So I am a DM but sometimes player, and one of the games that I am in we are secretly trying to gather parts of an ancient sword. it has resulted in some stealing and attempted deception. the DM though like to given every authority and guard interrogator zone of truth. ever interaction with authority is met with zone of truth, that if we try to resist is met with over whelming threats of a combat we cannot win. And then very pointed questions to get to the information we are hiding. it feels meta gamey a little. ig the DM wants us to constantly be on the bad side of guards and such but I was wondering if anyone has tips to deal with the consistent zones of truth?
edit: I also want to add me and the other players love this game, it is an absolute blast with great character moments and difficult but balanced combat. This is just a pattern i have noticed the DM doing
You could use some spells to alter your memories so that you could say something that is factually incorrect, but true to the best of your knowledge. You could achieve this through creative use of spells like Encode Thoughts (removing memories) and Modify Memory (changing them).
Talk with your DM. If they're specifically aiming for some result- which the threats of one-sided fights seem to indicate- then you can't really game the system from within because the DM has the narrative power to force the issue. It's possible they're just overcompensating as they try to nudge the campaign in a direction- and nudging can be fair game, expecting a DM to improv around the party going far off track is asking a lot, especially depending on what they've prepped- or they could be all the way over into trying to railroad a very specific plot or otherwise have ended up in adversarial territory, at which point you need to ask yourself if the game is worth holding your nose to get through or if it's time to look elsewhere.
Talk with your DM. If they're specifically aiming for some result- which the threats of one-sided fights seem to indicate- then you can't really game the system from within because the DM has the narrative power to force the issue. It's possible they're just overcompensating as they try to nudge the campaign in a direction- and nudging can be fair game, expecting a DM to improv around the party going far off track is asking a lot, especially depending on what they've prepped- or they could be all the way over into trying to railroad a very specific plot or otherwise have ended up in adversarial territory, at which point you need to ask yourself if the game is worth holding your nose to get through or if it's time to look elsewhere.
This is good advice.
That said, if you want to fight back against ZoT in a roleplaying context, there are ways to answer questions that aren't untrue, but are deceptive. Answering a question with a question is one:
"Did you steal the crown jewels?"
"Do you really think I'm that stupid?"
Or answering a question that isn't quite the one they asked:
"Did you steal the crown jewels?"
"I don't have the crown jewels." (They've been stashed elsewhere.) "I don't know where they are." (The person who has them to stash hasn't told you where they put them yet.)
Obviously, this kind of trickery won't work if the DM is trying to railroad the game in a specific direction, which it does sound like, but if it's more of a neutral "ZoT is a low-level spell, so of course authorities would use it", then it's a way to adapt.
The other thing to do is to explicitly bring your social skills into play: "I'm going to do my best to evade the question and make them think I answered. Can I roll deception?"
Again, won't help if your DM is insistent on not letting you.
I can see a DM thinking it would make sense for every interrogation of suspected criminals to take place under a ZOT spell but such a thing should be mentioned in session 0. In such a campaign if the party want to act in a dishonest fashion they would have to do so in a way that does not put them under suspicion to be asked about it.
There is a lot we don't know. for example
Is gathreing the parts of the ancient sword the main objecting of the campaign (or this paret of the campaign) or is it a side quest to gain a powerful weapon?
Did the party do anything that caused suspicion for these questions to be asked under ZOT (if the answer to this is no then it is metagamey in my opinion
Is the DM trying to give the party the choice of revealing the secret or giving up on obtaining the parts of the weapon or making the objective more difficult whenever the party make an error that causes suspicion to fall on them?
I can see a DM thinking it would make sense for every interrogation of suspected criminals to take place under a ZOT spell but such a thing should be mentioned in session 0. In such a campaign if the party want to act in a dishonest fashion they would have to do so in a way that does not put them under suspicion to be asked about it.
There is a lot we don't know. for example
Is gathreing the parts of the ancient sword the main objecting of the campaign (or this paret of the campaign) or is it a side quest to gain a powerful weapon?
Did the party do anything that caused suspicion for these questions to be asked under ZOT (if the answer to this is no then it is metagamey in my opinion
Is the DM trying to give the party the choice of revealing the secret or giving up on obtaining the parts of the weapon or making the objective more difficult whenever the party make an error that causes suspicion to fall on them?
