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

Paul Farquhar · Apr 17, 2019

pemerton said:
Well, sure. But I was replying to a poster who said that the foot in mouth consequence would discourage the player of the fighter from declaring social actions. If a GM believes that to be the case, the solution is right there, ready-to-hand: frame the stakes differently!

My players often quite enjoy "foot in mouth" scenarios (but it would get old if it happened all the time).

Sadras · Apr 17, 2019

Charlaquin said:
Nearest I can tell, maybe the writers figured, the dragon is controlled by the DM, the DM obviously knows the location of any hidden objects or creature the dragon might be trying to find, so the dragon needs to succeed on a Perception check before it’s allowed to act on that knowledge.

Exactly. It is countering meta-knowledge by having the DM-controlled creature expend an in-game resource to act on such knowledge. Furthermore it is a cool general ability for a creature, such as a dragon, to possess as the Detect is a general Detect, so it may be used by the dragon to gain other knowledge (motives, relationships, hidden artifacts, strange energies, true form, concentrated spells, consumables in use...etc).

It assists the narrative and allows for interesting dialogue to occur - supported by the mechanics. Win-win.

Imaculata · Apr 17, 2019

Charlaquin said:
To be fair, there are also counter-examples in the rules that could muddy the waters, such as the “Detect” Legendary Action all Legendary dragons have:

Detect: The Dragon makes a Wisdom (Perception) check.

I kind of hate that action, cause it leaves me scratching my head, wondering to what end the Dragon is making this check. What is the dragon trying to find? How is the dragon trying to find it? Why is a check necessary to find it? What happens if the check succeeds, or if it fails?

Nearest I can tell, maybe the writers figured, the dragon is controlled by the DM, the DM obviously knows the location of any hidden objects or creature the dragon might be trying to find, so the dragon needs to succeed on a Perception check before it’s allowed to act on that knowledge. It very much feels like a 3.X-ism that slipped in under the radar to me.

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.

iserith · Apr 17, 2019

pemerton said:
Well, sure. But I was replying to a poster who said that the foot in mouth consequence would discourage the player of the fighter from declaring social actions. If a GM believes that to be the case, the solution is right there, ready-to-hand: frame the stakes differently!

And to honor the idea that the player is the only one who can say what the character does, I think it is far better to frame stakes and narrate outcomes in terms of changes to the environment or NPCs/monsters than what the character does. I don't want to say the fighter stuck his or her foot in his or her mouth - that is not my role as DM and runs the risk of dissatisfaction on the part of the player if that's not how he or she imagines his or her character. I just say how the Troll King responds and then frame the next challenge at the top of the play loop as appropriate.

It's super common in my experience for the DM to say what the character is doing, often because the player fails to adequately perform his or her role in the game (describing what the character tries to do). I feel like asking those DMs if they just like the sound of their own voice because, after all, they already control two-thirds of the basic conversation of the game (describing the environment, narrating outcomes). Do they really need that final third, too?

Guest 6801328 · Apr 17, 2019

iserith said:
And to honor the idea that the player is the only one who can say what the character does, I think it is far better to frame stakes and narrate outcomes in terms of changes to the environment or NPCs/monsters than what the character does. I don't want to say the fighter stuck his or her foot in his or her mouth - that is not my role as DM and runs the risk of dissatisfaction on the part of the player if that's not how he or she imagines his or her character. I just say how the Troll King responds and then frame the next challenge at the top of the play loop as appropriate.

It's super common in my experience for the DM to say what the character is doing, often because the player fails to adequately perform his or her role in the game (describing what the character tries to do). I feel like asking those DMs if they just like the sound of their own voice because, after all, they already control two-thirds of the basic conversation of the game (describing the environment, narrating outcomes). Do they really need that final third, too?

This. The consequences of failure should be a change in environment narrated by DM. If the player wants to narrate the failure as well that's fine.

Furthermore, if the King asks the Fighter a question, and the player's response is to just answer the question, I hope that in most circumstances the DM doesn't call for a roll. It's kind of unfair to say, "The king asked you a question, and if you answer I'm going to force you to make a Cha check, and if you fail there will be consequences." That starts to feel like "skill check as required obstacle".

Now, if the party is there because they want something, and the king refuses to deal with anybody but the fighter, and the fighter say, "Whooo-boy. I guess I'll have to try. Ok, I'm going to try to persuade the king to let our friend the rogue out of the dungeon, by pointing out that the rogue has the best chance of finding the (something), and that we promise to keep our eye on him." THEN the DM might say, "Ok, that's going to require a Persuasion check, but if you fail the king will be furious and...etc.

Mort · Apr 17, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
Furthermore, if the King asks the Fighter a question, and the player's response is to just answer the question, I hope that in most circumstances the DM doesn't call for a roll. It's kind of unfair to say, "The king asked you a question, and if you answer I'm going to force you to make a Cha check, and if you fail there will be consequences." That starts to feel like "skill check as required obstacle".

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

If the answer doesn't have consequences, then sure - no check. But if the answer involves some kind of consequence or has a persuasive component - then absolutely a check may or even should result - as you allude to below.

Elfcrusher said:
Now, if the party is there because they want something, and the king refuses to deal with anybody but the fighter, and the fighter say, "Whooo-boy. I guess I'll have to try. Ok, I'm going to try to persuade the king to let our friend the rogue out of the dungeon, by pointing out that the rogue has the best chance of finding the (something), and that we promise to keep our eye on him." THEN the DM might say, "Ok, that's going to require a Persuasion check, but if you fail the king will be furious and...etc.

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

As in success - king: you know you're right I'll let your companion out and then hire you for the job.

Failure: king: Oh you think you have me in a corner? sure, I'll let your companion out - and then I'll geas the lot of you to ensure you all do exactly what I need you to do!

End result is essentially the same - but the circumstances are quite different based on success or failure.

5ekyu · Apr 17, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
This. The consequences of failure should be a change in environment narrated by DM. If the player wants to narrate the failure as well that's fine.

Furthermore, if the King asks the Fighter a question, and the player's response is to just answer the question, I hope that in most circumstances the DM doesn't call for a roll. It's kind of unfair to say, "The king asked you a question, and if you answer I'm going to force you to make a Cha check, and if you fail there will be consequences." That starts to feel like "skill check as required obstacle".

Now, if the party is there because they want something, and the king refuses to deal with anybody but the fighter, and the fighter say, "Whooo-boy. I guess I'll have to try. Ok, I'm going to try to persuade the king to let our friend the rogue out of the dungeon, by pointing out that the rogue has the best chance of finding the (something), and that we promise to keep our eye on him." THEN the DM might say, "Ok, that's going to require a Persuasion check, but if you fail the king will be furious and...etc.

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.

pemerton · Apr 17, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
if the King asks the Fighter a question, and the player's response is to just answer the question, I hope that in most circumstances the DM doesn't call for a roll. It's kind of unfair to say, "The king asked you a question, and if you answer I'm going to force you to make a Cha check, and if you fail there will be consequences." That starts to feel like "skill check as required obstacle".

I was thinking of a context in which the interaction with the troll king (or whomever) is a high-stakes situation. (A skill challenge in 4e terms.)

Guest 6801328 · Apr 18, 2019

5ekyu said:
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?

Guest 6801328 · Apr 18, 2019

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

As in success - king: you know you're right I'll let your companion out and then hire you for the job.

Failure: king: Oh you think you have me in a corner? sure, I'll let your companion out - and then I'll geas the lot of you to ensure you all do exactly what I need you to do!

End result is essentially the same - but the circumstances are quite different based on success or failure.

Oh, sure. I love failing forward.