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

Charlaquin said:

I tried to persuade everyone not to go down this route all the way back on page 7, but apparently my approach didn’t have a reasonable chance of success.

Click to expand...

No kidding. You couldn't even persuade yourself.

Chaosmancer said:

1) I really hate this type of "By all means" because going back through hundreds of posts is an absolute pain and on a normal day I'd have no time for it. Luckily, Good Friday means I can go back and reread hundreds of posts to see how things shook out weeks ago.

2) Here is what I've determined.

Seems I was slightly mistaken in one respect, which was that I thought you and myself had discussed before Elfcrusher's poisoned doorhandle post. But it seems your first response to me was on April 6th, in regards to that exact post (#483 on my counter)

Before that I was mostly talking with Iserith and Elfcrusher. However, it also seems that you agreed with iserith more than once, which might be how I confused things, since you seemed to hold similiar beliefs I may have grouped discussions with them as discussions with you. I only went back another 250 posts after that event though, so I could have missed something. I did not a lot of XP given to iserith for their responses to me though, indicating a level of agreement with their stances.

However, there are some posts that might show why we grew increasingly more defensive with each other. Spoilering it so everyone else can ignore it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, fair point, that wasn't really a reasonable ask. That said, I do appreciate you actually digging back through all that. It certainly helps me see where I've been less diplomatic than I should have been, and for that I do apologize.

[sblock]

Chaosmancer said:

Calling ease of play poor strategy, and saying that this is somehow against the making of clever plans or calculated risks. This is a jab at the playstyle, instead of being highly specific in what the player was asking, they were general. You did mention it was fine if I liked it that way, but there does seem to be a value judgement there.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing how this is a jab at your playstyle at all. To me, this is entirely a statement of my own personal preference. I consider vague statements to be a poor strategy for success in D&D, because doing so leaves the DM little choice but to use the dice to determine success or failure first, and then interpret what the specifics of the action must have been to explain the result. I prefer when the player gives the specifics of the action first, which the DM uses to determine the success or failure, employing the dice if and only if success or failure can not be determined by the specifics of the action alone. The reason I prefer the latter method is that the prior method leaves more room for failure due to a low roll than the latter, making it a poorer (read: less likely to result in success) strategy, from a player's perspective. I don't see that as a value judgment on the former method. I don't think there's anything at all wrong with preferring the former method, I'm just explaining what my preference is and why.

Chaosmancer said:

This one from the same post (#502 from my count and on April 6th again) started a long discussion about why you thought I was putting the cart before the horse. IT seemed to come down to you didn't like a general action being declared, and then the narrative filled in from the dice roll. You prefer the narrative to be settled, then the dice to give an answer... though in the end the results are the same, just the details are not.

Click to expand...

I don't think the results are the same. If you state a goal and approach, the possible results are:
1.) The approach does not have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal. You fail.
2.) The approach does have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal, but does not have a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the goal. You succeed.
3.) The approach does have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal, and a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the goal, but there are no consequences for failure. You succeed (or you fail, but failure is inconsequential anyway, so you eventually succeed if you keep at it long enough.)
4.) The approach does have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal, a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the goal, and a consequence for failure. You must make a check, but you do not beat the DC. You fail.
5.) The approach does have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal, a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the goal, and a consequence for failure. You must make a check, and you beat the DC. You succeed.

Three of the five possible outcomes result in success. On the other hand, if you make a check first and the outcome of the check is used to determine the narrative, the possible results are:
1.) You make a check but do not beat the DC. You fail. It is then determined what your character did that resulted in this failure.
2.) You make a check and beat the DC. You succeed. It is then determined what your character did that resulted in this success.

Only two possible outcomes, and only one of them results in success.

I'll concede that calling it "putting the cart before the horse" is a somewhat judgmental way to express that, and for that I apologize. Does this un help explain what I mean when I call it a "poor strategy"?

Chaosmancer said:

This particular one, now that we've discussed it to death, seems to have arisen from you misunderstanding me. I was putting forth the idea that in this discussion on resolution the only flaw you seemed to find in my approach was the assumption that there is uncertainty in the outcome. You might remember bits of the conversation that followed about the existence of DCs and the fact that the checks are certainly possible but some things might bypass their need.

So, still, the only flaw you had was that I was assuming a check would get called for. While you wanted to insist that my flaw was a desire to call for checks despite whatever the players may have planned, and in fact you seem to not want to look past the players declarations and stop the discussion there. Oh, and the various times you called that backfilling me "overstepping my bounds as a DM"

Click to expand...

