There's some interesting stuff in this thread, that I'm still catching up on.
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.
<snip>
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.
To me, this seems highly contextual. If the construct is simply a device for introducing a certain proposition into the fiction as something for the PCs to entertain (so the functional equivalent of eg finding a diary entry, or a carving) then the idea that there is nothing for the PC to discern seems plausible. Depending on context, I might expect an Insight check to be one way of working out that the construct is just reciting pre-established words.
But if the construct is itself an element in a social challenge, and the issue of its truth-telling
matters to the resolution of that challenge, then I personally find a GM-fiat
no a little railroad-y. (But at some tables perhaps constrcuts can't participate in social challenges, and are really just like Magic Mouth spells?)
if the DM doesn't call for an insight check or if the player is not allowed to ask for one then the players know there was no skill contest. Since there was no skill contest the players now know the NPC was not trying to deceive them.
The consequence of no insight skill check is a confirmation that the NPC is not trying to be deceptive.
This doesn't seem right. If the player doesn't declare any action for his/her PC that would suggest ascertaining the truthfulness (or otherwise) of the NPC, then how can the player infer that the NPC was telling the truth from the fact that no check was called for?
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
<snip>
In my games the players not be able to distinguish between scenarios 1 and 3 without using a skill.
OK, but (a) don't they have to declare some action to trigger the skill check?
First, this isn't a parody. I honestly want to understand what you would do. I still don't get why there couldn't be a dialog where the PCs are questioning the shopkeeper but since you refuse to give an example of what the dialog would look like I give up.
I don't want to put words into your mouth but since you refuse to give a concrete example, I'm assuming something like:
DM/shopkeeper "So I locked up the store as usual, set the normal traps and went upstairs to bed."
Player: "You sleep above the shop?"
DM/shopkeeper: "Yes, it's part of the compensation, and I'm single so it works well for me."
Player: "So no witness and you didn't hear anything at all during the night."
DM/shopkeeper: "No witnesses and no I didn't hear anything. But this building is very solidly built for a reason."
Player: "And there was no sign of forced entry, the traps were still set."
DM/shopkeeper: "That's right. In fact the traps are supposed to ward against magical entry as well."
Player: "I don't believe him, I think he's hiding something."
DM: "He's telling the truth"
This to me would ruin all the mystery of a who-dunnit like this. No thanks. The shopkeeper
should be a primary suspect. The reason to ask for an insight check is to maintain that air of mystery and doubt. The shopkeeper is less likely to be involved, but there's no way to be certain.
I have trouble following this - how does an Insight cjeck maintain mystery and doubt? Only if you don't tell the players whether or not the check succeeds - but in that case, what is the check adding to the game? I mean, the player can be uncertain if no check is made.
In my game, if there shopkeeper is telling the truth then I want this to become clear so that play moves on to something more interesting.
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.
What some people refuse to accept or acknowledge is that finding/removing traps descriptively is boring for a lot of people. They may have focused their limited options on being the greatest trap finder/remover they can be so they want to be rewarded by using the skill now and then.
there are times when the group just doesn't care about certain aspects of the game. If they'd rather have some hireling go off to gather info while they have a dart throwing contest why would I care? All I care about is that they're engaged and having fun.
These posts make it seem like the function of the checks is to "skip the boring bits". Although, as per the discussion of Insight checks maintaining mystery, it's not clear exactly how this will work if players aren't told whether or not their checks succeed.
The problem with your assertion here is that this happens pretty much only when the interaction is trivial or unimportant. If it's a crux moment in the game, I'm very unlikely to determine there's no consequence for failure (it's a crux moment) or that there's no uncertainty.
This reads like, or at least fairly similarly to, "say 'yes' or roll the dice". That's a methodology that used to be extremely controversial on these boards.
It's also my preferred way to deal with "boring bits", or bits where nothing significant is at stake. Let's cut to something everyone's interested in!
I find it ironic that the "goal and method" approach is derided as some kind of DM power trip, but I see this as taking over the poor guy's character and roleplaying for him. If I'm going to subject him to the whim of the dice, I'm at least going to give him the courtesy of letting him narrate his own failures.
My own preference in action resolution - which goes with "say 'yes' or roll the dice" - is that on a success it's the player's narration that becomes part of the shared fiction, and on a failure it's the GM's narration of the consequences that becomes part of the shared fiction.
The overall idea is that (1) we establish something that both GM and player are invested in; (2) the check to find out what happens is framed and made; (3) on a success it goes as the player wants, on a failure as the GM thinks will step up the pressure.
In your example of player narration you have the player narrating the moss that his PC slipped on, but don't elaborate on what the consequences of failure are or who establishes those. If by "player narrating own failure" you're talking more about what form the immediate event of failing takes, rather than what flows from it, then I'd see that as a shared GM/player/table thing.
