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

[Oofta]

Gahhhh!!!!

No, it’s not “bypassing a skill check”. That suggests that the skill check is “there” waiting for the character to encounter it. Like a speed bump on the only road for mikes around. As if the players are SUPPOSED to roll dice here.

There’s a locked door in the way, not a skill check. It may be that the method proposed by the players results in a dice roll, but if they charge the door with an elephant they didn’t “bypass the skill check”.

Now, if you take an adventure written with a 3e/4e mindset, that does put skill check speed bumps along the way, it may feel like players are bypassing them, but part of what we have been trying to describe is an approach to writing adventures that does not just sprinkle random skill checks about like pixie dust

You can always attempt to break down a door if you don't mind the noise or have a pet elephant handy.

But let's say I have a trapped chest. There's no way of opening it that it won't blow up first without disarming the trap which requires entering a combination the PCs don't have. I don't care how the player describes what they do, they're still going to either have to have the combination or disable the trap.

In another case, a bridge across a chasm is trapped and they need to get across to the other side. They can

• Disable the trap using a skill check
• Use a grappling hook to bypass the bridge altogether
• Have a spell that gets everyone across safely
• Find another route

In the former case the only way to bypass the trap is to find the combination, in the latter there are several ways around. But they are getting around the trap by doing something other than trying to disable the trap.

Now maybe that was the intent of the post I quoted but to me it doesn't read like that. In addition, if that's the way you run your game that's okay as well (particularly if you have a lot of house rules around skills) it's just not my preference.

 

[iserith]

This I think is the better way to do a more descriptive combat. Attack rolls are made and the player then describes the attack. That is if you like a more verbose combat.

I prefer the player to describe the attempt, then we go to the roll. Once that's resolved, I narrate the impact of the attack on the enemy (but not anything about what the character does unless referencing what the player already stated).

I used to ask players to jump in and narrate the result of the adventurers' action after a critical hit or sometimes a death blow, but that actually created a weird speed bump in the conversation flow that before that point was all going according to the play loop. So I stopped doing it.

The main thing I see DMs fall down on the job with in combat is not starting the play loop again with a description of the environment on the next turn. After the player's turn is done, it's time to recap anything important or that has changed during that turn to set up the next player to describe what they want to do. Otherwise it just becomes something like, "Okay, John, you're up..." as if you're standing in line at the deli. A pithy sentence to describe the environment at the start of the turn makes a huge difference in the play experience in my view.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You can always attempt to break down a door if you don't mind the noise or have a pet elephant handy.

But let's say I have a trapped chest. There's no way of opening it that it won't blow up first without disarming the trap which requires entering a combination the PCs don't have. I don't care how the player describes what they do, they're still going to either have to have the combination or disable the trap.

In another case, a bridge across a chasm is trapped and they need to get across to the other side. They can

• Disable the trap using a skill check
• Use a grappling hook to bypass the bridge altogether
• Have a spell that gets everyone across safely
• Find another route

In the former case the only way to bypass the trap is to find the combination, in the latter there are several ways around. But they are getting around the trap by doing something other than trying to disable the trap.

Now maybe that was the intent of the post I quoted but to me it doesn't read like that. In addition, if that's the way you run your game that's okay as well (particularly if you have a lot of house rules around skills) it's just not my preference.

Yes, exactly.

You are describing 3e/4e "traps", and that's why you're stuck with this "players must use a skill and roll a certain DC to get past my speed bump".

We probably bear some of the responsibility by trying to respond to your descriptions of old-school traps with "goal and method" solutions. Perhaps instead we should have emphasized that we try to avoid sprinkling random, un-signaled traps around.

But instead I'm going to jump right back into the pit...

In the case of your combination lock: you are describing a kind of "gotcha". Without describing how the combination disarms the trap, and saying they must enter the combination, you are precluding any other solution.

But let's say we've got some more specificity to this trap. For example, let's say the combination is to a lock, and if the lock comes off the two glass vials (that when crushed and mixed produce a cloud of poison gas) can be safely removed, then a number of other solutions are possible:
- They could pour acid on the lock (maybe they recently killed an acidic monster)
- They could use magic to transmute the glass vials into steel
- The could use other magic to freeze the components of the vials

Maybe you'd require a skill check on some of those solutions (handling monster acid safely?) maybe not. But the point is that when they propose a method, you can either say, "Awesome. That works." or, if you think the outcome is uncertain, ask for an ability roll with a possible skill proficiency modifier.

And maybe they don't propose any of those ideas, and decide to try to crack the combination. Then, sure, I might call for some kind of check. Maybe straight Intelligence if the Wizard says he is going to use math, or a sleight-of-hand check if the rogue says he is going to see if he can feel the tumblers clicking.

But if you just describe it as "A trap that has a combination that must be entered correctly by rolling 18 or higher on a (something) check to disarm the trap" then, yeah, you aren't really leaving your players any other options. You are describing an unavoidable obstacle/speed bump, and I can see why it feels like "bypassing" it if the players won't play the way you want them to.

 

[Charlaquin]

Accidental double-post, nothing to see here.

 

[Charlaquin]

For all the back and forth on this topic that we seem to have every time it comes up, I think the majority of game play would actually be quite similar for most of us.

