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

[robus]

The way I interpret this, is that dragons have very accute senses, and are always on the look out for intruders. They don't need a reason to be trying to detect intruders, they are just always on guard. If the check succeeds, it knows there are intruders (if any), if it fails, then it remains oblivious.

If nothing else I, at least, learned something new in this thread. Detect had puzzled me too!

 

[5ekyu]

The problem I have with your scenario...and maybe I have the wrong picture in my head of what is happening...is that it feels like a skill check is forced on the player. Like, as soon as they decided to talk to the king, this check was inevitable.

The general pattern I ascribe to is:
GM narrates something, and either says or implies, “What do you do?”
Player describes a course of action (preferably using goal and approach)
If the course of action would require a skill check, the DM says, “that’s gonna take a [skill] check with a DC of X. If you fail the consequence is Y. Do you want to try?”

Does the scenario you describe fit this pattern?

My scenario fits the pattern I described.

The gm in the scene has the king ask the character a question. Contextually there is some significance to the question - not just about lunch or the weather tho all the significance may not be known to the character nor the connections that can come to it.

The player has a number of choices but he provides an answer, possibly with added narration to the gm if trying some extra bits that are not carried thru in the langusge.

Gm says make a Charisma check, likely calling for persuasion or deception to use as a measure for the uncertain elrments.

Then proceed.

The player thru his character brings his character's charisma into play when they get into a discussion, so nothing is forced on them. They could have decided to say nothing.

But, no, the player does not get told up front what happens on a failure. Most likely, the context gives them an idea but the specifics do not have to get spelled out in advance. Thats not info the character has.

They also dont get told the DC by default but they do have good general idea of how DCs are done in this campaign and may have better ideas than that.

So, nope, does not fit your latter parts at all.

 

[Guest 6801328]

My scenario fits the pattern I described.

The gm in the scene has the king ask the character a question. Contextually there is some significance to the question - not just about lunch or the weather tho all the significance may not be known to the character nor the connections that can come to it.

The player has a number of choices but he provides an answer, possibly with added narration to the gm if trying some extra bits that are not carried thru in the langusge.

Gm says make a Charisma check, likely calling for persuasion or deception to use as a measure for the uncertain elrments.

Then proceed.

The player thru his character brings his character's charisma into play when they get into a discussion, so nothing is forced on them. They could have decided to say nothing.

But, no, the player does not get told up front what happens on a failure. Most likely, the context gives them an idea but the specifics do not have to get spelled out in advance. Thats not info the character has.

They also dont get told the DC by default but they do have good general idea of how DCs are done in this campaign and may have better ideas than that.

So, nope, does not fit your latter parts at all.

I almost wrote that the DC and the consequence aren’t strictly necessary, although some sense of the difficulty and what could go wrong should be part of it, but went for conciseness instead. My bad, because those details were a distraction.

The essential part of my pattern is that a challenge is presented, the player decides what actions to attempt to overcome, and depending on the nature of those actions an ability check of some sort might be required.

It seems like in your scenario the player is intentionally being boxed in to where a specific ability check will be required, pretty much regardless of what he decides to do. (That is, short of doing something even less likely to succeed, like starting combat).

 

[Charlaquin]

But you have to have some way to reward/penalize for the player voluntarily prioritizing/dumping charisma of the character.

Do you, though? Like, I know that punishing dump stats is a time-honored tradition, but... Should it be?

Sorry if this is too nitpicky ... but isn't this the perfect opportunity for success = progress, failure = progress with setback?

I really like this way of doing things, but I've found that under goal-and-approach, it usually arises organically. For a simple example, look at the locked door with an ogre on the other side. The ogre is not aware of the party. The party barbarian decides to bash the door down with her axe. Chance of success? Check. Chance of failure? Check. Cost for the attempt or consequence for failure? You betcha.

DM: Ok, that's going to require a DC10 Strength check, and the noise is going to alert any nearby creatures to your presence.
BARBARIAN: Can I apply Athletics?
DM: Absolutely.
BARBARIAN: Damn, natural 1, so that's a total of 7.
DM: Your axe clangs against the door, but it doesn't give way.
BARBARIAN: Can I try again?

