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

[Chaosmancer]

When you DM, and a player says, "Can I make a (skill) check to see if I can (something)" how do you set the DC? Does it vary based on how they go about it, or is the same DC regardless of what their character does in support of the declared action?

You weren't quoting me, but this is something I wanted to reply to.

I very rarely change the DC based on what the player tells me they are doing. Not saying I never do it, but it has happened.

What I change is the results, especially if we are talking social skills, of success or failure. I've had plenty of times when a player has, for example, completely convinced the guards that they are an important noble (deception to get into the city) and for that success to mean that yes, the guards are convinced you are a noble, and are willing to escort you to the Tyrant King's palace themselves since he'll want to meet you.

That wouldn't have happened if they instead convinced them they were secret agents of the crown who were reporting back in after a spy mission, because you don't parade spies through the streets with an armed escort.

I can't decide which lie you told to convince them to let you through though, so I need more than "I roll Deception to get us into the city"

I'd take it one step further and say that the whole "challenge the characters, not the players" position that underpins some of the posters' arguments here is completely bogus. The player is always the one who is being challenged. And the challenge in this game is to put your character in the best position to succeed at your desired goal. The difficulty depends on your stated approach relative to the fictional situation as described by the DM. The difficulty is higher when achieving the desired goal is less likely and lower when it's more likely.

I used to make the "challenge the characters, not the players" argument back when I was playing D&D 4e more often. That argument (and I) was wrong then and it's wrong now (so I no longer make that argument). The character is not a real thing. While it's being challenged in a fictional sense - a bold adventurer confronting deadly perils - in terms of game play, it's always the player that is being challenged.

Eh, yes and no.

I hate putting riddles and puzzles into my games. Especially riddles.

I love them in stories, but they are very much "do I know the answer" type of problems, and they go one of three ways.

1) Player has heard it before, answer is automatic

2) Group has no idea and gets stuck trying to figure it out

3) Someone asks to roll the dice and I have to give them the answer if they succeed.


And three is boring, it is just a die roll with no narrative attached, and one is boring because there is nothing except an automatic answer.

So really, I find riddles boring in games, because you either have the answer or you don't. Similiar to a Con I was at where the GM brought a really beautifully carved puzzle box full of different puzzles we had to solve to get past a section of his game. We set aside our character sheets, because none of it mattered. And actually we solved the first step immediately because the guy righting our clues down wrote them in the wrong order, and accidentally wrote them in the order that was the actual puzzle sequence.

These only challenge "how smart are the players at the table today" not "how intelligently can they leverage their characters in this challenge", which is how I interpret that saying.

That is an assumption made at your table, perhaps, but that is not part of the game in any official sense.

You'd have to convince [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] of that is seems. He's been stating for the last dozen pages that the rules explicitly state there is no check if there is no ambiguity in the result.

The only type of people I would have be so good at lying that it would be impossible to tell would be gods and archdevils or archfey. Otherwise there would be a chance of success.

If there is a chance of success, but it is unlikely... you still get to roll, because there is a chance of success. So, if no roll is called for and you aren't talking to a diety level power, then it is fair to say that the rules have led you to there having been no chance of failure, can't fail because they were telling the truth.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. There is absolutely nothing in the 5e rule set that says if an NPC is lying there is something a player can say or do that always results in an Insight check.

Lying is the Deception skill.

Deception is counter by Insight.

If a PC is lying the NPC can make an Insight roll to determine that, so if a NPC is lying then players should be allowed to make insight checks to determine that.

These are the rules of the game.

Use thieves tools to investigate a door for traps? Cool trick. Not applicable at all, but it's your game.

Why is it not applicable? Thieve's Tools per RAW come with a small mirror attached to a stick, the type of thing that could be placed under a door frame to see places you otherwise could not, or to reflect light into small spaces of the door.

Seems perfectly applicable to me.

 

[iserith]

Eh, yes and no.

I hate putting riddles and puzzles into my games. Especially riddles.

I love them in stories, but they are very much "do I know the answer" type of problems, and they go one of three ways.

1) Player has heard it before, answer is automatic

2) Group has no idea and gets stuck trying to figure it out

3) Someone asks to roll the dice and I have to give them the answer if they succeed.


And three is boring, it is just a die roll with no narrative attached, and one is boring because there is nothing except an automatic answer.

