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

[robus]

Frankly, all you've done is confused the crap out of me. After all these pages, I haven't the first clue how I would go about playing in your play style. It's the quantum play style, all things to all gamers at all times. :/

I think you have a preconceived notion of how you think we play: pixel bitching, magic words, and when we say, no that's not how we play, it confuses you because you think you know how we play (and it's a form of play you think you've experienced and had a miserable time).

We're simply saying that we encourage creative and imaginative play at the table. Players are simply asked to immerse themselves in this imaginary world and by interacting with it come up with actions that have goals and approaches to the challenge at hand. That's it. The DM takes that declared action and adjudicates it and describes the result. Sometimes asking for dice when the outcome is uncertain and has consequences.

You may not like it, and think that it's a boring way to play , but it's really not hard to comprehend!

 

[Bawylie]

Wow. I tried to write satire, but I got it right? That's scary.

(Kind of like the writers at The Onion trying to write political satire lately.)

But, more seriously, you keep mis-characterizing the approach, but I can't tell if it's because of true misunderstanding or intentional denigration.

Sure, the rogue might have just said, "I inspect the door for traps" without specifying how. So the DM might rule that since no method/approach was specified, the outcome is uncertain, and thus an Investigation roll is needed. Which might be failed. So the outcome is exactly the way you prefer (including that you may then have a cascade of other people rolling if the rogue rolls poorly.)

All we (or at least I) am saying is that if the rogue uses clues/signaling to be more specific, then no roll is needed because success is automatic.

And...just to cut you off before you throw out one of your standard red herrings...NO the rogue does not have to also search the door in 17 other ways, because there has been no signaling or hints that the door might be trapped in other ways.

So it's pretty simple: if the player makes the connection or solves the clue, he/she can avoid a roll. If he just wants to be vague, that makes the outcome uncertain, and the DM may choose to have a roll. (Or reveal the trap anyway, if the rogue is really good at it, and the trap was crudely constructed.) The DM might even rule that a general search is simply not going to find the trap, and no roll is needed because it's an autofailure. (In your parlance, the DM sets the DC at 30.)

But, yeah, anyway, I doubt this is going to have any effect. You pretty clearly have decided this is "pixel-bitching". Ironic, really.

I choose to take it as a true misunderstanding. It’s a healthier conversation to take each poster’s point in its best possible light, even when/if they haven’t put it the best way.

I mean, it’s not debate team up in here. It’s a buncha nerds talking fine points of a nerdy shared hobby. Liberal helping of benefit of the doubt applies.

IMO anyway.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ok, fair enough, I did posrep everyone who corrected me on that. Dunno what I was thinking to be honest. I knew that and had a total brain fade about the bakers dozen.

But, the pixel bitching? Nope, that's precisely what you've described. When the player says the magic words, he gets to make that check, not before. When he really nails the magic words, he doesn't even need to make that check, he just automatically succeeds.

So, yup, that's textbook pixel bitching.

Pixel bitching is a reference to old-school point and click adventure games where you sometimes had to click exactly the right pixel to progress, with little to no indication of where the right pixel is. Calling the goal and approach method “pixel bitching” suggests there is only one “correct” phrase that can be uttered to be successful, that anything but the exact right words will be stonewalled, and that the DM does not give sufficient information for the players to determine what the ”correct” words are. None of these things are true of the goal and approach method. For that method to work, the DM must give players sufficient telegraphs to have some idea where to start, and the DM should not have a predetermined set of acceptable approaches they are listening for. Each action should be assessed logically when the player describes it. The DM is not waiting for a code word, they are using their brain to decide if, given the circumstances, the player’s approach has a chance of succeeding at achieving the player’s goal, a chance of failing to achieve it, and a consequence for failing to achieve it. That’s what sets DMs apart from computers, they don’t have to follow a preprogrammed script, they can make reasoned judgment calls on the fly.

You might not want to call it that, but, that's exactly what you are doing. It's all about testing the player and not the character. The character might as well not even be there, since, so long as the player can guess the right approach based on the hints that you give him, he never actually has to make a skill check. I mean, that's his goal right? To never have to make a check?

In theory, the character is informing the player’s decision making. The player’s goal may be to succeed without needing a check, but since that is not always possible, a player with high Dexterity and low Strength can set themselves up to be more likely to succeed when success is uncertain by employing methods that rely more on precision and finesse than direct application of force.

Give me a better term then for what you're advocating? Guided role play? Chasing the right word? Boggle? What?

I just call it “the goal and approach method.”

