Difficulty Class vs. Results Dictate

[Bjarkmundur]

I just had a very interesting discussion regarding DCs and Ability check results.

The scenario is a character who "cannot wilfully lie or be dishonest". The hypothetical player asked if she could perhaps roll a check or a saving throw in order to resist the urge of telling the whole truth and manage to withhold information. I said this would most definitely be the case, since it adds to the suspense.

Then came the debate.

She wanted to receive a question, roll the check, and have the result dictate how much information she manages to withhold based on her suggestion and my approval/disapproval.
Event -> Dice -> Reaction


DM: The guard sees you and hails you "What are you doing, you shouldn't be here!"
Her: Can I roll to withhold information?
DM: alright, roll for it.
Her: Sweet, 12, is that high enough to say "I was just leaving"
DM: No it isn't, you have to give more information since you only got a 12.
Her: Hm, is 12 enough to say "I am holding an object and about to leave in a hurry"
DM: Yeah, sure, but you have to add "an object that is not mine"
Her: Ugh. I then attempt to run away before the guard asks me any more questions xD

My preferred method would be to hear her intent, and set a DC based on what she wants to do.
Event -> Reaction -> Dice


DM: The guard sees you and hails you "What are you doing, you shouldn't be here!"
Her: Can I roll to withhold information?
DM: Maybe, what would you like to say?
Her: I'd rather not say I'm stealing and confess to a crime. I want to say" I was just leaving"
DM: *sets DC 15* Sure, roll for it.
Her: *Rolls 12*
DM: You feel the compelling urge to explain every little detail of your plan, and try to fight it. You fail horribly, and tell him that you are stealing a McGuffin. Thankfully you leave out your name and destination since he didn't ask for that specifically...

Her argument is since I would only make her roll for it if there are negative consequences, she will always be trying to withhold as much information as possible, the roll simply dictates the percentage of information withheld.

My argument is that when people only have a split second to make a decision they pick a course of action and go with it. Only after do they get to know whether it worked as intended or not.

We precedent for both in 5e. Which way would you go, the character always managing to withhold information based on her check, or the character having to make a check only after deciding how much information she wants to withhold?

[Lunali]

Are they being magically compelled to not willfully lie or be dishonest, or is it a roleplaying decision? If they are magically compelled, the DC is set by the spell. If it's a roleplaying decision, the player can choose to withhold information without rolling anyway if they think it's appropriate for their character, in that case they may decide to roll if they are indecisive about whether to hide information or how much to reveal.

[stoutstien]

I tend to avoid charms, zone of truth, and other like style effects that determine players characters emotional or ablity to decide what they can say or do. Fear works. It's clear and precise compared to the charmed condition. A friend? How close? Who decides?
Is double talk allowed in a zone of truth? What about misinformation? What is truth?
The super evil necromancer doesn't need a zone of truth to question the party with all the information gathering spells out their

[Bubzors]

Yea might be better If you explained the actual situation they are in. Currently sounds similar to zone of truth spell.

Whether it's that or a curse or an effect of the mcguffin I would rule it as closely to something already in the game. So yes, zone of truth. Make a save based on the caster/curse/macguffin DC once it starts to effect the PC. They win = they can lie, they lose= they cant for the duration.

So when she asks about withholding info its already settled. However not lieing is not the same as not saying anything. A very viable option when you realize you cant lie is to just say nothing and run/sneak away.

The dice should be rolled when whatever is effecting them first occurs. This way the whole situation is avoided and the effect is the same as every other spell effect in the game

[Bjarkmundur]

"You are magically compelled to always tell thetruth when you are asked a question. This truth is relative to
your own understanding of truth and reality, but you cannot
willfully lie or be dishonest."

[Lunali]

Then it is always a save vs the magical compulsion to do anything that the DM believes to be dishonest. That said, you're into homebrew territory already so it is entirely up to you how it actually works.

[Bjarkmundur]

Then it is always a save vs the magical compulsion to do anything that the DM believes to be dishonest. That said, you're into homebrew territory already so it is entirely up to you how it actually works.

This was actually meant as a more of an open discussion on how you go about resolving challenges for your players.

"Player wants to do a thing, DM guides the player to how well their character manages to do that thing".

It's the core mechanic of DnD, but every table does it a little bit different.

For example, do you allow players to automatically succeed on tasks that only require them to roll a 10 on a dice?
Do you make players roll in social encounters, or do you use the clause of "your character is only as socially adept as your roleplaying skills"?
Do your players ask things like "can I roll X to Y" or do you ask them to declare intent instead?
Do your players roll without being prompted, and base their intent on their result? "Hey, I rolled an X on acrobatics, can I jump down without taking falling damage?"

[Bubzors]

This was actually meant as a more of an open discussion on how you go about resolving challenges for your players.

"Player wants to do a thing, DM guides the player to how well their character manages to do that thing".



My basic ideology on this is to only ask for a roll if there is a consequence for failure. So yea, usually require the player to actually tell me what they are doing in the game world so I can decide if it requires a roll


For example, do you allow players to automatically succeed on tasks that only require them to roll a 10 on a dice?

