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

[Hussar]

I'm not proving my way is the "right" way, nor disproving other people's way, nor appealing to authority. I'm explaining why the approach I employ is used in the first place - because that's what the rules say to do. "How to Play" rules aren't advice. It's, perhaps not surprisingly, how the game is meant to be played. I'm also not "defending" my playstyle since my playstyle isn't actually under attack, right?

Ok, you may not mean it that way, but, from where I'm sitting, it's exactly how you sound.

"I'm doing what the rules say. You aren't. I'm playing the way the game is meant to be played. You aren't." How is that not directly telling me that I'm wrong?

And, sorry, the DMG has always been full of advice. Some of it great, some of it less so. Every DMG has been full of advice on "how to play the game". But, advice isn't rules. It's just advice. It works for you and that's fantastic. Great. For me, that advice isn't how I want to play. And, fortunately, D&D is a big enough tent that it can encompass numerous play styles without anyone needing to "prove" that they are playing "the way the game is meant to be played".

So, yeah, I'd push back a whole lot less if you'd please stop telling me how much badwrongfun I'm having.

 

[iserith]

Ok, you may not mean it that way, but, from where I'm sitting, it's exactly how you sound.

"I'm doing what the rules say. You aren't. I'm playing the way the game is meant to be played. You aren't." How is that not directly telling me that I'm wrong?

If I'm directly telling you that you're wrong, I'd say "You're wrong." Because that's a direct statement as to your wrongness. But I haven't done that. I even refused to call what you're doing "house rules" even though you invited me to do so.

What I'm doing is saying what I do and why. If for some reason that bothers you, then that's on you and is probably worth examining in my view.

And, sorry, the DMG has always been full of advice. Some of it great, some of it less so. Every DMG has been full of advice on "how to play the game". But, advice isn't rules. It's just advice. It works for you and that's fantastic. Great. For me, that advice isn't how I want to play. And, fortunately, D&D is a big enough tent that it can encompass numerous play styles without anyone needing to "prove" that they are playing "the way the game is meant to be played".

When I reference "How to Play," that comes from the Basic Rules and Players Handbook. It's in the section entitled, "How to Play," which details step-by-step how to play D&D 5e.

 

[Bawylie]

Wait, there's a "roll everything" crew? I thought there was a "roll as a last resort only if the DM asks for it possibly because the player can describe what they're doing without invoking the forbidden I make a skill check statement" vs the "use a mix, don't penalize people for preferring to use dice" crew.

Seems like there’s a “player decisions don’t matter; only dice rolls do” group and a “player decisions matter and dice rolls may determine the outcome of those decisions” group.

I’d personally prefer a game in which my decisions impacted the chance of succeeding or failing versus a game in which my decisions were irrelevant compared to what I throw on a die.

If the game is just throwing dice, and no decision making or real choices, i don’t feel like I’m actually playing anything. Even Yahtzee has choices and decision points, after all.

But if it’s just “roll to continue” over and over - I’ll pass.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Why not? 5e comes with downtime activities. If the players came to me and told me, hey, this is what we want to do - can we just resolve this in a couple of rolls after a week of downtime, great, go for it. Why would I force them to dance through my adventure?

Now, I'd probably be pretty annoyed that I've dropped all sorts of adventure hooks and the players are completely disinterested in it, but, let's ignore the obvious issues of table mismatch for a moment. We'll presume the table is happy and healthy, but, they simply don't want to do this investigation thing. Ok, great.

I mean, we do this with all sorts of things - abstract away buying magic items in 3e is a perfect example. 5e does it through downtime. In our current Dragon Heist game, the players actually literally sat in their tavern while their factions went out and gathered information for them. They leveraged their faction memberships and asked the factions to chase down various leads while they stayed home and ran their tavern.

I let time pass and then presented them with the findings.

So, yeah, to answer your question, I honestly have zero problem with letting the players abstract away an entire scenario (in this case it would be tracking down witnesses to a crime, talking to survivors of that crime, checking with law enforcement, and a few other goodies as well - I'm being deliberately vague because spoilers. Chapter 3 Fireball of Dragon Heist if you know the adventure). I presented them with the information after the fact and they proceeded from there. Did I roleplay out contacting each faction contact, then roleplay out the investigations? Nope, not in the slightest. They abstracted it, I gave them the results.

