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

Satyrn said:

Please don't call this out as bad form. I've made many of my fake internet points by witty* paraphrasing delivered in quotes. I'd hate to see that practise demonized.


* by witty, of course, I mean "vaguely humorous to somebody somewhere. Maybe. Hopefully. Please click laugh"

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I may unfairly be lumping Oofta in with some others, and thus mistaking humor for denigration. If so, my apologies, [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION].

Charlaquin said:

whether you are free-climbing the wall or using rope, harness, hammer, and pitons,

Click to expand...

Pedantry break...

Free-climbing uses ropes and harness. Hammer and pitons are more commonly associated with aid climbing, but can be used for free-climbing.

I believe the term you want is “free-soloing.” (Oddly, “soloing” does not necessarily mean climbing without a rope; it just means you don’t have a partner.)

Ok, back to arguing about elves and wizards.

Elfcrusher said:

Pedantry break...

Free-climbing uses ropes and harness. Hammer and pitons are more commonly associated with aid climbing, but can be used for free-climbing.

I believe the term you want is “free-soloing.” (Oddly, “soloing” does not necessarily mean climbing without a rope; it just means you don’t have a partner.)

Ok, back to arguing about elves and wizards.

Click to expand...

Ahh. Yeah, I’m not super familiar with technical climbing terms, but that works.

Elfcrusher said:

Funny I don't recall anybody writing "the rulz say" in those exact words, although you quoted it. Is your use of slang perchance an attempt to denigrate those who take that position?

That aside: yes, you would think we could use actual samples. And we (or I) do! But every time there are some posters who willfully misinterpret and misrepresent the example. Apparently from a desire to undermine the idea rather than understand it.

EDIT:

Look back a few pages: I spelled out, in fairly lengthy form, an example from one of my games. But of course it wasn't a transcript of the whole session; it was a summary and naturally I left out 95% of the details. A certain poster immediately dismissed anything informative in the story and instead ridiculed the approach for leaving out any differences between character sheets. I responded to that, and explained some places where differences between the characters factored into the overall story. He never responded to that, and instead repeated the accusation some pages later. I again responded, but never had it acknowledged. (Or never read the acknowledgement; I've stopped reading responses from the poster in question.)

I certainly welcome clarifying questions from people who are genuinely interested in learning more, but why should I post incomplete examples if some people are just going to use the incompleteness as an excuse to go on the attack?

Click to expand...

See, as the target of this edit, the guy who Elf is calling out... I gotta say it's funny to see.

See, the posts in question are on about pages 70-75 if this is page 120ish. They are from over two weeks ago, the original, but did get repeated more recently.

But for elf's interesting take on it I do have just a few points...

First, I did not respond to the original- until they later added usage notes explaining more behind the scenes gm side stuff - then I addressed both in one post.

In neither the example or the follow up usage notes did one PC skill check or reference get made, make the cut yo be worthy enough to mention - but backup clues, how much work the gm had to do, etc all did.

Second, while the claims about how they left out all those details on how and where PC skills were key or whatever, you should notice they left out those **but did take time to mention skill checks they did not make in that original post and how their live example was so much better or more fun for it.***

Here was the sign off... the end piece of their home play example...

"Now maybe you don't agree, but we thought this was way more fun...and WAY more rewarding/gratifying...than taking turns rolling Perception ("Can I roll, too?") in every 5' square until somebody "succeeded" by randomly getting a high enough number on a d20. I know because I asked them, specifically with this thread on my mind. And I didn't even phrase the question that derisively. "

So, see, while in there whole example of play they did not see it as I guess worth mentioning a single PC skill check or reference from their actual play, they did see fit to take time to point out skill checks they didn't have to do because of the goal method approach.

That seems odd, even confusing, yo decide the only skill checks worth actually mentioning from your live play were the ones you never made.

How in the world sense do we have to be to not get from that and the usage notes thst there were lots of skill checks key to the resolution- so key they deserve less mention that skill checks never made, likely never made anywhere in fsct, as cannot think of a game where gameplay was roll every 5' for clues.

But of course, after waiting and seein even the usage notes no references to pcs over players, I responded and somehow something I said there was ridiculing...

And of course immediately after a criticism or response questioning, the thing morphs and suddenly what they said wasnt what we should base our viewpoints on... again.

Here was my response, to their use case post... maybe we can spot the ridicule? I am sure it has to be there.