I think you’re probably right. The key difference is that in one style the player says what skill they want to use and the DM describes what the character does based on the skill employed and the result of the roll. In the other, the player describes what the character does and the DM says what skill to use (if any) based on the description. I also think the dice get rolled less frequently in the latter case.

However there are still things I don't think I will ever understand:

• Why is "I use [INSERT SKILL]" forbidden if the intent and action is clear? Because 80% of the time when people say it in my it is. That other 20%? I ask for clarification. I encourage more descriptive play, but that may be as simple as "I use [INSERT SKILL] by doing [INSERT DETAIL]".

It’s not forbidden at my table. It’s just that, for me, saying “I use [INSERT SKILL] is not enough information to determine the player’s intent and the character’s approach, without making a lot of assumptions. Usually their goal is clear from context. When there’s a chest and the player says “I make a Perception check,” it’s pretty obvious that they want to find out if it’s trapped, or a mimic or something. But just knowing what the player wants to accomplish is not enough for me to adjudicate the action, without knowing what the character is doing to try to figure it out. I could make an assumption that they are giving it a thorough visual examination, but that is not my role as the DM. I’m not here to tell you what your character is doing, that’s up to you. I’m here to tell you what happens as a result of what you tell me your character is doing, and if I can’t figure that out easily. i’ll ask you to roll a die to help me decide what happens. That’s why my go-to response for actions posed this way is, “I’m hearing that you want to [ASSUMED GOAL], but what does your character do to try to accomplish that?”

• How are you not diminishing the values of investment in skills if a person can just describe what they're doing to get an automatic success*?

*I don't know how many people do this, but at least some do or they have not made it clear if they ever call for a roll. [EDIT: there are times I don't bother with a roll because someone's skill is high enough they're not going to meaningfully fail]

Because skills still help tip the odds in your favor when the outcome of an action is uncertain and there is a risk associated with failure. It’s just that, instead of skill investment being the primary way you insure the best chance of success, they become your backup for when success is not already assured. You don’t invest in Charisma (Intimidation) because you need it to be able to be intimidating. You invest in it because you plan to play a character who frequently intimidated people, and you want to make sure that, when your attempt at being intimidating has a chance of causing you a setback if it fails, you have the best chance of success you can.

Now, you could argue that this does diminish the value of skill investment. Because a character who did not invest in Charisma (Intimidation) can still be intimidating. In my opinion, this is a feature not a bug. I don’t want skill investment to be a barrier for entry to certain tasks, I want them to be a bonus, something that you invest in because you want to be the guy the party calls on to do the thing when the stakes are high and you can’t afford to fail. Think of it like how 5e moved away from making bonuses from magic items an expected part of progression, to make them feel more meaningful. Instead of needing a +X magic weapon by level Y to have a chance of hitting CR Y monsters, that +X is always above and beyond what you need. This approach does the same for skills.

• Why is finding/disabling the once in a blue moon trap/secret door with a couple of dice rolls a deal breaker for you if you aren't the person doing it and it takes a minute or so to resolve? It's a minor speed bump I put in for flavor, not the focus of the game for me.

I’m not sure I understand this one.

• Why is it a big deal if the DM wants to keep the players guessing about whether or not the PC is using deception by having people roll an insight check?

It’s not a big deal necessarily. If that’s how you prefer to run the game, I have no interest in trying to stop you from doing so. I personally don’t like to do it that way, and if you are curious about my reasons why I feel that way, I would be happy to discuss them with you. But I do think it’s important to gram that discussion in the terms “This is why I prefer to run the game the way I do,” not “this is why I have a problem with you running the game the way you do.”

 

[Satyrn]

But let's say I have a trapped chest. There's no way of opening it that it won't blow up first without disarming the trap which requires entering a combination the PCs don't have. I don't care how the player describes what they do, they're still going to either have to have the combination or disable the trap.

What if I guess at the combination, and I'm lucky enough to match the combination in your notes?

like, I specifically say "I enter 11, 22, 63 as the combination and open the chest" when your notes say the combination is 11/22/63?


(I'm a Stephen King fan is why I chose those numbers "randomly")

 

[Guest 6801328]

Now, you could argue that this does diminish the value of skill investment. Because a character who did not invest in Charisma (Intimidation) can still be intimidating.

I'll also point out (again) that it's not like you could have spent those skill points improving your attack bonus or expanding your spell list. All you can do with those points is invest in skills. So as long as the DM treats all skills the same (something he/she asks for to resolve uncertainty, not something the player invokes at will) then you can't really make a bad investment.

 

[iserith]

What if I guess at the combination, and I'm lucky enough to match the combination in your notes?

like, I specifically say "I enter 11, 22, 63 as the combination and open the chest" when your notes say the combination is 11/22/63?


(I'm a Stephen King fan is why I chose those numbers "randomly")

The combination is 1-2-3-4-5, same as my luggage.

 

[Satyrn]

The combination is 1-2-3-4-5, same as my luggage.

I pity the poor customs agent who has to inspect your exploding luggage.

 

[Oofta]

What if I guess at the combination, and I'm lucky enough to match the combination in your notes?

like, I specifically say "I enter 11, 22, 63 as the combination and open the chest" when your notes say the combination is 11/22/63?


(I'm a Stephen King fan is why I chose those numbers "randomly")

Sorry, the combination was 11/22/WAIT A MINUTE ARE YOU LOOKING AT MY NOTES????