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

iserith said:

So as you show in your second example, one player is trying to give the other player advantage on the Insight check via working together on the task (or at least tries to). That is reasonable behavior if you're trying to succeed.

Now take it one step further as a player: Before asking the DM to make a check (which is not supported by the rules of this game, but we can ignore that for now), try to remove the uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence for failure so you don't have to roll at all. The DM can't call for an ability check if there is no uncertainty or meaningful consequence for failure. That may or may not be possible in this specific situation, but that is something the players are aiming for because, again, the d20 is nobody's friend - automatic success is more desirable if success at the least cost is the goal.

But, again, that is the player's goal. The DM is employing the "middle path" approach. In the example I wrote, the DM calls for ability checks because the players have not removed the uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence of failure.

Click to expand...

See, that third paragraph is where I leave the train. You are claiming "middle path" here, but, to me, it's the DM's judgement as to whether or not a skill check should be made. And the reason he's forcing (not granting, because the players don't actually want a skill check) is because the DM isn't convinced that the players have removed uncertainty. The only way the players can remove that uncertainty is to convince the DM.

Thus, we're right back to gaming the DM.

And, frankly, the notion that the players and the DM are playing fundamentally different styles seems like a big warning sign to me as well that will, IME, lead to a lot of frustration at the table. I prefer everyone at the table to be singing from the same hymn book and all playing the same style.

iserith said:

I can't see all the posts in these exchanges due to blocks, but from what I can see in quotes or the like, it seems to me that players going straight to ability checks to resolve traps or social interactions is not so much an argument for expediency in play as it is an argument for the DM to not present boring or simplistic content the players would rather skip.

Click to expand...

A slightly different interpretation might be: The players know what they enjoy and will let you, the DM know it by actually engaging with it. If they aren't engaging with it, move on. Put the players in the driver's seat and react, rather than trying to present them with "interesting" stuff that, frankly, you're just guessing will be interesting.

If the player starts talking to the NPC? Fantastic, play it out. If the player just throws dice checks at the NPC? Roll it out and see where it leads.

The difference I see is that you, as DM, take a much more prominent role in the game than I do. Which is fine, and it certainly fits with 5e's sort of "old school" appeal. It's not what appeals to me though. I'd much, much prefer to let the players take the wheel.

Hussar said:

See, that third paragraph is where I leave the train. You are claiming "middle path" here, but, to me, it's the DM's judgement as to whether or not a skill check should be made. And the reason he's forcing (not granting, because the players don't actually want a skill check) is because the DM isn't convinced that the players have removed uncertainty. The only way the players can remove that uncertainty is to convince the DM.

Thus, we're right back to gaming the DM.

And, frankly, the notion that the players and the DM are playing fundamentally different styles seems like a big warning sign to me as well that will, IME, lead to a lot of frustration at the table. I prefer everyone at the table to be singing from the same hymn book and all playing the same style.

Click to expand...

You might not have gotten to it, but I address the "gaming the DM" argument again in a post much later than the one you quoted above.

You again suggest there is tension between the DM and the players. There is not. As I mentioned in the last exchange regarding your assertions of tension, here too everyone's working toward the same goal, each with their own synergistic roles and responsibilities.

DM Dave1 said:

It’s not about the player convincing the DM. It’s about the Player proposing an action based on the abilities, background, and proficiencies of their PC. You know, role playing.

Click to expand...

Umm, who is judging this "role playing" if not the DM?

iserith said:

They're cheating themselves if they ask to roll a swingy d20. Outright success is always better than rolling, if succeeding is your goal. Good ability scores and skill proficiencies are just insurance against failure in case you do have to roll (which you will frequently enough if you're the sort of adventurer who is boldly confronting deadly perils).

Click to expand...

Yet, for some bizarre reason, one of the biggest bonuses rogues get is the ability to "take 10" (more or less) on skill checks. It's not like this is a minor ability. This is something only quite high level rogues get.

In your game though, as a player, that ability is largely pointless so long as I can "outright success".

Hussar said:

A slightly different interpretation might be: The players know what they enjoy and will let you, the DM know it by actually engaging with it. If they aren't engaging with it, move on. Put the players in the driver's seat and react, rather than trying to present them with "interesting" stuff that, frankly, you're just guessing will be interesting.

Click to expand...

I must be good at guessing.

Hussar said:

If the player just throws dice checks at the NPC? Roll it out and see where it leads.

