Skills used by players on other players.

[billd91]

There's no reason to assume the PC is taking an action that the player has not said they're taking. When making a simple request for more information about the environment, "I'm just looking" is implied. Unforced error here on the DM's part.

I don't think that's true, but it depends on the circumstances. If someone says they're searching for traps, I assume that there are multiple levels of caution involved - probably a visual-only stage, then maybe come careful probing. I don't assume that simply searching will trigger the trap - failing to find it and following up as if the object involved isn't trapped will usually service the purpose quite well.

But if someone says they're going to search a room, a desk, a cabinet, a bed - I assume there's touching and moving of things going on. That will be necessary to fully search one of those things - you can't do it from 10' away.

 

[billd91]

Another thing you can do is stop having all of your NPCs lie to the characters so that you can avoid this:

View attachment 103635

In other words, make better social interaction challenges. In my games, Wisdom (Insight) comes up when an NPC is trying to keep its agenda or ideal, bond, or flaw hidden and the players, during the interaction, are trading off their part in the conversation to observe the NPC and try to ascertain these elements so they can then turn it to their advantage. Which translates to advantage on subsequent related Charisma checks, if there are any.

And like how I would telegraph a trap during an exploration challenge, I am telegraphing lies in a social interaction challenge. Facts that don't add up. Strange twitch. A stutter. Changing the story. If you're not hinting that the NPC is lying while describing the environment, then you're basically playing gotcha and encouraging the players to "Insight check!" every time they speak to someone, just like how they'll search for traps on every door and 10-foot pole every hallway when you don't telegraph traps. In the absence of information, that is reasonable behavior. If you don't want that behavior, increase the information flow.

As well, make failing an Insight check cost something. In addition to making this a task you have to do at the cost of not contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way, my go-to is that, on a failed attempt, the NPC knows the PC is suspicious which causes him or her to dummy up or at least make it harder to suss out the agenda and ideal, bond, or flaw. It's not just "The NPC has no apparent tells." There's no cost to that result. So of course the players will want to spam it, if they can.

Other than it being a potentially time-sinking annoyance, so what if they want to spam using their inherent powers of insight to size up everyone they meet? You running out of descriptions of people's apparent sincerity? Weighing someone's words shouldn't be thought of as something that costs anything - at least not directly. If the players want to play their character so skeptically that they can't believe anything an NPC says, they can pay the indirect cost of having no friends, no allies, nobody they can rely on and be welcome to it because they're such creeps.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

But having the player call for an Insight check for themself breaks the standard gameplay loop of DM describes situation -> player describes what the character does -> DM determines outcome of action, possibly calling for a roll if necessary to resolve uncertainty -> DM narrates results -> repeat. Having the player call for the NPC to make the roll follows the same gameplay loop, it just reverses the roles. I am describing an action the NPC is taking, and the player is determining the results, possibly calling for a roll to resolve uncertainty.

This feels to me like you're using gameplay to serve the loop principle rather than using the loop principle to serve gameplay, if you take my meaning.

In my eyes, everything in the "Is he lying?"/"Make an Insight check" interaction is contained within the "DM describes situation" step. The player is requesting a more detailed description of the situation, the DM believes it is uncertain how much detail the PC can ascertain, and thus dice are rolled to resolve the uncertainty. Personally I'd favor the player rolling Insight over the DM rolling Deception because (a) players like rolling dice and (b) the NPC might not actually be lying.

That's not to say that I don't like your "reversing the roles" concept at all. That's definitely (a more formalized description of) how I resolve NPC persuasion.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I don't think that's true, but it depends on the circumstances. If someone says they're searching for traps, I assume that there are multiple levels of caution involved - probably a visual-only stage, then maybe come careful probing. I don't assume that simply searching will trigger the trap - failing to find it and following up as if the object involved isn't trapped will usually service the purpose quite well.

But if someone says they're going to search a room, a desk, a cabinet, a bed - I assume there's touching and moving of things going on. That will be necessary to fully search one of those things - you can't do it from 10' away.

