EVEN THOUGH THE NPC IS NOT LYING.

Do you just tell them? Should they roll?

I ran my first session past the beginner game last night and a couple times my players thought an NPC wasn't being totally honest. I wasn't sure the best way to handle it.

Per page 113, it would be the PC's Discipline vs the NPC's Deception. Normally the PCs make all the rolls, so if they want to check if someone is lying they make the Discipline roll, it wouldn't be the NPC making a Deception roll (which is kind of a giveaway). If the PCs fail, they can't tell, but that doesn't mean the NPC was or wasn't lying. Threats might make the NPC angry that the PCs are suspicious, Advantage might give other clues or make the NPC more friendly, etc.

OK so roll opposed discipline vs deception even if the NPC is telling the truth?

I think I had then do that once but then the other time I just told the players the guy wasn't lying.

Thanks!

You can also use other Skills if the PCs think someone is lying, they just get different information from the result. For example if it's a junk dealer potentially lying about the condition of a part the PC could use their Mechanics skill to to ask a question or two and gauge they're answer. They may not find out if the dealer is "lying" per se but they could determine that the part isn't exactly as described. The farther afield the Skill the less useful the information you would gain but you could still try and piece it together from the bits you do get.

The other thing is that even if you do determine that an NPC is lying using Discipline vs Deception that revelation will tell you nothing of the nature of the lie or even if the lying behavior is related to the question so you're still going to need to guess or make other rolls to find that information.

Must remember this one!

If I ever get to run that Force & Destiny Beta game it will involve the PCs meeting a self proclaimed Dark Sider who is quite cheerfully explains he's trying to save them from a nasty end at the hands of the Inquisitors!

Will be very interesting to gauge their reactions if they're successful on this check and it reveals he's telling the truth... may be better to keep that a gm but this thread sounds like it will be more fun to see how they react if its their roll they're depending on...

If successful, he's telling you the truth but why would you trust someone claiming to be a Dark Jedi?

Sorry for going a little off topic but this got me thinking... not a good thing considering I need my sleep!

Good night one and all!

OK so roll opposed discipline vs deception even if the NPC is telling the truth?

I'd be tempted at that point to downgrade the difficulty or not use the Deception skill ranks. The NPC isn't actively trying to deceive, but perhaps their natural shifty nature (high Cunning) is working against them...

Depending on how big a deal the lie is, story-wise, I tend to make a Deception check vs. the PCs' highest Discipline skill. If I really don't want the players to know what's going on, I make the check behind a screen or using the dice app. Then I roleplay the results; if the NPC made the check he tells the lie with a straight face and sounds sincere, while if he botched it I include stuff like hesitant speech, eyes darting back and forth, and so on. If my players aren't paying sufficient attention to me to get the hints, that's their problem.

Every time my players want to know if someone is lying, I have them make a Discipline vs Deception. If the NPC is actually lying, I'll use their actual skill and characteristic ranks. If they're not lying, I'll make up some dice pool for them to roll against. This is usually either their actual Deception skill but is sometimes their Charm skill (to avoid seeming shifty) or just some made-up number so the PCs don't get suspicious (or...un-suspicious I guess in this case).

If the PCs fail, I tell them they can discern no evidence that the NPC is lying. If they succeed and the NPC was not lying, I tell them the same thing. If they succeed and the NPC was lying, I tell them something that amounts to the NPC giving away that he's being less than truthful, but I don't tell them any more than that.

It hasn't happened yet, but I'm waiting for the PCs to fail with despair against an NPC that isn't lying...so I can tell them they think he is.

Oh, I guess it should be noted that this method only works with decent roleplayers. If your players tend to meta-game (intentionally or inadvertently), all this stuff is a dead giveaway. If you want to prevent that, have the NPC secretly roll deception (or just fake a roll if the NPC isn't lying) against the highest discipline/willpower among the party and just tell them what they see.

Normally the PCs make all the rolls

That's your preference, not a hard rule.

If it's an opposed roll, the PCs just know what the difficulty is. They don't know (and shouldn't) that they are rolling against the opponent's deception, negotiation, charm, etc. If they fail, then you tell them, "You believe what he is saying." The Player may suspect a lie, but their character has stats for a reason, and when the dice say their character believes the NPC they "should" play it that way.

Depending on how big a deal the lie is, story-wise, I tend to make a Deception check vs. the PCs' highest Discipline skill. If I really don't want the players to know what's going on, I make the check behind a screen or using the dice app. Then I roleplay the results; if the NPC made the check he tells the lie with a straight face and sounds sincere, while if he botched it I include stuff like hesitant speech, eyes darting back and forth, and so on. If my players aren't paying sufficient attention to me to get the hints, that's their problem.

In my case, neither NPC was lying. My players were just naturally hesitant and suspicious. Part of that was intentional on my part, but I may have underestimated how shady the NPCs were going to come off.

You can have them roll for every conversation, to mask the 'he's making us roll' giveaway. Or only when they ask if he's lying do you make them roll. Sometimes they will know, sometimes they won't. If you call for a roll out of the blue though you might as well just tell them. The modules give good basic guidance in that conversations, and even computer/sensor checks, provide scaling information based on Successes and Advantages, and sometimes even when they technically 'fail'. Apply that to conversations and it inserts a useful level of ambiguity.