Now we've got a new action. Again, the barbarian wants to break the door down with her axe. Chance of success? Check. Chance of failure? Check. Cost for the attempt or consequence for failure? Not this time. The ogre on the other side has already heard the noise, it's already aware of the party's presence. Failing again won't meaningfully change the party's situation, so the action is successful.

DM: No need, now that any nearby monsters have heard you, there's no more danger in taking all the time you need to bust the door down.
BARBARIAN: Guys, we sure we don't want to look for another way?
ROGUE: No time, remember? That's why I didn't want to take the 10 minutes to pick the lock.
BARBARIAN: Alright, everyone get ready, in case there's an ambush waiting for us on the other side.
CLERIC: I'm gonna cast Bless on everyone real quick, just to be safe.
BARBARIAN: Good call, thanks. Alright, everyone ready? Three, two, one... I break the door down!

That example got away from me a little bit. My point is, the above is functionally similar to progress with a drawback - the door can be opened in a single roll either way, and either way the party is in a worse position if that initial roll fails. The difference is, the above example affords the party the opportunity to reassess their situation after failing the roll and seeing that they've incurred a drawback. They can break down the door without rolling again if they want to, but they can also decide that now that the drawback is in play, they don't want to open it any more, or they can make preparations before opening it, like the Cleric casting Bless in the above example.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Do you, though? Like, I know that punishing dump stats is a time-honored tradition, but... Should it be?


I really like this way of doing things, but I've found that under goal-and-approach, it usually arises organically. For a simple example, look at the locked door with an ogre on the other side. The ogre is not aware of the party. The party barbarian decides to bash the door down with her axe. Chance of success? Check. Chance of failure? Check. Cost for the attempt or consequence for failure? You betcha.

DM: Ok, that's going to require a DC10 Strength check, and the noise is going to alert any nearby creatures to your presence.
BARBARIAN: Can I apply Athletics?
DM: Absolutely.
BARBARIAN: Damn, natural 1, so that's a total of 7.
DM: Your axe clangs against the door, but it doesn't give way.
BARBARIAN: Can I try again?

Now we've got a new action. Again, the barbarian wants to break the door down with her axe. Chance of success? Check. Chance of failure? Check. Cost for the attempt or consequence for failure? Not this time. The ogre on the other side has already heard the noise, it's already aware of the party's presence. Failing again won't meaningfully change the party's situation, so the action is successful.

DM: No need, now that any nearby monsters have heard you, there's no more danger in taking all the time you need to bust the door down.
BARBARIAN: Guys, we sure we don't want to look for another way?
ROGUE: No time, remember? That's why I didn't want to take the 10 minutes to pick the lock.
BARBARIAN: Alright, everyone get ready, in case there's an ambush waiting for us on the other side.
CLERIC: I'm gonna cast Bless on everyone real quick, just to be safe.
BARBARIAN: Good call, thanks. Alright, everyone ready? Three, two, one... I break the door down!

That example got away from me a little bit. My point is, the above is functionally similar to progress with a drawback - the door can be opened in a single roll either way, and either way the party is in a worse position if that initial roll fails. The difference is, the above example affords the party the opportunity to reassess their situation after failing the roll and seeing that they've incurred a drawback. They can break down the door without rolling again if they want to, but they can also decide that now that the drawback is in play, they don't want to open it any more, or they can make preparations before opening it, like the Cleric casting Bless in the above example.

This is already a great example, but the detail I love is the bit that the rogue says. In well-designed games almost everything you do is a decision, and every decision is a trade-off. This party has to choose between opening the door quickly and possibly alerting something behind it, or doing it slowly and...dealing with whatever unspecified consequence the rogue was referring to.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is already a great example, but the detail I love is the bit that the rogue says. In well-designed games almost everything you do is a decision, and every decision is a trade-off. This party has to choose between opening the door quickly and possibly alerting something behind it, or doing it slowly and...dealing with whatever unspecified consequence the rogue was referring to.