So really, I find riddles boring in games, because you either have the answer or you don't. Similiar to a Con I was at where the GM brought a really beautifully carved puzzle box full of different puzzles we had to solve to get past a section of his game. We set aside our character sheets, because none of it mattered. And actually we solved the first step immediately because the guy righting our clues down wrote them in the wrong order, and accidentally wrote them in the order that was the actual puzzle sequence.

These only challenge "how smart are the players at the table today" not "how intelligently can they leverage their characters in this challenge", which is how I interpret that saying.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I wasn't really talking about puzzles or riddles in the sense you describe them. And anyway, it's bad scenario design in my view if a puzzle or riddle is a choke point in the adventure for the reason you gave in #2.

You'd have to convince [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] of that is seems. He's been stating for the last dozen pages that the rules explicitly state there is no check if there is no ambiguity in the result.

The only type of people I would have be so good at lying that it would be impossible to tell would be gods and archdevils or archfey. Otherwise there would be a chance of success.

If there is a chance of success, but it is unlikely... you still get to roll, because there is a chance of success. So, if no roll is called for and you aren't talking to a diety level power, then it is fair to say that the rules have led you to there having been no chance of failure, can't fail because they were telling the truth.

I can't see all the posts that led the statement by [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] that you quoted, but it is a matter of fact that the rules say that a check is appropriate only when there's uncertainty as to the outcome and a meaningful chance for failure. Now, Elfcrusher differs from me in that he or she does not appear to like the idea that characters can detect an NPC's lies, and prefers a certain level of uncertainty to remain in the players' minds. But that's another issue, one chiefly of narration of the result rather than whether or not there's an ability check.

 

[iserith]

Lying is the Deception skill.

Deception is counter by Insight.

If a PC is lying the NPC can make an Insight roll to determine that, so if a NPC is lying then players should be allowed to make insight checks to determine that.

These are the rules of the game.

This is only partly true. While the DM can call for a contest of Charisma (Deception) and Wisdom (Insight) checks to resolve these sorts of tasks (when said tasks have uncertain outcomes and meaningful consequences for failure), a contest is not required by the rules. The DM can instead just set a DC.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You'd have to convince @iserith of that is seems. He's been stating for the last dozen pages that the rules explicitly state there is no check if there is no ambiguity in the result.

The only type of people I would have be so good at lying that it would be impossible to tell would be gods and archdevils or archfey. Otherwise there would be a chance of success.

If there is a chance of success, but it is unlikely... you still get to roll, because there is a chance of success. So, if no roll is called for and you aren't talking to a diety level power, then it is fair to say that the rules have led you to there having been no chance of failure, can't fail because they were telling the truth.

What you're missing is that the DM decides if there's ambiguity in the result. If the DM simply decides that the lie (or any other insight) can't be detected, or that the way the player proposes to accomplish it would automatically fail, then there's no roll. Thus the absence of the roll should not be a signal to the player that the NPC is telling the truth.

Now, I think DMs should be very sparing with completely undetectable lies (maybe if it's a construct doing the lying or something), but the point is that just because a player proposes a course of action...or wants to "use a skill"...it doesn't entitle him/her to a roll. Which in some ways is the heart of this whole debate.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I hate putting riddles and puzzles into my games. Especially riddles.

I love them in stories, but they are very much "do I know the answer" type of problems, and they go one of three ways.

1) Player has heard it before, answer is automatic

2) Group has no idea and gets stuck trying to figure it out

3) Someone asks to roll the dice and I have to give them the answer if they succeed.


And three is boring, it is just a die roll with no narrative attached, and one is boring because there is nothing except an automatic answer.

So really, I find riddles boring in games, because you either have the answer or you don't. Similiar to a Con I was at where the GM brought a really beautifully carved puzzle box full of different puzzles we had to solve to get past a section of his game. We set aside our character sheets, because none of it mattered. And actually we solved the first step immediately because the guy righting our clues down wrote them in the wrong order, and accidentally wrote them in the order that was the actual puzzle sequence.

These only challenge "how smart are the players at the table today" not "how intelligently can they leverage their characters in this challenge", which is how I interpret that saying.

By the way, even though this isn't what [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] meant by riddle, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote here. I hate riddles in D&D. And I also hate the kind of "challenges" that are puzzles with specific solutions. You know, "Ok, surrounding the boss are three pillars: one red, one blue, one green. On the floor are cyan, magenta, and teal tiles...." Blech.

