You've been clear on that. Just like I've been clear that I disagree. I don't see why it would be a big deal, the player has communicated what their intent is. I would no more say "no you can't say what skill you are using" any more than I would tell them they couldn't use a specific skill.
To be clear: I don't care if that's what the rules say, if someone asks to make skill check X or if they can use ability Y I allow it. The only exception is if they are trying to do something totally inappropriate. For example there's no way an strength (athletics) check is going to allow them to read a magic book. On the other hand they may be able to justify using Intelligence to do an intimidate check because they know that the NPC is going to be influenced by a superior intellect (although I'd ask for some clarification on details on what they're saying).
This confuses me. You've asked why we run the way we do, and asked for us to explain it to you (apparently again), and here you are treating this as if I'm trying to convince you that my way is better. I'm not. I'm answering your questions with how I would run them. If you feel the need to insist that your way is better, you can do that without me.
For the record, I also allow off ability skill checks. There's a
conversation happening at my table, where the skill used is negotiable via the approach. The players aren't locked into the first thing they say, and they're welcome to petition for a different use if they think it better fits their approach. But, I call for a check, they don't ask for one. They don't want to, because failing a check means a consequence they don't want.
Yep. Still get it. Still disagree. If the NPC was lying, the players know I'd ask for an insight check opposed by the NPC's deception check (potentially with a lot of modifiers). If I don't ask for the insight check, the player knows the NPC is telling the truth. The consequence of automatic success is that the PCs have the ultimate truth detector.
I don't understand this. Are you attributing this outcome to my style, or yours. It seems odd that you would play this way, given your previous statements, and I certainly don't have this problem, so either you're misunderstanding (again) or I'm very, very confused by what you're trying to say here about your play.
As far as "I observe them for signs of lying" vs "I think they're lying can I make an insight check", in either case they've declared that's what they are doing. They just didn't phrase it like you wanted it.
Well, it is a ridiculously simple example, so complaining that I'd except simple approaches seems like a Catch 22. The approach does not always need to be complicated. However, I'm going to disagree with you that "I roll Insight" is equivalent to "I observe for signs of lying." The outcomes are limited by the latter to what can be observed, while the former may involve back and forth testing or the like. I don't know what you mean your character is doing by "I roll Insight." Perhaps, at your table, there's an assumption that "I roll Insight" means "I observe for signs of lying," but I don't have that assumption. The character could, for example, engage in a probing line of questioning, looking to find inconsistencies in the story, and that would be an approach that also calls for an WIS (Insight) check but has a very different range of outcomes than observing for tells. Approach matters to outcome. I get that you disagree, but I also think you're stuck on resolution of the mechanics, not actual possible outcomes, because if you really think that the possible outcomes between "I observe for signs of lying" is the same as "I engage in a probing line of questioning," then we're at a hard impasse in the ability to communicate.
I think that when you say "I disagree" it's shorthand for "I don't play that way." That's fine, but it's not really disagreement, and it's orthogonal to understanding the points I'm making.
Why does it matter? The player has communicated that they don't believe the NPC is telling the truth. They're studying them closely, paying attention, whatever an insight check means to that player.
The range of possible negative outcomes does not matter to you? So, you'd be fine with "GASP! They've insulted the Duke's son! Call the Guard!" as an outcome to observing a merchant for tells? I doubt it, which means you either didn't read what I wrote and have reflexively kneejerked a response to the first line, or you're really not understanding what I said at all. Which, do you think?
Except you just said that you wouldn't accept anything phrased as "I think they're lying can I make an insight check".
I'll just repeat one last time. To me, making a skill check is the game mechanic implementation of the PC trying to do something. It's not my job to tell them they can't attempt to climb the sheer wall even if I know they cannot succeed.
And here you demonstrate that you've failed to understand anything at all. Firstly, I
never deny an action declaration. The authority to declare actions is solely in the player's arena. Your character can attempt to scale the sheer wall all you want -- you will fail automatically if it's beyond your ability. Where you think that I refuse to allow such an action declaration is beyond me. What I do is deny any
request to make a check. Requiring a goal and approach is not magic phrasing -- I'm not looking for anything specific at all for how the player wishes they're character to try to resolve the issue. They don't have to guess the perfect approach key to fit my solution lock. I need the goal and approach so I can determine what mechanics apply and also what fictional outcomes are possible. I, quite often, don't even have a solution to a challenge in mind when it's posed to the players -- their goals and approaches will shape the story moving forward not because it achieves my pre-planned outcomes but because they change the fiction with their approaches and goals. A merchant lying might actually be a result of an approach and goal, not the challenge.
