D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

sounds like he agrees with me...

Almost. You're using the ability check when there isn't uncertainty to describe the NPC. He's saying that if the outcome is in doubt and there is a roll, that roll can affect how the DM describes the NPC. There's a bit of a difference there.

 

[clearstream]

Almost. You're using the ability check when there isn't uncertainty to describe the NPC. He's saying that if the outcome is in doubt and there is a roll, that roll can affect how the DM describes the NPC. There's a bit of a difference there.

So pretty much the only correction I'm making is to say per RAW, it's the DM who is the ultimate arbiter of what is in doubt. No assumptions of prior certainty that trump the DM. [EDIT and this is by no means to disagree on the RAI.]

 

[HammerMan]

Getting back on topic, and setting aside for a moment considerations of both RAW and RAI, I genuinely don't understand why you want to play the game such that the DM would roll dice to see how well an NPC lied, and a player would be expected/required to roleplay believing it.

NOW THIS IS THE RIGHT QUASTION...
why my group feels this is the right way is simple. We don't want to play a game of testing if the DM or the Player is smarter or more creative or just uses words better. We want to play a game where the shyest player can play a Cha heavy Bard, take Inspiring leader feat, and IN GAME be the most convincing and inspiring guy/gal there... but we also want that player to be able to (if they want) take a turn DMing, and run NPCs that are a Cha heavy Bard, take Inspiring leader feat, and IN GAME be the most convincing and inspiring guy/gal there.

We don't see it as a detriment to our roleplaying. Infact we have found it leads to WAY more interesting (and sometimes funny) roleplaying when we only take what is happening in the fiction, in the story, in the game into account without the weight of how well the player/dm describes it.

A 'scary orc' with a cha of +2 and Intimidate skill +3 and expertise +3 and blessing of Gumph granting advantage on the roll can roll 2d20 take the highest and add 8 to it, and let us know how scary he is IN game. (this means it can be 2 1's and be a 9 and we all laugh at him, or a 17, and 12 to give a 25 and we know how to respond) It means that the DM who has 30+ years of DMing, does improv, and writes for a living (yes this is a player we used to have and yes he DMed) is not going to make a 'scarier orc' then the DM who has only run 3 games and 1 was 4e, and has only been playing a handful of years is shy and stutters (a player/dm who we still have)

Yes, it's true that some GMs will not be smooth liars (or their players will know them well enough) such that attempts to actually fool the players will fail. And....so?

and so it makes it hard to take what they just said out of game and translate it into what happened in game.

My question is: why is it so important for the player to believe the lie? It can't be a realism argument; it's the nature of lies that sometimes people don't believe them. (And the opposite: sometimes people don't believe the truth, either.)

it isn't important that the player believe the lie (or not believe) what matters is when in doubt we have a skill system to fall back on. When the out of game information can not properly convay the ingame narrative, we have rules for that.

My suspicion is that it's because the DM has set up a plot, and if the players know the NPC is lying, and act on it, then the plot falls apart. And, honestly, that's a terrible reason.

lol, if that was true why roll. It almost feels like everyone argueing against this has never rolled a D20 and it come up 1-6?

It is 100% MORE likely (in my groups that I am speaking for) that if a DM has a plot point, they just explain it and let us run with it. It is more when they DON'T have the plot pre planned they fall back on 'hey how X is Y'

And now getting back to the text, it's my belief that MM and JC and Co. agree with this, and after decades of gaming they said, "You know, this is stupid. Let's stop trying to tightly control social interactions through rules, and just let people roleplay through it. Just let people decide what their own characters do." "I so agree! I'll put that right on page 185, in the section on roleplaying, where nobody will miss it."

I disagree (I know shocking). If that was true why have those social skills at all? Just make Cha the most used casting stat with no skills (like Con already is) and then there would be no question.

 

[HammerMan]

Almost. You're using the ability check when there isn't uncertainty to describe the NPC. He's saying that if the outcome is in doubt and there is a roll, that roll can affect how the DM describes the NPC. There's a bit of a difference there.

there is uncertainty... I have been saying this forever now

 

[Bill Zebub]

To avoid the lie automatically succeeding. As I can explain below.


Say an NPC gives the PCs some misinformation, but the PCs don't express any doubt or inquiry. And in this case our DM is not taking an acting approach to their presentation of the game-world, or perhaps they think they gave the right subvocal clues, but failed dismally. To me, the characters inhabit the world... so shouldn't they have some chance of noticing the deception? Just as the characters living in the game world have a chance to notice an NPC sneaking up on them, even though there is no one acting that out at their rl table.

There are many approaches that could work here. One is that a DM tells the players that they might be being lied to. Another is the DM decides to make a check for the NPC - CHA (Deception) against passive WIS (Insight). That comports well with other cases covered under RAW (such as where an NPC attempts to be stealthy).

Put simply, a DM can always rule something is uncertain, and are encouraged and endorsed under RAW to do so. The alternative is that in the case at hand, the NPC automatically succeeds.

