I know that every DM is a unique universe, and each of us has our preferences. However, I need to write this post to express the following thoughts that are on my mind, and this seems the right place to do so.
In DnD 3.5 we had Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive. Bluff was usually opposed by Sense Motive, while Intimidate was opposed to the target's modified level check (with a roll involved in the process). In DnD 5, we not only have contested rolls but also, as a new thing, passive values for abilities.
In my sessions, I haven't been using the NPCs' passive Deception as a value for players to succeed when attempting to detect if an NPC is not saying the thruth (i.e. making a Insight check). I generally prefer engaging in good roleplaying with the players, and depending on the interaction with them, decide the DC. A similar idea when calculating a DC for Intimidation or Persuasion.
Now from the NPC perspective: I don't roll Deception, Intimidation or Persuasion for NPCs. Instead, they try to lie, intimidate or persuade using my own roleplaying abilities and the characteristics of NPC (race, behaviour, appearance, background, etc.). I prefer not to force players to act based on my dice rolls.
Essentially, for DnD 5e I've been following my old way of playing TTRPGs, while also keeping an eye on the rules or advices described in Social Interaction (PHB, p. 185), Ability Checks (PHB, p. 186), Social Interaction (DMG, p. 244) and Conversations Reactions (DMG, p. 245). The concepts from those texts make sense to me, although I strive to minimize rolls for Social Interaction whenever possible.
What's my problem then? The modules I've been reading recently. I don't have a bunch of them. I only had Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, and I bought recently Ghosts of Saltmarsh and Storm King's Thunder. In these books, we can find checks like the following examples (I will use different names for the sake of spoilers):
Fooling Peter requires each character to succeed on a Charisma (Deception) check contested by Peter's Wisdom (Insight) check.
If the characters wish to complete this quest, they must contrive a secret and convince Peter of its veracity, which can be accomplished with a successful Charisma (Deception) check contested by Peter's Wisdom (Insight) check
A character who makes a successful Wisdom (Insight) check contested by Peter's Charisma (Deception) check discerns that he isn't telling the whole truth.
But not always like that! Sometimes, the books use a fixed DC. I find this strange because the module changes the way interactions are handled for the same adventure:
A character can fool her with a successful DC 16 Charisma (Deception) check.
A successful DC 17 Charisma (Deception) check convinces […] that the characters are their allies.
Interestingly, I didn't find in those modules contests such as Charisma (Intimidation or Persuasion) against Wisdom (Insight), but I know some DMs decide to make that kind of contests sometimes.
So it seems it's common (or not too unusual, let's say) to contest at least Deception vs Insight. Similar to DnD 3.5 with Bluff and Sense Motive? I'm wondering if this is made to avoid forcing DMs to roleplay NPCs when using a module. Or perhaps because it's easier to handle? Just make a contested roll and then follow the path described in the adventure based on the result.
Also, being honest, we have at least one example in DMG where a Deception vs Insight contest is used: "If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard's Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won't work" (DMG, p. 237). But this seems a bit strange to me because it's not the idea described in the previously mentioned sections about Social Interaction.
After going through this long explanation of my internal nightmares, here's my final question: in terms of social interaction, in which situations is a contest better or recommended instead of calculating a DC yourself or using a passive score based on the creature's stats? Perhaps when there is active opposition?
It is horribly inconsistent, yep. I feel your pain there.
In my games, I try to keep it simple.
First, remember the definition of an encouter - some barrier to the characters getting what they want. For the characters to "win" the encounter, they have to remove the barrier.
I ask, "how hard do I want this encounter to be?" Convincing a merchant to give a discount? Moderate. Convinving a guard to let you in without a toll? Easy. Convincing the duke to lend you their army? Almost impossible. From this I set the DC, from 5 to 30.
Then I just leave it to the players to come up with ideas. For each idea I do the usual core gameplay loop. Fail, pass, or not sure. In the case of "not sure", get someone to make a roll.
I rarely use contested rolls. If I decide "the Duke's butler is a master at spotting deception" then I just impose disadvantage on any plan the players come up with that involves their characters being deceptive. If their plan involves their characters being honest even though it might hurt them then I give advantage.
For example, if the characters are sneaking past some guards. "These are average guards in a boring posting" means DC 10 on stealth rolls. "These are elite, highly motivated guards in a coveted posting" means DC 25.