Click to expand...

That's not the player's call in this game. It is in D&D 3e and 4e though.

Hussar said:

The difference I see is that you, as DM, take a much more prominent role in the game than I do. Which is fine, and it certainly fits with 5e's sort of "old school" appeal. It's not what appeals to me though. I'd much, much prefer to let the players take the wheel.

Click to expand...

I strive to do what the rules prescribe - be a consistent, impartial (but involved) referee who judges success and failure and balances that with calling for rolls where appropriate. The players can take the wheel to the extent they describe what they want to do as they go forth into a world of sword and sorcery to boldly confront deadly perils. Together, each in our own roles, we aim for fun for everyone and the creation of an exciting, memorable story as a result of play.

Hussar said:

See, that third paragraph is where I leave the train. You are claiming "middle path" here, but, to me, it's the DM's judgement as to whether or not a skill check should be made. And the reason he's forcing (not granting, because the players don't actually want a skill check) is because the DM isn't convinced that the players have removed uncertainty. The only way the players can remove that uncertainty is to convince the DM.

Thus, we're right back to gaming the DM.

And, frankly, the notion that the players and the DM are playing fundamentally different styles seems like a big warning sign to me as well that will, IME, lead to a lot of frustration at the table. I prefer everyone at the table to be singing from the same hymn book and all playing the same style.

Click to expand...

When you DM, and a player says, "Can I make a (skill) check to see if I can (something)" how do you set the DC? Does it vary based on how they go about it, or is the same DC regardless of what their character does in support of the declared action?

Hussar said:

Yet, for some bizarre reason, one of the biggest bonuses rogues get is the ability to "take 10" (more or less) on skill checks. It's not like this is a minor ability. This is something only quite high level rogues get.

In your game though, as a player, that ability is largely pointless so long as I can "outright success".

Click to expand...

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.

In real life, some people are naturally suspicious, even when telling the truth, or they have poor social skills, whatever.

So Persuasion for telling the truth, Deception for lying. Insight to detect either. Most of the time it starts with an active check against Passive Insight, with advantage/disadvantage as appropriate for either.

If the PCs want to study them more closely, or question them, then they could roll. They’ll already know what their Passive Insight told them, so this is more of a confirmation.

In general I describe that they are pretty certain in their gut reaction if the PC rolls well. If they roll poorly (they fail), they are uncertain, and may be entirely wrong if they fail be 5 or more.

The bottom line is I view Insight as your intuition, your gut reaction, a 6th sense to notice something isn’t quite right and is closely related to Perception. If they are treating it more like a interrogation, especially in regards to reason, then I’d use Investigation. Do the facts and statements make sense logically?

I’ll generally allow the player to choose the better of Insight or Investigation, unless there’s some reason one or the other might not apply.

iserith said:

I must be good at guessing.

Click to expand...

Of course you are.

That's not the player's call in this game. It is in D&D 3e and 4e though.

Click to expand...

It's not a player's call in YOUR game. I've been pretty clear that I reject the advice in the PHB and the DMG. I mean, I've repeated it more than once.

I strive to do what the rules prescribe - be a consistent, impartial (but involved) referee who judges success and failure and balances that with calling for rolls where appropriate. The players can take the wheel to the extent they describe what they want to do as they go forth into a world of sword and sorcery to boldly confront deadly perils. Together, each in our own roles, we aim for fun for everyone and the creation of an exciting, memorable story as a result of play.

Click to expand...

What you see as rules, I see as advice. Good advice for those that want to play that way. Bad advice for those that don't. I certainly don't see this as rules. And, the notion of such a hard divide between player and DM roles is not something I enjoy. I WANT the players to have as much control over the game as I possibly can give them. I am not interested in having such a hard divide in roles.

Elfcrusher said:

When you DM, and a player says, "Can I make a (skill) check to see if I can (something)" how do you set the DC? Does it vary based on how they go about it, or is the same DC regardless of what their character does in support of the declared action?

Click to expand...

Well, that's going to be a bit tricky to answer in the general. In the specific of "is this NPC lying" it would be a contested roll. Otherwise it's going to be based on the guidelines for DC in the DMG. By and large the DC will be between 10-15 for nearly all checks (other than some very specific ones) for any character under 10th level.

And, heck, I'll cop to sometimes it's just a "roll a d20 and roll high" sort of check. Depends on what's at stake.

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.