Skills used by players on other players.

[FrogReaver]

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.

I am saying that when I and many other players say X we actually mean Y. You are saying no matter what is meant by X you require a player to say Y. It seems to me like if the meaning in both situations is the same then it is coming down to being about how something is being said.

The point is that even when I as a player say "DM tell me if I think he is lying" I don't mean for you to literally do that. It's shorthand for me that means the same thing as "dm I am going to watch him and his reactions to see if I can determine if he is lying".

Should you have to make such assumptions about the PC's actions as the DM? I think you can't avoid that completely. I think that as long as the player is generally accepting of the assumptions you make on behalf of his way of phrasing actions then the game works just fine. If the players keep challenging whatever assumptions you are drawing from their shorthand phrases then it's probably time to require them to be more specific.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am saying that when I and many other players say X we actually mean Y. You are saying no matter what is meant by X you require a player to say Y. It seems to me like if the meaning in both situations is the same then it is coming down to being about how something is being said.

The point is that even when I as a player say "DM tell me if I think he is lying" I don't mean for you to literally do that. It's shorthand for me that means the same thing as "dm I am going to watch him and his reactions to see if I can determine if he is lying".

Should you have to make such assumptions about the PC's actions as the DM? I think you can't avoid that completely.

Sure you can. By requiring the players be precise with their phrasing. Now, for many DMs, myself included, insisting on such precise language isn’t worth the effort, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable of Iserith, especially since their insistence comes from a desire not to assume players’ intent.

I think that as long as the player is generally accepting of the assumptions you make on behalf of his way of phrasing actions then the game works just fine. If the players keep challenging whatever assumptions you are drawing from their shorthand phrases then it's probably time to require them to be more specific.

This is a good metric when you’re playing with a regular group who’s speech patterns and tolerance for creative interpretation you are or can become familiar with. It is a riskier strategy when you don’t know who might show up from game to game, like if you run Adventurer’s League, or open-attendance one-shots (which I’m pretty sure is what Iserith does.)

 

[clearstream]

He did answer, though. There's no check because the player gets to decide what their PC thinks. Period. If they think the other PC is lying, they think that. If their suspicious, they think that. No rolls are called for. In other words, what the PC thinks isn't ever uncertain -- it's what the player says -- so there's never a need to roll.

Why would I reach for dice to resolve if a player is uncertain if another player just lied? Seems weird. I know you really want to know how @iserith (and others) would use the mechanics to solve your proposed conundrum, but the answer is we wouldn't -- it's not an issue for mechanics, but for players. This may be unfulfilling, but it's what it is.

My character has abilities that I as player do not have. Say my character is a Rogue Inquisitive with high Wisdom, Expertise in Insight and their Ear for Deceit feature. Possibly at the same time, the lying character is a Barbarian Totem Warrior who dumped Intelligence and Charisma, and has no proficiency in Deception. Were a DM to choose to let me have the benefit of my character's abilities, in judging if the other character (not the player) is lying, that would seem reasonable to me. Denying me the benefit of my character's abilities in that situation would be jarring.

The exchange is a character lying to a character. That's distinct from a player lying to a player.

 

[clearstream]

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.

This is a great example and I think should be tested in its most distinct case, which is where character B is a Rogue Inquisitive with Ear for Deceit, high Wisdom, and Expertise in Insight, and the lying character is a Barbarian Totem Warrior, with low Charisma and no proficiency in Deception. It won't be common that a group's players will have social/psychological/investigative skills to match that sharp gradient. That is to say, it is plausible here that the characters have relevant capabilities that differ from their players.

I note that one move commentators make is to shift the example to "player-to-player," or a conflation of player and character as in "PC-to-PC". I've only started digging into that, but I suspect it either doesn't stand up to scrutiny or something else is going on. What seems to be happening is the shift or conflation is used in some cases, but broken or ignored in other cases. That is, in some cases game mechanics apply character-to-character, but in others there is a shift or conflation used to waive the mechanics. The defining line for where to make that shift appears to vary, commentator to commentator: making it a good example of an exogenous rule (following Bjork and Holopainen's categorisation).

 

[Charlaquin]

My character has abilities that I as player do not have. Say my character is a Rogue Inquisitive with high Wisdom, Expertise in Insight and their Ear for Deceit feature. Possibly at the same time, the lying character is a Barbarian Totem Warrior who dumped Intelligence and Charisma, and has no proficiency in Deception. Were a DM to choose to let me have the benefit of my character's abilities, in judging if the other character (not the player) is lying, that would seem reasonable to me. Denying me the benefit of my character's abilities in that situation would be jarring.

