I'm curious as to how others handle NPC's lying to the players. I myself have been rolling the NPC's Deception skill against the player's Discipline, but the problem there is that as soon as you ask a player what their skill in Discipline is, the jig is pretty much up. I suppose I could get all the players' Discipline ranks up front when the game starts and then try to roll subtly, but since we typically use the EotE Hangouts app, it would still be immediately noticed by the players.

Now, sure, you could say "as long as you have mature players who separate what they know from what the character knows, you're fine", but I feel like it still creates a roadblock if you're trying to introduce NPC's who want to mislead your players so they get into trouble.

Does anyone have any thoughts/advice/conflicting opinions?

If the players themselves as they sit there don't anticipate deception or that the NPC is lying, I wouldn't roll, they would just get lied to. I don't give people an automatic roll to uncover lies if they aren't expecting it. I also don't allow a player to say I'm always looking for ambushes so I can always roll, or I think everyone is a liar. Part of being a GM is to entertain of course, but part is to provide challenge and that is done through structure and story and at times will require a bit of GM fiat for the sake of the story.

My usual way to deal with this is to roll covertly (or at least without letting my players know what I'm rolling) and then roleplay the results. If the NPC failed miserably at his Deception check, I'll say something like, "Ah... yes, he went... uh, that way. Yes, that's right." and look very obviously shifty. If the NPC rolls lots of successes I'll put up my most honest face and act very convincing as I lie to their poor trusting faces.

If you are going to allow a roll, flip it the other way. Except for combat, NPCs don't generally roll, the PC rolls against the NPCs pool. This way less is revealed. So if the player asks if the NPC is lying, it might be PC Perception against the NPCs Discipline, or PC Discipline against NPC Charm... If the PC fails, they simply can't tell.

I also follow the above sugestion such that I grant perception checks opposed to deception to my players if they are suspicious or if I want the PCs to care about the problem if the NPC is lying to them, I will ask for checks.

But all that aside: I heard from various GM-comrades to use lying NPC only sparely and don't overdo the trouble your PCs will encounter if they fall for a lie. Because some of my firends said that they had groups that developed an incredible mistrust to any NPC and everything they were told by them. Of course this group was probably double-crossed more than once by NPCs. But in general you don't want this to happen. It also may depend on the players you play with.

I think it is really important to give your players a fair chance of uncovering a lie or, if they are supposed to fall for a lie as a plot-hook you have to make sure that they can settle the score for this and gain some really fun game from it.

There is nothing worse than a party that is about to complete a long-term goal or longer story-arc and suddenly, in the moment of triumph have an NPC turn against them and as such denying them their success or turning certain achievements of the party into the NPCs triumphs because he is such an evil mastermind. Depending on the circumstances I can imagine such situations to be a great session, but if done wrong your players will probably feel pretty dumb and their success will be very much shadowed by the betrayal.

So my conclusion is: Use with caution.

Remember that Success in trying to tell if there is deception doesn't mean they've succeeded in telling if someone is lying.

It could be that, despite their suspicion, they think he's telling the truth. Or they discover the guy is maybe not telling the whole truth.

IE: PCs succeed perception to tell if Bob is lying.

The truth is that Bob is leading them into a trap.

What is revealed by the success is that Bob works for the Black Sun who are setting up the meeting for the PCs, he does NOT in fact for the crime family the Pcs were originally told they were meeting.

If a Lie is crucial to the story, simply reveal another minor lie instead.

Actually, I'm a really lucky master. My ACTUAL players are fairplay, but I wasn't so lucky a few years ago XD

In the old times, every time I changed the background music to a more sinister one or I made hidden rolls they automatically used to say "I pay attention and roll Perception" or "I prepare my weapon". Even in failed "anti-bluff" rolls or perception rolls they still have a "Weird awareness" stand XD

As I said, ACTUALLY, I'm a lucky master

But focusing a bit on your point (sorry) I use to know the aproximate skill level of my players chars, and I adapt my interpretation to player's level letting them know that the NPC is lying (like make NPC tremble or get nervous), and, if players don't get it, I let them roll because this isn't a confrontation between GM and Players, is a check between PC and NPC.

I use to let game to interpretation and I use to ask for some rolls whene things went beyond players idea/perceptions and becomes a PC matter.

I go with the following: Ask your players to do those rolls on perception and deception without any difficulty at the start of the session and write down the results. You roll the difficulty die behind your GM screen and note them too.

Tell them that you will give the results when it is appropriate and in order to avoid ruining suspenson/scenes with dice rolling.

Of course later on when it is time tell them the results (or not in case of botched 'sense motive' roles).

Not every gamer likes that system, but prefer to keep gamer knowledge and character knowledge well separated.