Yeah, this was a big misunderstanding, and I apologize for my part in that. On the subject of the "overstepping bounds" part though, I think you may be reading more into that phrasing than was intended by it, though to your credit, I probably should have unpacked it more. I strongly believe that the player should have sole and ultimate authority over the thoughts and actions of their character. I, personally, despise when a DM narrates my character's actions, and I endeavor never to narrate the actions of the player characters in my games. It is my opinion that the DM's role is to narrate the world, and how it reacts to the player-characters' actions, but never what the player-characters' actions are. I believe that this division of roles is well-supported in the text of the rule books. This is not to say that I hold anything against groups who mutually agree that they are ok with the DM narrating PCs' actions. If this is how you like to play, I see nothing wrong with you playing that way. And the DM of such a group is not really overstepping their bounds, because the social contract of the group, whether implicitly or explicitly, has redefined those boundaries. Game on, don't let my distaste for that style of play keep you from having fun any way you want.

Chaosmancer said:

Also, interestingly, I found yet another place where I asked you how you as a player would describe a set of actions to resolve an obstacle, a thread you never responded to. But, that point might be further in this post.

Click to expand...

I don't remember that specific exchange, but if I ignored it or missed it, sorry.

Chaosmancer said:

I might be a little nit-picky with this one, but you are the one who decided it would be a good idea for me to go back over hundreds of posts (likely thinking I'd never bother to do it and just accuse you with no basis). However, you definitely view my approach as not the "goal and approach style" so when I was confused why players would choose not to use resources like guidance or work together with the Help action [which on a side not my players do constantly, to the point where I need to find logical times they can't help each other just to tone down the constant advantage] you posted this response.

In general, there are assumptions that my players don't use their resources properly, don't work together, and don't have enough information to make a decision on using those resources. All because I am not, as you understand it, using the goal and approach style.

Click to expand...

I think it is you who is assuming that I'm contrasting my style with yours here. Again, I don't know what your style is, except for the fact that you do allow players to initiate skill checks, and you do not treat consequences for failure as a prerequisite for a roll. I was contrasting my current style with my style before I adopted the goal and approach technique. Thats why I specifically said, "in my experience, they don't tend to" and, "Before I adopted the goal and approach style, (blah). With goal and approach, (blah)." I made an explicit effort to frame this in terms of my personal experience and how that experiences shaped my preferences today.

Chaosmancer said:

By this point, we'd obviously irritated each other, and things started getting a little less civil.

This one particularly irritated me, since you seemed to assume my response to your "strange hill to die on" comment meant I didn't understand a very commonly used turn of phrase. I know you don't know anything about me, and it may not be as common outside of the US, but that sort of assumption of ignorance irritates me on a personal level.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the pot/kettle comments were over the line, I'm sorry for them. In my defense, your response to my comment about your position being a strange hill to die on was "I'm only dying because I'm being stabbed" or something to that effect, which genuinely made it seem to me that you had not understood the idiom. It was not my intent to be condescending in explaining the turn of phrase, but I accept responsibility for that misunderstanding.

Chaosmancer said:

But, to be fair about all this, perhaps I've been a little defensive. The debating with other posters could have stained my view of your responses, taking some of your assumptions of superiority more to heart than I should have. I'm also not going beyond post #790 on my end (April 13th) since it gets even more heated on both our sides, and frankly, being rude to each other isn't what I want.

Click to expand...

Yeah, for sure, that's not what I want either. Again, thanks for actually going back through so much of the thread, seems like it has helped clear things up a bit. Clearly, while it has not been my intent to attack anyone else's playstyle, I have not made my actual intent as clear as I should have.
[/sblock]

Chaosmancer said:

My style isn't very strict, I don't have a standardized way of handling things.

Player declares what they want to do. Sometimes that is a goal and approach, sometimes it is asking for a roll with an implicit set of actions that will lead to an implicit goal. I either call for a roll or I don't. Certain actions regularly get rolls called, like breaking down doors, and depending on the circumstances I either have them succeed but struggle with it for an amount of time, or they smash through. Sometimes players ask things I didn't consider, like looting a room I didn't expect them to loot, and a high roll will add something that I hadn't placed there before (like a magic bottle based off the Alchemical Jug, except it contains different vintages of rare wines). Soemtimes I ask for clarification, sometimes I double check what they want to achieve. I pretty much never tell them the DC or consequences, but I will sometimes give them an idea of the difficulty, or summarize what they are attempting to do if it is a really bad idea (So, you want to open yourself to all the energy created by this magic fusion generator and try and absorb all of its power at once? Are you sure?)

