How much of a jerk does the following Cursed Item make me: Circlet of Gullibility

[Damon_Tor]

Circlet of Gullibility
This circlet appears to be a Circlet of Insight, which gives the character advantage on insight checks that cannot be negated by disadvantage from another source. In reality, the circlet gives the character the opposite effect, disadvantage on insight checks that cannot be negated by advantage. They are unaware that they are disadvantaged, and are encouraged to believe the higher roll is being used, when in fact the lower dice determines success or failure. When they fail a check they would have passed had the other die been used, they believe they have succeeded.

Unlike most cursed items, this circlet does not require any particular magic to remove. However, any attempt to discern the true nature of the Circlet, including by magical means such as the Identify spell, require an arcana check with a DC of 15. This check is made with disadvantage, though the character attempting believes it has advantage instead. Failing this check while the other die would result in a success results in the character being very certain the item in question is a Circlet of Insight, and they cannot attempt the check again for 24 hours.

I'm not entirely sure if this item breaks some sort of dice-roll sanctity unspoken contract between the DM and the players. Is it inherently unfair to tell players they have advantage when you're really basing the check on the low dice? Is it inherently unfair to tell them a roll was successful when it wasn't?

The party in question is entering an intrigue-heavy portion of the campaign, and as much as I'm looking forward to messing with whatever PC decides to wear this while trying to pluck information from the Mad King's Court, I'm perhaps more exited by the thought of what they might decide to do with it after they figure out what it does.

[Flashkannon]

You really shouldn't lie to your players about the nature of the dice rolls. You can lie to PCs, but for Players, the dice and your descriptions are the only windows they have into the game's world. If they can trust neither, what are they to do?

As long as you keep your deceptions limited to those that fool the Player Characters and not the players themselves, however, this should be fine.

[Lunali]

I'm not entirely sure if this item breaks some sort of dice-roll sanctity unspoken contract between the DM and the players. Is it inherently unfair to tell players they have advantage when you're really basing the check on the low dice? Is it inherently unfair to tell them a roll was successful when it wasn't?

The party in question is entering an intrigue-heavy portion of the campaign, and as much as I'm looking forward to messing with whatever PC decides to wear this while trying to pluck information from the Mad King's Court, I'm perhaps more exited by the thought of what they might decide to do with it after they figure out what it does.

There are different styles of DM and different types of players. Lying to your players like this implies that you don't trust them to play their characters' flaws. Whether this is warranted depends on you and your players.

Also, if you are going to use this, you will have to look at the dice yourself every single time and calculate it yourself. You will have to make sure you take note of any abilities that would change the outcome, such as reliable talent. If any of the PCs have the lucky feat, using it is normally a player decision, not a character decision, by having an item like this you're taking the opportunity to choose away from them.

[Kane0]

Is the magic item trying to trick the character, or the player? The item's mechanical effect of disadvantage is fine (because its a cursed item) but lying to the player is a gamble.

[Damon_Tor]

You really shouldn't lie to your players about the nature of the dice rolls. You can lie to PCs, but for Players, the dice and your descriptions are the only windows they have into the game's world. If they can trust neither, what are they to do?

As long as you keep your deceptions limited to those that fool the Player Characters and not the players themselves, however, this should be fine.

I see it as a narrative tool, not much different from the author of a story using an unreliable narrator as a plot device.

But thanks, yes, this is the feedback I'm looking for, how people-who-are-not-me see this sort of thing.

[MikeRoxTheBoat]

I've had both types of cursed items used against me. One where the DM whispered me the effects and I took it upon myself to enforce it (ring of contrariness) and one where I was getting global negatives to my dice rolls and we weren't told until I missed what should obviously have been a hit, as I had rolled the exact same to hit as another party member who succeeded.

I was fine with both types, but I've always been the type of person to portray negatives as I think it makes for more fun situations. We have someone at our table that would've both hated it and tried to lead the party in a certain way to use his meta knowledge to quickly cure himself. You really have to know your players.

I'm fine with the item, but I think you need another way to detect something is off. Maybe if they roll a natural 20 on one of the rolls, it gives them some nonsensical insight ("it's obvious by the executioner's tone that he desperately needs to use the bathroom, but simultaneously wants to make out with you"). Also, if you want to help hide that you're taking the low rolls, add some effect that happens when they roll a natural 1, so it's more natural for you to check what the lower roll was.