If the players think the NPC is lying, they can just proceed and do whatever they would do in such circumstances.

They'll probably find out at some point that the NPC was telling the truth, but by then things could be a lot more complicated...

One problem with rolling the dice is if the PCs fail, and the NPC wasn't lying then the PCs can go down a rabbit hole trying to "prove" the NPC was lying, because they assume if you rolled the dice then there must be a reason for it. If there is no reason to roll the dice, then don't.

Reason, of course, is a relative term. Perhaps you are trying to enhance the PCs paranoia. This is a good reason to roll even if the NPC isn't lying. However I find it best most of the time to just tell the PCs when an NPC is telling the truth just to keep things flowing i.e. rather than having them roll just say 'You have a sense he (or she) is telling the truth.'

What you could do is make the roll secretly. You roll the check for them behind the GM screen.

Then you tell them what they have found out, but not the actual result. That can head off the ''he must be lying'' impressions.

You time the roll to coincide with the effect, the action of lying (or being caught) will make something happen, roll then. At that time the outcome is decided by the dice, the players cannot act on any metagame knowledge and the game will not hit a wall of indesicion.

If the players are suspicious of a lie, and the NPC is lying give them a boost or two, conversly is he is telling the truth and they are looking for lies add some setback to the roll.

Lots of good suggestions here, but it seems like a lot of people assume the NPCs were lying. In this case they were not. I appreciate the ideas!

There's a common suggestion to DMs to make players roll "perception" checks at random times just to get them used to rolling them so that when you do need to roll one, it doesn't trigger any unusual action.

In the same vein is the suggestion that "deception" rolls be made by NPCs with equal frequency for the same reason.

The important part of deception/perception rolls, irrespective of whether or not they're successful, is whether or not the players' characters believe the NPC or notice something. When it comes to deception rolls, I'd say that barring anything short of a despair roll, PCs will believe an NPC that's not lying. NPCs that are lying can be treated through the normal deception mechanic.

Keep in mind, all you can do as a DM is tell the players whether or not their characters believe the NPC or not. How they react is up to them. Sometimes the more chaotic of players can derive great joy from convincing the rest of the party that the head Monk of the revered Order of Truth Monks who has taken thousands of oaths over a hundred years to speak nothing but truth is lying. Imagine the fun a player can have if they can convince their party of a conspiracy of that depth!

Then imagine if it's true!

I follow a few steps in this case.

- First: I let roleplay. If players get that there is a lie or not (and its correct), I just end the situation there. (He can believe that, but can still think that can be mistaken). If player is wrong, I go to next point...

- Second: If player is wrong, I let him/her roll. I apply the same theory above. Based on the amount of Success/Advantages/Triumphs or Failures/Threats/Desperations, I told him/her how secure is his/her character about that theory. And here's an optional.

- OPTIONAL: Without caring about if players is right or wrong, I let him/her roll if want to pick extra details.

the other time I just told the players the guy wasn't lying.

I would never do that. If the PCs don't know something, why tell the players? Practice smiling ambiguously - it is one of the core skills of a GM.

Hmm I wonder how this would be handled?

Your group has been led to what appears to be a small hangar attached to what looks like a shrine of some kind.

A figure sweeping outside stops and approaches you, he greets your guide before turning to the rest of you.

Those amongst you who are force sensitive immediately realise you are in the presence of a Dark Jedi what really is offputting to you is that he quite cheerfully greets you.

"Hello so you're the Inquisitors' latest plaything? So glad my apprentice got to you first after all once they're through with whatever is left of your Order they'll be turning their attentions to people like me.

Anyway I figured I'd arrange you a few days grace to either prepare for your coming encounter with the Emperor's minions or if you'd rather I can arrange a means offworld if you'd rather not go through this... its okay if you're scared because I've been keeping count of all of your predecessors who came before you and to be honest watching you all get wiped out was getting a bit much even for someone who loathes your Order like me. Ergo why I chose to give you a heads up you don't mind being forewarned do you?"

Results of check:

Triumph: He's actually being absolutely honest make a Fear check!

Advantage: Apprentice? Inquisitors' as in plural... might want to know a bit more!

Threat: So is he and the guide your main threat?

Despair: You immediately attack? Disbelieve him even though you have no reason to do so except for the fact he has clearly stated he's a Dark Jedi who apparently thinks he'll be next on the Inquisitors' hit list once you're dealt with... no must be lying.

Does that sound about right even if its in the absolutely wrong thread for this sort of encounter?

I'm not sure a Triumph should result in a fear check. If anything, a fear check should result in a success, and a Triumph would either allow you to upgrade your discipline check or count as an automatic success.

I agree a Triumph should have a net positive effect, however if being afraid and giving the PC(s) a chance to get the heck out of there was the result, that could be considered positive...

I agree a Triumph should have a net positive effect, however if being afraid and giving the PC(s) a chance to get the heck out of there was the result, that could be considered positive...

Ah fair point.