Hi, got a question for you guys,  what do you do when a player character tries to persuade another player character? the reason i ask, is, in a recent session, my new character was introduced to the party. As the introduction, i met the party on the road to a keep that's been overtaken by a unknown force. I had a personal interest in joining as i was on my way there to find a document that i need for forging (the party had another quest there) on our way there, one other character/player asked why my character was after in the keep, and i answered partly truthfully that i was a after a document, but didn't want to say anything more. here's the thing, my character is a tortle rouge/barbarian, with the Charlatan background, which give me the False Identity feature, my identity is a merchant, which i was pretending to be when we met. Now, as a tortle that's been lying for 60-70 years (we homeruled the tortle to have longer lifespan so i am 97yers old)  stolen, deceived and so on, not trusting anyone, having a secret i wanted to keep secret, and didn't give them any reason not to trust me, i said that i wont tell them what i needed the document for other than it was personal. Then the dm ruled that the player rolled a persuasion roll and i roll Insight against it. Would you agree with it? the conversation just felt so wrong/unnatural in that setting.

I'd agree that a Charisma (Persuasion) roll was correct for them to persuade you to talk, or maybe Wisdom (Insight) to tell that you are hiding something important.

As for you? I'm not sure where Wisdom (Insight) comes into it, you're not trying to find anything out, you're trying to hide it. You'd want either a Charisma (Deception) or  Charisma (Persuasion) to hide yiur intents or persuade them that it's not important.

Personally, I'd do it like this if I wanted a crunch heavy interaction (and obviously I don't have all the info, just what you've given me):

If the party starts showing suspicion about you, I might have them roll a Wisdom (Insight) against your Charisma (Deception). If they fail, they have to drop it, if they succeed, then I'd move on to a Charisma (Persuasion) contested roll (both roll, highest score wins), to see who wins the argument then act from there. Obviously, that is subject to all the details which I don't have, but the idea is there.

They where suspicious simply because they had just met me,  same goes for me, so the persuasion vs persuasion roll makes more sense.

I'd say 'yes and no' to this. Yes, I believe that the DM was within their rights to ask for a roll (but I'd also be fine with asking both parties if they consent to rolling for this), but no, I don't believe it should've been the player's Persuasion versus your Insight. Rather, I would have suggested the reverse: they're trying to gain insight into your motives, and you're trying to persuade (or rather, deceive) the player. Even then, the insight skill is not a 100% reliable lie detector, so even if you give the tell-tale signs of a liar you're not under any obligation to reveal your secrets. If it came down to the player asking you to reveal your secrets because of their roll, I'd leave it up to you to decide if you tell all or not.

One final point, and this is the most obvious and important one, we are not your Dungeon Master. If it's a problem, bring it up with them. Tell them that you feel it's "wrong/unnatural" and work with them to come up with a better solution for the next time this possibly comes up. At best we can only provide ideas if your DM wants to read this post you've made. The most we can do is advise, and I advise speaking to them if this becomes a bugbear.

Thanks for you answer, and first, just to be clear, i wasn't after some sort of "overruling" of my DM, we did talk about it, but shortly, as we didn't want to use much time on this and agreed on doing it like this for this time and check if there are other/better solutions if this sort of thing come up later.

Second, in this case, it wasn't a case of deception, as i didn't lie about it, i just said plainly that my business with the document was mine, and not something i wanted to tell. So the conversation (slightly exaggerated) was like this: Player: What do you need the document for? Me: That is a secret i never going to tell. Player:  please? Me: Ok then.

In terms of role play, it just didn't sound right to me.

Quote from Kalkowski >>

Thanks for you answer, and first, just to be clear, i wasn't after some sort of "overruling" of my DM, we did talk about it, but shortly, as we didn't want to use much time on this and agreed on doing it like this for this time and check if there are other/better solutions if this sort of thing come up later.

Second, in this case, it wasn't a case of deception, as i didn't lie about it, i just said plainly that my business with the document was mine, and not something i wanted to tell. So the conversation (slightly exaggerated) was like this: Player: What do you need the document for? Me: That is a secret i never going to tell. Player:  please? Me: Ok then.

In terms of role play, it just didn't sound right to me.

I, personally, don't feel the rolls were right in that setting.  When it comes to player vs player actions, I don't like rolls unless they're mechanically needed.  If someone is trying to steal something from another player?  Mechanically, rolls make sense.  

Socially though?  Between players?  Insight rolls are just a way to metagame that information.  Now, once that player sees something and goes hey, that doesn't seem right?  Now as a DM I'll ask them to roll because they've made a vocal response to the player deception.  If the players want to ask for rolls against npcs, typically I'll allow it but against players I want them to justify it.  If for nothing else, that way there is no misconception between players about what and why things are happening.  