[Damon_Tor]

I've had both types of cursed items used against me. One where the DM whispered me the effects and I took it upon myself to enforce it (ring of contrariness) and one where I was getting global negatives to my dice rolls and we weren't told until I missed what should obviously have been a hit, as I had rolled the exact same to hit as another party member who succeeded.

I was fine with both types, but I've always been the type of person to portray negatives as I think it makes for more fun situations. We have someone at our table that would've both hated it and tried to lead the party in a certain way to use his meta knowledge to quickly cure himself. You really have to know your players.

I'm fine with the item, but I think you need another way to detect something is off. Maybe if they roll a natural 20 on one of the rolls, it gives them some nonsensical insight ("it's obvious by the executioner's tone that he desperately needs to use the bathroom, but simultaneously wants to make out with you"). Also, if you want to help hide that you're taking the low rolls, add some effect that happens when they roll a natural 1, so it's more natural for you to check what the lower roll was.

My players roll with an an app, at least all the players at this particular game do. The DM of a given game sees the results of all dice, including both die of an advantage/disadvantage roll. The logistics aren't an issue.

As for giving the players an opportunity to figure it out, I expect they will becomes suspicious quickly. One of the players is very likely to try to use it to play cards and win some money. Which means several attempts at calling bluffs which will prove to be false positives or false negatives moments later. And they'll initially be suspicious when the item resists an attempt to identify it (that's what the arcana check requirement implies). That's a property I use frequently on espionage-type items, which this is, but I've used it on cursed items too.

[Laserlight]

Whether I'm the player or the DM, I normally prefer that the DM roll Insight for the PCs; it helps players respond to what their character believes rather than what they saw on the dice.

The DMs in our group normally keep a list of PCs with their passive Perception and Insight.

[Grey Watcher]

I wouldn't implement the out-of-character deception.

D&D already requires players to compartmentalize when it comes to things like Insight and Perception. If I roll to see if I'm being lied to and the die comes up 1, even with RAW I have to make note of the difference between what my character thinks (that they're being honest) and what I think (inconclusive at best). So as I see it, you're not changing all that much by trying to trick them about the dice rolls.

Unless you know your players very, very well and are absolutely certain they'll be fine with this, I can only see this ending it lots of angry accusations of cheating when someone figures out what's going on. (Honestly, even I were absolutely sure, I'm not sure I'd go for it even then because it feels a bit like a betrayal of trust.)

So, as I see it, you're, at best, getting a minimal upside (if a player's bad at compartmentalizing, this might help them a little, assuming BOTH rolls aren't awful) with an enormous risk (table-breaking hurt feelings over being lied to and manipulated).

Pretty much the only situation I can see this working out well in is if all of the following are true:

The DM already rolls Insight on behalf of the players as a basic rule of the campaign
The results of the rolls are secret
The DM only describes Insight-affecting things in in-universe terms (so never speaks of having advantage, DCs, etc.)


At that point, the player is so far removed from the nuts and bolts of the check that it almost doesn't matter. And even then, if they invested any resources into boosting Insight (skills, expertise, feats, whatever), they might still end up feeling upset that you pulled the proverbial rug out from under them.

TL;DR is that, yeah, the out-of-character deception is almost guaranteed to end badly, for at-best negligible benefit in the meantime.

[Tanarii]

I say drop the false positives, unless you intentionally want to have the item give itself away pretty quickly. Also disadvantage instead of advantage should usually result in -5 to passive insight instead of +5, so it may not be that obvious to the players that anything is going on at all unless you use the false positives, since insight checks are usually candidates for passive as secret checks. It all comes down to how fast you want them to catch on.

[MikeRoxTheBoat]

As for giving the players an opportunity to figure it out, I expect they will becomes suspicious quickly.

Never underestimate the ability of players to be oblivious to something you assumed would be obvious. Especially since what you're messing with is a contested check where you're never quite sure what the other person rolled anyway. The "false positives" can easily be written off as the other person just happened to have a very high deception check, especially since that's something to be expected from a card game that relies on bluffing.

I'd be prepared to have the item around for awhile. I'm usually an insightful person, but I had a -4 to all my rolls for 3 months real time (12 game sessions) simply 'cause it took that long to actually have an obvious comparison that my rolls were being messed with.