Look, if you think I'm mischaracterizing what you're saying, it's because, in all these pages, YOU'VE NEVER ACTUALLY DEFINED WHAT YOU DO in any concrete terms. I ask, do you do this? Nope, that? nope, the other thing? nope. I honestly have no freaking idea what you are actually doing at the table, other than, apparently, perfectly playing the game how it's meant to be played. You aren't requiring the players to describe how they are doing things while at the same time they have to describe what they are doing but, that description doesn't matter because it's not pixel bitching, but it does matter because they cannot actually move forward without describing, in detail, what they are doing... on and on and on , round and round.

I think Iserith has been quite clear on what they do. Where you seem to be struggling to understand it is in the assumption that declaring an action in terms of a goal and an approach must necessarily be a detailed description, and that Iserith and others who use this method must have a predetermined set of descriptions we will accept.

 

[Charlaquin]

Question: this draft that was noticed, did you use a passive perception to be noticed?

In the example given? Yes, I said it took a passiv Wisdom (Perception) of 12 to notice that the air was different and 15 to notice that the draft was coming from the north.

 

[Yardiff]

Wow. I tried to write satire, but I got it right? That's scary.

(Kind of like the writers at The Onion trying to write political satire lately.)

But, more seriously, you keep mis-characterizing the approach, but I can't tell if it's because of true misunderstanding or intentional denigration.

Sure, the rogue might have just said, "I inspect the door for traps" without specifying how. So the DM might rule that since no method/approach was specified, the outcome is uncertain, and thus an Investigation roll is needed. Which might be failed. So the outcome is exactly the way you prefer (including that you may then have a cascade of other people rolling if the rogue rolls poorly.)

All we (or at least I) am saying is that if the rogue uses clues/signaling to be more specific, then no roll is needed because success is automatic.

And...just to cut you off before you throw out one of your standard red herrings...NO the rogue does not have to also search the door in 17 other ways, because there has been no signaling or hints that the door might be trapped in other ways.

So it's pretty simple: if the player makes the connection or solves the clue, he/she can avoid a roll. If he just wants to be vague, that makes the outcome uncertain, and the DM may choose to have a roll. (Or reveal the trap anyway, if the rogue is really good at it, and the trap was crudely constructed.) The DM might even rule that a general search is simply not going to find the trap, and no roll is needed because it's an autofailure. (In your parlance, the DM sets the DC at 30.)

But, yeah, anyway, I doubt this is going to have any effect. You pretty clearly have decided this is "pixel-bitching". Ironic, really.

Are you doing an "intentional denigration" in the bold parts? Because I'm sure this doesn't happen that Hussar's or Oofta or any table I've played at. Usually its something like "can I assist on that check". But maybe that happens are tables you've played at.


Edit: Sorry forgot to add that I don't expect to see that kind of "everyone calling out to make a check" at a table of experienced players. You could definitely see this at a table of mostly new players.

 

[Oofta]

Bold emphasis mine - I too am not a fan of this black/white use of Insight.

I usually provide the following straight off the bat, particularly if someone is proficient in Insight (no roll required): change of tone in voice, shifting uncomfortably, side-way looks, eyes darting, nervous twitch, signs of perspiration, repetitiveness, ...etc.
I'm not saying this is the correct way to do it, it is just something I do. If I remember I will provide all this information immediately, in the framing of the scene and not need any prodding by a player's action declarations or even mentioning their Insight skill.

I prefer the Insight roll to provide clues, of an empathetic nature (undertones/shades of emotion) or things that might seem obvious to the DM but has escaped the players (relationship links, hidden benefits, deceptive manipulation...etc). I do not always get this right though.

Well let's talk about three possibilities with my jewel heist scenario.
1) The shopkeeper is really telling the truth and is not particularly nervous or agitated.
2) The shopkeeper is the thief but is not any good at deception.
3) The shopkeeper is the jewel thief but he's really good at deception. Good enough that a passive insight isn't going to catch the deception (which I would handle as an automatic success and let the player know).

For #1 there is no deception, but an insight check doesn't hurt in most cases. It could even be a setback if low enough because the PC believes they see something that's not there.

For #2 I want the encounter to be one where the PCs will know the shopkeeper is lying (possibly blackmail, etc). I'll act nervous or give obvious clues. If people really want to make an insight check they can I suppose but I've never had players not pick up on this.

For #3 There's nothing obvious, but everyone has a "tell". Think poker players. A good poker player is not going to say "Woo-hoo! What an amazing hand!" I'm not going to broadcast anything because success isn't automatic even for someone with proficiency in insight.

In my games the players not be able to distinguish between scenarios 1 and 3 without using a skill. Neither shopkeeper is obviously lying. The PCs? Well the PCs might be really good at noticing the "tell". I want to reward the players for the decisions they've made about their PCs.