All social interactions between players should be role played, player agency is vitally important and having another player roll a dice to tell you what your character will do goes against that core principle. If you want to persuade a player then make a persuasive argument and role play it.

From an RP/player agency side, the questioning player could roll Insight, to see if they believed what you were saying, I suppose, but there isn't a mechanic or roll that would have a character reveal something to someone they just met if they wouldn't normally share with someone they knew and trusted.  If the character's reasons were indeed a secret he/she/they wouldn't have shared with their closest, most trusted friend, I don't think I would even allow a Charm to uncork the secret, to be honest.  If the secret was something they'd share with a friend readily enough, then perhaps a Persuasion roll from the questioning character and Insight from the one with the secret (to read into "should I trust this person?")

At no point, would I, as DM, ask a player to reveal a secret their character had, if they had made it clear it was a closely guarded secret that they had decided to share with nobody.  I could certainly tell a questioning player, after an Insight check that they don't believe that, or that they get a strong sense that whatever the secret is, it seems very personal and not likely to spill out any time soon.   Forcing things like that out, is stepping all over player agency. 

In the main group I play with, we have a fill-in character one of our players is using, while we go rescue his main character.  It's a Paladin/Warlock and while we other 3 are now convinced (through Insight vs Deception checks here and there) that there's more to this "Paladin" than meets the eye.  He's presented himself as a Paladin only, with no mention of the Warlock and has repeatedly told us "I'm just a Paladin, on a quest my Patron sent me on"  We can tell him we don't believe that, we can do pretty much what we want, with the knowledge, but we can't make him tell us the whole story, because that is his character's secret and the character refuses to tell.

In general the players and not the PC's and the PC's are not the players.

Also if it is a secret that he has been keeping for a while then he probably should have some evasive answers to the question and IMHO that should be your deception vs their insite. Also if their result was greater then yours then they would know their might be something more then what you are saying. In general people do not always provide all the information when answering questions.

I think you did a good thing in saying we are going to do it this way now and discuss what will happen if this happens in the future...and move on with the game.

There are two main playstyles at work and my thoughts depend on the one you use:

Option 1: If a PC has secrets, the other players do not know either. In this case I would not have used contested rolls in this way - I might have used deception vs insight and then narrated how you come across to the other player (EG you roll high for deception then I would say "Their story seems genuine to you" and if you rolled poorly I'd say "It seems like perhaps they're holding something back". But as for volunteering information, I would never have that be forced. They can try different tactics to get the info out of you, but it's up to you if you volunteer it.

Option 2: If a PC has a secret, all the players know but are trusted not to metagame it. In this case, the contested rolls can be used as there's nothing to reveal to the players, only to the characters. You can roleplay as you see fit from the rolls, and can still withhold things if you feel you need to, but they can make pursuasion rolls to get the info out of you. If you lose, you can either tell them or make an active exit from the conversation (IE it's more that they know something is up, so you can either tell them or try to bail on the discussion, distract them and so on).

Either way, I'm still mostly against players rolling against each other for roleplay, though I know it has some benefits when players themselves aren't so eloquent or charismatic. I have no issue with a player narrating their method without directly roleplaying it (EG "I make an argument that they need to be open if they adventure with us") and then rolling to see how pursuasive they are. Then I'd tell the other player "they make a really compelling case, and you feel like you can trust them with your secrets", and let them decide what to do.

Under no circumstances would I, as a DM, tell a player what they have to do. It's their decision, and if they decide that someone they just met making an amazing argument will still not break 60+ years of deceiving people for their own safety, then I respect that. If a DM can set the DC for a check to 35, then so can the Player.

The DM cannot use social roles against the party in this way. Doing so is more powerful than casting many spells.

You control your character and, outside of magical effects, you decide what they say and what they do. Other characters can make roles for Insight to see if you are lying, at the DM's discretion - roll Deception vs. their Insight roll. This takes into account that the other players cannot actually see your character's body language, which is a legitimate reason to roll. But they cannot ever used Persuasion or Intimidation against your character, as that affects your character's actions, not their own character's perceptions. 

Allowing a persuasion roll for this would mean that you could start persuading other player characters to drink from puddles. In technical terms, since you control the character and not the DM, you are the one who sets the DC for the Persuasion check and you can just set it at 10 billion.

Persuasion as a skill in D&D is not an enhanced interrogation technique granting license for a player to break another player's character conceit.

Opposed PvP rolls, especially social skill checks, are a disputed area in TTRPG, blanket overstatement of player agency in one post in this thread aside.  Sanvael's got the gist of it right, Persuasion is not dominate person or even suggestion nor is insight detect thoughts.

Situation seems to be a mess of well intentions in character concept, party preconceptions, and "letting the game solve it." 

