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

Chaosmancer said:

One could assume that their judgement call would be based off of the information they have been provided by the DM, including descriptions of the environment so far, the general tone of the campaign, and their basic understanding of the world

Click to expand...

The description of the environment was simply that the building is decrepit.

How is "judging" whether or not the GM will decide that the chandelier in a decrepit house might fall if leapt on any different from guessing that same thing?

And if the answer is that the possiblity is implict in the situation and the player's knowledge of the GM's taste and table practices, then it no longer serves an example of the consequences not being known to the player! Which is what it was presented as (by [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION]).

Chaosmancer said:

I believe the reference to coddling was in the idea of telling the player the consequences for all challenges or actions taken by their character.

Click to expand...

So it's "coddling" to tell it to the players, but it's not "coddling" to wink it to them (by way of descriptions of the environment so far, the general tone of the campaign, and their basic understanding of the world)? That's not a contrast I find easy to follow. Particularly in the context of interpreting a poster who was making a big deal of not telegraphing traps.

Let's look at it another way:

The player knows chandeliers, in general, may fall under human weight. The player also knows (because the GM said so) that this building is run down. That increases the prospect that the chandelier might fall when leapt on.

The player, knowing all this, declares that his/her PC wants to leap onto the chandelier and swing across the room to pursue the assassin. The GM calls for a check, which gives rise to a chance of failure.

How is it coddling the player to tell them that, on a failed check, they will bring down the chandelier? What advantage is being ceded? The player already is uncertain as to the outcome of the action, because the check is required. What additional challenge is created by keeping the player uncertain as to what the GM thinks the result of failure should be? It's just adding more guessing on top of an already uncertain resolution process. I don't see that it makes things any harder (less coddled) for the player.

Chaosmancer said:

You are right I could.

My answer is that labeling player approaches as "good" or "bad" is tone deaf at best and a practice I refuse to engage in. If I ever tell a player "That was a bad approach, so now X" in response to their declared actions, then I will have hit my lowest point as a DM.

Click to expand...

Whether or not we're asked to say whether a thing is good or bad, we're tasked as DMs by the rules of D&D 5e to judge whether a player's approach to a goal makes the task trivial or impossible and, if neither and accompanied by a meaningful consequence of failure, to call for a roll of some kind. Do we agree on that point?

I'll admit I'm perplexed why there is resistance to telling the player the consequences of failure.

If helping them making an informed decision is "coddling" then I'm all for it: I'd rather have them know the stakes, so that when they decide to roll that die they know what they're rolling for. As Charlaquin says, and supports with the Hitchcock quote, the suspense is so much more delicious when you know what that stakes are.

Now, you don't have to give away every nuance of the consequence. "Sure, you can try to chop the door down, but it's going to make a lot of noise. Are you sure...?" But they don't have to know exactly what sort of creature is going to be alerted.

Elfcrusher said:

I'll admit I'm perplexed why there is resistance to telling the player the consequences of failure.

Click to expand...

Because it's frequently not apparent.

Consider this: a pit appears bottomless, but is actually an illusion - it's really on 3 feet deep. What do you do, tell them the truth: "if you fail this roll nothing bad will happen", blatantly lie to them "you will fall to your death", or tell them nothing, thus letting them know there is something fishy about the pit, because you normally tell them what will happen?

Paul Farquhar said:

Because it's frequently not apparent.

Consider this: a pit appears bottomless, but is actually an illusion - it's really on 3 feet deep. What do you do, tell them the truth: "if you fail this roll nothing bad will happen", blatantly lie to them "you will fall to your death", or tell them nothing, thus letting them know there is something fishy about the pit, because you normally tell them what will happen?

Click to expand...

@Elfcrusher already answered this before your post:

Elfcrusher said:

Now, you don't have to give away every nuance of the consequence. "Sure, you can try to chop the door down, but it's going to make a lot of noise. Are you sure...?" But they don't have to know exactly what sort of creature is going to be alerted.

Click to expand...

"If you fail, you fall into the pit". No more detail necessary. The players can be terrified until they make it across safely and then perhaps laugh at the clumsy wizard who screamed as he fell three feet, reveling the illusion.

Elfcrusher said:

I'll admit I'm perplexed why there is resistance to telling the player the consequences of failure.

If helping them making an informed decision is "coddling" then I'm all for it: I'd rather have them know the stakes, so that when they decide to roll that die they know what they're rolling for. As Charlaquin says, and supports with the Hitchcock quote, the suspense is so much more delicious when you know what that stakes are.

Now, you don't have to give away every nuance of the consequence. "Sure, you can try to chop the door down, but it's going to make a lot of noise. Are you sure...?" But they don't have to know exactly what sort of creature is going to be alerted.

Click to expand...

Why would they know? Much like telegraphing traps, I give my players the same information I think the PCs would know. In addition, it takes away the element of surprise.

I remember an old TV show "Kung Fu" with David Carradine back in the 70s about this guy who was a raised as a monk and went around beating up bad guys in the American old west because he was a man of peace. In any case, there was a flashback scene to his training where he had to walk a balance beam across what he was told was acid. He fell in, only to find the tank was just filled with water and the bones were fake.