First, since I don't believe in NPCs "making Deception checks" I also don't really believe auto-success/failure has any meaning. I'd just tell the lie, and if the players believe it, they believe it. It's not an "auto-success" by the NPCs, it's just description.

But, in this situation, for those who really want to play it this way, the outcome should be the result of the player, not the NPC. The DC can be the NPCs roll, and instead of a roll (if you don't want to tip off the player) you could use passive Insight. And if you further don't want to tip off the player, use the NPC's passive Deception. If the player succeeds, narrate in a way that leaves a clue.

It's just like a trap, really: you don't "roll for the trap". You might use passive perception, or you might just let the players decide if they want to search.

Although, as I said up-thread, I think it's really hard to do clues without giving the whole thing away. If you add, "and he doesn't make eye contact with you while he's saying it" the player 100% knows you mean the NPC is lying. Which is why I wouldn't bother with any of this.

And again comparing this to traps:: if you sprinkle traps around randomly without broadcasting them, and the players are used to that, they will feel the need to "search for traps" all the time. And if that's the case, I can see why asking them to describe what they are doing (in searching for non-existent traps) instead of just saying "Can I roll to detect traps?" would be a pain. But if they know you won't leave traps without broadcasting them, and the broadcast gives them specific ideas about how to search and what to do, then they will try to describe actions that don't use dice. And, for many of us, this is a lot more fun than saying, "I'll roll Detect Traps" at every door, chest, desk, hallway, etc.

Similarly, when preparing an adventure, if there's a Big Lie as part of the plot, make sure to leave a clue. Perhaps prepare ahead of time a mistake the NPC will make in telling the lie (getting a detail wrong, one that the players should know, for example).

 

[Maxperson]

there is uncertainty... I have been saying this forever now

And you've admitted that's your house rule. Crawford isn't talking about a house rule, so he's referring to RAW which requires certainty/uncertainty to be determined PRIOR to the roll.

 

[Maxperson]

So pretty much the only correction I'm making is to say per RAW, it's the DM who is the ultimate arbiter of what is in doubt. No assumptions of prior certainty that trump the DM. [EDIT and this is by no means to disagree on the RAI.]

The rule you think says that, doesn't actually say that, though. The rule says the DM calls for a roll when the outcome is in doubt. It does not say he is the only one who can determine certainty.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I am specifically wondering how you adjudicate actions in 5e. Use the examples of 1) a PC trying to intimidate an NPC to make it do X; 2) an NPC trying to intimidate a PC to make them do Y.

@clearstream - not sure if you skipped this on purpose (didn't want to answer) or missed this (because of the volume of posts)
But I am still honestly interested if you are willing to respond with how the specifics of adjudication work at your table.

 

[clearstream]

But, in this situation, for those who really want to play it this way, the outcome should be the result of the player, not the NPC. The DC can be the NPCs roll, and instead of a roll (if you don't want to tip off the player) you could use passive Insight. And if you further don't want to tip off the player, use the NPC's passive Deception. If the player succeeds, narrate in a way that leaves a clue.

A group could do it that way. If our thought here is we need to do this to protect prior certainty, then for me that is misguided.

I thought I should call out BTW that my position is that it is clear RAI - strongly supported in RAW - that ability checks shouldn't override player agency. For what it's worth, I draw a distinction between agency (does) and thought (thinks). Holistically the rules uphold player agency while being forgiving on thought (so a player can be misled, and that doesn't raise any particular conflict.) DM decides what is uncertain.

I'm not sure what the motive would be to demand prior certainty as it creates problems where none need exist. The rest of the process is right.

It's just like a trap, really: you don't "roll for the trap". You might use passive perception, or you might just let the players decide if they want to search.

Yes! The passive check applies, or a check can be made. It's up to the DM. Albeit, to me, it is more like Stealth.

Although, as I said up-thread, I think it's really hard to do clues without giving the whole thing away. If you add, "and he doesn't make eye contact with you while he's saying it" the player 100% knows you mean the NPC is lying. Which is why I wouldn't bother with any of this.

Of course. That is your approach, but surely you can agree that it is up to each group whether their DM will telegraph like that?

And again comparing this to traps:: if you sprinkle traps around randomly without broadcasting them, and the players are used to that, they will feel the need to "search for traps" all the time. And if that's the case, I can see why asking them to describe what they are doing (in searching for non-existent traps) instead of just saying "Can I roll to detect traps?" would be a pain. But if they know you won't leave traps without broadcasting them, and the broadcast gives them specific ideas about how to search and what to do, then they will try to describe actions that don't use dice. And, for many of us, this is a lot more fun than saying, "I'll roll Detect Traps" at every door, chest, desk, hallway, etc.

More like Stealth, I believe. The NPC check goes against PC passive.

 

[clearstream]

The rule you think says that, doesn't actually say that, though. The rule says the DM calls for a roll when the outcome is in doubt. It does not say he is the only one who can determine certainty.

The DM decides if the outcome is in doubt. If they decide it is, they call for a check. Remember that PHB 185 isn't a rule.