I submit the inconsistency is a feature rather than a flaw. Consider this, among all people is there an algorithm that describes the multiple ways in which any two people relate? The same interaction across multiple people? All interactions across all people? One function of the rules is to streamline interactions so that they can be represented with dice. Yet if the game seeks to portray something as fuzzy as the many ways in which people interact there might be significant utility in having multiple--and even incompatible--ways to portray those interactions.
For my part, I like a contested roll because it raises tension and the stakes are higher if the opponents can play the PCs at their own game. I like a DC because I can raise or lower it to represent changes in circumstances. I've never used a passive deception, because it strikes me as construing the difference between character knowledge and player knowledge as a problem, but maybe there's a place for it in an intrigue based scenario. I reach for a DC when I need to move the players along faster and for a contested roll when I want to slow pacing.
I agree with Greenstone that among the most useful questions is, "How hard do I want this to be?"
Yeah, I try to set the DC based on what the person making the check is trying to do. I might choose to situationally award Advantage or Disadvantage. I try to base things off the player's general attempt rather than precisely what they say, it doesn't feel fair to punish someone for not being able to come up with a really detailed bluff or persuasion attempt on the spot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
After going through this long explanation of my internal nightmares, here's my final question: in terms of social interaction, in which situations is a contest better or recommended instead of calculating a DC yourself or using a passive score based on the creature's stats? Perhaps when there is active opposition?
Generally speaking, passive scores are only used in two situations: when you need to roll in secret, or if a character is attempting to perform a task over and over again. So for the case of NPCs lying to PCs, passive scores for Deception are not only preferred but the de facto standard. That's not to say exceptions can be made, but rather that is how the mechanics are designed to work. (Often with tools like a VTT or any sort of electronic device, rolling directly in secret is not a problem.)
Most of the time, as you've noticed in several official publications, you perform a contested check in the case of Deception because Insight is literally designed to detect the use of that skill. (Not so much with Persuasion or Intimidation.) But, as you have discovered, exceptions to this rule exist.
Sometimes, there is further context that might explain a higher DC. Perhaps the NPC is skeptical of the PCs, for example.But ultimately I believe there is a simple explanation for this type of exception to the rule: designer fiat. In other words, the designers of the adventure wanted those specific checks to be particularly difficult. You will note both of them are between 15-20, which is on the upper side as far as skill checks go. Perhaps the NPCs in those characters don't possess proficiency in the Deception skill, and/or have low to mid Charisma scores. Hence, it is possible that the designers bumped it via static DC to say "It's possible to succeed here, but we want it to be more difficult than a contested check would allow."
EDIT: There is of course, the possibility that this is simply due to the nature of the adventure being written by humans: a team of writers working independently under tight publishing deadlines and internal editing and writing standards. Personally I think this is less likely, but still probable.
[...] I ask, "how hard do I want this encounter to be?" Convincing a merchant to give a discount? Moderate. Convinving a guard to let you in without a toll? Easy. Convincing the duke to lend you their army? Almost impossible. From this I set the DC, from 5 to 30.
Then I just leave it to the players to come up with ideas. For each idea I do the usual core gameplay loop. Fail, pass, or not sure. In the case of "not sure", get someone to make a roll. [...]
I rarely use contested rolls. [...]
Your approach closely mirrors mine, almost identically, in fact. I establish a fixed DC (not contested, nor based on passive values from NPC stats) depending on the conversation with the players and their behavior.
[...] I reach for a DC when I need to move the players along faster and for a contested roll when I want to slow pacing. [...]
I could also use contested rolls, but I prefer to avoid additional rolls solely for obtaining a random value. I rely on my abilities to determine the appropriate DC for the players. Maybe my abilities are wrong😅
Yeah, I try to set the DC based on what the person making the check is trying to do. I might choose to situationally award Advantage or Disadvantage. I try to base things off the player's general attempt rather than precisely what they say, it doesn't feel fair to punish someone for not being able to come up with a really detailed bluff or persuasion attempt on the spot.
Cool, same opinion then. I'd like to use more Advantage/Disadvantage in social interactions, but it's something I'm not doing very often.
After going through this long explanation of my internal nightmares, here's my final question: in terms of social interaction, in which situations is a contest better or recommended instead of calculating a DC yourself or using a passive score based on the creature's stats? Perhaps when there is active opposition?
