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

Hussar · Mar 26, 2019

Going to take these out of order:

Charlaquin said:
I don’t think most people would consider the “If the players don’t say they’re looking at the ceiling, they’re automatically surprised” to be at all reasonable. I certainly don’t. I want a goal and an approach to actions they take, but I don’t require that degree of specificity, and I certainly wouldn’t expect players to specify that they’re looking up when they’re just exploring the dungeon.

Well, considering this was a published module, and even WotC modules have had this sort of thing, I'd say that at least some people think that this is reasonable. You wouldn't see it in published modules if no one thought it was reasonable.

Now you see why this sort of thing bothers some people.

iserith said:
/snip
Where in the room are you looking? Do you move about the whole chamber freely? Is there any feature of the room as describe that you're careful to avoid? Are you using any items in your search? How long do you take to perform this task?

Really, really don't care. But, [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION], we have an example of at least one DM who seems to think that the module was reasonable.

robus said:
And this is why I think you're deliberately trying to misunderstand our position and pretend it's more complicated than it is. We're really not wanting players to jump through magic hoops, we just want them to clearly communicate an action through their goal and approach. You seem to assume that we have a predetermined phrase that the player must utter to pass our test (or expert domain knowledge that no one could reasonably expect). Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply want to the players to engage with the game world through their imagination rather than relying on the options listed on their character sheet.

Ah well, I tried...

The reason we think this is because we've seen examples of exactly the kind of thing you are talking about in numerous sources - both anecdotally and published adventures. It's not exactly a rare thing IME. Lots of DM's do this. So, when you advocate for a DMing style which, in my experience at least, leads to frustration, wasted time and far too many arguments at the table, you can't really be surprised that you get some push back. It's not that we're being disingenuous or arguing in bad faith, it's that we've seen what sometimes happens when DM's get that fixated on details and minutia, and it ain't pretty.

robus · Mar 26, 2019

Hussar said:
The reason we think this is because we've seen examples of exactly the kind of thing you are talking about in numerous sources - both anecdotally and published adventures. It's not exactly a rare thing IME. Lots of DM's do this. So, when you advocate for a DMing style which, in my experience at least, leads to frustration, wasted time and far too many arguments at the table, you can't really be surprised that you get some push back. It's not that we're being disingenuous or arguing in bad faith, it's that we've seen what sometimes happens when DM's get that fixated on details and minutia, and it ain't pretty.

Sure, but that's entirely different from claiming that it doesn't have a simple answer. All systems can be abused and ungenerous, pixel bitching, nit-picky DMs that want people to jump through their hoops are trouble no matter what approach they choose. My commiserations, I would also be mad if I'd had that bad experience.

However I am surprised that, given the relative novelty of this approach, you've both (I'm assuming) had such a history of bad experiences? Is this from similar approaches in other RPGs? Or was it something inflicted on you recently by malicious DMs running 5e?

Edit: I reread your piece and remembered that you'd mentioned anecdotes and such, and also the published adventures. Now I would like to consider myself one of the first in line to raise pitchforks and torches against the published adventures, but one thing I've not had issue with is them imposing this style of DMing on me. Far from it, in fact. In my experience they love to set DCs for skill use regardless of what the player might declare, so something that would actually go in favor of your preferred approach?

iserith · Mar 26, 2019

Hussar said:
Really, really don't care.

So are you okay with the DM just establishing what your character is doing? Or does he or she have to ask questions of you until what you want to do is clear enough to adjudicate? How does that work in practice? If a player only gives me a goal (search for traps), I don't have an approach (how the search is conducted) and thus I can't decide if there is certainty or uncertainty to the outcome or a meaningful consequence of failure.

Hussar said:
But, [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION], we have an example of at least one DM who seems to think that the module was reasonable.

I assume you mean the author of the adventure you referenced?

Oofta · Mar 26, 2019

robus said:
And this is why I think you're deliberately trying to misunderstand our position and pretend it's more complicated than it is. We're really not wanting players to jump through magic hoops, we just want them to clearly communicate an action through their goal and approach. You seem to assume that we have a predetermined phrase that the player must utter to pass our test (or expert domain knowledge that no one could reasonably expect). Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply want to the players to engage with the game world through their imagination rather than relying on the options listed on their character sheet.

Ah well, I tried...

Sorry if my answer was crankier than I intended, it's been a day.

My point is simple: if someone rolls first and tells me they're using an athletic check to climb the wall, they've communicated what they want to do. I encourage RP and engagement including not relying on dice to solve problems, but I don't require it.

I guess I just don't expect people to play "my way". I've enjoyed playing with people that view the game as an excuse to hang out, roll some dice and eat some junk food. They put up with roll playing when they have to, but I don't push it. Telling them every time they rolled and told me what skill they were using would have just annoyed them.

Hussar · Mar 26, 2019

robus said:
Sure, but that's entirely different from claiming that it doesn't have a simple answer. All systems can be abused and ungenerous, pixel bitching, nit-picky DMs that want people to jump through their hoops are trouble no matter what approach they choose. My commiserations, I would also be mad if I'd had that bad experience.

However I am surprised that, given the relative novelty of this approach, you've both (I'm assuming) had such a history of bad experiences? Is this from similar approaches in other RPGs? Or was it something inflicted on you recently by malicious DMs running 5e?