Once a deception check has been made and the player knows that he 'lost' the character still tend to get more paranoid than they should be. At least with 90% percent of the people i played with do that on a more or less obvious or subconcious level, even i do it.

So by not telling them when that roll came into effect i can keep telling a good story and they can keep playing their chars.

My NPCs lie a lot

The way I've always handled it (in different systems): don't roll unless a player is asking "Is he/she/it lying?". Then the player rolls for the character - in EotE he rolls only his dice - usually it's perception.

In secret I roll the difficulty and then tell the player the outcome.

This way players don't know if the target has deception (might indicate a lie), if he's lying at all etc. I do stealth checks the same way.

I prefer to let the players roll if they say "I am going to roll to see if he is lying"

Yes he might not be telling you the truth, but how are you going to find out?

granted i don't have bloodthirsty players either

Thanks everyone. I appreciate all the responses and different points of view. To clarify my current process, the CRB states that Deception is countered by Discipline (as are Coercion and Leadership), and I wanted to give my players a reason to put XP into that (or purchase talents like Nobody's Fool) rather than just toss it all into combat skills, So the player who has amazing Ranged and Gunnery skills can think he's the pinnacle of excellence, until he discovers that his character is insanely naive and easy to trick.

In addition, I felt it was more fair to make these NPC's roll to successfully lie in the same way a PC would have to. I mean, I make NPC's roll to shoot, or make piloting checks, it seemed reasonable to make NPC's roll to get away with lying (or making threats) as well.

To clarify my current process, the CRB states that Deception is countered by Discipline (as are Coercion and Leadership), and I wanted to give my players a reason to put XP into that (or purchase talents like Nobody's Fool) rather than just toss it all into combat skills

Keep in mind that a) the description is as applicable to NPCs as to the players, and b) there are plenty of reasons to enhance Discipline beyond detecting lies, e.g.: Fear checks are a fairly regular part of my game.

In addition, I felt it was more fair to make these NPC's roll to successfully lie in the same way a PC would have to. I mean, I make NPC's roll to shoot, or make piloting checks, it seemed reasonable to make NPC's roll to get away with lying (or making threats) as well.

I'm not sure it's a matter of fairness, but a matter of what works best in the game. If an NPC is shooting at you, it's pretty clear what's going on, so the act of rolling doesn't skew the meta-game. If an NPC is lying to you, there is no way the players would know unless they think to ask. But if you roll for the NPC, it's harder for the players to resist asking "what's that about?"...it introduces unnecessary meta-game information that can colour the player's responses. My players are pretty good about trying to act only on PC knowledge, but some things are irresistible...

Well since adventures are all just storytelling, everything an NPC says is sort of a lie anyway. I never roll to see if an NPC successfully lies to a PC, I just lie for them and if they have a 1 Deception I'll hesitate or make a shifty look or something when I speak for them otherwise if they're Deception is average (2) or better I don't do anything in particular to give it away.

The truth is I've almost never had a Player not ask to check if an NPC is lying about anything that might seem important so the Player always makes the roll. With EotE I do have the Player roll all their positive dice in the open and I roll the negative dice behind the screen and RP the result so they don't know for sure if they caught the lie or not. Unless they roll well, then I tell them they know for sure.

I also let the Player choose the skill that they want to use for seeing if the NPC is lying and sometimes give them Boosts or Setbacks based on what they choose. For example I had a Droid dealer try and lie about the condition of a droid part they wanted to get and let let the PC use Mechanics, but I added a Setback die because dealer was a good Mechanic as well and had a high Deception.

I don't have any real advice on this, but I just want to hear my self talk, err..well type...

I found that this too can be problem with some players. Sometimes they are like "well, I don't believe him" , and then I'm like

"Well, that's great, YOU may not, but your character does."

"No, my character doesn't"

And it just stupidly childish after that point.

The same things can happen any time you try to use any mind effecting thing on a character. Like a fear check.

I have been in "arguments" with some mature players about this, and they don't like the fact that I as GM can "control" their character thoughts and reactions to situations.

It is not about a GM controlling a character, it is about the GM controlling the atmosphere and mood of the story. If I have a PC make a check for fear or for lying, and they fail the check, that is no different than them getting hit by a blaster bolt and taking damage. "Ok, the blaster bolt hits you for 8. 'No, the blaster doesn't hit me, because I don't feel like it should'"...

The thing the players themselves have to remember, you are playing a character, and the GM is the director. He can tell you how your character feels about a scene because of the rules that we have all agreed to play by. The exact same is true for the PC to NPC deception. (I did counter my player with this, well if I can't affect you with fear or deception, you can't affect my NPCs.) this of course was too much and bull was called...