My point is that (a) I'm old and (b) sometimes the consequence of failure is not what you expect. Sometimes it's not as bad, sometimes it's worse. Trying to disarm a trap and fail? Who knows what's going to happen. Maybe an alarm, maybe poison gas, maybe nothing because the acid that was supposed to spray you in the face dried up long ago but it turns your face purple for the next week.

Most people I play with enjoy that moment of wondering "what happens if I fail" and "oh, crap, a 1. What happens?" I know I do.

Oofta said:

Why would they know? Much like telegraphing traps, I give my players the same information I think the PCs would know. In addition, it takes away the element of surprise.

I remember an old TV show "Kung Fu" with David Carradine back in the 70s about this guy who was a raised as a monk and went around beating up bad guys in the American old west because he was a man of peace. In any case, there was a flashback scene to his training where he had to walk a balance beam across what he was told was acid. He fell in, only to find the tank was just filled with water and the bones were fake.

My point is that (a) I'm old and (b) sometimes the consequence of failure is not what you expect. Sometimes it's not as bad, sometimes it's worse. Trying to disarm a trap and fail? Who knows what's going to happen. Maybe an alarm, maybe poison gas, maybe nothing because the acid that was supposed to spray you in the face dried up long ago but it turns your face purple for the next week.

Most people I play with enjoy that moment of wondering "what happens if I fail" and "oh, crap, a 1. What happens?" I know I do.

Click to expand...

And again:

Elfcrusher said:

Now, you don't have to give away every nuance of the consequence. "Sure, you can try to chop the door down, but it's going to make a lot of noise. Are you sure...?" But they don't have to know exactly what sort of creature is going to be alerted.

Click to expand...

"If you fail, you are going to fall into the vat." or maybe "if you fail by 5 or more, you are going to fall into the vat, if you fail by less than 5, I'll give you a chance to grab the beam as you fall."
The contents of the vat have been telegraphed and the player is now aware of the failure consequence. The player can still have their moment of wondering what happens at "splash!".

DM Dave1 said:

And again:



"If you fail, you are going to fall into the vat." or maybe "if you fail you are going to fail by 5 or more, you are going to fall into the vat, if you fail by less than 5, I'll give you a chance to grab the beam as you fall."
The contents of the vat have been telegraphed and the player is now aware of the failure consequence. The player can still have their moment of wondering what happens at "splash!".

Click to expand...

Sometimes the apparent consequence of failure will be apparent, sometimes it won't. Sometimes there's no way of knowing, sometimes it's complex with varying degrees of complete and utter failure up to a stunning success.

I'm going to communicate everything pertinent to the scene that I think the PCs would know, What the consequences of failure or success are is up to the players to figure out from that information. I don't play D&D the Board Game, I don't tell them things their PCs would not know.

Oofta said:

Sometimes the apparent consequence of failure will be apparent, sometimes it won't. Sometimes there's no way of knowing, sometimes it's complex with varying degrees of complete and utter failure up to a stunning success.

Click to expand...

Mostly agreed, except for the "no way of knowing" part. In our games, experienced adventurers have some sense of the consequences of failure in their actions. Might be just a completely vague sense, but it is there.

Oofta said:

I'm going to communicate everything pertinent to the scene that I think the PCs would know,

Click to expand...

Same here.

Oofta said:

What the consequences of failure or success are is up to the players to figure out from that information.

Click to expand...

Now, I know you don't play a "gotcha" style as I believe you've stated as much before and you've mentioned that you've been a highly sought after DM for over a decade (paraphrasing here - can't find the actual quote), so that wouldn't jive with "gotcha" DMing. But, if the players don't truly don't know the consequences of their actions - or at least have some sense of them - then one is treading that dangerous ground of being accused of "gotcha" DMing.

Oofta said:

I don't play D&D the Board Game, I don't tell them things their PCs would not know.

Click to expand...

Same here.

DM Dave1 said:

And again:



"If you fail, you are going to fall into the vat." or maybe "if you fail by 5 or more, you are going to fall into the vat, if you fail by less than 5, I'll give you a chance to grab the beam as you fall."
The contents of the vat have been telegraphed and the player is now aware of the failure consequence. The player can still have their moment of wondering what happens at "splash!".

Click to expand...

Since the character would see a cat, see a beam and reasonably obvious to them that falling off would have a chance to fall into said , it seems like this is challenging the assertion with an example that fits the category of "what character would know."

Seems odd.

This is a far very much different thing from blanket statements like "all traps are telegraphed" and the like.

I too am in the camp of the scene and what is "seen" being the basis for the info the character and player gets. ("Seen" being not just sight, obviously.)

Unlike movies, the player is a participant, not just a viewer. So, I dont need to hand them outside info to ramp up drama. I want the drama to come thru and from the character and that perspective, I find the lore of a skew that exists between what a player knows about the immediate perils and what the character knows about them, the more speed bumps one creates for that whole "being a character" bit.

It cznt be completely eliminated, but I sure dont have to go full hog the other way and script every trap to be telegraphed or an explicit statement of odds and results like fail by 5 and... etc.

Unless it's something mysterious or unknown they should get an idea from the scene just like their characters do.

I manage to achieve that without the extremes.