Well, yeah, but saying they're going to search is a declaration of an action in a way that just asking what they see is not.

And "trap goes off if you botch the check to find it" is an old standby in this game, so that might stick around for legacy reasons if nothing else.

 

[Bawylie]

There's no reason to assume the PC is taking an action that the player has not said they're taking. When making a simple request for more information about the environment, "I'm just looking" is implied. Unforced error here on the DM's part.

I don’t have this problem anymore.

“I’m just looking” wasn’t implied. And they were more than happy to take a result of “No traps” on the roll - just didn’t want “you set off a trap” as result of a failed roll.

 

[Bawylie]

This is far easier to deal with by simply saying, based on the low result, "You didn't find any traps. What now?" And then hit them with the trap when they actually open the door. There's really no need to expect the player to pixelbitch how they're searching - a PC with a good modifier should be considerably more skilled and resourceful at that task than a nerdy gamer sitting at a gaming table and who probably doesn't have a job anything at all like exploring dangerous ruins.

I don’t find that easier.

And in practice it isn’t pixelbitching. It’s just clarifying their intent and approach. What they want to do and how they go about making that happen. I’m not demanding perfect knowledge of all possible medieval and magical traps.

 

[iserith]

Other than it being a potentially time-sinking annoyance, so what if they want to spam using their inherent powers of insight to size up everyone they meet?

They're welcome to perform a task to ascertain the NPC's sincerity, agenda, ideal, bond, or flaw as much as they want. But there's a meaningful consequence of failure if the DM calls for an ability check though. Sometimes the cost of failure might be high enough to make it a risky task to undertake. There might also be an opportunity cost for performing this task and not some other.

Weighing someone's words shouldn't be thought of as something that costs anything - at least not directly.

Do you have a basis for this assertion?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I also used to play with binary "detect traps" and "detect lie" rolls. And, yeah, we used to spam them. Searching for secret doors, too.

It's not wrong to play that way. I just don't find it interesting any more. And it's not how the world works. You suspect somebody is lying or telling the truth, or you suspect there aren't any traps...but you're almost never completely sure. That's what makes it exciting.

I also definitely agree with "failed rolls should have consequences". It turns repetitive, mechanical dice rolling into something more exciting. One thing I hate is when somebody fails a knowledge or detection check, and everybody else in the party says, "Can I roll, too?"

 

[billd91]

I also definitely agree with "failed rolls should have consequences". It turns repetitive, mechanical dice rolling into something more exciting. One thing I hate is when somebody fails a knowledge or detection check, and everybody else in the party says, "Can I roll, too?"

Is it really necessary to have a consequence other than lack of success? Most things sort themselves out - fail a knowledge check, don't know the potential info; fail the detection check, don't detect the treasure or threat. Does there really need to be the risk of something more stacked onto that?

I don't worry about the chorus of "Can I roll, too?" because I have all the characters in position to either know or detect the same thing make the check. Then I start with the lowest roll in giving out results of what they know/perceived/whatever.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Is it really necessary to have a consequence other than lack of success? Most things sort themselves out - fail a knowledge check, don't know the potential info; fail the detection check, don't detect the treasure or threat. Does there really need to be the risk of something more stacked onto that?

I don't worry about the chorus of "Can I roll, too?" because I have all the characters in position to either know or detect the same thing make the check. Then I start with the lowest roll in giving out results of what they know/perceived/whatever.

Yeah, but is that actually fun? Sounds like a whole bunch of dice rolling to me (more than 'sounds'; I've played that way, too) instead of storytelling.

Again, I'm not trying to tell you that you're breaking the rules or doing something wrong. Lots of us have played the way you are describing for a long, long time. Maybe consider that RPGs have evolved and there's another way of doing things that is less mechanical and more narrative?

We're trying to share an exciting new(ish) recipe, not tell you that you're a bad cook or breaking kitchen rules.