Rolls for random encounters. 10 minutes is my go-to duration for actions where the time it takes is a meaningful cost. Primarily because that’s the amount of time it takes to cast a spell as a ritual, so it’s a convenient standard interval between a turn and an hour. That way when the rogue wants to pick a lock or the wizard wants to cast detect magic or whatever, I can go around the table and see if anyone else has anything they want to do during those 10 minutes. Then I drop a d6* in a cup. When there are 6d6 in the cup, an hour has passed. Whenever someone makes a lot of noise or otherwise does something that might attract the attention of wandering monsters, or when I would add a 7th die to the cup, I roll all the dice currently in the cup. If any come up a 1, there’s a random encounter. If there were fewer than 6 dice in the cup when I rolled them, I put them all back in.

Credit where it’s due, I got this mechanic from the Angry GM, and run it pretty much exactly as written in the article. But yeah, in my games, breaking down a door vs. picking the lock is a trade off between a roll for random encounters right now with a smaller chance of one happening, or brining the party 1/6 of the way closer to a roll for random encounters that will have a larger chance of one happening. And, of course, trying to pick the lock and failing multiple times in a row can add up a lot of time, whereas after failing to break down the door once, you’re not going to make your presence any more known than you already did.

I mean, I guess in the example I kind of implied the party was under some kind of actual time limit, not just worried about random encounters, but... I didn’t have anything specific in mind for the example. Maybe the dungeon is filling with poisoned gas or something. That was a pretty cool mechanic in Hidden Shine of Tamoachan, so we’ll go with that.

*usually. In a less dangerous but still not completely safe environment I’ll use a d8, in a highly dangerous environment I’ll use a d4.

 

[pemerton]

King asks fighter a question.
Players says their character answers the question.
Gm calls for Cha check.

Check is bad.
GM: Your character answered but the king gets up, looks angrier, more suspicious, you are not sure why, but its obvious that somehow what you said has made the king more upset than he was before. He glares at you, obviously fuming. What do you do?

Check is good
GM: you character answered and the king gets upset. He stands up, paces and stomps for a bit. Turns his gaze back to you then... stops... thinks... and then his face hardens as he turns to stare at his chief of arcanery - Iago - with a stare that seems down right unpleasent.

In both cases, the same info was presented but the convincing vs unconvincing or other sort of "nature" of what was presented changes the end result.

One case the flawed effort drew suspicion or other ill will to the PC. Other case, it moved it away from the PC.

Much like how a sword swing could fell an opponent on a hit or draw it to attack you if that fails.

Of course, all is dependent on the nature of the scene in question. There are a gazillion options. Many ways to have the results of that skill check bring that fighters player choices on "am I good at this or not" come into play.

Assuming of course, it's not just handled st the player GM levrl without reference to those.

The problem I have with your scenario...and maybe I have the wrong picture in my head of what is happening...is that it feels like a skill check is forced on the player. Like, as soon as they decided to talk to the king, this check was inevitable.

The general pattern I ascribe to is:
GM narrates something, and either says or implies, “What do you do?”
Player describes a course of action (preferably using goal and approach)
If the course of action would require a skill check, the DM says, “that’s gonna take a [skill] check with a DC of X. If you fail the consequence is Y. Do you want to try?”

Does the scenario you describe fit this pattern?

My scenario fits the pattern I described.

The gm in the scene has the king ask the character a question. Contextually there is some significance to the question - not just about lunch or the weather tho all the significance may not be known to the character nor the connections that can come to it.

The player has a number of choices but he provides an answer, possibly with added narration to the gm if trying some extra bits that are not carried thru in the language.

Gm says make a Charisma check, likely calling for persuasion or deception to use as a measure for the uncertain elrments.

Then proceed.

The player thru his character brings his character's charisma into play when they get into a discussion, so nothing is forced on them. They could have decided to say nothing.

But, no, the player does not get told up front what happens on a failure. Most likely, the context gives them an idea but the specifics do not have to get spelled out in advance. Thats not info the character has.