Generally speaking, passive scores are only used in two situations: when you need to roll in secret, or if a character is attempting to perform a task over and over again. So for the case of NPCs lying to PCs, passive scores for Deception are not only preferred but the de facto standard. That's not to say exceptions can be made, but rather that is how the mechanics are designed to work. (Often with tools like a VTT or any sort of electronic device, rolling directly in secret is not a problem.) [...]
Perhaps my problem is I didn't have that passive rule in AD&D or DnD 3e, so I see it -- in some way -- as an optional rule.
For 5e, I usually use passive scores for Stealth vs. Perception, following the main example in the rules for passive checks and hiding. Additionally, depending on the circumstance, I use them for other activities outside of social interaction, such as Athletics (i.e. climbing a secure wall), Religion (i.e. identifying common symbols of certain gods) or Arcana (i.e. recognizing common magical items like potions or antitoxins).
I would love to have more examples or new rules for all of this in PHB or DMG 2024!
I know that every DM is a unique universe, and each of us has our preferences. However, I need to write this post to express the following thoughts that are on my mind, and this seems the right place to do so.
In DnD 3.5 we had Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive. Bluff was usually opposed by Sense Motive, while Intimidate was opposed to the target's modified level check (with a roll involved in the process). In DnD 5, we not only have contested rolls but also, as a new thing, passive values for abilities.
In my sessions, I haven't been using the NPCs' passive Deception as a value for players to succeed when attempting to detect if an NPC is not saying the thruth (i.e. making a Insight check). I generally prefer engaging in good roleplaying with the players, and depending on the interaction with them, decide the DC. A similar idea when calculating a DC for Intimidation or Persuasion.
Now from the NPC perspective: I don't roll Deception, Intimidation or Persuasion for NPCs. Instead, they try to lie, intimidate or persuade using my own roleplaying abilities and the characteristics of NPC (race, behaviour, appearance, background, etc.). I prefer not to force players to act based on my dice rolls.
Essentially, for DnD 5e I've been following my old way of playing TTRPGs, while also keeping an eye on the rules or advices described in Social Interaction (PHB, p. 185), Ability Checks (PHB, p. 186), Social Interaction (DMG, p. 244) and Conversations Reactions (DMG, p. 245). The concepts from those texts make sense to me, although I strive to minimize rolls for Social Interaction whenever possible.
What's my problem then? The modules I've been reading recently. I don't have a bunch of them. I only had Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, and I bought recently Ghosts of Saltmarsh and Storm King's Thunder. In these books, we can find checks like the following examples (I will use different names for the sake of spoilers):
But not always like that! Sometimes, the books use a fixed DC. I find this strange because the module changes the way interactions are handled for the same adventure:
Interestingly, I didn't find in those modules contests such as Charisma (Intimidation or Persuasion) against Wisdom (Insight), but I know some DMs decide to make that kind of contests sometimes.
So it seems it's common (or not too unusual, let's say) to contest at least Deception vs Insight. Similar to DnD 3.5 with Bluff and Sense Motive? I'm wondering if this is made to avoid forcing DMs to roleplay NPCs when using a module. Or perhaps because it's easier to handle? Just make a contested roll and then follow the path described in the adventure based on the result.
Also, being honest, we have at least one example in DMG where a Deception vs Insight contest is used: "If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard's Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won't work" (DMG, p. 237). But this seems a bit strange to me because it's not the idea described in the previously mentioned sections about Social Interaction.
After going through this long explanation of my internal nightmares, here's my final question: in terms of social interaction, in which situations is a contest better or recommended instead of calculating a DC yourself or using a passive score based on the creature's stats? Perhaps when there is active opposition?
It is horribly inconsistent, yep. I feel your pain there.
In my games, I try to keep it simple.
First, remember the definition of an encouter - some barrier to the characters getting what they want. For the characters to "win" the encounter, they have to remove the barrier.
I ask, "how hard do I want this encounter to be?" Convincing a merchant to give a discount? Moderate. Convinving a guard to let you in without a toll? Easy. Convincing the duke to lend you their army? Almost impossible. From this I set the DC, from 5 to 30.