Now, in this specific case, no rolls were needed, but, again, I wouldn't have a problem if they made some sort of checks. Perhaps a Charisma check or something. Heck, they have Faction Scores. A check modified by that would have worked as well, had I thought of it at the time. I didn't think of it, but, in retrospect, that would have been a better idea. A check results in various levels of the faction being motivated to help, which in turn results in various bits of information becoming available. Ah well, will do better next time.

Huh, ok. That's illuminating.

As you've said, so much of this comes down to assembling a table of like-minded gamers.

 

[5ekyu]

Funny note: Some guy named Sun Tzu said something similar about winning before even fighting.

/grin

True but i am pretty sure that guy was not a character in a fantasy rpg.
i am pretty sure most "real people" if given say magic spells and such would not choose to go off hunting dungeons of loot and monsters either if it were real life.

 

[Ovinomancer]

BTW, you never answered my question. If the player states "I study her closely looking for hints that she's not telling the truth. I'm trying to glean clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms." what do you do? Ignore them?

If you ask for an insight check since that's the definition of the skill, what's wrong with them saying "I make an insight check?"

If you tell them they can't do that, how is that not telling them what their character does?

That's not the definition of an insight check, it's a possible use.

The "problem" as you frame it for this is small in one way, large in others. It's small in the sense that a GM can run with it and assume things and most likely be right enough that it's a reasonable shortcut. It's large in that it assumes there's no consequence for failure and that this method doesn't work for more ambiguous checks.

Approaching the latter issue first, it's of little surpruse that examples chosen to highlight asking for rolls are very simple applications where approach can be easily assumed. In fact, I think you've said exactly this. So, really, this complaint isn't that asking fior approach is a problem, it's that you're comfortable assuming approach from an ask to roll. This leads to the former issue above -- lack of consequence.

Most of your examples of how you let players ask for rolls are absent consequence for failure. Before you go defensive, look at it. An ask for an insight check results in no change on a failure. The character suspected but doesn't know before the roll, and nothing changes after the roll. Same for looking for a trap -- the failire state is exactly the same as before the roll. In fact, this approach kinda lends itself to weird play because the player knows his character failed but has to play as if they don't know?

The goal and approach method has, as an additional method, a failure state that is different from the state prior to the roll. As a broad approach, these failure states vary. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has said he might tick a wandering monster clock for a failure in some games, letting the character know they failed and can try again but still changing the situation to become more dangerous. I prefer more immediate changes, such that a failure thwarts the goal directly (so failing an insight check may end the social encounter or cause a damaging social gaffe). Regardless of preference for failure states, the approach will inform the failure state.

Again, I'll provide an in play example from a recent session:

The party knew they were entering an old temple complex full of traps. In the first hallway, there was a trap, a set of false doors that would snap shut to seal the hallway if a pressure plate was triggered. The party had their gloomstalker ranger scout ahead. Mindful of alerting possible enemies, he chose to advance down the hallway without a light source, relying on darkvision. This meant than the DC 12 passive perception check to notice deep groves on the floor showing the arc of closing for the false doors was missed (Passive of 16, -5 for dim light). Had they not, this clue would have indicated something odd and given insight into the nature of the trap. However, the player's chosen approach (use darkvision) to the goal of scouting for dangers, lead to an automatic failure.

The player then chose to move past the doors without investigating them, so, again, the chosen approach lead to automatically missing the trap. The pressure plate was triggered and the trap cut the ranger off from the rest of the party.

The party rogue then moved up to the trap with a light spell to examine it. As the trap was sprung and the mechanism obvious, he automatically succeeded in his action to determine the nature of the trap. (He had good light and stated he was inspecting it visually.) I told him what the trap did and that it was likely triggered on the other side where he couldn't see. He also could see that the mechanism was accessible but under a lot of pressure, so failing to disarm it may cause a violent release, likely spraying pieces like shrapnel as it disintegrated.