****

"For any followers of this thread who genuinely are interested in how "goal and approach" differs from generic "there is a secret door" or "there is a trap", and not just looking ways to argue, here are some usage notes from the above scenario:"


Just to be clear, were you " not just looking for ways to argue" with the by your own admission derisive roll for every 5' post comment in that post where you put out this example? Or when even now you frame it as against a "generic" scene?


I mean they seem basically more contentious add-ons that just attempts to spotlight differences.


But about your scene. 


It sound an awful lot like the escape room we did a few weeks ago. We, people, find piles of clues. Some have distinct sizes - three numbers on a vase bottom and a three number combo lock -(10 bottle slot shelf, 10 element bar code) - others may be color coded etc. 


In that same escape room, we had a number of clues or hints we could ask for and I swear that first room clue was about as on point as your girl safety net was. It was basically pointing us to a place to try to get what we need, much like your girl sent them back to the underhouse.


That escape room we did at the con was fun. It was fun even for me, and I cannot see well so a good chunk of it was not gonna be much for me. 


But, the thing that strikes me about your example and now the usage notes bring home (I was wondering) is that *like our escape room** there is no bringing into the mix anything about the characters being played, the game system, be it diceless, be it RPS larping, be it a pamphlet sized character- on- post-card or HERO system 400+ pages of non-setting rules. 


So, it really does not spotlight "goal and approach" vs "character-centered" play in an RPG at all. It seems to be the epitome of "playing me or challenging me, the player" as opposed to "playing Hans or challenging Hans the dwarf".


Honestly, like the escape room, it has a lot more in common to a board game than an RPG. 


That's fine, I love them. Have loads of fun with board games, with chess where no dice are needed either and we just move our pieces around. 


Or Go, my stone never once is a "person" just a game piece and it's about how well I as a player choose my moves etc. But, every stone is the same. One stone has the same chance as any other st whatever task it is set to do. No reference cards bring up the dwarf stone's masonry or the very perceptive elf'stone.


I recommend every GM of diced games take a turn or two at running diceless systems. It imo really helps refine some techniques. 


I am glad your players enjoyed the sample setup you gave them. But if that is your flagship case for what defines and sets apart "approach -and goal" I gotta say it sorta spotlight all that stuff about how it "devalues" all those chargen choices the system being discussed requires (and that by extension a GM using that system required) even tho it seems like the "approach and goal" advocates seem to keep saying they are not devaluing those choices. I mean, how many times have we seen the kind of "oh no, character stats matter... with frequent "we used them passively or..." insert other.


Yet in your whole example and your explicstive usage notes to your your case even more, not one reference to a trait of the PC that I can see. No point where it was important that it was a halfling or a gnome or a wizard or a rogue or... well... anything "character". 


It seems 100% play and GM puzzle and you did not se fit to show any point where character mattered to the outcome. 


That's very very informative about your presentation of what separates "approach and goal" from the rest **in actual play** and I thank you for that.


By the way, in my non "approach and goal" gameplay, I dont throw random or generic secret doors in either. They require time too. So, it's good that those are not the only alternatives.


As for this last part...


"So basically you can keep giving stronger and stronger hints until they get it, but the hints should always feel earned."


I am sure you know but in some games, the idea that "they might not get it" is also an option and the scenes and follow-ups and bigger campaign proceeds on... rather than just keeping piling on more and more stronger hints until they "get it."

***

Charlaquin said:

This idea that the vast majority of the time, the skill the player wants to use is enough for you to know what the character is doing, keeps coming up. And if that’s enough for you, great! Please try to understand, that is not enough for those of us who use goal and approach. It is usually enough to determine a goal. I know you want to get to the top of the wall, or detect the presence of danger on the other side of the door. And I know that you think your athletic training or your keen senses will be useful in helping you achieve that goal. But I am not comfortable adjudicating your action without knowing, for example, whether you are free-climbing the wall or using rope, harness, hammer, and pitons, or whether you are listening at the door, peering under the crack, smelling the air, pressing at the door with your hands, or with some tool, or all or none of the above. If you are comfortable adjudicating an action with only the skill the player wants to use, more power to you, but for me, that is not enough information.

Click to expand...

If someone has a tool, equipment, magic or other ability to enhance I assume they're using them. If there's any question, they'll ask.

This is no different to me than when we use stealth checks. The player doesn't have to clarify what kind of armor they're wearing before applying any penalty or bonus. They know what their modifiers are. If there's a question of whether those elven boots help with the check, they'll ask.