Edit: I reread your piece and remembered that you'd mentioned anecdotes and such, and also the published adventures. Now I would like to consider myself one of the first in line to raise pitchforks and torches against the published adventures, but one thing I've not had issue with is them imposing this style of DMing on me. Far from it, in fact. In my experience they love to set DCs for skill use regardless of what the player might declare, so something that would actually go in favor of your preferred approach?

Nope, been playing since the 80's. Nope, your approach is neither new, nor novel. It's been around for a long time. And, yup, IME, it leads to ungenerous, pixel bitching, nit-picky DM's. But, as far as setting DC's, sure, no worries. And, since I'm not interested in the minutia, yeah, I have very few problems with published modules. Works for me.

iserith said:
So are you okay with the DM just establishing what your character is doing? Or does he or she have to ask questions of you until what you want to do is clear enough to adjudicate? How does that work in practice? If a player only gives me a goal (search for traps), I don't have an approach (how the search is conducted) and thus I can't decide if there is certainty or uncertainty to the outcome or a meaningful consequence of failure.

Yup. No problems at all. I trust that the DM will choose things that are more interesting and isn't interested in playing mother may I, so, he (or in most cases me since I DM more than I play) will simply take the most advantageous interpretation. You say you search for traps, you find them (presuming you succeed of course). Where, how, don't care. The consequence for failure? Trap goes off. Or, you don't know if that NPC is lying. Or you fail to change the NPC's attitude. Whatever.

I assume you mean the author of the adventure you referenced?

No, I meant you. You flat out stated: "Where in the room are you looking? Do you move about the whole chamber freely? Is there any feature of the room as describe that you're careful to avoid? Are you using any items in your search? How long do you take to perform this task?" Which means that if the PC's don't state they are looking at the ceiling, you would have no problem with the monsters gaining surprise.

Or am I wrong in this interpretation.

iserith · Mar 26, 2019

Hussar said:
Yup. No problems at all. I trust that the DM will choose things that are more interesting and isn't interested in playing mother may I, so, he (or in most cases me since I DM more than I play) will simply take the most advantageous interpretation. You say you search for traps, you find them (presuming you succeed of course). Where, how, don't care. The consequence for failure? Trap goes off. Or, you don't know if that NPC is lying. Or you fail to change the NPC's attitude. Whatever.

As DM, I prefer not to play the characters for the players. That's not my role in the game as prescribed by the rules.

Hussar said:
No, I meant you. You flat out stated: "Where in the room are you looking? Do you move about the whole chamber freely? Is there any feature of the room as describe that you're careful to avoid? Are you using any items in your search? How long do you take to perform this task?" Which means that if the PC's don't state they are looking at the ceiling, you would have no problem with the monsters gaining surprise.

Or am I wrong in this interpretation.

You are wrong in this interpretation. The questions I asked were in reference to your declaration of a goal to find traps. I may need to know the requested information with reasonable specificity to decide whether your approach to the goal is successful, unsuccessful, or if there's an ability check.

Hussar · Mar 26, 2019

iserith said:
As DM, I prefer not to play the characters for the players. That's not my role in the game as prescribed by the rules.

Meh. Not a big deal. The character made a check, the DM adjudicates. I don't need to delve much deeper than that.

You are wrong in this interpretation. The questions I asked were in reference to your declaration of a goal to find traps. I may need to know the requested information with reasonable specificity to decide whether your approach to the goal is successful, unsuccessful, or if there's an ability check.

Why? "I search the chest for traps" is good enough. Heck, I search the room works for me. I'm not going to go any deeper than that. I simply, completely don't care. My approach is, "My character is a professional adventurer. He's doing whatever is reasonable for a professional adventurer to do. Please interpret the situation as such." So, no, you don't need any more information. You might want it. You might prefer it. Fair enough. But, you don't actually need it.

iserith · Mar 26, 2019

Hussar said:
Why? "I search the chest for traps" is good enough. Heck, I search the room works for me. I'm not going to go any deeper than that. I simply, completely don't care. My approach is, "My character is a professional adventurer. He's doing whatever is reasonable for a professional adventurer to do. Please interpret the situation as such." So, no, you don't need any more information. You might want it. You might prefer it. Fair enough. But, you don't actually need it.

The rules lay out who gets to say what and a standard for reasonable specificity, particularly in regards to searching for hidden objects. I might be less concerned with that and more open to players asking to make ability checks if I wasn't playing D&D 5e. It would certainly be appropriate for D&D 3e and 4e as the rules encourage it. But those are different games.

Hussar · Mar 26, 2019

Yeah, not going to get bogged down in a RAW discussion based on a single line from the rules which are, in my mind, most certainly not meant to be comprehensive. So, feel free to lump my approach in with house ruling if it makes you feel better.

robus · Mar 26, 2019

Hussar said:
Nope, been playing since the 80's. Nope, your approach is neither new, nor novel. It's been around for a long time. And, yup, IME, it leads to ungenerous, pixel bitching, nit-picky DM's. But, as far as setting DC's, sure, no worries. And, since I'm not interested in the minutia, yeah, I have very few problems with published modules. Works for me.

Wow, that’s quite unfortunate. Well I’m glad you’ve found an approach that let’s you still enjoy the game. I’ve, surprisingly it seems, not yet ended in that inevitable state despite running an almost 3 year long campaign, but I’ll keep an eye out for it, only a few sessions remaining though...

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

Hussar

Legend

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Oofta

Legend

Hussar

Legend

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Hussar

Legend

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Hussar

Legend

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller

Similar Threads