D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Faolyn]

Insight is specific in what is being examined in the action the PC is taking. I think it's best to cleave as closely to that as possible. Not that I would necessarily describe the body language, speech habits, or mannerisms the same every time as is implied by your assertion, as for fidgeting in other NPCs indicating they may be lying - good! That means the player is paying attention, retaining information, and then applying what they learned in the game. That's a good result and an example of player (and perhaps character) skill. However, it's still an assumption on the part of the player and taking action to verify one's assumptions is smart play.

IMO, that's actually bad. It limits your options for describing characters when you say things like "they're fidgeting, which is indicative of lying." Not only is that not true in real life (meaning many people wouldn't think to connect it without you telling them that), but it means that we can't trust you, the DM, to have a character who fidgets who isn't a liar. Furthermore, it makes all your characters stereotypes. "Whoops, he just fidgeted, guess he's a liar." Or worse: "Looks like this guy's a liar; why not just kill him now and get it over with?" It honestly doesn't matter if you say that fidgeting "may" indicate the person is a liar. You're either saying the character is a liar, or you're setting us up to not believe this person when they're telling the truth.

Secondly, if you say "fidgeting is indicative of lying," well, that's kind of offensive to any player who fidgets. If you had said "you noticed that he fidgets when he lies," that's different, because that's an individual tell. So you should probably watch how you describe these things.

Thirdly, it's really pretty mean to test player skill in remembering a given tell. I have ADHD and a terrible memory. Unless you blow fidgeting up to ridiculous levels, I might not remember even that detail half an hour later. Why punish my character because I have problems?

As well, let's keep this in context. You have a particular way you want players to portray their character in order for you to think of them as roleplaying correctly. That is a bias that may show up in how you narrate the results of the adventurers' actions. As you can see, I'm careful to avoid this.

And as I showed, no, you're not.

And yes, I do want players to stay in character. Is there a reason why their character is never intimidated by anyone? Is it in your background? Or is it just something you pull out whenever you feel like no matter how appropriate to the setting, your character, or the NPC in question?

 

[iserith]

IMO, that's actually bad. It limits your options for describing characters when you say things like "they're fidgeting, which is indicative of lying." Not only is that not true in real life (meaning many people wouldn't think to connect it without you telling them that), but it means that we can't trust you, the DM, to have a character who fidgets who isn't a liar. Furthermore, it makes all your characters stereotypes. "Whoops, he just fidgeted, guess he's a liar." Or worse: "Looks like this guy's a liar; why not just kill him now and get it over with?" It honestly doesn't matter if you say that fidgeting "may" indicate the person is a liar. You're either saying the character is a liar, or you're setting us up to not believe this person when they're telling the truth.

Secondly, if you say "fidgeting is indicative of lying," well, that's kind of offensive to any player who fidgets. If you had said "you noticed that he fidgets when he lies," that's different, because that's an individual tell. So you should probably watch how you describe these things.

Thirdly, it's really pretty mean to test player skill in remembering a given tell. I have ADHD and a terrible memory. Unless you blow fidgeting up to ridiculous levels, I might not remember even that detail half an hour later. Why punish my character because I have problems?

1. It doesn't limit anything. I don't even know why you'd say that.

2. We were speaking of an individual NPC who was lying while fidgeting in the example. And once again we can see how people attack the example to distract from what the example is trying to show. This is not an attempt at understanding in my view. It is obfuscation.

3. How is your character being punished? You can still declare an action to determine the NPC's truthfulness by observing body language, speech habits, and mannerism. Pray tell what has changed for your poor character?

And as I showed, no, you're not.

And yes, I do want players to stay in character. Is there a reason why their character is never intimidated by anyone? Is it in your background? Or is it just something you pull out whenever you feel like no matter how appropriate to the setting, your character, or the NPC in question?

I don't believe you've demonstrated anything but a continual misunderstanding of what I'm saying since this tangent on Wisdom (Insight) started. I'm also very pleased that you brought up your preferences as to how you want other people to portray their characters. That provides a lot of insight on your motivations in other aspects of this discussion.

 

[Charlaquin]

Thirdly, it's really pretty mean to test player skill in remembering a given tell. I have ADHD and a terrible memory. Unless you blow fidgeting up to ridiculous levels, I might not remember even that detail half an hour later. Why punish my character because I have problems?

As a fellow ADHD-having person with a terrible memory, I can say that in my experience this has not been an issue at all. Like, I totally get not being able to focus on a lengthy exposition dump or remember a lot of specific details, but as long as everyone is being clear and concise, it doesn’t become a problem in the normal course of play. Besides, I don’t know about you, but D&D holds my interest like nothing else can (why do you think I’m here talking about it basically whenever I’m not playing it).

