So, how do you handle social checks made against players by NPCs?

I find this a difficult concept, especially in the format I usually play games in: detailed and RP-heavy play-by-posts. In my head, a player's impression of an NPC - and, by extension, they character's - should be formed by interpreting that NPC's words and actions. This lets players feel engaged and in control of how they view the world you're presenting them. Plus, I feel like a successful check by an NPC might remove agency in some way.

Worst case - and I understand this is bad GMing - I could see, for example, this result to a successful Charm check:

"You like this guy."

"What? No, I don't even trust him. I think he's lying, and probably evil."

"No, you trust him. You like the guy."

On the other hand, I can see a player who isn't very good at reading people or analyzing behavior playing a character who is . They might not see through the deception, or feel like the character seems just a bit too friendly, but that doesn't meant their character shouldn't. Still, that situation only really applies to lies told by an NPC, and there are other problems with Deception rolls against players. At what point is your NPC required to roll Deception?

This is an especially poignant question for me. I'm prepping to GM Onslaught at Arda I, and I don't feel it's a spoiler to say the adventure involves a traitor. It's sort of int he product description. Does the traitor roll Deception just trying to be normal around the PCs? If he is in a situation where he has to react to the possibility of a traitor, is there a danger he's outed in Act I by failing to seem surprised when he says "Oh, man, there might be a mole? That's worrying."

What if the PCs decide to interrogate everyone, and pointedly ask them: "Are you a traitor?"

These aren't questions I can really find answers to on my own. I mean, I could see it happening in some sort of "social combat" encounter, like a setpiece negotiation. Such a thing might take place in structured time: you use "negotiate" to further your point, moving the meeting forward a step, but your target uses Coercion - now you're worried about pressing them too far, and suffer setback to your next social check as you try carefully not to anger your "opponent". That sort of thing. For everyday use, I'm baffled...

A roll isn't always necessary. Not every interaction requires dice. Just ask will it make things fun, and/or move the story or create a road block.

If the PCs are trying to solve a mystery they would be the active roller. I would just lie with NPCs, I'd never roll Deception. I would just play an NPC as Charming and the PCs would decide if they trust me, if they wanna dig deeper we might have a skill check.

I never roll dice and tell PCs how they have to think. I'd only use the direct consequence type stuff on PCs, like Strain for Coercion or Scathing Tirade.

This is the most difficult one to handle without removing player agency. However, the Fear rules are a good place to look for a working model. They don't remove player agency (e.g.: sending the PC running away against their will), but they impose penalties on certain activities. A basic failure against Fear means the PC has setback for a while until something in the encounter changes. You can do similar things, e.g.: if the PC is the target of an NPC Coercion check, success on the NPC's part imposes setback or difficulty upgrades for certain kinds of activities.

One difference is that for a Fear check, the player is still rolling the dice for their PC. When an NPC is trying a social check, I will often flip the dice pool so that it's the player making the roll to resist or read the NPC. Part of this is psychological: usually when the GM is rolling the dice, it's to make something happen to the PC, and they player feels they have less control over the outcome. So for example, if an NPC wants to use Charm I might describe it as the NPC getting flirtatious, and the PC might use Discipline or Cool to see if the NPC means it or is after something else.

The benefit of making the player roll is that failure means you as the GM don't have to reveal anything. In contrast, if the NPC rolls, the player "knows" the NPC was up to something.

The only real difficulty with making the player roll is that the NPC might have Talents (e.g.: Kill with Kindness) that technically only have a benefit when the NPC rolls. In those cases I usually flip the pool, so an NPC's Kill with Kindness might remove boost dice from or add setback to the PC's roll.

Generally, for Charm or Negotiation, I will let the PC make the roll. For Leadership or Coercion it could go either way, but usually for Coercion I will have the NPC make the roll. The NPC might "succeed" at a Coercion check, but that doesn't mean the PC has to comply. In those cases I use the Fear chart pretty much as-is, and/or impose Strain freely. If the PC exceeds their Strain threshold I don't necessarily make them pass out, they just become "ineffectual".

BTW, a good resource for social encounters is the Far Horizons sourcebook.

This is really more of an issue with the PCs being adults and the GM not being a prick.

If for some reason the a given PC has an IC reason to be distrustful, then let them

One thing that might be helpful to keep in mind (both for you and your players) is that a failed Deception roll doesn't necessarily tell you what the NPC is lying about. In a lot of mysteries, a character will act suspiciously and the investigator will catch them in a lie only to discover that they were trying to cover up an entirely unrelated transgression, but will find some new clue in the process. So when the players grill the NPC that was unsurprised at the discovery of a mole, for instance, they might discover that the NPC had their own suspicions but didn't report them and is worried about being punished or suspected for failing to say something (at which point they can find out what the NPC noticed that made them suspicious and pursue that new lead). The guy who jumps on every failed Deception check is literally the bumbling inspector who keeps accusing the wrong people in an attempt to get the case wrapped up quickly.