They also dont get told the DC by default but they do have good general idea of how DCs are done in this campaign and may have better ideas than that.

So, nope, does not fit your latter parts at all.

I wanted to give my take on this example.

So most of the time talking to the Troll King looks like something is going to be at stake: if that's not the case then we (that is, GM and players) can free-narration through it until we get to something that does involve stakes.

Assuming, then, that there is something at stake in the conversation with the Troll King, like 5ekyu I call for a check. In my case this is not so much connected to "player vs character", but to the principle of "say 'yes' or roll the dice", which Luke Crane (BW Gold, p 72) glosses this way:

Unless there is something at stake in the story you have created, don't bother with the dice. Keep moving, keep describing, keep roleplaying. But as soon as a character wants something that he doesn't have, needs to know something he doesn't know, covets something that someone else has, roll the dice. . . . When there is conflict, roll the dice. There is no social agreement for the resolution of conflict in this game. Roll the dice and let the obstacle system guide the outcome. Success or failure doesn’t really matter. So long as the intent of the task is clearly stated, the story is going somewhere.​

So the check is "forced onto the player" in virtue of him/her having pushed play to the point of conflict. (Which of course is what the GM is trying to achieve!, by applying pressure on the players via their PCs.)

I don't generally allow the player to back out: the player should already have a sense of difficulty when getting into the situation and declaring the action, either in virtue of familiarity with the system (this is how 4e andMHRP/Cortex+ Heroic work) or in virtue of a good sense of the state of the fiction (this is how BW and Prince Valiant work, and is also my sense of how most people run 5e).

I think it's important for consequences to be clear - and I don't think of this through the lens of character knowledge but player knowledge - because the player needs to have a sense of what sort of resources to throw at the check (which depending on system and circumstances could be anything from fate/inspiration points, to equipment, to spells and potions, to . . .). Luke Crane says the following about making consequences clear (BW Gold, p 32):

When a player sets out a task for his character and states his intent, it is the GM’s job to inform him of the consequences of failure before the dice are rolled.

"If you fail this…" should often be heard at the table. Let the players know the consequences of their actions. Failure is not the end of the line,
but it is complication that pushes the story in another direction.

Once that is said, everyone knows what's at stake and play can continue smoothly no matter what the result of the roll is.​

However, in his subsequently-published book of GMing advice (The Adventure Burner) Crane says that, in his own game, rather than stating the consequences expressly he often relies on context - of the fiction, of the mood at the table, etc - to make them implicit. When I'm GMing, I alternate between express and implicit consequences depending on inclination and whim. But again, for me this has a different motivation from that which 5ekyu states. I'm not worries about player vs character knowledge, and so even if consequence is implicit it will be implicit to the player as well as the GM - there won't be "hidden" bits of the fiction that suddenly emerge into the action on the basis of a failure. It's about pacing and narrative continuity and not weakening emotional intensity with needless explanation.

In a style in which players are "forced" to make checks, and so failure is going to happen from time-to-time (in a system with mechanics that are generous to players) or quite often (in a system like Burning Wheel that is fairly brutal on the players), I regard establishing failures which (i) honour what was at stake, and (ii) follow impeccably from the fiction, and (iii) that are fair to the player and not an excessive hosing, as probably one of the most important demands on the GM. It's very different from a "skilled play" paradigm where it's quite fair that failure at least sometimes be hosing, because skilled players will avoid failure by avoiding checks.

It seems like in your scenario the player is intentionally being boxed in to where a specific ability check will be required, pretty much regardless of what he decides to do. (That is, short of doing something even less likely to succeed, like starting combat).

This doesn't seem right. Maybe I've misunderstood 5ekyu's example, but as at least as I'm imagining it either (i) the player has chosen to have his/her PC seek an audience with the Troll King; or (ii) some prior failure has meant that the player's desire that his/her PC avoid such an audience has not been realised.

if it's (i), well what did the player expect? If you're going to have an audience with a king, it seems likely your interpersonal ability will be tested. If it's (ii), well the player has the full sweep of his/her ingenuity to draw on - anything from blowing up the Troll King, to talking to him, to conjuring an illusion to escape behind, to abasing him-/herself before the Troll King and promising fealty!