People seem to have this weirdly overblown aversion to anything that could vaguely be connected with “player skill” (except in combat for some reason), but like… give yourselves some credit. The DM isn’t trying to judge you, they just want to give you the opportunity to make choices and have those choices meaningfully impact the game.

 

[Faolyn]

For me this falls into the category of "Who gives a dusty flumph?"

People who care about immersing themselves in the game, that's who.

 

[Maxperson]

Because it's a role-playing game. If you unilaterally decide your character isn't intimidated, no matter how much bigger, tougher, scarier, or more powerful the other guy is, then you're not really role-playing.

Um, sure you are. You don't get to decide my PC's RP. If I know that he faces even extreme danger stoically and actually lives for the thrill of danger, it doesn't matter what you roll. He's not going to be intimidated.

And you might be knocking other people out of their immersion in the process.

If they can't handle valid RP, that's on them.

 

[iserith]

People who care about immersing themselves in the game, that's who.

I care about immersing myself in the game, but luckily my sense of immersion doesn't require other people to portray their characters any particular way.

 

[Faolyn]

As a fellow ADHD-having person with a terrible memory, I can say that in my experience this has not been an issue at all. Like, I totally get not being able to focus on a lengthy exposition dump or remember a lot of specific details, but as long as everyone is being clear and concise, it doesn’t become a problem in the normal course of play. Besides, I don’t know about you, but D&D holds my interest like nothing else can (why do you think I’m here talking about it basically whenever I’m not playing it).

I wish I could do that, but in my experience, if something doesn't get lodged in my brain right away it probably never will be. Mind you, my ADHD is really bad, like disability-level bad, is of the inattentive subtype, and I can't take meds for it because they messed up my heart and kidneys when I tried. And sadly, my brain is filled with 2e monster statblocks and not how that one NPC acted that one time.

People seem to have this weirdly overblown aversion to anything that could vaguely be connected with “player skill” (except in combat for some reason), but like… give yourselves some credit. The DM isn’t trying to judge you, they just want to give you the opportunity to make choices and have those choices meaningfully impact the game.

There's a difference between getting the players to do something clever or try new things and deliberately focusing on a person's weak spot.

 

[Faolyn]

1. It doesn't limit anything. I don't even know why you'd say that.

Sure it does. Fidgeters are liars. Fidgeters are not people who just fidget.

2. We were speaking of an individual NPC who was lying while fidgeting in the example. And once again we can see how people attack the example to distract from what the example is trying to show. This is not an attempt at understanding in my view. It is obfuscation.

You specifically said "he's fidgeting, which is indicative of lying."

3. How is your character being punished? You can still declare an action to determine the NPC's truthfulness by observing body language, speech habits, and mannerism. Pray tell what has changed for your poor character?

You: This guy is fidgeting and he says blah.

Me: <not remembering that for you, fidgeting means liar> Um, OK?

Other people: Wait, he's fidgeting? I roll Insight!

I don't believe you've demonstrated anything but a continual misunderstanding of what I'm saying since this tangent on Wisdom (Insight) started. I'm also very pleased that you brought up your preferences as to how you want other people to portray their characters. That provides a lot of insight on your motivations in other aspects of this discussion.

Clearly you rolled a nat 1 on your Insight check, then.

 

[Faolyn]

Who gets to decide whether something is a legitimate way for a character to act?

If you have every one of your characters as being the same in some way--such as never being intimidated--that's perfectly legitimate. It also does not make you a fun player to play with or GM for.

 

[Maxperson]

I think what you're put off by is that people tend to use sentences like "you think he's lying" in a way that (edit: you think) means the player can't choose otherwise. But that sort of phrasing isn't mind-control. It's just a shortcut, like saying "you don't find any traps on the chest." That doesn't mean there aren't any traps, and it doesn't mean the PC has to open the chest. And you don't have to trust an NPC just because the DM says "she seems honest." People use that "you think he's lying" or "she seems honest" because--as I pointed out--only giving the physical descriptions of the NPC like "he's fidgety and contradictory" doesn't always say what you intend it to say. Is a person's fidgetiness due to lying, nervousness for other reasons, a personality trait, or hemorrhoids? Are they contradicting themselves because they're lying, because they're a crappy storyteller, because the events were convoluted and possibly magical in nature, or because the DM made a mistake? Use a description with the phrase "you think he's lying" if you actually want to get across a message clearly.

"You think he's lying." is telling the PC what he thinks. He's unable to both think he's lying and either be unsure if he's lying or think he's telling the truth. Those are mutually exclusive positions. That is much different than you don't find any traps, which isn't actually telling the PC what to think, but is simply a statement of fact. If you want to let the player know that the NPC is lying or even probably lying, you tell the player that the NPCs body language is consistent with a lie. That doesn't tell the PC what to think.