If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?

Oofta said:

You seem to be conflating "gotcha" DMing with rolling a skill check vs declaring intention. If PC 1 states "I'm going to attempt to climb the wall" vs rolling and athletics check to climb the wall, my response will be the same. If they're alone as I specified in my scenario the PC may be trapped. If they're together I'll tell them that as they start to climb it's significantly easier than expected; it's up to them to let me know if they stop climbing.

For me, rolling and stating what skill you're using is enough to tell me what you are attempting as a PC 90% of the time. That 10% of the time where it's not? I'll ask for clarification. But neither approach has anything to do with adversarial DMing.

I don't see what not having your sword has to do with anything. I would no more tell a player that they didn't have their sword than tell them they die of constipation because they never mentioned using the latrine.

Click to expand...

Bawylie said:

I’m not conflating those things but now that you bring it up, doing it this way does have the added benefit of AVOIDING gotchas.

So there’s another compelling reason, if you’re looking for one.

As for the sword, I’m sure you can work out why it’s relevant that what’s said and done in game is an important part of play. If not, assume I rolled a diplomacy check to convince you. My reasons don’t matter. I 20’d my diplomacy check.

Click to expand...

Oofta said:

Sorry, it didn't work. A 20 is not an automatic success which is something I've stated repeatedly. I don't care if people roll a 20 if there was no chance of success. From a narrative perspective they tried to do something they thought had a chance to succeed and it didn't no matter what the result was. If the PC does a religion check to recognize a symbol, it doesn't matter what they roll if no one has ever seen it before. The PC still wracked their brain trying to remember what they had been taught. That to me is much better than me telling the player what their PC can or cannot attempt.

So I'm still baffled as to why it matters or why people get insulted/mad when I try to get clarification. Or how your answers address my question.

Click to expand...

Bawylie said:

Who is telling the player what they can or cannot attempt? And who is insulted or mad?

I think I might see the source of your confusion. I’ll let you two work it out.

Click to expand...

Oofta said:

Sorry, it didn't work. A 20 is not an automatic success which is something I've stated repeatedly. I don't care if people roll a 20 if there was no chance of success. From a narrative perspective they tried to do something they thought had a chance to succeed and it didn't no matter what the result was.

Click to expand...

Satyrn said:

I feel like you just inadvertantly zinged yourself.

[MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] jokes about he - the real life human poster - rolling a 20 on his check to explain* himself, and you responding by saying he had no chance of making you understand . . . it's the kind of post I'd make in your shoes.



*Yeah, technically, he said "convince" instead of "explain" but still . . . comedic license on my part.

Click to expand...

Bawylie said:

I was an investigator for 12 years and now I supervise a team of investigators. Civil/insurance fraud, generally, sometimes criminal. Our ability to “detect” lies is no better or more reliable than a coin toss. The very best of us are right 55% of the time.

Click to expand...

Arvok said:

You do realize that 55% is about what you'd expect from the 5e rules? If you're both proficient in the relative skills (Insight for the investigator, Deception for the liar), it would take someone with a 14 or 15 Wisdom ('genius level' wisdom) to be 55% accurate against someone with a 12 or 13 Charisma (above average but not all that exceptional). Or, to put it another way, an investigator with equal ability scores (Wis vs. Cha) would need to be 5th level to be 55% accurate detecting lies against a 1st level liar.

Real world lie detecting doesn't tell people for certain if someone is lying, it only gives the investigator a good or bad feeling about whether or not to believe him. The game equivalent would be the DM rolling the die for you, asking what your modifier is, then telling you "he seems to be telling the truth" or the opposite. In the real world you don't know if you rolled a natural 17 or a 2.

Click to expand...

Charlaquin said:

Can we not have another one of these threads, please? I think it’s very well established at this point that some of us prefer for our players to state a goal and approach and not make any checks unless prompted to do so, and others find that preference completely baffling. I think those of us who prefer this method have been as thourough as we can be in explaining the reasons we do it this way, we have done so repeatedly, and all it ever leads to is hundreds of pages of whatabouts and argument over who’s “gotchaing” who. It’s fine if you don’t like our way of running the game, what exactly do you think you’ll gain from this line of inquiry that you didn’t the last time a thread got derailed by it?

Click to expand...