So to be clear, the proposed approach is to read the body language or tone of the letter, which fails to achieve the goal of assessing the letter's veracity.
See, I want to say yes here, but I feel like you are trying to lead me somewhere with this question.
So, yeah, that seems to be the case. However, are you thinking of a use of the Insight skill that would work on a letter?
The only thing I could think of is analyzing word choice, which is frankly subtle enough that I generally don't try and pull that as a DM.
I would say in some situations the momentum of the scene is ruined not because of the player's response, but because the DM is stepping outside of his or her role in the game to establish something about the character that is solely in the player's domain to establish. That is so easily avoided it's a wonder why DMs insist on doing this. And it's pretty common in my experience, especially in games where the players are asking to make checks without specifying a goal and/or approach. Because some of the necessary fiction to build the scene is missing, the DM feels the need to fill in the blanks the player left which then sets the stage for potential conflict. I think a better response from the DM is to encourage the player to fill in those blanks him or herself as that is the player's role and responsibility in this game and, eventually, to do that without prompting.
Yeah, except they don't fill it in.
Maybe they do some of the time, but other players just don't seem to have it in them. They know they want to do something, but they have no idea how to go about doing that. They don't know how to narrate a fail state involving the trap they aren't even sure exists.
You say this isn't my role, but it kind of is my role in the game. Narrative truth has been portrayed, the player chose an action, they failed at that action, I need to describe how they failed and the consequences thereof. Which means I need to tell the player what went wrong, even if what went wrong was ostensibly something the character did.
This is why vague statements like, “I check for traps” are a poor strategy. Yes, if I just said I check for traps without saying what I’m doing to check for them, we have little choice but to determine what my character was doing that resulted in that failure retroactively. The dice are generating the story - we didn’t really know what my character was doing until we found out whether it worked or not, and then we came up with a narrative explanation for the result. And if you like to play that way, more power to you! I do not like to play that way, because it puts my successes and failures in the hands of chance. I want my successes and failures to be in my hands. I enjoy the game more when I succeed because I thought of a clever plan or fail because I took a calculated risk and it didn’t pay off.
I'm quoting here for convenience, but I'm looking at both of these middle paragraphs.
I don't disagree about wanting as much control over your success as possible, and I agree with preferring success because of well thought out plans instead of chance. I even agree with starting the entire thing based off player actions.
I just don't see how any of that changes what I described.
We're going to ignore the "wiping the handle" part for now, because that shuts down the conversation. But, let us say the player wants to study the door for traps, looking but not touching in case they trigger something. Player has stated an action, player has a plan "look for signs of traps, don't touch because touching might set it off". But, that does not change the fact that a roll will be asked for, and I will need to narrate the result of that roll.
So, are you trying to say that you don't stop telling me what you are doing as a player, until you hit the stage of success? How do you handle a stealth check passed a guard? You can do a classic "throw thing down the other hallway" maneuver, but that let's them know something is up and I'd probably need a roll for doing that without being observed. Just because a plan is clever does not mean it succeeds, and at some point dice will be rolled and I'll have to narrate the results. So, how am I putting the cart before the horse so to speak?
The best novels don’t tell you how the characters are feeling, save maybe the POV character. They describe only what can be observed from a 3rd person perspective. When DMing, I try to keep in mind that each PC is the POV character of their player’s story. So I never describe what the characters feel. The players provide that description for themelves (and ideally to themselves, in their own heads). I describe only what they can observe. Its the old “show, don’t tell” adage - don’t tell the players that the dragon is frightening, show them what is frightening about it. Be as evocative as you like in describing the power in its muscles, the malicious intellect in its eyes, the deafening timbre of its voice, the blood stains on its spear-like fangs, the heat of its breath that could turn to hellfire in an instant. Let the players decide for themselves how their characters feel about what you are describing.
Yeah, going to disagree on a few points here.