Neither pathway to the situation involves the player being boxed in.

 

[5ekyu]

I almost wrote that the DC and the consequence aren’t strictly necessary, although some sense of the difficulty and what could go wrong should be part of it, but went for conciseness instead. My bad, because those details were a distraction.

The essential part of my pattern is that a challenge is presented, the player decides what actions to attempt to overcome, and depending on the nature of those actions an ability check of some sort might be required.

It seems like in your scenario the player is intentionally being boxed in to where a specific ability check will be required, pretty much regardless of what he decides to do. (That is, short of doing something even less likely to succeed, like starting combat).

Boxed in?

Here was the exsmple...

"Furthermore, if the King asks the Fighter a question, and the player's response is to just answer the question,"

The example originally presented was framed as (before I responded) the character answers the question, though it may have been phrased as the player answers the question.

So, the question of what the character does, or did, was already defined before I got involved. So, "regardless of what he decides to do" was already past - the player decided.

I acknowledged it could be a variety of proficiencies depending on what was said, and that they could have said nothing.

So, hey, yeah, if that's boxed in... to you... then hey i guess it was me who boxed them in by picking up the example as given.

Whatever.

Maybe it would not have been boxed in if we started back before the stepping in front of king or whstever.

Huh?

And of course I did say this...

"The player has a number of choices but he provides an answer, possibly with added narration to the gm if trying some extra bits that are not carried thru in the langusge."

Boxed in tight I guess.

 

[5ekyu]

I wanted to give my take on this example.

So most of the time talking to the Troll King looks like something is going to be at stake: if that's not the case then we (that is, GM and players) can free-narration through it until we get to something that does involve stakes.

Assuming, then, that there is something at stake in the conversation with the Troll King, like 5ekyu I call for a check. In my case this is not so much connected to "player vs character", but to the principle of "say 'yes' or roll the dice", which Luke Crane (BW Gold, p 72) glosses this way:

Unless there is something at stake in the story you have created, don't bother with the dice. Keep moving, keep describing, keep roleplaying. But as soon as a character wants something that he doesn't have, needs to know something he doesn't know, covets something that someone else has, roll the dice. . . . When there is conflict, roll the dice. There is no social agreement for the resolution of conflict in this game. Roll the dice and let the obstacle system guide the outcome. Success or failure doesn’t really matter. So long as the intent of the task is clearly stated, the story is going somewhere.​

So the check is "forced onto the player" in virtue of him/her having pushed play to the point of conflict. (Which of course is what the GM is trying to achieve!, by applying pressure on the players via their PCs.)

I don't generally allow the player to back out: the player should already have a sense of difficulty when getting into the situation and declaring the action, either in virtue of familiarity with the system (this is how 4e andMHRP/Cortex+ Heroic work) or in virtue of a good sense of the state of the fiction (this is how BW and Prince Valiant work, and is also my sense of how most people run 5e).

I think it's important for consequences to be clear - and I don't think of this through the lens of character knowledge but player knowledge - because the player needs to have a sense of what sort of resources to throw at the check (which depending on system and circumstances could be anything from fate/inspiration points, to equipment, to spells and potions, to . . .). Luke Crane says the following about making consequences clear (BW Gold, p 32):

When a player sets out a task for his character and states his intent, it is the GM’s job to inform him of the consequences of failure before the dice are rolled.

"If you fail this…" should often be heard at the table. Let the players know the consequences of their actions. Failure is not the end of the line,
but it is complication that pushes the story in another direction.