Anyway, we have to remember that this a ROLE playing game, the players are acting out their character role. This role is affected by the roll of dice, not just the imagination of a writer and a director.

Imagine Mark Hamill telling Irvin Kershner that he just does not believe Vader about being his father. "No Kersh, I know he is lying to me, I'm not upset about it, I just call bull"...that would have made for a whole different scene and movie altogether.

My only true advice is try to role play the encounter out as best you can. If you as the GM know the guy is lying, try to make your eyes shifty, act more uncomfortable, shift I your chair. Ask they players if they would LIKE to make a check. They don't have to though. If you know the NPC is telling the truth, try to act more confident in your manner. I'm sure not many of us are trained actors, and you don't have to give an Academy Award winning performance to your NPCs, but you can try to drop clues in for the players. (I bet most tables have better acting than the Prequels...)

In the end, just make sure that everyone is playing by the same rules. And always remember:

"I hate sand"

I found that this too can be problem with some players. Sometimes they are like "well, I don't believe him" , and then I'm like

"Well, that's great, YOU may not, but your character does."

"No, my character doesn't"

And it just stupidly childish after that point.

I would never tell the player what their character does or does not believe. This is why the player should always roll. If they fail their roll to detect a lie, it doesn't mean they believe something, it just means they have no idea. If the player chooses to have their character to act suspiciously at that point, it's up to them, and the player doesn't feel railroaded.

I get to have a lot of fun with this way in any case. I'm usually winging it, about 2 steps ahead of the players. I may not even know yet whether the NPC is, in fact, lying at all. I just play on the player's suspicions. So if it turns out the NPC was telling the truth, then the NPC can be legitimately insulted and it gets into all kinds of fun roleplay.

I am sorry if any of you misunderstood what I meant. I did not mean that a PC has to feel anyway that I think they should. Again, I let rules dictate that. I am sorry, in my head I has already stated they had rolled and failed. I did not make that clear in the beginning of the post. So any time I mention that a character "should feel" a certain way, I do mean that it is because of the roll, not because I just think they should.

There have been times where a PC fails his perception or whatever check, I tell them they feel the NPC is being truthful, and the player is like well, I don't believe him...

So if based upon your roll you should feel like this guy is not lying to your character, or you can't detect deceit from him, , then why all of a sudden do you as the player decide you are being lied to?

Well, because my character wouldn't believe him...So we do we even have these rules and checks in place?

So how is this any different then the PC lying to the NPC, and I as the GM just say, well I/we don't believe you because this guy just wouldn't regardless of any rolls made?

The same things can happen any time you try to use any mind effecting thing on a character. Like a fear check.
I have been in "arguments" with some mature players about this, and they don't like the fact that I as GM can "control" their character thoughts and reactions to situations.

The difference is they can still act in any way they want to. In past games, your character would actually have to run away if they failed a fear check. Gaining a setback for the encounter is much more reasonable, and flavourful. It's similar to getting a critical hit and getting a setback that way.

The difference I speak of is the character being scared or frighted. It doesn't matter if they are running away or just taking a setback die. If the rules dictate that a character should be scared because of X or Y happening, then they are. I have had players fail these checks, then tell me, nope, my character is not scarred, I do not take the setback die or run away, those rules are for NPC's not PCs.

I had one tell me not too long ago, well it's doesn't matter if I fail the the deceit check, if I don't believe him, then I don't believe him and the GM can NOT make me feel any other way and it is wrong for the GM to have that control over my character.

I'm sorry but I think this absurd. These rules are for everyone, and if not, then perhaps I should not be playing this game.

So I as a GM have to be the perfect Con Man and grifter for you as a player to believe me? At that point the game is broken and for me, there is no reason to go on.

With this exact same logic then, the next time a PC takes a crit or even damage. "well I feel like I got out of the way just in time, so you didn't hit me"

It then become the children s game of cops and robbers/army. "I got you" "no you didn't" Yeah I did" "No you didn't"

If a player rolls to detect a lie or deceit and they fail, they therefore did not see the lie coming and cannot react to it. It is the exact same rule for a trap. If you don't see the trap and it goes off, guess what, Jesus saves, the rest of you take full damage.

Back to the original post. You should explain to your players that if they meta game, they forfeit all XP for that adventure.

So next time I roll a crit on a player; rolls dice, oh, you broke your right hand, do I really need to break the players hand to get him to feel the pain?

To me the social and physical rules are there for everyone.

Sorry, I digress now...

Since Deception is opposed by Discipline (rather than Perception), I believe that a successful Deception check means that the target is persuaded to believe the deceit . It's also not a case of "one roll = one shot" - just like attacking in combat, one check is used to show the result of an entire exchange of lies and manipulations.