Meanwhile, the dwarven battlerager decided this was taking too long and charged the stone doors blocking the hall to break them down. A STR check was called for with failure causing danage for running into a stone door and success breaking the door but automatically causing the same violent release. The dwarf's player agreed and rolled -- success! The door was shattered and a DC 13 DEX save was called against 5d6 piercing damage, half on a save. Barbarians at his level have advantage on DEX saves from sources they can see and it was easily passed. The dwarf's approach given the established wirking of the trap directly resulted in the violent release of the mechanism. Had the rogue attempted to disarm, a success would have both disengaged the doors and avoided the explosion. A failure would have disabled the doors, but with an explosion.

The party has continued on, but now the ranger is using a light source which has already resulted in detection of a similar trap deeper in.

And, finally, my preferred method of requiring a goal and approach with consequences for failurr DOES NOT MEAN that your method cannot. Of course ypu can do this. But, instead of having to stop play to clarify things in situations where "I roll X" is insufficient, I've taken to preferring to bever assume and always have players describe approach. It's a preference that solves things at my table, and works well enough I like to advocate for it. Neither my method nor my play suffer at all if you do it different.

Almost any approach works, by the way, I most certainty don't require anything close to magic words. The trap I describe above had the following notes: [doors close to seal hall on sctivation of pressure plate, DC 12 passive to notice clues, once triggered doors under pressure]. That was it, no magic solve, any reasonable approach by players would have moved play further.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That's not the definition of an insight check, it's a possible use.... (snip)

Really great post, Ovinomancer. Although I've touched on it a couple of times, I haven't emphasized enough the importance of consequences for failure, that you so nicely illustrate.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Seems like there’s a “player decisions don’t matter; only dice rolls do” group and a “player decisions matter and dice rolls may determine the outcome of those decisions” group.

I’d personally prefer a game in which my decisions impacted the chance of succeeding or failing versus a game in which my decisions were irrelevant compared to what I throw on a die.

If the game is just throwing dice, and no decision making or real choices, i don’t feel like I’m actually playing anything. Even Yahtzee has choices and decision points, after all.

But if it’s just “roll to continue” over and over - I’ll pass.

And this was also really nicely said. Risk/reward, trade-offs, decisions points...however you want to phrase it, I think that's the heart of the matter.

 

[5ekyu]

Seems like there’s a “player decisions don’t matter; only dice rolls do” group and a “player decisions matter and dice rolls may determine the outcome of those decisions” group.

I’d personally prefer a game in which my decisions impacted the chance of succeeding or failing versus a game in which my decisions were irrelevant compared to what I throw on a die.

If the game is just throwing dice, and no decision making or real choices, i don’t feel like I’m actually playing anything. Even Yahtzee has choices and decision points, after all.

But if it’s just “roll to continue” over and over - I’ll pass.

I have not seen anyone who advocated a "player decisions dont matter" or a "roll everything" crowd. I haven't even seen a case where anyone is saying player decisions wont affect chances of success and fail at all during their game (as you make reference to "a game " in which those blah blah..

if you got cites for that, by all means post them. But i see what you are describing as a parody of what is being said.

Why?

Almost everybody in the "not the side of balance you prefer, i think" admits to using the advantage/disadvantage process for (mostly what the Gm describes as) things that would help or hinder success.

Additionally, there is the scope of success/fail, right? Are we talking success/fail on a check or success/fail at a goal?

Take combat, the player makes a ton of decisions, who to attack, who to heal, which weapon, do i rage or not, do i use sharpshooter or not, etc etc etc etc that *influence* the results of the actions but for the large number of them whether or not an individual action succeeds is in the hands of the dice (especially if it directly affects the adversaries.)

So, the descriptions don't always or necessarily even most of the time affect the die rolls or odds on the task level, but whether or not the choices of targets, timing etc make sense within the fight has a huge impact on whether or not the goal is achieved, the fight is won.

Consider a fight in which say a fighter was rolling randomly for each turn what their actions were (even if limited to who do i attack, where do i move and what weapons do i use) vs one where the player is choosing the actions for his character. I would suggest that in the vast majority of cases the fight would be more likely won by the latter, player choices, than the former.

So, even if the player choices never "influenced" a single die roll and certainly do not auto-success any attack, they still have a major impact on the success and fail, right? Player choices matter.

