Skills used by players on other players.

[Ovinomancer]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] has it. It's just worked out by the players involved in a way that they believe will be fun for everyone and that contributes to an exciting, memorable story. I see no need for mechanics here.

For transparency, a few years back I got into an argument with you about using social mechanics against players. I was on the other side, then. I understand the intent behind both sides, and I do play some games that do allow this kind of PVP social mechanics being binding. 5e isn't one of those games, though. There's no inherent penalty for failure, for instance. If you try to persuade the other PC, there's not "if I fail, they persuade me" mechanic. That, as you well note usually, means you shouldn't roll -- if there's no penalty for failure, the roll isn't interesting enough to make. You could shoehorn it in, but, frankly, the nature of 5e skill math is such that it's not a good fit, and you'll find players aren't really willing to risk the all-or-nothing effects of such things. This first 1 on a d20 from the super-convincing bard vs the barbarian meaning the bard was convinced by the barbarian and must abide by it and you'll see grumbling about stupid mechanics. Games that do PVP well almost always use generic and well balanced mechanics that always allow for a moderate chance of failure (at least) and the challenge is really to see who gets their way in the fiction rather than 100% win/lose. The fiction moves forward either way.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Welp I lost that bet lol. But that's influenced from your way of resolving pc vs pc conflict.

However, perhaps more importantly for everyone to understand is that even if it was an npc in question instead of another pc you still wouldn't allow the "hey DM does my pc think they are lying" comment. You would have them say what their PC was trying to do as an action, "my pc is trying to determine if NPC is lying". Then if you determined it uncertain you would call for the roll.

Yeah, this is an important point.

You're not looking for the player to state whether or not he knows it's a lie. You are asking him "what do you do?". Maybe he suspects the guy is lying, but decides to act as if he doesn't.

And maybe what his character does is actually say, "You are lying!" But what the player is thinking is, "My character isn't sure, but he's the kind of guy who would make wild accusations without proof."

And know what? That's actually better roleplaying (in my book) than relying on dice for a binary answer with 100% surety. Because humans don't actually "detect" lies, they have beliefs with varying levels of conviction.

 

[robus]

An example of PvP I do allow is when player A wants their PC to take some precipitive action and player B wants to stop them. I’ll have them roll a contested initiative to see if Player B was quick enough to interject and make their case, but Player A still gets to decide whether they follow through with their initial idea even if they lose that contest.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah man, there's a whole world of villains and monsters out there to lie to, steal from, and murder. Ain't got time for people who want to instead flip coins trying to mess with each other.

I agree, though I am in a game right now with a rogue that steals from the party. Though he is pretty good about not going over the line into the annoying or antagonistic route and it makes for some interesting scenarios at times. He gives back the stuff when confronted after always explaining that he just "found" it.

I would say it's not about allowing or not allowing it really. I just can't do anything with that question - there's nothing there for me to adjudicate into a result because the player didn't tell me what he or she wanted to do. I would tell the player I can't tell them what their PC thinks (just did that a couple sessions ago in a pick-up group) and ask the player to tell me what they are trying to accomplish and how they are going about accomplishing it.

Yea, you are quite a stickler for precise phrasing. I don't think many of us play that strictly in our play. Instead many of us would resolve, "hey dm does my pc think he is lying" with a dice roll, but that's because we ultimately are interpreting "what does my pc think" as not being a literal request, and that it means my pc is assessing the tone, mannerisms etc etc of the potential liar in order to determine if he is lying. In other words, the explicit words don't matter so much to most of us but instead we consciously or subconsciously resolve such phrases as if the player had stated an goal and approach.

At least that's my take on what I'm doing after our past discussions. I didn't realize it till those discussions though

 

[ccs]

Let me ask this from the other side. One that doesn't affect character agency.

Character A tells the group something. The character is lying.

Character B is suspicious - maybe they think character A is charmed, or carrying out a mission for their faction, or it doesn't jive with other information. Player B asks the DM if their character thinks Character A is lying.

Is it in-line for the DM to ask for a bluff vs. insight role if the first character wasn't telling the truth?

(Alternately: for those who are using the Isereth (?) method where pvp is determined by the person being affected, is the bluff a "pvp attack" and it needs to be disclosed to player B that it was a lie so they can determine how they respond?)

This is just wondering about social skill use vs. other characters when player agency isn't at risk. I think the answer to this sort might help define where the line is for some.

As I said before, anything that can be done to/vs an NPC can be done to a fellow PC.
So if PC#1 is lying & the player of PC#2 wants to know for sure, roll the dice.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It seems reasonable to me that some adventurers might weigh two options and go with the one that will provide him or her with the most benefit. And oddly enough in this case, for reasons that probably amount to a lucky guess, that choice ended up being the right one (to the extent I understand GameOgre's description).