 

[Hussar]

Out of chronological order'

I agree. I think even a baker's dozen of words or less can convey objective and method 80% of the time. Such as: "I make an investigation check ___ to check for traps on the door"

Heh. The pedantic git in me needs to point out that a bakers dozen is, in fact, 144 words. yes, I know I have a disease.

snip

Often it's to refute abjectly incorrect assertions about my approach from posters such as yourself.



I actually don't care what you do or do not enjoy. Not even a little. What I do care about is the aforementioned abjectly incorrect assertions you make because it may give other people reading this exchange the wrong idea. It's a curious thing why you'd do that.
/snip

Hrm, incorrect assertions like, for example, pixel bitching:

A magnifying glass is also a good choice and may grant advantage on the Wisdom (Perception) check - should the DM determine a check is appropriate - if the trap is hidden in, for example, a highly-detailed carving on the door.

Imagine that - two different approaches to the same goal and one of those approaches might be more efficacious than the other.

I mean, that, right there, is textbook example of pixel bitching. Why would a player even think of using a magnifying glass? One, the odds that a player actually would have one is pretty remote, and, two, even if you mention intricate carvings on the door, why would I not simply assume that I'm using a magnifying glass if I have one? You grant extra bonuses based on whether or not the player can guess the right kind of trap for the door and then present you with a solution that you find plausible.

In what way am I misrepresenting what you are doing. Because, that, right there, is pixel bitching and gaming the DM all rolled up in one nice neat package.

 

[Hussar]

Yep.



Recently, I adapted a D&D 4e Eberron adventure to 5e with significant modifications for my regular campaign, then spun off one of the dungeons in the adventure into a one-shot that I ran with another group one night. I modified a trap included in the module and made it a choke point that connected one section of the dungeon to another. I described the environment: "The rumbling of stone upon stone [which they'd been hearing in the distance for a little while] can be heard most loudly in this area. A 10-foot-wide hallway runs 70 feet west to east lined on the north by five alcoves. In each alcove a bloody spike protrudes out of the stone. The wall to the south is carved with stylized images of fierce hobgoblin heroes masticating and devouring many-eyed, tentacled monsters. The floor is damaged and in two places (30 to 40 feet away) the tile has fallen away completely revealing a space beneath the floor."

The basic idea here is that if you step on a pressure plate adjacent to the spike, the spike shoots out of the wall, stabs you, pushes you into a pit trap, the lid of which closes again after you fall in. The floor of the pit is a rolling stone sphere with a small gap between the walls and floor. Now sealed in the pit, you are slowly ground up into a fine paste. To make matters worse, certain areas of the floor in between the alcoves would tilt, so if you tried to jump over the pressure plate and pit trap, you'd land on the tilting floor and it would potentially force you back the other way into the pressure plate or pit trap you were trying to avoid. In short, you are chewed up, swallowed, and digested.

The two groups were different players with different characters. I knew how the trap worked, but I wrote no solution. That's not my job after all. And each group overcame the challenge in their own way. My regular group thought about having the rogue try to disarm the pressure plates one by one, but were concerned about time - every 10 minutes I was rolling to see if wandering kruthiks would show up and that was five potential wandering monsters which could eat up resources they would need later. They decided to piton a rope to the wall at their end and the far end of the corridor (70 feet away) and shimmy across it. The rogue wall climbed using the carvings for grip to get to the other end, then set about affixing the rope with pitons. He got about halfway through that job when the noise attracted some ghouls which attacked the rogue while his allies were far away! So now the rope was only partially attached, meaning the other PCs could use the rope for stability, but could not climb on it. The wizard busted out a Tenser's floating disk, let it trail behind him, and made his way across with help from the rope (and Inspiration!) while two other party members rode it, getting off when they got to a safe spot. Then they engaged the ghouls just as the undead were dragging the unconscious rogue away. It was a great scene.

The other party decided to use 10-foot poles to push hard on the pressure plate, which would cause the spikes to shoot out quickly and retract, but they kept the pressure on the plate so it wouldn't reset. While it was "stuck," they had a PC stand on it to keep it depressed, then they'd repeat the process, essentially leapfrogging it all the way to the end. This had the benefit of keeping the party together when the ghouls showed up, so they had an easier time in that fight than the first party did.