There is a process of me thinking about the action and the scene, and sometimes weighing information the players don't know (they once got a very powerful item for selling something they didn't realize was an artifact to a hag) , but I don't standardize it as much as I just run it through a movie projector and play out some likely scenes.

Click to expand...

That's cool, man. If that works for you, keep doing your thing. Personally, I used to run the game much more like how you describe here, and it did not work for me at all. My experience is my own, and it's natural that it will diverge from yours. But it's the only experience I can speak from. That experience has led me to prefer the goal and approach style. It works much better for me, for the reasons that have been gone over exhaustively in this thread, and in my experience, my players enjoy the game much more now than they did when I ran the game more like what you describe here. But that's not meant to denigrate your play style. If it works for you, that's fantastic.

Chaosmancer said:

We have been talking a lot about how the players present their actions. But, you've been approaching the discussion from how the DM judges those actions. And, I'm sorry, but if you are tying to be funny with your first sentence I don't get it. I never asked you to adjudicate your own actions, I wanted what your response would be as a player.

The point of the exercise (or at least an attempted point) was to try and understand the difference in player approach. You seem to have a very specific set of things in mind when a player declares a goal and approach. So, getting an example of you responding to a scenario is useful in seeing what you mean.

I'm sure we could start giving context to this cell, but most cells would be fairly bare of things which could be used to escape them. You might have a chamber pot and a pile of rags to sleep on, but beyond that there would be little around unless there was something special about the cells.

Click to expand...

I just don't see me describing an action as a player is going to give you any additional insight into my DMing style. It might give me insight into your DMing style, but that's not really something I'm especially interested in pursuing.

Chaosmancer said:

I tend to break into paragraphs because walls of text make me go cross-eyed. Not always because the to ideas do not flow from one another.

And I apologize, I'm obviously getting too frustrated with this conversation and our lack of progress in understanding what the other means. I'm trying to rein that frustration back.

Click to expand...

It's cool. It has been an emotionally charged conversation, and I haven't exactly been devoting much effort to trying to diffuse or de-escalate. I appreciate the apology, and I apologize in turn for my own part in getting the conversation to this point.

Satyrn said:

No kidding. You couldn't even persuade yourself.

Click to expand...

Touché. Although in my defense, both responses to my suggestion consisted of “Fair enough, but...” and then a continuation of the discussion. Since then I’ve primarily (though I admit not exclusively) been responding to things directed at me.

Charlaquin said:

Touché. Although in my defense, both responses to my suggestion consisted of “Fair enough, but...” and then a continuation of the discussion. Since then I’ve primarily (though I admit not exclusively) been responding to things directed at me.

Click to expand...

Hey, you don't need to defend yourself. This is why we're here.


(Besides, your defense came too late anyway. My barb had already struck home)

Hussar said:

Because, to me, regardless of that character's bonds and traits, the fact that he has no Cha bonus and no training in persuasion generally means that every time he opens his mouth, he's sticking his foot in it. He is, in fact, terrible at persuading anyone to do anything.

Click to expand...

Would this example not make them average?

And as such as likely to succeed as ti fail? (50/50 ish?)

SkidAce said:

Would this example not make them average?

And as such as likely to succeed as ti fail? (50/50 ish?)

Click to expand...

Well, that depends on the DC no? Whether Easy, Moderate, Difficult or Hard. They will fail Moderate checks 50% of the time and Moderate checks are typically run of the mill, every day sort of checks. Nothing too outlandish. Convincing your professor to give you an extension on your essay sort of checks.

But, we're talking a fairly difficult task - a not sympathetic NPC who doesn't really want to help you and doesn't believe you. So, DC 15, likely. Meaning that our 0 bonus character fails 75% of the time (or thereabouts). 1 in 4 is not exactly great odds. Not impossible sure, but, far more likely to fail. Thus, our zero bonus character is sticking his foot in it about three times more often in the clutch than succeeding.

Or, to put it another way, this guy is terrible at convincing anyone to do anything.

Hussar said:

Well, that depends on the DC no? Whether Easy, Moderate, Difficult or Hard. They will fail Moderate checks 50% of the time and Moderate checks are typically run of the mill, every day sort of checks. Nothing too outlandish. Convincing your professor to give you an extension on your essay sort of checks.

But, we're talking a fairly difficult task - a not sympathetic NPC who doesn't really want to help you and doesn't believe you. So, DC 15, likely. Meaning that our 0 bonus character fails 75% of the time (or thereabouts). 1 in 4 is not exactly great odds. Not impossible sure, but, far more likely to fail. Thus, our zero bonus character is sticking his foot in it about three times more often in the clutch than succeeding.

