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

5ekyu said:

I can imagine a fighter player being told up front they should be working to not have to fight to get a better chance of success because they might lose fights.

Click to expand...

Funny note: Some guy named Sun Tzu said something similar about winning before even fighting.

/grin

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: I guess we just play differently then. I don't want to force my players to be glib actors, but I do want them to solve problems using their own noggins, probably because that's what I like, too. I like that little thrill of, "Heh...I just figured out something cool."

Think Zork, not WoW.

But, yes, you're right: that is testing the player, not the character, maybe not in acting ability but in thinking ability. I'm ok with that. And I guess in that regard the people I game with are different than the people you game with.

Oofta said:

BTW, you never answered my question. If the player states "I study her closely looking for hints that she's not telling the truth. I'm trying to glean clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms." what do you do? Ignore them?

If you ask for an insight check since that's the definition of the skill, what's wrong with them saying "I make an insight check?"

If you tell them they can't do that, how is that not telling them what their character does?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I think I responded to that post from my phone, and just answered part of it.

No, I don't ignore them. It depends on the situation. I might just say, "You don't pick up on anything special." I might, if that character is good at this sort of thing, give away a clue to her motivation without requiring a roll. Or I might, if I think the outcome is uncertain, ask them to make an Insight check (or possibly an Investigation check if there's a tiny spot of blood on her collar, or a History or Religion check if her necklace is of specific and significant origin, or....etc.).

The answer I would not give is, "You think she's lying" or "You think she's telling the truth." I give a hint, and let the player decide what his/her character thinks.

And, actually, let me now amend all that (and my previous posts) with the following: everything I have been describing is what I aspire to. I still sometimes/often get caught off guard by my players, or I'm using a published adventure that just uses straight-up skill checks, and my response is "Uh....uh....give me an Insight check." But I hate doing that, and I feel like I've let down my players. I think it's an inferior solution. I won't call it straight-up lazy because just DMing itself is a bunch of work, but it's not excellent DMing.

Hussar said:

But, as to the second question, is the DC the same regardless of what their character's do, yes, it's an absolute DC. You can describe it however you like, but, frankly the DC isn't going to change. To me, that's the only way to be fair and consistent. I have one player who is utterly tongue tied when trying to talk to NPC's. He just isn't very good at it. And, really, he isn't terribly interested in the whole "funny voices" aspect of gaming. While, OTOH, I have a player who really has the gift of the gab and can come up with excellent approaches very quickly on the fly.

Sorry, but, I refuse to penalize one or reward the other. They both have the same DC to persuade that guard. Maybe, if I'm honest, I'm a bit freer with Inspiration with the second guy because he makes me laugh more often (although, again, I encourage the group to award Inspiration rather than rely on me), but, hey, no one's perfect.

Click to expand...

I do tend to agree with this position though, as I do not want to penalize anyone for things their character could do better than them.


However, do I change the DC if someone thinks to play to the NPCs flaws or motivations? Yes. Is that penalizing the player who doesn't figure out things well? Maybe....

Contradiction? I dont know.

All I know is this, we try to steer a middle course on such things, and if someone is getting treated unfairly, we all as players notice and address it. Then we continue playing.

There is absolutely no way we can consistently separate players from characters, and many times no one cares whether we do.

Why is my signature all jacked up and no longer a URL?

Hussar said:

I really wish I could remember the actual quote, but, years ago, on these boards, a very wise poster once said something to the effect of, "The dice provide the direction, I provide the script". So, yeah, most narration follows die rolls, not precedes it. Don't tell me how you're doing something, make the check first and THEN tell me what you did. Because, frankly, until you roll, no one at the table knows what you actually did.

Click to expand...

I don't think this actually conflicts with what we're saying. In fact, I strongly believe in "roll then narrate" AND "narrate then roll". And I'm not sure I can explain exactly where the line is between the two, but (as I love to say) the existence of dawn does not disprove the difference between day and night. If a players said, "I'm going to pretend to stumble, then pick up sand and throw it in the bandit's eyes, then attack while he's distracted!" I'd let him roll, and if he hits he's free to describe that as being successful (roll-then-narrate). If I've introduced a particularly challenging monster that I've described as having especially sensitive eyes, and described the fine, powdery sand, then I'm going to give him advantage (or something) on the roll (narrate-then-roll).

One thing I don't believe you have answered, Hussar, is my hypothetical scenario about the players that just want to sit in the tavern...in the sense that they don't actually narrate where they go and who they talk to and what they search...and just want to roll Investigation to solve the mystery without having to describe any actions on their part. I'm intentionally choosing an extreme case, of course, but that seems to fit the description of how you play: you aren't requiring the players to figure out likely leads, you are letting their characters do it.

