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

Charlaquin said:

one complaint I see all the time about 5e is that players rarely spend Inspiration, and Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws end up ignored as a result. This is not something I experience, because players always know that a check is going to be required, the DC, and the consequences, so they are more apt to spend Inspiration because they don't have to guess how difficult a task will be or how severe the consequences for failure will be.

Click to expand...

See, this is not something that I would see as a contrast between 4e and 5e - what you describe here I would regard as being as true of 4e as of 5e.

Looking for ways to mitigate the effects of a raw d20 roll (by way of adds, rerolls, etc) is something I see as a core part of playing 4e.

Which makes me think that perhaps you and/or some other posters in this thread approached 4e differently from how I did. (Always so hard to be sure - lots of moving parts in anyone's approach to a RPG.)

pemerton said:

See, this is not something that I would see as a contrast between 4e and 5e - what you describe here I would regard as being as true of 4e as of 5e.

Looking for ways to mitigate the effects of a raw d20 roll (by way of adds, rerolls, etc) is something I see as a core part of playing 4e.

Which makes me think that perhaps you and/or some other posters in this thread approached 4e differently from how I did. (Always so hard to be sure - lots of moving parts in anyone's approach to a RPG.)

Click to expand...

Like I said, 4e actively encouraged DMs to say yes to players initiating checks, with or without a DC already in mind, and to decide on consequences (positive or negative) after seeing the results. Sure, players taking steps to mitigate the risk of failure was still a thing in 4e. But, in 5e, many people who run 5e more like the way 4e encouraged DMs to run the game often complain about their players not making use of resources that are there to help mitigate the risk of failure. I do not experience this issue, and the way I run 5e is a big part of that.

Charlaquin said:

So, like, one example that comes to mind is the discussion that came up earlier about why some DMs might not want the player to roll and announce a result before they've set a DC, because it might influence the DM's decision. This is something 4e actively encouraged. I don't remember which book it was in, probably the DMG, but I distinctly remember reading in a 4e book that it's not always necessary to set a DC before asking a player to roll, that the DM should allow the player to use a skill unless there is a compelling reason not to, and can determine what happens based on the result.

Click to expand...

So advice to that effect - deciding success based on the check result rather than setting a DC in advance - is found in a sidebar on p 3 of the DM Guidelines document from the 5e playtest (I've got it dated 19 September 2013 - I'd copy and paste it, but the document also has a prominent "confidential information" notice at the top of each page!). The sidebar concludes by saying that the players will never know - so there's at least a suggestion of GM fudging/control over outcomes.

I don't recall this being in the 4e DMG, and on a quick flick through just now didn't find it. I did find the following, though (on p 12), which is one reason why I don't feel the 4e/5e contrast that is being drawn in this thread:

Charlaquin said:

Like I said, 4e actively encouraged DMs to say yes to players initiating checks, with or without a DC already in mind, and to decide on consequences (positive or negative) after seeing the results.

Click to expand...

See, I don't really agree with this. The passage I just quoted doesn't suggest this to me at all.

posting problems - double post deleted.

Hussar said:

Ok, that was a bit tongue in cheek maybe, but, seriously? You actually insist on Goal:Approach in combat? Yuck. I would blow my brains out.

Click to expand...

Simply stating that you attack, is stating an approach is it not?

In my campaigns the combat basically looks like this:

The player states what they want to do, or what they are attempting to do. I then rule what is needed for that task. If the player states that they are attacking, and it isn't clear with what weapon they are doing this, I may ask them to clarify. But on following attacks, I feel confident in assuming its still the same weapon until the player says otherwise.

But it is important to note that attacking isn't the only option for a player in combat. There are many things for both the players and the monsters to do. Attacking is simply the most obvious one, and usually does not require any stated approach, but the player may state that he's targeting the monster that looks the most/least wounded, for example. There are also a lot of narrative actions that a player or a monster can take during combat, which may not be specified in detail in the rules. It is then up to me as a DM to rule on such an action. But as long as the players state what their characters do, or are trying to do, anything is possible.

Isn't this how most people run the game?

pemerton said:

So advice to that effect - deciding success based on the check result rather than setting a DC in advance - is found in a sidebar on p 3 of the DM Guidelines document from the 5e playtest (I've got it dated 19 September 2013 - I'd copy and paste it, but the document also has a prominent "confidential information" notice at the top of each page!). The sidebar concludes by saying that the players will never know - so there's at least a suggestion of GM fudging/control over outcomes.

I don't recall this being in the 4e DMG, and on a quick flick through just now didn't find it. I did find the following, though (on p 12), which is one reason why I don't feel the 4e/5e contrast that is being drawn in this thread:

Being a referee means that the DM stands as a mediator between the rules and the players. A player tells the DM what he wants to do, and the DM responds by telling the character what kind of check to make and mentally setting the target number. If a player tells the DM he wants his character to swing his greataxe at an orc, the DM says, "Make an attack roll," while looking up the orc's Armor Class.