But, it seems to me the real differences being put forth here are not that at all, but (as i said earlier off of your previous example - thanks again) how often does the Gm put a "auto-win without checking character" option to solve the challenges that matter? How often is it able to be solved soleey at the player side before the character stats even come into play?

In the example i gave above, the player choices greatly influence the outcome, the result but at the various stages it is the character specs that guide the mini-resolution.

Contrast that to say a game in which it is seen, put forth and even proclaimed that getting to even use your stats in a roll is cheating yourself because you see there are so often "no spec needed" auto-wins?

That seems to me to be the bigger divide here.

Not the extremes you put forth as your portrayal of "the other side".

As pointed out earlier...

***

So, this is I think at part striking at the core of that "balance" the DMG mentions in its Middle Path and the others.

How often do you have challenges that matter that are*:
A only solvable by #1
B only solvable by #2
C that are solvable by either #1 or #2
D Only solvable by both #1 and #2 used in tandem

* Perhaps this is better expressed as "how often does our resolution process result in cases actually being solved by:" since that is what the players see in play and that shapes their views going forward.

Where:
1 An absolute correct answer - if I do this, if I say this literally in this case, I get thru. No checks, no character skills needed. Just pick/guess the right key/way AS PLAYER and walk thru. There may even be more than one absolute answer - more than one just "choose the win."
2 A way to use a CHARACTER's skill check (ability check) to get thru. May be more than one way to "check the win."
***

 

[5ekyu]

Why not? 5e comes with downtime activities. If the players came to me and told me, hey, this is what we want to do - can we just resolve this in a couple of rolls after a week of downtime, great, go for it. Why would I force them to dance through my adventure?

Now, I'd probably be pretty annoyed that I've dropped all sorts of adventure hooks and the players are completely disinterested in it, but, let's ignore the obvious issues of table mismatch for a moment. We'll presume the table is happy and healthy, but, they simply don't want to do this investigation thing. Ok, great.

I mean, we do this with all sorts of things - abstract away buying magic items in 3e is a perfect example. 5e does it through downtime. In our current Dragon Heist game, the players actually literally sat in their tavern while their factions went out and gathered information for them. They leveraged their faction memberships and asked the factions to chase down various leads while they stayed home and ran their tavern.

I let time pass and then presented them with the findings.

So, yeah, to answer your question, I honestly have zero problem with letting the players abstract away an entire scenario (in this case it would be tracking down witnesses to a crime, talking to survivors of that crime, checking with law enforcement, and a few other goodies as well - I'm being deliberately vague because spoilers. Chapter 3 Fireball of Dragon Heist if you know the adventure). I presented them with the information after the fact and they proceeded from there. Did I roleplay out contacting each faction contact, then roleplay out the investigations? Nope, not in the slightest. They abstracted it, I gave them the results.

Now, in this specific case, no rolls were needed, but, again, I wouldn't have a problem if they made some sort of checks. Perhaps a Charisma check or something. Heck, they have Faction Scores. A check modified by that would have worked as well, had I thought of it at the time. I didn't think of it, but, in retrospect, that would have been a better idea. A check results in various levels of the faction being motivated to help, which in turn results in various bits of information becoming available. Ah well, will do better next time.

Exactly...

if i put say a "medical mystery" like say to remove curse or a "murder mystery" into my games and the players tell me, my character wants to investigate it but i do not want to play thru that stuff, can we resolve it by checks" i am pretty much okay with that. then again, i am also Ok if they just say "nah, not something that involves us, lets hit the road." I ain't in the GMing business to drive my players down a rabbit hole they tell me they wont enjoy.

Then again, i tend to produce more robust challenges and situations where there are multiple ways to get to the end and which directly involve stuff that ties to the PCs.

So, downtime checks and more than likely "failures with setbacks" will produce some results, maybe not all to the way the party would have liked, but one of my main points in my RPGs is that characters more often than not are struggling to control the outcomes and the less they succeed and get involved the more others control outcomes.

of course, the understanding of the "roll investigate downtime" is that its more than just "sit in tavern."

But, i can sure understand for a game driven by "describe how" more than "character skill" that approach might be not acceptable.