What's your stance on NPC's using social skills on PCs? As in, is it okay for the GM to roll for a NPC's lying skill, and say to the player "You believe what he says"? I've read some systems that outright tell GMs that this must never be done, since it takes away power from the players, but is it really that different than any other ways that an NPC can affect the player characters?
Personally I find the idea interesting from a roleplaying standpoint, but it's obviously something that not everyone agrees on. I've met players who think this is a fun opportunity to act against their meta knowledge, and I've met some who feel that this is unfair.
So I'm curious about what your opinion on this is.
>>47039248
No because it doesn't work
There's role-playing, and then there's making a deliberate bad decision that goes beyond doing something non optimal
Subconsciously you're likely to nudge things away from being deceived, and try and catch the npc in his lie if you know he's deceiving you
>>47039248
>then there's making a deliberate bad decision that goes beyond doing something non optimal
Isn't that a big part of roleplaying, though? It's why so many systems have personality flaws as a game mechanic nowadays, and encourages players to not always do what they, the players, know is the right thing.
>>47039341
This.
I also prefer to let players call out when they're using scrutiny or the system's equivalent of, then I'll have the npcs roll even if they aren't lying. It gives the players agency in calling for the roll, hopefully encourages roleplaying by having players act suspicious when their characters have reason to be, and ultimately leaves things ambiguous-I'd never use a flat out "They're lying" or "They're telling the truth" but "You notice their tell" or "You feel they're concealing something" or "They seem sincere."
>>47039341
>>47039624
Yeah, you roll for an NPC lying when the players roll to detect a lie.
Whether they're lying or not. And hide the roll, of course.
>>47039624
>>47039691
This us a good point. Although for it to work, you need to keep result of the PCs rolls secret from the player as well, at least in systems where the PC rolls vs the NPC.
>>47039902
"You don´t think he´s lying"
>>47040130
I wouldn't even do this, since you risk falling into the, "He's not lying"/"You think he's not lying" trap.
The PC genuinely believes it. You wouldn't say, "You think the hallway is ten feet wide," you'd say, "The hallway is ten feet wide."
Presenting it as fact also means the PLAYER believes it, which helps them get into their character's head, rather than playing guessing games every time there might be a deception or illusion.
>>47040130
This statement works, but only if the player isn't aware of how well he rolled.
Although I've had players who can roleplay knowing the "wrong thing". When the bartender (truthfully) said that he couldn't remember the man in the photo they had shown him, one player critically failed their roll to detect lies, and decided that his character had a gut feeling that the bartender was lying. It lead to some fun and dangerous situations.
>>47040216
I think you might be missing the point. "He's not lying"/"You think he's not lying" is exactly what you want. The player rolls to detect lies, and either notices a tell, or does not. Maybe because the NPC is telling the truth, maybe because the NPC is a good liar.
A roll to detect lies isn't proof. It's evidence. Uncertainty remains.
>>47039902
I don't think so. More than once I've had a player hoist themselves on their own pertard because of how confident (or not confident) they were in their roll. As long as the npc's roll is hidden there is that level of uncertainty, and playing towards the dice then becomes less meta gaming and more about playing towards how much control the character thinks they have over the social situation.
>>47040311
I can get that for players >>47040223 described.
I've played with players where we all know someone is lying, or they're a doppelganger, or whatever, but we've stuck to acting on false information because it's what our characters would do.
But I think in general, it's better to state failed checks like these as if they're a fact. "You THINK he's not lying," is right up there with, "Are you sure you want to do that?" as a GM tell that can easily affect the decision of players despite their characters.
And in response to OP's question, I don't mind it. I see a lot of posts on /tg/ and elsewhere saying they hate mind control and stuff, but I see it as a fun role-playing opportunity. Look at madness rules in games. Of course the PLAYER doesn't believe everything is a lie for the next 24 hours, but it's good fun when the character does.
They should be subject to it as well.
BUT, it requiers your players to be GOOD roleplayers. NOT bad roleplayers. They need to know in character how to act and not meta.
Example, because my groups pretty good at knowing the difference:
>Party meets not-bowie the dhampir bard
>Is activly trying to swoon and elevate the mood of the suspicious party
>All of them fail the will saves miserably
>Ok guys, you have your hold ups, but he seems pretty ok. You might have that nagging suspicion, but whenever you start to act on it, he has a really good joke you cant help but crack a smile at, or you cant help but notice that sly smile and wink every now and again that makes you blush.
>Players act accordingly
They did go "OH GOD I DEMAND WILL SAVES TILL I PASS BECAUSE I AS A PLAYER WOULD NEVER HAVE IT HAPPEN.". When magic is involved, thats just how it goes. Your not the only badass in the world who can persuade.
Strict, non-magical social interactions however, I generally do the rolls in my head for how they state thingsm rather then telling players they are convinced. Example:
>The npc rolls, I keep the number and add
>Hmm, he did well. His plan will come out well spoken, confident, and generally sound.
>Hmm, bad roll. He pitches it to the party with holes, no alabi, and a sense that hes winging it.
That way, its natural. Its my job as a GM to be a step ahead of the players for these reasons.
>>47040311
Hiding rolls from players is stupid and not conducive to good rp or good game play.
One has a level of certainty of how well they know something.
>You know he's lying for certain, you see right through him
>You think it may be worth this but you're not certain
>You have absolutely no idea what this thing is and you know you have a pretty shitty idea of what it is. It may spit poison? Fuck you dunno.
This can be simulated (incredibly easily and in a way that's second nature) by letting the players see their rolls. Not only that but it also let's a player choose when to hinder themselves through certainty when it would be IC. Usually RP and the table is more intense and exciting when the player is let in on things the character doesn't meccissarily know.
>Oh fuck he's totally lying. Oh fuck Steven The Bold would totally take that at face value and believe him. This isn't going to go well...
If you don't have a party that would hinder themselves willingly when it's the most IC thing to do and enjoy it your group is shit-tier.
>>47040601
They DIDNT GO* I meant
>NPC is telling truth
>player thinks NPC is lying
>rolls 1 on insight check
"You can't tell if he's lying or not"
>rolls 20
"You know he's telling the truth"
>NPC is lying
>rolls 1
"You can't tell if he's lying or not"
>rolls 20
"He's lying"
How is this an issue?