Take the sheer wall, for instance. "I roll a climb check" is roughly equivalent to an approach of just physically climbing, so, yes, these are pretty close. But, if I ask for an approach instead of just nodding and narrating failure to the climb check, the player may be prompted to provide a more detailed approach, like, "I break out my climbers kit and climb the wall by pounding pitons in as handholds." Okay, that changes things, that's possible, but it will be slow and noisy. I have options other than assuming and narrating failure to an asked for check. The player may succeed, in which case they realize their goal, or they may fail, which now, because of fictional positioning, gives me options from "you slip and fall halfway up and barely catch yourself, but your arrows are falling out of your quiver. What do you do?" to "you reach the top alright, but the noise and time you spent pounding in pitons means there's three guards waiting for you, roll initiative." The amount of things I'd have to assume for the player to get to either of those results from "I roll a climb check" is huge and abusive, but such results are quite easy to achieve from a stated goal and approach.
For me, the fiction is malleable to the goal and approach. There isn't treasure hidden under the mattress waiting for the perfectly phrased approach to be found, but rather they're treasure hidden in the room somewhere and the approach to searching for it will find it on a success in a location that makes sense for the approach -- if you search under the bed as your approach, and succeed, well, then, there was treasure hidden under the mattress, aren't you the lucky one! If you fail, there's something much nastier under the mattress and no treasure. Or the treasure isn't under the bed, but the time you took looking means there's a wandering monster check. There's a consequence to failure. If there isn't, if the dungeon is clear and we're mopping up details, then "I search the room" finds treasure and we move on to more interesting events.
Back to the OP. I don't to tell my players either directly or by omission of an opposed skill check that an NPC is telling the truth. I may tell them the NPC seems honest. I may remind them they have no reason to doubt this PC. But let them know with 100% certainty that the NPC is telling the truth? Nope. Not my style.
I don't, either, as you continue not to understand. If the honesty of the NPC is trivial, then I'm not wasting time on it. If it's not, then there's a consequence for failure that will be based on the fictional positioning and the approach. In other words, if it's in automatic success, nothing was at stake so why should anyone at the table care if there's no uncertainty. If people at the table care because something is at stake, then
something is at stake for the roll. There's no need to worry about metagaming and player uncertainty because it does not even come up -- it's either trivial and elided, to the benefit of play, or it's not and something is placed at stake, which means a success is a success (goal realized) but a failure changes the fiction in a negative way and the uncertainty doesn't matter because play has moved on from that point to a worst situation.
So can you stop accusing me of just not understanding your position?
As soon as you actually understand we can move past this.
I get where you're coming from.
You do not.
I'm not even saying I wouldn't enjoy playing at your table because I have no clue. I understand your position, I just disagree.
You do not understand, and your disagreement is based on you playing a different way, not disagreement with how I play. How could you disagree if you don't even understand it?
If that bothers you so much you can always block me like Iserith did because I would never agree that his style on this subject is the one true way.
That's just plain whingy. Be better.
Look, I don't care if you play differently from me. As I remarked to someone else, three years ago I played pretty much exactly as you do now, and made many of the same arguments you're making. I did not understand other playstyles (maybe ask me sometime how Blades in the Dark plays, it's even more different) at that time. I agreed with you quite a bit. But, over the last three years, I've had a breakthrough in understanding and changed my play habits. Not because they're better, they're just different, but because this play fixes a lot of the issues I've had and really never could diagnose because I lacked the understanding. That doesn't mean you're wrong, or misinformed, or whatever, you're not. How we play games is pretty idiosyncratic to groups of players, and that's outstanding. I'm ecstatic that you play differently and enjoy it, and I fully understand your play (because it was recently mine). I get it, I really do -- the necessary shift in core concepts to grasp the difference in playstyles is hard; it involves altering some very sacred cows. It was very good for me, and it's good for some others that also really enjoy playing this way, but it's not universally good. So, you do you, but if you keep asking why other people play the way they do and then get huffy because you feel the explanation is attacking your play... well, that's really on you, man, not us.