A "character with a secret" is often a go to background because it puts in a level of dramatic tension for the player who knows the character's secret.  It feels fun ... until it collides with play.  Many players rightfully or wrongfully or based on experience or narrative instincts find other characters with secrets a threat (secrets might mean eventual betrayal, access to power the secret holder is depriving the party, etc.) or a challenge/puzzle to be solved.  Consequently there are many players who insist characters be played as transparently as possible.  This collision of the secretive and those on the curious to paranoid spectrum now requires the DM to play what they call in the world of official secrets the "need to know / right to know" game.  I can't speak for all, but as a DM I hate adjudicating coyness and its conflict with aggravation about such coyness, or the distraction from the game I thought we'd be playing because of the player imposed distraction.

New character shows up to party with a secret interest in something at the party's goal.  This problematizes party integration where "we're all in this together" is sort of key.  Was this secret developed in discussion with the DM?  Will this secret have "game shaping" impact?  If so, it's sort of on the DM to narratively obfuscate this surprise.  More likely though, I'm guessing it's simply a personal interest of the character as it's not really the best form for a new character to be put into a game and whose secrets will take the characters off in another direction from where the party thought they were going.  If that's the case, it's probably best for the player to be transparent about this secret with other players.  Characters aren't supposed to be the surprise, so the more meta access players are granted to character mystery the more players can "get on with it" with their characters and play the intended game rather than get distracted by figuring out who each other "really" is.  There can be intrigue amongst characters, but the players need confidence, literally.

I don't think the DM sees a lot of high narrative stakes here since they're allowing the potential for this character conceit to come out via skill checks.  That said, I would have shut down this meta-game conflict/contest between players by recognizing it, explain my personal DM philosophy on "character secrets" held from players and rule something to the effect of, "Look, I can't compel this player to reveal this secret to the other player through their characters, as I'm not even sure what this secret is.  I will say based on sheet reading interrogating character's insight vs whatever stats or features I see backing up the charlatan's false identity 1.) you see this merchant has a personal business to attend to at the tower that you don't follow but also don't see this character as a threat or 2.) you think there may be more to this merchant's story than they're letting them on but you don't see them as a threat or 3.) there's something very fishy about this "merchant" but you take their offer of an alliance as sincere and don't see them as a threat ... now can we all move on to the tower where actual threats and opportunities for character growth have been painstakingly designed by your DM?"

"Showing up with a secret" is one of the doors to what I call "Tristram Shandyism" in TTRPG where the game stalls or maybe never even gets to start because of the intricacies of back story.  Now there are games, like Alien and espionage games, where "agendas" are part of the mechanics and there are trope rewards for the secret causing a character to "take a heel/face turn" (and sometimes the agenda is not being an android) but it seems in D&D "secrets" are one of those minor unintentionally edgelordy ingredients that tend to bog or upset play unless it's clear to the players in metaspace.  I have in my group one member who works for a powerful nation's intelligence service and is technically "deep cover" with the party as party of his cover.  All the players know this and find his subterfuge amusing, but the characters are for the most part in the dark (one suspects but isn't sure what to do about it).  Another character has a "mysterious amnesiac" origin, a changeling who doesn't know what they are.  Player knows there's more to this identity and they're not "just a Changeling", and other players suspect this character's origin may become a plot hook (I'm actually taking a deep cut from a Planescape module and Changeling in my game are my interpretation of the Kamarel ... once I figure out what to do with mirror magic, it seemed a race that made extensive use of mirrors but also had a xenophobic desire to hide would develop a sort of changeling adaptation, I mean it's a pathological logic, but still al logic); but we all know "we're not there yet" (again, still trying to figure out the mechanics of a key cultural feature and forbidden library set piece) and there's actual stuff to do at this moment in the game so let's actually worldbuild.        

Persuasion in the OP's instance at best would lead the DM to suggest to the interogation subject that the questioner seems well intended in their questioning and seems to be thinking that all cards on the table is the best way a party goes forward, and you think this character may be a the sort you may be able to entrust your secrets to, maybe even enlist in accomplishing your goals ... in due time.  

This is session 0 discuss on whether dice rolls between players overrule player agency.  I would allow it. But  when PVP starts to enter No Go zones that is when the dice quit talking.

But there is great reason for players to trust each other. And great reason not to erode that trust by lying to them.

The issue here is confusion between keeping a secret from the players and keeping a secret from the characters. If the players know, they can roleplay along with you. In my experience that's just better for everyone. If someone comes to me and says something like, "I'm going to be a changeling but can you hide my character sheet so no one knows," I shut that down. The players are your team, and they should know. It's actually really fun for your character to be duped when you're in on the joke.

Only in that case would I allow PvP rolls. Having to resort to dice to get a fellow player to be honest with you is just all kinds of red flags in my book. If you want to keep secrets, be the DM.