That'’s such a simple example that most players take it for granted and don't wait for the DM to ask for the attack roll. But if the player tells you that he wants his character to knock over a brazier full of hot coals into the orc's face, you (as the DM) have to make some snap judgments. How hard is it to knock over the heavy, solid metal brazier? "Make a Strength check," you might respond, while mentally setting the DC at 15. If the Strength check is successful, you have to figure out how a face full of hot coals affects the orc, and might decide it deals 1d6 points of fire damage and gives the orc a –2 penalty to attack rolls for a round.​

See, I don't really agree with this. The passage I just quoted doesn't suggest this to me at all.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but why do you believe early playtest material is at all relevant to 5e rules? This would be like claiming THAC0 is relevant to 5e because it's part of an "earlier playtest". If you want to discuss 5e, you should do that. If you want to discuss the playtest, you should do that.

Ovinomancer said:

Sorry, but why do you believe early playtest material is at all relevant to 5e rules? This would be like claiming THAC0 is relevant to 5e because it's part of an "earlier playtest". If you want to discuss 5e, you should do that. If you want to discuss the playtest, you should do that.

Click to expand...

I was replying to another poster about something he thought was in 4e. I don't recall it being there - I was pointing out a place where I had encountered it.

That's the sort of thing one does on a message board.

(It's also not that early a playtest - more than a year in according to my file details.)

Tony Vargas said:

The DM is explicitly free - at least in most eds of D&D - to add to, change, and override the rules as he sees fit. Feels pretty un-bound, to me.

Or, in 5e parlance, not 'not bound by the rules' so much as "Empowered!"

Click to expand...

Within the bounds of what the rest of the players will put up with. Personally, I consider it shenanigans for the DM to make rules changes outside of a few specific cases and without explicit consent from the rest of the players.

Tony Vargas said:

Should fudge, definitely, /and/ something else: should engage in "Illusionism" as much as in necessary to deliver a good experience to his players.

Click to expand...

Ah. Our preferences are in direct opposition here.

Tony Vargas said:

See? Your DM could've done better! (Unless you /like/ 'brutal,' then, well-done, DM!)

Click to expand...

I like brutal quite a lot. I am very much of the, "Losing is fun!" mindset. Similarly, when running the game, I want to see the player characters succeed, but I also want my players to believe that I am out to get them (which is, of course, absolutely an illusion).

Bawylie said:

I have a problem understanding this. How do you challenge a PC? It can’t think, it can’t act, it can’t do anything other than what the player says it does. It’s like a User Interface but it isn’t itself the User. It’s always the player behind the avatar that has to think and act.

What am I missing?

Click to expand...

Let me rephrase. Sometimes only the PC's abilities can overcome an obstacle. If a lock needs to be picked, it's a tool check. There may be other ways of overcoming the obstacle such as using a key or a crowbar of course.

The thieve's tools check is a PC challenge resolved by rolling dice and is based on the PC's proficiency. As another example, in my game simple traps can't be overcome by describing how you sniff the door handle and then pour wine on it to get rid of the contact poison. Appropriate checks and associated rolls are going to be needed to discover and disable the trap. You can of course always take an alternate route.

I don't view proficiency with a skill or tool all that much differently than proficiency with a weapon. Yes, a +1 sword will add 5% to your chance to hit and a climber's kit will stop you from falling more than 25 feet once you're anchored. But you still need to roll a d20 in all but a few edge cases to hit with the sword and you still need to roll a d20 to climb a wall unless it's a foregone conclusion that you can climb the wall safely.

In any case, this was in response to a posting about how climbing a wall requires describing how you're climbing the wall and getting out a climber's kit, and so on and so forth. The vast majority of time I don't care. It's just a wall, make an athletics check to climb unless you have all the time in the world or you can't fall far enough to hurt yourself. If the latter case, you just climb the wall as part of the narration.

[EDIT] I think [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] probably put it better. If a PC's ability and proficiency score do not matter it's a player challenge. If it's something that gets resolved using a PC's stats, it's a PC challenge. In addition I use blended challenges sometimes, especially when it comes to puzzles; if the players are struggling I'll give them hints based on PC's capabilities.

pemerton said:

So advice to that effect - deciding success based on the check result rather than setting a DC in advance - is found in a sidebar on p 3 of the DM Guidelines document from the 5e playtest (I've got it dated 19 September 2013 - I'd copy and paste it, but the document also has a prominent "confidential information" notice at the top of each page!). The sidebar concludes by saying that the players will never know - so there's at least a suggestion of GM fudging/control over outcomes.

I don't recall this being in the 4e DMG, and on a quick flick through just now didn't find it. I did find the following, though (on p 12), which is one reason why I don't feel the 4e/5e contrast that is being drawn in this thread:

Being a referee means that the DM stands as a mediator between the rules and the players. A player tells the DM what he wants to do, and the DM responds by telling the character what kind of check to make and mentally setting the target number. If a player tells the DM he wants his character to swing his greataxe at an orc, the DM says, "Make an attack roll," while looking up the orc's Armor Class.

That'’s such a simple example that most players take it for granted and don't wait for the DM to ask for the attack roll. But if the player tells you that he wants his character to knock over a brazier full of hot coals into the orc's face, you (as the DM) have to make some snap judgments. How hard is it to knock over the heavy, solid metal brazier? "Make a Strength check," you might respond, while mentally setting the DC at 15. If the Strength check is successful, you have to figure out how a face full of hot coals affects the orc, and might decide it deals 1d6 points of fire damage and gives the orc a –2 penalty to attack rolls for a round.​

See, I don't really agree with this. The passage I just quoted doesn't suggest this to me at all.

Click to expand...

Guess I misremembered where I read that. Anyway, it was just one example. As I said, the problems that can arise are many, varied, and subtle.