I don't think you would actually do this (would you?!?!) and if not, why not?

Is it possible we play the same way, but we just draw the line in different places?

EDIT: And maybe the difference, now that I think about it, is that the players are free to embellish the world with descriptions of their own, but doing so will not gain them mechanical advantages. If they want to use the descriptions provided by the DM they are more likely to gain the advantage. That probably doesn't provide a definitive answer in all cases, but it's closer.

iserith said:

If you like that ability, it seems we agree that doing whatever you can do (including attaining 11th level as a rogue) to mitigate the swinginess of a d20 is a good thing, right? If that's so, then we've made progress!

The good news is that any character can do that by trying to remove uncertainty and/or the meaningful consequence of failure. But, again, you can't win 'em all and sometimes you're going to have to roll. So this is a great class feature to have when you fall short of outright success, and not everyone can do that.

Click to expand...

Floating this back up in hopes that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] will respond to it. Because if we can agree that reducing the impact of a d20 is a good thing as a player, then we might actually get somewhere.

iserith said:

According to the rules of D&D 5e, the DM describes the environment, the player describes what he or she wants to do, then the DM narrates the result of the adventurer's action. (Repeat.) This pattern holds regardless of the content in the scene - combat, exploration, social interaction. Combat is a bit more structured than the other two pillars, but that loop remains. If a roll occurs, it happens after the player describes what he or she wants to do. The DM calls for this roll when there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure with an eye toward balancing calls for outright success with appropriate checks, if that DM follows the "middle path." If failure is indicated, the result can be straight-up failure or progress combined with a setback.

I find games run more smoothly when everyone at the table plays by the intended play loop. If a player physically cannot offer a goal and approach sufficient to communicate to the DM due to some personal hardship or challenges, then accommodations rightly should be made. But it does not take a smooth-talker, mechanical engineer, or weapons expert to be successful at D&D. Even the most flowery or technical language still gets boiled down to a goal and approach which is adjudicated accordingly.

Click to expand...

You keep repeating that this is "according to the rules" as if anyone actually cares. It's rather frustrating to be honest. Number one, I certainly don't consider this sort of thing to be rules. Advice? Sure, but actual rules? Nope, not in the slightest. Please stop with the appeals to authority. You like the way you play and that's fantastic. You can please stop trying to prove that it's the "right" way to play. Because, frankly, if your only real defense of your playstyle is "Well, that's what I think the book says", well, that's not particularly convincing at all.

Elfcrusher said:

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: I guess we just play differently then. I don't want to force my players to be glib actors, but I do want them to solve problems using their own noggins, probably because that's what I like, too. I like that little thrill of, "Heh...I just figured out something cool."

Think Zork, not WoW.
/snip.

Click to expand...

See, I would rather chew glass than play games like Zork anymore. I hated them at the time and I loathe them now. I mean, if you're trying to convince me that you're not descending into pixel bitching, well, invoking Zork is the wrong way to go.

Given the choice of the two, I'd much rather my game compared to WoW than Zork. I would not consider that an insult in the slightest. To the point where if a player at my table actually told me that my game reminded him of Zork, I'd probably hang up my DMing hat on the spot.

Gimme hours of Fortnite over any text based adventure or Sierra Quest game any day of the week. Granted, to be honest, I've never played WoW. Never got into the whole MMO thing. But, for any sort of online game? Gimme a first person shooter every time. Heck, even offline, I tend to go with the mindless stuff a lot more than puzzle games. It's why I loved Baldur's Gate. They never bothered with trying to make you figure stuff out. You just adventured and progressed. None of this, "Well, you didn't find this widget, so, you just wasted the last five hours of game play".

Hussar said:

See, I would rather chew glass than play games like Zork anymore. I hated them at the time and I loathe them now. I mean, if you're trying to convince me that you're not descending into pixel bitching, well, invoking Zork is the wrong way to go.

Given the choice of the two, I'd much rather my game compared to WoW than Zork. I would not consider that an insult in the slightest. To the point where if a player at my table actually told me that my game reminded him of Zork, I'd probably hang up my DMing hat on the spot.

Gimme hours of Fortnite over any text based adventure or Sierra Quest game any day of the week. Granted, to be honest, I've never played WoW. Never got into the whole MMO thing. But, for any sort of online game? Gimme a first person shooter every time. Heck, even offline, I tend to go with the mindless stuff a lot more than puzzle games. It's why I loved Baldur's Gate. They never bothered with trying to make you figure stuff out. You just adventured and progressed. None of this, "Well, you didn't find this widget, so, you just wasted the last five hours of game play".