Or, to put it another way, this guy is terrible at convincing anyone to do anything.

Click to expand...

A lot here depends on gameplay and GM.

But first, the actual rules.

DMG tules 5ebon social skills once you get down to the nuts and bolts...
Friendly (your sympathetic or inclined to hrlp) does the task if it involves no risk or harm on DC zero. Thry might even risk serious danger on a 20.
Indifferent (neither for or against you) does the request on DC 10. (Not the 15 you seemed to imply above)
Hostile creatures basically wont help except in a 20+

So...


For someone who is neutral, neither inclined to help or against the idea, thats more like 50/50ish DC 10 and there just a simple appeal gets you that. But a more robust approach, using something to again advantage like prior actions to call on, or bring able to bribe or offer favors they want - a definition case for advantage.

There was dome annoying movie thing where someone "thought" they were bring " persuasive by just repeating "do it" over and over when asking favors and told "no" and the idea that a character is bad because their basic little yo no effort is 50/50 in neutral circumstances feels like that.

So, really, what the game system puts forth is that an "average guy" with no exceptional skill or aptitude at socisl-fu can get some friendly towards or who would rather see them succeed them to help almost all the time unless there is some risk to them in which case that gets worse 50% if risk is minor, down to 5% if major.

That some guy dealing with someone who just foesnt care - 50/50-ish if no risk (yeah pretty much textbook indifferent) but slim odds if it requires risk.

But these are your head-on - work a bit harder and gain advsntage on the roll - get support from someone they do like, build past relationship, play off your rep etc etc etc - those odds shift bigly in your favor.

But, like I said, if your gm basically throws a 5 to 10 point swing against you by default and/or advantage is out of the question- then maybe social-fu is well worth its investment.

Hussar said:

Well, that depends on the DC no? Whether Easy, Moderate, Difficult or Hard. They will fail Moderate checks 50% of the time and Moderate checks are typically run of the mill, every day sort of checks. Nothing too outlandish. Convincing your professor to give you an extension on your essay sort of checks.

But, we're talking a fairly difficult task - a not sympathetic NPC who doesn't really want to help you and doesn't believe you. So, DC 15, likely. Meaning that our 0 bonus character fails 75% of the time (or thereabouts). 1 in 4 is not exactly great odds. Not impossible sure, but, far more likely to fail. Thus, our zero bonus character is sticking his foot in it about three times more often in the clutch than succeeding.

Or, to put it another way, this guy is terrible at convincing anyone to do anything.

Click to expand...

I think the point he is making is that somebody without "training" (by which I assume you mean proficiency) and 10 Cha, or even 8 Cha, is really about average: no bonuses, or maybe a -5% penalty. You describe this guy as

...every time he opens his mouth, he's sticking his foot in it. He is, in fact, terrible at persuading anyone to do anything.

Click to expand...

How do you figure that no bonus to something, or perhaps a -5% penalty, makes somebody "terrible" at whatever that task is?

Sure, statistically that average person will fail more often at hard tasks. But I just find it odd to call the absence of bonus "terrible".

I would describe it as..."average". He is not particularly persuasive, but neither is he particularly bumbling or offensive. In other words, if he comes up with a plan for persuading an NPC to do something, he has a normal chance of succeeding.

After some more thought I have a followup to my last post.

It occurs to me that there might be two different viewpoints about ability scores and proficiencies. Or really maybe two points on a spectrum, with an infinite number of viewpoints in between:

1) PCs start off as average at everything. And maybe (if one stat is left at 8) slightly worse...5% worse, to be exact...at one category of activities. From there the player picks which things they want to be especially good at.

2) The player picks which things they are good at, or perhaps really good at. Anything neglected, especially if you "dump" a stat by leaving it at 8, you are really bad at.

I can see how two people holding these two different views would endlessly disagree on how the numbers on the character sheet translate to the in-game narrative.

When my character doesn't have a good Charisma score, as is often the case with brutish types, I always take the Insight skill proficiency. This way I have a higher chance to contribute meaningfully to social interaction challenges by trying to uncover the NPC's agenda, ideal, bond, and flaw then impart that information to more charismatic party members. They can then use that information as leverage during the interaction.

As well, any character without a good ability score or skill proficiency in the relevant task can offset deficiency with Inspiration. I think a player should always have Inspiration in his or her back pocket for just such an occasion.