Charm is a trickier prospect, because it's hard to make the players like an NPC, and difficult to get them to frame what an NPC says in the best possible light without denying them agency. And I find that when the players decide they don't like an NPC, there's very little you can do to change their minds.

Successful opposed social checks by NPCs could also be used to impose Setback die, increase Difficulty, or even upgrade the Difficulty to further checks with that NPC. It doesn't take away player agency while still showing the effects of a skilled charmer or liar.

I should also mention that I tend towards the side of "NPCs do not roll social checks" - after all, there are other reasons to have ranks in Discipline and Cool - except, in this instance, I have characters in a position to take talents like Unrelenting Skeptic, which adds failure to incoming Deception checks.

It would probably also do to identify Deception as my primary concern, especially because it's often best - in my opinion - to roll that "behind the scenes". If I feel like an NPC really needs to use Charm or Coercion, I can easily see that just adding setback die where appropriate.

Anyway, the advice so far has been enlightening! It seems this is a tough issue that people either do away with or have their own concerns handling.

Eh, I just let my players decide if they want to roll, and they roll against the PCs charm, coercion, whatever and describe it in vaguery. "He seems trustworthy," "it seems like it might be a good idea to do as he says," and the best, the classi,of, "Let the wookiee win."

One important part of this system is that a dice roll happens in the middle of narration, not at the end to see if it was successful. Use this to your advantage. So let's say your NPC is trying to deceive your PC's, have a short sentence to kick off the action, then roll the dice, but don't tell them the skill the NPC is using though.

After the dice roll use it to direct your wording of what is actually said and the tone used. This way your not putting the players into the position of Meta gaming with Player vs PC knowledge. After all a Successful Deception, Negotiation and Charm check can all look and sound exactly the same, it's only with NPC failure that the PC's gain more insight.

You can also still roll openly in this method, since success or failure could mean anything but it acts as a bit of reassurance with the players that your not fudging just to get what you want.

The hardest part is you need to know the PC's rather well, their skills and talents, or at least be able to ask for the details without giving away the game.

IMO, most of the time in cases like this, it should be the PCs that are rolling skills opposed by the NPCs.

So, let’s say there is a situation where NPCs are trying to apply some skill like Charm, Deception, Negotiation, or whatever.

In that situation, what should happen is the PCs should be rolling their Perception, Discipline, or other appropriate skill, and the negative dice for that roll should come from the NPCs skills, talents, and attributes.

This preserves player agency, which helps ensure that good players should go along with the results of whatever they roll.

So, NPCs don’t generally roll against the PCs, instead you turn that around so that the PCs are doing the rolls.

The only time I can think of where the NPCs should be doing rolls would be in the area of combat.

The only problem there bradknowles is the PC's who have talents that add Setback to or upgrade an NPC's social check, such as Nobody's Fool. You want to let a PC use their well earned talents.

But in general I do agree

The only problem there bradknowles is the PC's who have talents that add Setback to or upgrade an NPC's social check, such as Nobody's Fool. You want to let a PC use their well earned talents.

But in general I do agree

Well those can be used in reverse - a PC could add a Boost or upgrade their own 'social resistance' check under the basis of their abilities, rather than the reverse.

The only problem there bradknowles is the PC's who have talents that add Setback to or upgrade an NPC's social check, such as Nobody's Fool. You want to let a PC use their well earned talents.

But in general I do agree

Well those can be used in reverse - a PC could add a Boost or upgrade their own 'social resistance' check under the basis of their abilities, rather than the reverse.

The tricky part there is that the dice are not exact mirrors of each other, so adding a boost on one side is not equivalent to adding a setback on the other, nor is upgrading green to yellow the same as upgrading black to red. If you take two opposed characters rolling Negotiation with the exact same skill pools, for instance, whoever gets to make the roll is the one more likely to succeed. This has implications for talents like the Advocate's Twisted Words, which can be seen as a way of making up for the slight disadvantage of being on the receiving end of an opposing roll, which is more likely to succeed with threat.

On the other hand, specs like Advocate are pretty clearly intended to work with structured social combat in the same way that the Strategist is intended to work with mass combat or Makashi Duelist with structured physical combat. If you settle all lightsaber duels with a simple Opposed Lightsaber check, Makashi Duelist loses a lot of its benefits. The difference is, the default assumption is that physical combat will be settled in structured time, so that's what is likely to happen even if no one in the party is a combat specialist. The default assumption for social conflict is that it will be settled in narrative time with a couple of rolls, so that is how it is likely to be done unless someone in the party specializes in social combat.