Only I there is no consequence for failure. For example, take climbing a wall with easy handholds, DC 10 Athletics to climb. If they just want to get over the wall no check, over the course of a few minutes they manage to get over.

Now same wall but they are trying to get over between rounds of patrolling guards. Now there is a roll as they could be caught if the fail too many times.


Do you make players roll in social encounters, or do you use the clause of "your character is only as socially adept as your roleplaying skills"?

I dont hold it against my players that they aren't as socially adept as their 20 CHA bard. I only really require for them to express what they are trying to persuade or lie about. Then roll.

Now if the player goes off in character with a great arguement, sometimes I'll give advantage on that check as I like to promote this type of roleplaying.


Do your players ask things like "can I roll X to Y" or do you ask them to declare intent instead?
Do your players roll without being prompted, and base their intent on their result? "Hey, I rolled an X on acrobatics, can I jump down without taking falling damage?"

Yea some times the players get ahead of themselves and just jump straight to asking for a certain roll. Depends on my mood, if it's pretty obvious how it would be done in game world I will let them roll, but usually I like to at least have a description or reasoning in game how it is happening.

At our table it is a generally accepted house rule that acrobatics can help with reducing some fall damage so yea I would allow it. However it wouldn't be, "I rolled a 15 acrobatics, how much damage is reduced?" It would more be,

"Hey can I jump off this 20 foot high wall and go into a roll at the bottom to keep running?"

DM: Uh sure, roll acrobatics

If the player rolls without me asking or him telling me explicitly what it's for before he rolls it doesnt count.

[Trickery]

You the DM should not be telling players what their character does. At all. You tell them what they cannot do, and that's it.

If the character is magically compelled to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, then that's a saving throw, not a DC. If the player is rolling to withhold information, then that's a deception check, and the check is to determine whether the guard believes them.

If you want inspiration for what being forced to tell the truth looks like, there's a Jim Carey movie you can watch.

[Keravath]

Your example indicates that the character can't knowingly lie. It doesn't say anything about having to say anything at all, having to tell the WHOLE truth, or even how the words might be misunderstood. The only thing they have to do is speak the truth.

As for DCs, there should really be any. If the character is under a spell that compells them to speak truthfully then that is what they have to do if they failed the saving throw. If the spell says that they have to tell the whole truth as they know it then that is what they do, if it doesn't specify, it is up to the player how much or how little they reveal but what is revealed must be truthful.

If the character knows that they have to speak the truth then they can prepare in advance. If they are sneaking in to steal something then they can prepare several truthful answers by having several motives for being where they are ...

e.g. plan to sneak into a section of the palace to steal something during the party
- send a note to chambermaid setting up a rendezvous (it doesn't matter when or where exactly - except it would be best for the time frame you are planning the theft in the same building - the chambermaid doesn't actually even need to get the note)
- make sure that you need to go to the bathroom
- make sure to leave something on a table somewhere

When asked by the guard "What are you doing here?"
- Looking for a bathroom (TRUE)
- Waiting for a rendezvous (TRUE)
- Looking for my amulet, I seem to have misplaced it (TRUE)

All of these are true reasons, just not the one reason you want to keep hidden. None of this requires a DC of any kind. Having a character forced to tell the truth is a role playing artifice and they can't weasel out of it by having the DM make a die roll to see if they can manage some sort of lie which the spell is supposed to prevent.

The same goes for any other spell. If they fail the saving throw they have to live the consequences. On the other hand, some PEOPLE are great at making this stuff up on the spur of the moment and some aren't. If the player just can't come up with anything then the DM might fall back on a Deception skill roll or something similar to determine how well the character can deflect the inquiries while still telling the truth through out. However, I would consider this a fall back for someone who just can't role play it at all ... the first stop would be to have the player play it out.

[OverLordOcelot]

The scenario is a character who "cannot wilfully lie or be dishonest". The hypothetical player asked if she could perhaps roll a check or a saving throw in order to resist the urge of telling the whole truth and manage to withhold information. I said this would most definitely be the case, since it adds to the suspense.

If this is a spell, I would give an initial save against the effect and then the character is subject to the effect. "Cannot willfully be dishonest" means they couldn't do any of the deceptive stuff like telling a partial truth or using a cover story that's technically true, if the effect only has "Cannot lie" then they could. It could have an ongoing save or round-by-round save, but that would be a static DC and not something circumstantial. If it's a self-imposed RP limitation of the player, they can make whatever roll they want and abide by it, it's their character.

I think that creating an unclear effect that limits the player's roleplay options is bad, and basing it on ongoing rolls with variable effects is worse. My rule of thumb is that players make all of their character's decisions, unless there's some magical compulsion, then what the compulsion does is clear and they have to follow it.

[Teaguethebean]

If she wants this as just a character thing don't make there be any save just let her rp it is part of her character so if she wants to have fun rp she will but if she doesn't want to then she won't and it won't be annoying. And feel like it's Dm vs. Player