Click to expand...

Well, there you go. I think we've uncovered the root of the disagreement.

Happy gaming!

(FWIW, I've sunk hundreds of hours...actually hundreds of days...into WoW. It was entirely the social aspect that kept me, though.)

Hussar said:

You keep repeating that this is "according to the rules" as if anyone actually cares. It's rather frustrating to be honest. Number one, I certainly don't consider this sort of thing to be rules. Advice? Sure, but actual rules? Nope, not in the slightest. Please stop with the appeals to authority. You like the way you play and that's fantastic. You can please stop trying to prove that it's the "right" way to play. Because, frankly, if your only real defense of your playstyle is "Well, that's what I think the book says", well, that's not particularly convincing at all.

Click to expand...

I'm not proving my way is the "right" way, nor disproving other people's way, nor appealing to authority. I'm explaining why the approach I employ is used in the first place - because that's what the rules say to do. "How to Play" rules aren't advice. It's, perhaps not surprisingly, how the game is meant to be played. I'm also not "defending" my playstyle since my playstyle isn't actually under attack, right?

Elfcrusher said:

I don't think this actually conflicts with what we're saying. In fact, I strongly believe in "roll then narrate" AND "narrate then roll". And I'm not sure I can explain exactly where the line is between the two, but (as I love to say) the existence of dawn does not disprove the difference between day and night. If a players said, "I'm going to pretend to stumble, then pick up sand and throw it in the bandit's eyes, then attack while he's distracted!" I'd let him roll, and if he hits he's free to describe that as being successful (roll-then-narrate). If I've introduced a particularly challenging monster that I've described as having especially sensitive eyes, and described the fine, powdery sand, then I'm going to give him advantage (or something) on the roll (narrate-then-roll).

One thing I don't believe you have answered, Hussar, is my hypothetical scenario about the players that just want to sit in the tavern...in the sense that they don't actually narrate where they go and who they talk to and what they search...and just want to roll Investigation to solve the mystery without having to describe any actions on their part. I'm intentionally choosing an extreme case, of course, but that seems to fit the description of how you play: you aren't requiring the players to figure out likely leads, you are letting their characters do it.

I don't think you would actually do this (would you?!?!) and if not, why not?

Is it possible we play the same way, but we just draw the line in different places?

EDIT: And maybe the difference, now that I think about it, is that the players are free to embellish the world with descriptions of their own, but doing so will not gain them mechanical advantages. If they want to use the descriptions provided by the DM they are more likely to gain the advantage. That probably doesn't provide a definitive answer in all cases, but it's closer.

Click to expand...

Why not? 5e comes with downtime activities. If the players came to me and told me, hey, this is what we want to do - can we just resolve this in a couple of rolls after a week of downtime, great, go for it. Why would I force them to dance through my adventure?

Now, I'd probably be pretty annoyed that I've dropped all sorts of adventure hooks and the players are completely disinterested in it, but, let's ignore the obvious issues of table mismatch for a moment. We'll presume the table is happy and healthy, but, they simply don't want to do this investigation thing. Ok, great.

I mean, we do this with all sorts of things - abstract away buying magic items in 3e is a perfect example. 5e does it through downtime. In our current Dragon Heist game, the players actually literally sat in their tavern while their factions went out and gathered information for them. They leveraged their faction memberships and asked the factions to chase down various leads while they stayed home and ran their tavern.

I let time pass and then presented them with the findings.

So, yeah, to answer your question, I honestly have zero problem with letting the players abstract away an entire scenario (in this case it would be tracking down witnesses to a crime, talking to survivors of that crime, checking with law enforcement, and a few other goodies as well - I'm being deliberately vague because spoilers. Chapter 3 Fireball of Dragon Heist if you know the adventure). I presented them with the information after the fact and they proceeded from there. Did I roleplay out contacting each faction contact, then roleplay out the investigations? Nope, not in the slightest. They abstracted it, I gave them the results.

Now, in this specific case, no rolls were needed, but, again, I wouldn't have a problem if they made some sort of checks. Perhaps a Charisma check or something. Heck, they have Faction Scores. A check modified by that would have worked as well, had I thought of it at the time. I didn't think of it, but, in retrospect, that would have been a better idea. A check results in various levels of the faction being motivated to help, which in turn results in various bits of information becoming available. Ah well, will do better next time.