players, it's really kinda bad.

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." 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.

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). 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.

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.

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."

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.