To me, insight is what let's the PC notice the NPC's tell. How I describe that "tell" is going to vary. If their passive insight is good enough, I'll just tell the player about it.

 

[iserith]

Ok, fair enough, I did posrep everyone who corrected me on that. Dunno what I was thinking to be honest. I knew that and had a total brain fade about the bakers dozen.

But, the pixel bitching? Nope, that's precisely what you've described. When the player says the magic words, he gets to make that check, not before. When he really nails the magic words, he doesn't even need to make that check, he just automatically succeeds.

So, yup, that's textbook pixel bitching.

Only if your textbook is completely wrong about what pixel-bitching is.

You might not want to call it that, but, that's exactly what you are doing. It's all about testing the player and not the character. The character might as well not even be there, since, so long as the player can guess the right approach based on the hints that you give him, he never actually has to make a skill check. I mean, that's his goal right? To never have to make a check?

Give me a better term then for what you're advocating? Guided role play? Chasing the right word? Boggle? What?

The "middle path."

Yeah, this is just going nowhere. At the very least others are willing to discuss pros and cons.

Look, if you think I'm mischaracterizing what you're saying, it's because, in all these pages, YOU'VE NEVER ACTUALLY DEFINED WHAT YOU DO in any concrete terms. I ask, do you do this? Nope, that? nope, the other thing? nope. I honestly have no freaking idea what you are actually doing at the table, other than, apparently, perfectly playing the game how it's meant to be played. You aren't requiring the players to describe how they are doing things while at the same time they have to describe what they are doing but, that description doesn't matter because it's not pixel bitching, but it does matter because they cannot actually move forward without describing, in detail, what they are doing... on and on and on , round and round.

Frankly, all you've done is confused the crap out of me. After all these pages, I haven't the first clue how I would go about playing in your play style. It's the quantum play style, all things to all gamers at all times. :/

Not only is my approach written right into the rules of the game which you are free to read at your leisure, I've explained it many times in this thread and others. If you don't understand it, then you must not want to because I certainly don't think you're stupid.

I'm done. That's more than enough from me.

You'll be back.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Are you doing an "intentional denigration" in the bold parts? Because I'm sure this doesn't happen that Hussar's or Oofta or any table I've played at. Usually its something like "can I assist on that check". But maybe that happens are tables you've played at.

You didn't bold anything, but, yeah, I'm starting to get a little bit snarky. Several of us have been repeatedly correcting Hussar's misconceptions, and yet he keeps using the same dismissive put-downs. Honestly, shame on us for continuing to try, but it doesn't appear that he has any interest in actually considering what we are saying.

Edit: Sorry forgot to add that I don't expect to see that kind of "everyone calling out to make a check" at a table of experienced players. You could definitely see this at a table of mostly new players.

You'd think. But I still do see it sometimes among more (or at least moderately) experienced players. Perhaps more importantly, the fact that new players do it is, I think, significant and indicative. Why don't "experienced" players do it? Certainly not because it's ineffective. It works great! If they don't use it, it's because they've learned over time that it's cheesy and un-fun. But game design shouldn't depend on people recognizing cheesy exploits in the system and voluntarily not using them.

And I don't think 5e does have that weakness...unless one insists on using skills the 3e/4e way.

 

[Valmarius]

As far as pixel-bitching is concerned, I think there's a miscommunication or a disconnect between this idea of:
(a) DM requires a specific course of action for the PC to succeed and,
(b) DM requires some specificity in the PCs description of their action in order to adjudicate properly.

Sure, as a DM I'd like you to be more specific as a player, but not because there's 'one true way' past the challenge.
I just want to hear what we see your character doing in this scene. Add a sentence to the story we're telling.

I think we can all agree that (a) is problematic and (b) is what many posters here are actually aiming for.

 

[iserith]

Question: this draft that was noticed, did you use a passive perception to be noticed?

A DM might do that, but doesn't need to. The draft can simply be part of the description of the environment.

Are you doing an "intentional denigration" in the bold parts? Because I'm sure this doesn't happen that Hussar's or Oofta or any table I've played at. Usually its something like "can I assist on that check". But maybe that happens are tables you've played at.

Edit: Sorry forgot to add that I don't expect to see that kind of "everyone calling out to make a check" at a table of experienced players. You could definitely see this at a table of mostly new players.

If there's no cost, risk, or trade-off for asking to make checks and the expectation is that the DM will say "Yes" to the request, why wouldn't the players all pile on? There's no downside. The DM reaps what he or she sows.