These are all great questions.
Finding parts of the sword is the main objective of the game, we are trying to gather all the pieces to stop war hungry nobles from getting their hands on it and killing populations of people.
additionally we definitely have been suspicious at times, BUT for simply turning in an item to a noble we have worked with before and haven’t deceived had us stand in a ZoT, so when we had to kinda steal from them instead of risking an ZoT interrogation we just dipped and did return. so sometimes warranted BUT for the times its not it feels slightly metagamey. But it could also just be constant distrust of the party in rp which is also kinda reasonable.
and that last question is super fair actually, we aren’t the brightest so we just might be messing up all the time and getting caught haha
but talking to them does seem like the right first step
Talk with your DM. If they're specifically aiming for some result- which the threats of one-sided fights seem to indicate- then you can't really game the system from within because the DM has the narrative power to force the issue. It's possible they're just overcompensating as they try to nudge the campaign in a direction- and nudging can be fair game, expecting a DM to improv around the party going far off track is asking a lot, especially depending on what they've prepped- or they could be all the way over into trying to railroad a very specific plot or otherwise have ended up in adversarial territory, at which point you need to ask yourself if the game is worth holding your nose to get through or if it's time to look elsewhere.
This is good advice.
That said, if you want to fight back against ZoT in a roleplaying context, there are ways to answer questions that aren't untrue, but are deceptive. Answering a question with a question is one:
"Did you steal the crown jewels?"
"Do you really think I'm that stupid?"
Or answering a question that isn't quite the one they asked:
"Did you steal the crown jewels?"
"I don't have the crown jewels." (They've been stashed elsewhere.) "I don't know where they are." (The person who has them to stash hasn't told you where they put them yet.)
Obviously, this kind of trickery won't work if the DM is trying to railroad the game in a specific direction, which it does sound like, but if it's more of a neutral "ZoT is a low-level spell, so of course authorities would use it", then it's a way to adapt.
The other thing to do is to explicitly bring your social skills into play: "I'm going to do my best to evade the question and make them think I answered. Can I roll deception?"
Again, won't help if your DM is insistent on not letting you.
Oh Ive tried this to high heaven, it just results in them casting suggestion on a low wisdom character or like detect thoughts.
it at times definitely feels like he wants an outcome from certain interrogation scenes and gets there.
My wild guess is that maybe your DM was having trouble coming up with ways to challenge the party for this part of the adventure, so they're trying to make the most out of this one. I feel like a Zone of Truth cast by an NPC is a difficult spell to DM fairly, because the DM has so much more knowledge than the caster, but has to balance that against the NPC's level of skepticism (or gullibility) AND the need to maintain some level of challenge for the players.
For example, if asked, "are you trying to trying to steal (item)?" you can answer, "no, I'm not trying to steal (item)," with complete honesty, because that is not what you're currently doing- you are currently just answering questions. You can also say, "I'm not planning to steal (item)," if the plan has already been made. At that point, the challenge for DMing a Zone of Truth fairly, is having to balance the out-of-character knowledge that you're playing word games, against the fact that "I'm not trying to steal (item)" is as direct of an answer as anybody could reasonably ask for, PLUS the fact that the interrogator has the Zone of Truth spell telling them that the statement is an honest one.
Also worth mentioning: any creature in a Zone of Truth is aware of the spell and its effect, which is something you can use to your advantage, by saying something like, "I've committed no crime here, and because of the spell you cast, you know I'm telling the truth about that." In that statement, the word "here" might be limited to just the room you're currently standing in. And that's assuming, of course, that you weren't already trespassing when they grabbed you.
Anyway, just my personal thoughts on Zone of Truth from a DM's perspective. Maybe some of it will help you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I am a DM but sometimes player, and one of the games that I am in we are secretly trying to gather parts of an ancient sword. it has resulted in some stealing and attempted deception. the DM though like to given every authority and guard interrogator zone of truth. ever interaction with authority is met with zone of truth, that if we try to resist is met with over whelming threats of a combat we cannot win. And then very pointed questions to get to the information we are hiding. it feels meta gamey a little. ig the DM wants us to constantly be on the bad side of guards and such but I was wondering if anyone has tips to deal with the consistent zones of truth?
edit: I also want to add me and the other players love this game, it is an absolute blast with great character moments and difficult but balanced combat. This is just a pattern i have noticed the DM doing
You could use some spells to alter your memories so that you could say something that is factually incorrect, but true to the best of your knowledge. You could achieve this through creative use of spells like Encode Thoughts (removing memories) and Modify Memory (changing them).