Then I just leave it to the players to come up with ideas. For each idea I do the usual core gameplay loop. Fail, pass, or not sure. In the case of "not sure", get someone to make a roll.
I rarely use contested rolls. If I decide "the Duke's butler is a master at spotting deception" then I just impose disadvantage on any plan the players come up with that involves their characters being deceptive. If their plan involves their characters being honest even though it might hurt them then I give advantage.
For example, if the characters are sneaking past some guards.
"These are average guards in a boring posting" means DC 10 on stealth rolls.
"These are elite, highly motivated guards in a coveted posting" means DC 25.
I submit the inconsistency is a feature rather than a flaw. Consider this, among all people is there an algorithm that describes the multiple ways in which any two people relate? The same interaction across multiple people? All interactions across all people? One function of the rules is to streamline interactions so that they can be represented with dice. Yet if the game seeks to portray something as fuzzy as the many ways in which people interact there might be significant utility in having multiple--and even incompatible--ways to portray those interactions.
For my part, I like a contested roll because it raises tension and the stakes are higher if the opponents can play the PCs at their own game. I like a DC because I can raise or lower it to represent changes in circumstances. I've never used a passive deception, because it strikes me as construing the difference between character knowledge and player knowledge as a problem, but maybe there's a place for it in an intrigue based scenario. I reach for a DC when I need to move the players along faster and for a contested roll when I want to slow pacing.
I agree with Greenstone that among the most useful questions is, "How hard do I want this to be?"
Yeah, I try to set the DC based on what the person making the check is trying to do. I might choose to situationally award Advantage or Disadvantage. I try to base things off the player's general attempt rather than precisely what they say, it doesn't feel fair to punish someone for not being able to come up with a really detailed bluff or persuasion attempt on the spot.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Generally speaking, passive scores are only used in two situations: when you need to roll in secret, or if a character is attempting to perform a task over and over again. So for the case of NPCs lying to PCs, passive scores for Deception are not only preferred but the de facto standard. That's not to say exceptions can be made, but rather that is how the mechanics are designed to work. (Often with tools like a VTT or any sort of electronic device, rolling directly in secret is not a problem.)
Most of the time, as you've noticed in several official publications, you perform a contested check in the case of Deception because Insight is literally designed to detect the use of that skill. (Not so much with Persuasion or Intimidation.) But, as you have discovered, exceptions to this rule exist.
Sometimes, there is further context that might explain a higher DC. Perhaps the NPC is skeptical of the PCs, for example.But ultimately I believe there is a simple explanation for this type of exception to the rule: designer fiat. In other words, the designers of the adventure wanted those specific checks to be particularly difficult. You will note both of them are between 15-20, which is on the upper side as far as skill checks go. Perhaps the NPCs in those characters don't possess proficiency in the Deception skill, and/or have low to mid Charisma scores. Hence, it is possible that the designers bumped it via static DC to say "It's possible to succeed here, but we want it to be more difficult than a contested check would allow."
EDIT: There is of course, the possibility that this is simply due to the nature of the adventure being written by humans: a team of writers working independently under tight publishing deadlines and internal editing and writing standards. Personally I think this is less likely, but still probable.
Thanks for your replies, everyone. Let me share my opinion on some of your answers.
Your approach closely mirrors mine, almost identically, in fact. I establish a fixed DC (not contested, nor based on passive values from NPC stats) depending on the conversation with the players and their behavior.
I could also use contested rolls, but I prefer to avoid additional rolls solely for obtaining a random value. I rely on my abilities to determine the appropriate DC for the players. Maybe my abilities are wrong😅
Cool, same opinion then. I'd like to use more Advantage/Disadvantage in social interactions, but it's something I'm not doing very often.
Perhaps my problem is I didn't have that passive rule in AD&D or DnD 3e, so I see it -- in some way -- as an optional rule.
For 5e, I usually use passive scores for Stealth vs. Perception, following the main example in the rules for passive checks and hiding. Additionally, depending on the circumstance, I use them for other activities outside of social interaction, such as Athletics (i.e. climbing a secure wall), Religion (i.e. identifying common symbols of certain gods) or Arcana (i.e. recognizing common magical items like potions or antitoxins).
I would love to have more examples or new rules for all of this in PHB or DMG 2024!
Passive score is taking 10 in 3e terms, it just has somewhat different rules on when you can use it.