I agree. But out-of-game/mechanical considerations that don't have a direct in-character equivalent aren't something an adventurer should be taking into account. Also, the way the comment was phrased was pretty clearly an out-of-character motivation and decision.

The only time I'm really okay with a decision being made dramatically OOC is when it's for the good of the game as a whole (such as someone deciding to join the party in the first place when otherwise they might not). And even then, I prefer they find a way to justify it in-character.

 

[ccs]

Yea, you are quite a stickler for precise phrasing. I don't think many of us play that strictly in our play. Instead many of us would resolve, "hey dm does my pc think he is lying" with a dice roll, but that's because we ultimately are interpreting "what does my pc think" as not being a literal request, and that it means my pc is assessing the tone, mannerisms etc etc of the potential liar in order to determine if he is lying. In other words, the explicit words don't matter so much to most of us but instead we consciously or subconsciously resolve such phrases as if the player had stated an goal and approach.

At least that's my take on what I'm doing after our past discussions. I didn't realize it till those discussions though

My thoughts exactly. I've simply got better things to do than play word/phrasing games with my players (unless it's part of a puzzle challenge). As long as you make it clear what you mean? I don't care how you phrase it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Character A tells the group something. The character is lying.

Character B is suspicious - maybe they think character A is charmed, or carrying out a mission for their faction, or it doesn't jive with other information. Player B asks the DM if their character thinks Character A is lying.

Is it in-line for the DM to ask for a bluff vs. insight role if the first character wasn't telling the truth?

(Alternately: for those who are using the Isereth (?) method where pvp is determined by the person being affected, is the bluff a "pvp attack" and it needs to be disclosed to player B that it was a lie so they can determine how they respond?)

When an NPC lies to the PCs at my table, I make a check against the PCs’ passive Wisdom (Insight). On a failure, I tell them the NPC is lying. On a success, I don’t tell them, and let the players decide for themselves if they believe the NPC or not.

If a PC lies to another PC at my table, it is public out of character knowledge that the character is lying. It is up to the players if they want their characters to believe the lie, disbelieve the lie, ask the lying PC’s player to make a check to determine if their character believes the lie, make their own Insight check, or whatever other method they might want to use to determine the outcome.

This is just wondering about social skill use vs. other characters when player agency isn't at risk. I think the answer to this sort might help define where the line is for some.

I would argue that this is still a matter of player agency. If I as DM tell the player they have to believe something an NPC says, then I am removing that player’s ability to decide how their character reacts, thereby removing their agency.

 

[iserith]

Yea, you are quite a stickler for precise phrasing. I don't think many of us play that strictly in our play. Instead many of us would resolve, "hey dm does my pc think he is lying" with a dice roll, but that's because we ultimately are interpreting "what does my pc think" as not being a literal request, and that it means my pc is assessing the tone, mannerisms etc etc of the potential liar in order to determine if he is lying. In other words, the explicit words don't matter so much to most of us but instead we consciously or subconsciously resolve such phrases as if the player had stated an goal and approach.

At least that's my take on what I'm doing after our past discussions. I didn't realize it till those discussions though

It's not about precise phrasing though. If I'm not going to tell you what your character thinks, then it's only consistent in my view for me to also not assume or establish what your character is doing. To that end it's on the player to describe a goal and approach that I can adjudicate.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Correction. You decide to attempt to walk away and quickly find that you cannot move because you are grappled. Nothing in this scenario is preventing your character from attempting to do something he thought he should do.

(***All actions are attempted actions until completed).

In the example of persuasion, the bards persuasion is being used to prevent your PC from even wanting to do something else. It's preventing the PC in question from thinking whatever he wants to think.

THis was always all that ever needed saying on the topic. Only magic can make it so that your character can’t decide not to walk away.

Also, why is it even a problem if different skill types work differently?

I can’t stop someone moving with deception, I can’t change someone’s mind with acrobatics, and I can’t clear a low wall at speed with insight. They do different things.

In the case of social skills, if I try to convince the NPC Queen to sleep with me, the DM can determine that no roll is called for because she already wants to, or because she won’t no matter how well I do at trying to elicit interest.

Likewise, if my character is the “target”, I can decide that no roll is needed because I’m always down to shag royalty, or because literally no temptation that isn’t supernatural could make me entangle myself in the political hornet’s nest, or because my character is married and is absolutely faithful, or bc he inherently doesn’t trust the situation regardless of her intentions, or whatever. It is entirely up to me. Charisma isn’t magic. It doesn’t override the free will of any character, NPC or PC. Period.