Talk with your DM. If they're specifically aiming for some result- which the threats of one-sided fights seem to indicate- then you can't really game the system from within because the DM has the narrative power to force the issue. It's possible they're just overcompensating as they try to nudge the campaign in a direction- and nudging can be fair game, expecting a DM to improv around the party going far off track is asking a lot, especially depending on what they've prepped- or they could be all the way over into trying to railroad a very specific plot or otherwise have ended up in adversarial territory, at which point you need to ask yourself if the game is worth holding your nose to get through or if it's time to look elsewhere.
This is good advice.
That said, if you want to fight back against ZoT in a roleplaying context, there are ways to answer questions that aren't untrue, but are deceptive. Answering a question with a question is one:
"Did you steal the crown jewels?"
"Do you really think I'm that stupid?"
Or answering a question that isn't quite the one they asked:
"Did you steal the crown jewels?"
"I don't have the crown jewels." (They've been stashed elsewhere.) "I don't know where they are." (The person who has them to stash hasn't told you where they put them yet.)
Obviously, this kind of trickery won't work if the DM is trying to railroad the game in a specific direction, which it does sound like, but if it's more of a neutral "ZoT is a low-level spell, so of course authorities would use it", then it's a way to adapt.
The other thing to do is to explicitly bring your social skills into play: "I'm going to do my best to evade the question and make them think I answered. Can I roll deception?"
Again, won't help if your DM is insistent on not letting you.
I agree talk with your DM.
I can see a DM thinking it would make sense for every interrogation of suspected criminals to take place under a ZOT spell but such a thing should be mentioned in session 0. In such a campaign if the party want to act in a dishonest fashion they would have to do so in a way that does not put them under suspicion to be asked about it.
There is a lot we don't know. for example
Oooooooo good idea, im playing a wizard, i could probably figure that out
These are all great questions.
Finding parts of the sword is the main objective of the game, we are trying to gather all the pieces to stop war hungry nobles from getting their hands on it and killing populations of people.
additionally we definitely have been suspicious at times, BUT for simply turning in an item to a noble we have worked with before and haven’t deceived had us stand in a ZoT, so when we had to kinda steal from them instead of risking an ZoT interrogation we just dipped and did return. so sometimes warranted BUT for the times its not it feels slightly metagamey. But it could also just be constant distrust of the party in rp which is also kinda reasonable.
and that last question is super fair actually, we aren’t the brightest so we just might be messing up all the time and getting caught haha
but talking to them does seem like the right first step
Oh Ive tried this to high heaven, it just results in them casting suggestion on a low wisdom character or like detect thoughts.
it at times definitely feels like he wants an outcome from certain interrogation scenes and gets there.
My wild guess is that maybe your DM was having trouble coming up with ways to challenge the party for this part of the adventure, so they're trying to make the most out of this one. I feel like a Zone of Truth cast by an NPC is a difficult spell to DM fairly, because the DM has so much more knowledge than the caster, but has to balance that against the NPC's level of skepticism (or gullibility) AND the need to maintain some level of challenge for the players.
For example, if asked, "are you trying to trying to steal (item)?" you can answer, "no, I'm not trying to steal (item)," with complete honesty, because that is not what you're currently doing- you are currently just answering questions. You can also say, "I'm not planning to steal (item)," if the plan has already been made. At that point, the challenge for DMing a Zone of Truth fairly, is having to balance the out-of-character knowledge that you're playing word games, against the fact that "I'm not trying to steal (item)" is as direct of an answer as anybody could reasonably ask for, PLUS the fact that the interrogator has the Zone of Truth spell telling them that the statement is an honest one.
Also worth mentioning: any creature in a Zone of Truth is aware of the spell and its effect, which is something you can use to your advantage, by saying something like, "I've committed no crime here, and because of the spell you cast, you know I'm telling the truth about that." In that statement, the word "here" might be limited to just the room you're currently standing in. And that's assuming, of course, that you weren't already trespassing when they grabbed you.
Anyway, just my personal thoughts on Zone of Truth from a DM's perspective. Maybe some of it will help you.