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

[Hriston]

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.

Which contrasts with

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.

I think you are making too much of the inclusion, or lack thereof, of the word might in the skill descriptions because this:

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

does not override this:

​

A Charisma check might arise... when you try to... tell a convincing lie...​

​

I.e., whether a character attempting to tell a convincing lie is proficient in Deception or not has no bearing on whether the DM calls for a check to resolve such an attempt.

 

[billd91]

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

Ideally, it shouldn't be.

 

[clearstream]

I think you are making too much of the inclusion, or lack thereof, of the word might in the skill descriptions because this:

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

does not override this:

​

A Charisma check might arise... when you try to... tell a convincing lie...​

​

I.e., whether a character attempting to tell a convincing lie is proficient in Deception or not has no bearing on whether the DM calls for a check to resolve such an attempt.

It's a matter of scopes. When something falls within the scope to which deception normally applies, then we read both the Charisma general rules and the skill specific rules. But let's be clear that the skill specific rules are not about the skill per se: they are about what falls within the Skill's defined scope.

 

[overgeeked]

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

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.

 

[Hriston]

It's a matter of scopes. When something falls within the scope to which deception normally applies, then we read both the Charisma general rules and the skill specific rules. But let's be clear that the skill specific rules are not about the skill per se: they are about what falls within the Skill's defined scope.

Okay, but the skill-specific rule is silent on whether a check is called for. That is addressed by the more general rule.

 

[clearstream]

Okay, but the skill-specific rule is silent on whether a check is called for. That is addressed by the more general rule.

For deception, it reads - your check does X.

 

[Hriston]

For deception, it reads - your check does X.

Right, so a check would need to arise first before it could do that. The section on Charisma checks states only that one might arise.

 

[clearstream]

Right, so a check would need to arise first before it could do that. The section on Charisma checks states only that one might arise.

Up to DM. Based on what I see discussed, it is normal to call for a Deception check contested with Insight. Very similar to Stealth contested with Perception. They're all abilities.

 

[overgeeked]

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.

To add to this.

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. It's a weird metagame dynamic. Same with insight vs deception. If the player rolls low, they'll assume there's more information to be had and continue poking. If the player rolls high, they'll assume that whatever information the DM provides is true and leave it at that. There's no objective information to be had in either situation. That's why the DM should make those rolls or use passive skills. And even then, it's "you think" rather than "you know"...and as someone who runs a lot of investigation games (namely Call of Cthulhu), let me tell you...I've watched entire campaigns permanently sidetrack into irrelevancies because of a slip of the tongue when it comes to the difference between "think" and "know". When it comes to information the character literally cannot know, there's no roll. They get to decide whatever they think or believe. They don't get to know anything unless it's concrete and in front of them and they can prove it. And they certainly don't get to know what's in someone else's head with a roll...unless they're telepathic.

 

[Hriston]

Up to DM. Based on what I see discussed, it is normal to call for a Deception check contested with Insight. Very similar to Stealth contested with Perception. They're all abilities.

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.