I don’t really see it as the DM’s place to “let you” (or not let you) have the benefit of your character’s abilities here. As the person in control of your character, it is up to you, and only you, to determine what your character thinks, including if your character thinks the barbarian is lying. If you want to use the mechanics to help you make that decision, that’s entirely your prerogative. At least, that’s how I run it.

 

[clearstream]

I don’t really see it as the DM’s place to “let you” (or not let you) have the benefit of your character’s abilities here. As the person in control of your character, it is up to you, and only you, to determine what your character thinks, including if your character thinks the barbarian is lying. If you want to use the mechanics to help you make that decision, that’s entirely your prerogative. At least, that’s how I run it.

To be clear then, you are saying that if I (the Rogue Inquisitive character's player) say to you (as DM) "My character suspects she is being lied to. I want to make a Wisdom (Insight) to see if the Barbarian character is deceiving her. My character has Ear for Deceit and Expertise in the skill so she can't get less than a 15 here." As DM you'll allow the Contest of skills to be made and if my result is higher, then you will tell me if the Barbarian character is (or is not, as the case may be) lying?

 

[Seramus]

To be clear then, you are saying that if I (the Rogue Inquisitive character's player) say to you (as DM) "My character suspects she is being lied to. I want to make a Wisdom (Insight) to see if the Barbarian character is deceiving her. My character has Ear for Deceit and Expertise in the skill so she can't get less than a 15 here." As DM you'll allow the Contest of skills to be made and if my result is higher, then you will tell me if the Barbarian character is (or is not, as the case may be) lying?

That is certainly how I would run it.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

Expending off this, one of the issues I have with the "comparison to combat skills" line of reasoning is that in 5e combat is not a skill check but a series of events and choices and decision points involving vombst snd ths outcome.

That provide both sides numerous options, not the least of which is DISENGAGE which the face/bard/rogue likely pretty good st.

But when the " persuasion yo convince" combat gets dropped down to one set of opposed checks, all those elements of back and forth go away.

Where was the barbarian's "I disengage by walking off saying "shut up, I do not want to talk about this"" moment of choice when the face started his pitch? Where was the "do I have to hurt you to make you drop this?" moment of snarl if the face persisted?

One of the things I do in my games is to have most actions that take longer than an action require the race to three, with possibilities for counter actions and different challenge.

If a game resolved and de facto weaponized single roll CHA checks against PCs, it pretty much create a case of every time the face speaks it may be an attack so act accordingly.

 

[Horwath]

Persuasion is not mind control.

It is at best a very watered down charm person.

You cannot make someone do anything that they would not do in the first place under certain conditions.

No matter how good your roll is, a vendor will not give you his inventory for free.

He might give you a discount as Persuasion appeals to his own best interest(selling stuff), or you aim for moral code.

Say you want to help villagers with orc raiding band(for whatever reasons), but your friend had doubts that you can take them(but he also wants to help the villagers, he is just not sure if you can do it), you can "sell" the story that they are just couple of dumb orcs and you will kill them without any problem.

But you wont talk an evil guy into helping you unless you "sell" him the story in his self interest, like; if we kill the orcs we will pillage their whole hoard that they stole over past months and half the maidens in the village will sleep with you.

 

[5ekyu]

I am saying that when I and many other players say X we actually mean Y. You are saying no matter what is meant by X you require a player to say Y. It seems to me like if the meaning in both situations is the same then it is coming down to being about how something is being said.

The point is that even when I as a player say "DM tell me if I think he is lying" I don't mean for you to literally do that. It's shorthand for me that means the same thing as "dm I am going to watch him and his reactions to see if I can determine if he is lying".

Should you have to make such assumptions about the PC's actions as the DM? I think you can't avoid that completely. I think that as long as the player is generally accepting of the assumptions you make on behalf of his way of phrasing actions then the game works just fine. If the players keep challenging whatever assumptions you are drawing from their shorthand phrases then it's probably time to require them to be more specific.

"I am watching the speaker for any tells or signs that support either veracity or deception. How many of each do I observe and how clear, distinct or severe were each so that I can do my own assessment of whether or not they are bring truthful."