When it comes to perception, I just let one check cover sight, smell, hearing. if there's a keyhole or crack to peep through, that isn't covered under the perception check. That requires a "I peer through the keyhole" because you never know when you're playing peeping tom with a medusa.

I didn't get to weigh in early in the thread, so I'd like to mention that this same issue came up in 3.0 - your low-CHA character was exactly as bad at telling the truth as at telling lies, because Bluff was the only thing that exposed Sense Motive. In 4e, it was explicit that deception used Bluff and dealing in good faith used Diplomacy, so a low-CHA character /could/ be better at telling the truth if he were trained in the latter skill but not the former. I don't see why the same couldn't hold in 5e, but, in addition, as has apparently been exhaustively asserted already...

Hussar said:

Meh, needless hair splitting. If there's a ladder, there's no check at all. Why would there be? Or, if they stack crates, then again, there's no check. But, again, if the player simply states, "I climb the wall, Athletics 17", I am not going to stop him and ask what he's doing. Needlessly adding all these superfluous elements to the example is just pointless.

Click to expand...

Pointless, but part of the basic model of play advanced by 5e. Players declare actions, DMs call for checks if one is needed. "I roll a ______ check" is not an action. In theory, 5e players should never get to do that. A DM could be a jerk about it (cf 'jerk DM' thread), and take the player at his word, and have his character perform some dissociative (in the psychological sense) action as a result, as he is clearly insane. ;P

In your method, which has been repeated over and over and over again, the player CANNOT CALL FOR A SKILL CHECK. That's been the common refrain all the way along. Yet, in combat, the player calls for every check, tells the DM exactly what's going to happen and doesn't wait for anything. The player doesn't say, "Oh I attack this orc" and the DM replies, "OK, make an attack roll". The player doesn't state "I'm casting Hunter's Mark" and then wait for the DM to call for a bonus action.

Click to expand...

Players might do that, at some or even most tables, and certainly in some other editions, but in 5e, the foundational assumption is that they aren't meant to, and it's up to DM leniency what degree to allow them to do so. (For extremely familiar repeated actions that always take the same check, for instance, like the fighter's monotonous attacks.)

I run skill checks the same way I run combat - the players generally tell me what checks to make and whatnot. For me, it's simply applying the same standard across the game.

Click to expand...

Sure, it's just not the basic 5e standard - applying /that/ the same across the game means players declare attacks and are told to make attack rolls (or have success/failure narrated)... every freak'n time, if the DM doesn't want to start cutting corners for the sake of saving a second here and there, and maybe his voice.


…so if your character is trying to get a read on whether he feels like an NPC is telling the truth, he asks the DM, and the DM either tells him he can't tell, he feels the NPC is truthful, he feels the NPC is pulling something, or calls for a check (whatever check he wants, but probably WIS, with Insight applicable). Because, really, that's the answer to just about every question about how to resolve something (unless magic) in 5e.
You could prettymuch mad-lib it.

Certainly no need for 100+ pages. ;P

(Which, yes, I know, I'm only adding to…
…I'll shut up now.)

Oofta said:

If someone has a tool, equipment, magic or other ability to enhance I assume they're using them. If there's any question, they'll ask.

This is no different to me than when we use stealth checks. The player doesn't have to clarify what kind of armor they're wearing before applying any penalty or bonus. They know what their modifiers are. If there's a question of whether those elven boots help with the check, they'll ask.

When it comes to perception, I just let one check cover sight, smell, hearing. if there's a keyhole or crack to peep through, that isn't covered under the perception check. That requires a "I peer through the keyhole" because you never know when you're playing peeping tom with a medusa.

Click to expand...

Right, I understood that you consider the name of a skill alone to be enough information the first time you said it.

Charlaquin said:

Right, I understood that you consider the name of a skill alone to be enough information the first time you said it.

Click to expand...

Sorry, no offense meant. We just run our games differently. Have a good one.

Oofta said:

Sorry, no offense meant. We just run our games differently. Have a good one.

Click to expand...

No worries. You have a good one too!

Tony Vargas said:

(For extremely familiar repeated actions that always take the same check, for instance, like the fighter's monotonous attacks.)

Click to expand...

I SEE YOU TRYING TO HIJACK THIS THREAD FOR YOUR OWN NEFARIOUS PURPOSES.