My feeling is that the dice are there to resolve uncertainty. What is uncertain about the PCs response to an NPC? Nothing, we can ask the player how their character responds. If the player isn't sure then they can ask the dice. But it should be the players choice.

My feeling is that the dice are there to resolve uncertainty. What is uncertain about the PCs response to an NPC? Nothing, we can ask the player how their character responds. If the player isn't sure then they can ask the dice. But it should be the players choice.

On an ethical level, I agree. So, what do you do about the talents "Unrelenting Skeptic" and "Nobody's Fool"? They aren't like "Adversary" - and NPC only talent - despite it working better on NPCs; there are a few rare specs out there that have those talents.

My feeling is that the dice are there to resolve uncertainty. What is uncertain about the PCs response to an NPC? Nothing, we can ask the player how their character responds. If the player isn't sure then they can ask the dice. But it should be the players choice.

On an ethical level, I agree. So, what do you do about the talents "Unrelenting Skeptic" and "Nobody's Fool"? They aren't like "Adversary" - and NPC only talent - despite it working better on NPCs; there are a few rare specs out there that have those talents.

If the player chooses to roll then they can use those talents?

I think it's important to remind Players they are not their PC's sometimes too, especially in this situation.

It is important to remind them that players are not their characters ; that rule is most familiar to establish first and foremost. There are plenty of times within a movie where one course of action is evil or a character is deceiving the character in a way that is obvious to the audience. Fair enough if they not rolling a check, however the moment they do roll a check they are committed to following is presented even if the player might think otherwise. The moment dice is rolled, both the player and the DM have to give up some of their agency up to the dice. If the character isn't going to change his opinion, one shouldn't' bother rolling and should rely instead on their own deductions.

I have had plenty of sessions where I've never rolled a social check simply because the banter is more engaging. Likewise there is certain sessions that involve heavy role off's, in the latter case I expect players to buy into what is rolled. The player can mess around with how they take the info, but ultimately they must abide with what lady luck had given them.

The best thing to do however is never to roll for motivation, but to roll for the characters fact giving, a character can be dishonest without being evil as they might have reasons for acting as they do. Like the situation is personally embarrassing for them to admit, they aren't actually sure how accurate it is or indeed they might actually want to protect the PC's from the damage this information could do to them.

Good question, and excellent discussion.

For the most part, I just act out the characters and let the players decide how to react.But I do like to have an idea of how to handle these rolls, for the same reason I like to throw a lot of Setback dice into skill checks. As mentioned above, many player talents deal specifically with incoming Social checks. If any of my players have those, I will want to make sure they have opportunities to use them.

It hasn't really come up lately, because more of my "face" players have active talents for bonuses on their own Social skills. But should it come up, my plan is similar to Whafrog's. If a player wants to rely on their character's abilities, I let them make an opposed roll. Talents that reduce or downgrade difficulty, in this case affect the opposing skill check. Setback dice can be inflicted or removed as normal. I don't roll behind a screen, so the players will see the results, which can lead to meta-gaming. This is how I deal with that.

I narrate the dice results as the effect the check has on their perception, not on their beliefs or actions. For example, if a player rolls to oppose "Deception" and the NPC wins, I'll usually say something like "you don't sense any deception," or "his statement seems plausible," as opposed to "you believe him" or "you're convinced." Now, if the players decide to act against the narrative, I might throw setbacks on the skill checks that are not consistent with what they perceived.

Example- An NPC is lying, saying "there's nothing important on that datapad." PC Slicer rolls Discipline vs. NPC's Deception. NPC wins. GM: "It's a pretty basic tablet. You certainly wouldn't store vital data on something like this." Player decides to search it anyway. "OK, but he was pretty convincing, so you're to have a setback on your computer check." (maybe a higher difficulty, but in general, I like a setback or two.)

Conversely, if the player won the opposed check, he'd be certain that there is something important on the datapad, and would get a boost or two to find it.

The tricky part there is that the dice are not exact mirrors of each other, so adding a boost on one side is not equivalent to adding a setback on the other, nor is upgrading green to yellow the same as upgrading black to red. If you take two opposed characters rolling Negotiation with the exact same skill pools, for instance, whoever gets to make the roll is the one more likely to succeed.

This is technically true, but I don't think it makes a huge difference in practical terms. If I thought it did, I would just add extra setback/boost to balance it out.