There are many excellent novels that do tell you how the characters feel. Describing, even from the third person, how they feel can be great story telling. Even if it is couched in language that you would say is "show don't tell" we use adjectives that clearly "tell" what is going on. Screaming in terror tells us they are terrified, it is right there.
But also, how lovingly do you want me to describe this thing? You're example has:
1) "the power in its muscles"
2) "the malicious intellect in its eyes"
3) "the deafening timbre of its voice"
4) "the blood stains on its spear-like fangs"
5) "the heat of its breath that could turn to hellfire in an instant"
different categories of description. And a lot of them are kind of redundant if people know what a dragon is. Intelligent eyes, yeah they know it is smart, strong, yep they know that too, deafening voice, if they are going to hear it I might say it roars and then talk loudly so they know.
I'm not saying I skimp on the descriptions, but I'm not writing a novel here and sometimes simplicity works best. Quick language, to the point, so we can get on to the action instead of listening to me try and write without a pencil
I mean think about this, how few oratory arts do we have that follow the same styles as novels. There is a reason for that.
From the perspective of a player in D&D 5e, what are some reasons you might want to roll the dice, assuming success for your character is one of your goals? Outside of a fondness for gambling or liking the sound the dice make when they clatter across the table (and inevitably onto the floor), I mean.
"Use the options chosen during character creation and advancement" is one that is frequently offered, but as has been shown, that's going to happen without asking to roll (sometimes when you desperately don't want to), provided you're the sort of player who is portraying a bold adventurer confronting deadly perils in a world of sword and sorcery.
So what other reasons might there be?
Interesting question.
For me there are at least two. The first is because I just don't know. The DM has set up a scenario, and I feel like there is something there I should be able to do, I can even narrow it down to a type of skill, but I just can't think of what the action is I want to perform. You can say all sorts of things about how that would never happen with a good GM, but it has happened to me and so it gets on the list.
Second big one is meta-knowledge. I'm bad about meta-knowledge sometimes, and there are times when I'll ask to roll to see if my character knows something I know. For example, I have a game in the Forgotten Realms I'm playing in as a Paladin. The DM had a plot involving something with one of the gods, can't remember what, but I knew a lot of lore about that god. So I asked, "Does my character know this or should I roll", because I know but I don't know if my character knows. Happens with monsters a lot too. As a DM, I know a lot of facts about monsters, but I don't know if my character would know those things.
Another thing, having finally caught up on this thread, and seeing a post that had a point I liked but was too long to quote.
When a player describes their approach to a problem in my game, it is more than likely their ideal description of what they want to happen.
If a player describes that they want to climb up to the ceiling and creep along the beams to sneak past the guards, that does not mean that is exactly what happens. If they botch the roll they might slip and fall, or the beam might crack and draw attention, or any number of other things could happen.
They have described what they want to happen, not what is going to happen.
Now, sometimes, there is no difference between what they describe and what happens, but there are unforeseen consequences which happen afterwards. And sometimes what they describe happens without a hitch and they get everything they want.
But, until I am in the scenario and the player tells me what they want, I can't assume anything. I cannot assume if there will or will not be a roll. I cannot assume if I will or will not ask for clarification or more details on what they want.
I do not standardize my resolutions.
I've had moments where the local lord is saying how glad they are adventurers have come to aid them in this terrible time, and a player holds up their dice and just says "Insight". I let them roll. I know what they are asking, they are asking if they can tell if this guy is full of it or if they are on the up and up.
Other times they say "Insight" and I'll ask, "what exactly are you trying to figure out?" because somethings I'll just tell them (Yeah, when the Lord said he was most impressed with all your heroics he was just kissing up) and somethings will need a roll (do they catch that he isn't telling them all he knows of the situation?)
And sometimes my players will give me more description of how they go about their actions, maybe they don't want to insight the Lord, but they want to see how the serving maid is reacting to what he is saying, and that is a clever idea to see what the people think of the Lord's reaction to the crisis.
But I don't standardize it. I just do well enough to get by.