Meanwhile, my group rolled a single die roll and went on their merry way because faffing about trying to guess a plausible solution bores the tears out of us. Heck, I didn't even have to ask for it. They just did it. Poof, done. All that wasted effort in designing a trap that no one but the DM actually cares about that could have been better spent in other places. Or, if they failed the checks, they would be spread out trying to disarm the traps and the ghouls show up. Either way, it's the ghouls showing up that I'm interested in. The trap is mostly incidental. And the means to bypass the trap is pretty much whatever the players tell me it is, AFTER they've made the check(s).

Different strokes obviously.

 

[5ekyu]

Meanwhile, my group rolled a single die roll and went on their merry way because faffing about trying to guess a plausible solution bores the tears out of us. Heck, I didn't even have to ask for it. They just did it. Poof, done. All that wasted effort in designing a trap that no one but the DM actually cares about that could have been better spent in other places. Or, if they failed the checks, they would be spread out trying to disarm the traps and the ghouls show up. Either way, it's the ghouls showing up that I'm interested in. The trap is mostly incidental. And the means to bypass the trap is pretty much whatever the players tell me it is, AFTER they've made the check(s).

Different strokes obviously.

Yup.

For me, I gave up on puzzle traps and the Indiana Jones implausibly complex trap-tricks long ago.

Instead, if there are traps, they are rather simple, easily beaten **unless** there is an active threat. Imple, reasonsble traps are used in places in conjunction with an active defense scheme.

So, if you are inside long abandoned ruins you may see the first one or two of these, potentially broken due to neglect and be able to just practically walk around them. But later on, you might find a similar place where the undead make a world of difference to that walk-around trap's threat level.

But if you are in an active thriving establishment, likely as not each snd every one of those guarded traps will be a tough but to crack and a festure thst raises the threat of rather mundane foes by a good amount.

 

[Hussar]

Yup.

For me, I gave up on puzzle traps and the Indiana Jones implausibly complex trap-tricks long ago.

Instead, if there are traps, they are rather simple, easily beaten **unless** there is an active threat. Imple, reasonsble traps are used in places in conjunction with an active defense scheme.

So, if you are inside long abandoned ruins you may see the first one or two of these, potentially broken due to neglect and be able to just practically walk around them. But later on, you might find a similar place where the undead make a world of difference to that walk-around trap's threat level.

But if you are in an active thriving establishment, likely as not each snd every one of those guarded traps will be a tough but to crack and a festure thst raises the threat of rather mundane foes by a good amount.

I suppose one does have to wonder why the ghouls wouldn't have been destroyed by this trap long ago. It's not like ghouls just sit in one room and never move.

Now, I'm all for adding traps to encounters as part of the encounter. Pits, elevation, spider webs, that sort of thing, that's great. So, on one hand, I really, really like [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s setup here. It's really cool. I just wouldn't play it out in the same way. The important bit for me is the ghoul encounter, not how they get past the trap. The fact that the trap would be active and be part of the encounter is more important to me as well. Honestly, I'd more likely have the ghouls and the trap be encountered at the same time, rather than the way this is set up. Just a preference, mind you. I can certainly see how Iserith's scenario would be loads of fun as well.

 

[5ekyu]

I suppose one does have to wonder why the ghouls wouldn't have been destroyed by this trap long ago. It's not like ghouls just sit in one room and never move.

Now, I'm all for adding traps to encounters as part of the encounter. Pits, elevation, spider webs, that sort of thing, that's great. So, on one hand, I really, really like [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s setup here. It's really cool. I just wouldn't play it out in the same way. The important bit for me is the ghoul encounter, not how they get past the trap. The fact that the trap would be active and be part of the encounter is more important to me as well. Honestly, I'd more likely have the ghouls and the trap be encountered at the same time, rather than the way this is set up. Just a preference, mind you. I can certainly see how Iserith's scenario would be loads of fun as well.

Yeah, so many times traps seem to defy common sense. Contact poison in hallway doors? Does the owner do his own cleaning? Nobody ever come home drunk after party? Massive structures and mechanisms that can be beaten by low level magics or common gear? Sounds like screen doors on submarines to me.

But, each of us has our own tastes and thresholds for what we want our worlds to be like.

Give me a hallway with floor tiles that are dangerous if you get cockatrices released by guards at other side (extreme weight breaks thru dropping statue into moat below) or that after triggered by guard your getting feared and running (or just forced to retreat) proves to be a major problem.