Once that is said, everyone knows what's at stake and play can continue smoothly no matter what the result of the roll is.​

However, in his subsequently-published book of GMing advice (The Adventure Burner) Crane says that, in his own game, rather than stating the consequences expressly he often relies on context - of the fiction, of the mood at the table, etc - to make them implicit. When I'm GMing, I alternate between express and implicit consequences depending on inclination and whim. But again, for me this has a different motivation from that which 5ekyu states. I'm not worries about player vs character knowledge, and so even if consequence is implicit it will be implicit to the player as well as the GM - there won't be "hidden" bits of the fiction that suddenly emerge into the action on the basis of a failure. It's about pacing and narrative continuity and not weakening emotional intensity with needless explanation.

In a style in which players are "forced" to make checks, and so failure is going to happen from time-to-time (in a system with mechanics that are generous to players) or quite often (in a system like Burning Wheel that is fairly brutal on the players), I regard establishing failures which (i) honour what was at stake, and (ii) follow impeccably from the fiction, and (iii) that are fair to the player and not an excessive hosing, as probably one of the most important demands on the GM. It's very different from a "skilled play" paradigm where it's quite fair that failure at least sometimes be hosing, because skilled players will avoid failure by avoiding checks.

This doesn't seem right. Maybe I've misunderstood 5ekyu's example, but as at least as I'm imagining it either (i) the player has chosen to have his/her PC seek an audience with the Troll King; or (ii) some prior failure has meant that the player's desire that his/her PC avoid such an audience has not been realised.

if it's (i), well what did the player expect? If you're going to have an audience with a king, it seems likely your interpersonal ability will be tested. If it's (ii), well the player has the full sweep of his/her ingenuity to draw on - anything from blowing up the Troll King, to talking to him, to conjuring an illusion to escape behind, to abasing him-/herself before the Troll King and promising fealty!

Neither pathway to the situation involves the player being boxed in.

"However, in his subsequently-published book of GMing advice (The Adventure Burner) Crane says that, in his own game, rather than stating the consequences expressly he often relies on context - of the fiction, of the mood at the table, etc - to make them implicit."

Yup. That's what I was referring to in my references to the nature of the scene, contextually, etc etc. Neither the player nor the character may know they are holding a loaded gun (all the potential in each of their options) but they do know there is something serious going on here.

NOTE - there might well be cases where they dont. They may have a bit of info that they are relating to someone that has much more relevance than the character knows. They may not know that the two folks they describe seeing at the seedy motel at 3am were the guy they are reporting to wife and rival. But, usually a meeting with the troll king where you are being questioned is not that kind of case. However even in the motel case, then the skill check might switch to insight to spot the growing intensity of the other guy... tone of his conversation, with results determining if and more when the PC catches on that he has walked into a minefield.

Moving on...

Yes, as I have said before, I like having checks create fiction and also love failure as some success with setback.

So depending on the check, the nature of presentation to the troll king might create unexpected favorables just as it might create unexpected unfavorables. Maybe something in the combo of voice, tone, look, quick and clear eye to eye unflinching (high check, skilled speaker) triggers a very fond recollection in the troll king. Or maybe it wasnt as skilled but struck them funny. Or maybe the specific info and situation and check resulted in suspicion and distrust.

Lots potentially coming out of that check. Lots potentially coming out of a conversation with troll king. Seems to go hand in hand, not from a box.

 

[WaterRabbit]

The problem I have with your scenario...and maybe I have the wrong picture in my head of what is happening...is that it feels like a skill check is forced on the player. Like, as soon as they decided to talk to the king, this check was inevitable.

The general pattern I ascribe to is:
GM narrates something, and either says or implies, “What do you do?”
Player describes a course of action (preferably using goal and approach)
If the course of action would require a skill check, the DM says, “that’s gonna take a [skill] check with a DC of X. If you fail the consequence is Y. Do you want to try?”

Does the scenario you describe fit this pattern?

I think, especially in the like of the current troll king scenario being discussed, that explicitly telling the player the DC and the consequence is poor form. At the very least, explaining the consequences would fall actually be the proper use of Insight. A character with low Insight would not be able to predict the troll king's response to his attempt whereas a character with a high Insight would.

Also stating the exact DC also seems off. A general sense if the difficulty maybe, but the exact DC?