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

Charlaquin said:

I don’t think this implies that you believe a lack of trust exists between goal-and-approach DMs and their players at all, so I’m not sure what your point is here.

This is probably a misunderstanding based on a difference of values. I don’t need to trust my players not to use meta-game knowledge because I don’t think using meta-game knowledge is a bad thing. You trust your players not to use meta-game knowledge, while I allow them to use meta-game knowledge if they so desire.

Click to expand...

And even if you do care about the meta-knowledge thing (which I don't, just in case I haven't made that abundantly and redundantly clear), why would you want to intentionally give the players more information their characters don't have?

Every time you call for a Perception check and the player fails and you just keep moving, you are just expanding the disconnect, the gulf, between player knowledge and character knowledge.

I can totally understand a sheepish, "Yeah, I do that, too, out of habit. I'd like to stop." What I find completely bafflingly perplexing is, "What's wrong with that?"

*Deleted by user*

Edit: sorry for the accidental quote alert, Oofta. Dang multiquote.

lowkey13 said:

Because you enjoy the suffering of others?

"Muahahahahahahaha. Now that you have the information, and you cannot act on it, what will you do now?"

Admittedly, it works much better at the gaming table than when I am explaining my plan for world domination to the protagonist who cannot possibly (POSSIBLY!) escape his incipient doom as I leave the room.

Click to expand...

"First, we kill all the lawyers paladins . . ."

Satyrn said:

Sure, Cool. I'd be fine with that, too.

I don't think you understand just how has the DMing in my example was, though, so I'm baffled that you want to show ways you do the same thing. It's even more baffling that you're doing that while trying to distance yourself from the "other side' while you keep showing you have a lot in common with them.

What the heck is the disconnect?

Click to expand...

Umm ... forums are sometimes a horrible way to communicate ideas and concepts?

I have no issue with people having different styles of play. I can only do my best to explain the way I run games I do and why. I take what I consider a "middle of the road approach".

I'll just reiterate one of my first postings on this topic. I don't get why this is such a big deal. The biggest difference is that I don't use the "ignore the dice" approach when it comes to some obstacles such as handling simple traps. I allow people to declare their action and intent as a skill check. They're even allowed to roll and give me the number. If it's not clear what they're trying to accomplish I'll ask.

That's all. It's what works for me. If I misunderstood what you were trying to say I apologize.

Hold on. Going back, way, way back to the OP here. If someone is telling the truth what's the insight check to know that far back.


What I said was that I allow the players to roll and that the result is probably going to be "they seem to be telling the truth". Because I try to limit the amount of meta-game knowledge my players have.


Then we get

Elfcrusher said:

why would you want to intentionally give the players more information their characters don't have?

Click to expand...

If you don't allow an insight check because you know the result ... you're giving away information the characters don't have. The players now know the NPC is telling the truth. Yet somehow asking for a perception check that may result in the player not getting any new information is something I should be ashamed of?


As far as...

Elfcrusher said:

Every time you call for a Perception check and the player fails and you just keep moving, you are just expanding the disconnect, the gulf, between player knowledge and character knowledge.


I can totally understand a sheepish, "Yeah, I do that, too, out of habit. I'd like to stop." What I find completely bafflingly perplexing is, "What's wrong with that?"

Click to expand...

Why would I be sheepish? I have nothing to be ashamed of other than your opinion that I'm doing it wrong. In my campaign things happen outside of the PC's control that they may or may not notice. I handle it like most other uncertainty in the game that has a consequence and cannot be directly resolved by PC action, with a die roll.


I don't know how else you could resolve that. If it's critical to the story, they'll find out the minimum they need to know to continue the story with a setback. As far as "compartmentalizing", yes I ask people to not act on knowledge that their PC does not have. I've had people literally break out the MM and start quoting text from it. I resolved that by asking them not to do it in the future. I also assume that if a player is a chemist that knows how to make gunpowder that I don't automatically have to deal with gunpowder in my campaign.


I don't see why that would ever be a problem or what's wrong with it. In other cases instead of overhearing a conversation that would make their investigation a little easier they'll hear about something inconsequential like rumors of a local farmer having a really big cow for sale.


I like to think I take the middle road as described in the DMG but your game seems to be much, much more in the "ignore the dice" realm. If it works for you, great. I accept that different people play for different reasons. Personally I enjoy getting into the mindset of my PC, even when that's different than my own.


<HUMOR?>
THIS JUST IN ... DIFFERENT PEOPLE PLAY FOR DIFFERENT REASONS ... JUST BECAUSE A STYLE DOESN'T WORK FOR YOU DOESN'T MEAN OTHER STYLES AREN'T VALID ... NEWS AT 11 ...
</HUMOR?>

Oofta said:

If you don't allow an insight check because you know the result ... you're giving away information the characters don't have. The players now know the NPC is telling the truth. Yet somehow asking for a perception check that may result in the player not getting any new information is something I should be ashamed of?

Click to expand...

Next stop... 2000 posts! Nice going, [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION]!

Oofta said:

I like to think I take the middle road as described in the DMG but your game seems to be much, much more in the "ignore the dice" realm. If it works for you, great. I accept that different people play for different reasons. Personally I enjoy getting into the mindset of my PC, even when that's different than my own.

Click to expand...

It's a wide road. Apparently. We can all ride there in the middle. In our respective lanes.

Elfcrusher said:

Except I wasn't really joking...

Click to expand...

Perhaps you haven't realized - if you keep working your way to publicly admitting you were knowingly and actively dumping disrespect on people, I will have to act on that beyond waggling a metaphorical finger.

Do you want to keep arguing with me, or do you want to take this as a warning that you probably want to be less disrespectful going forward? Your call.

Please stop weaponizing humour!

You'll just make Them ban it, and then I'll have nothing to contribute to this forum.

Elfcrusher said:

But also a joke with a point: how could it not be obvious why "Can I have a Perception check? 4? Ok, nevermind...." is a DMing technique that could be improved upon?

Click to expand...

It could certainly be used in different ways. If your players are used to thinking that a call for a perception check that yields no information means they missed something, it'll build tensions, for instance... until you've over-used it for that purpose.

Though, if you /don't/ want that tool, you could always stick to Passive Perception. Keep each PC's PP noted behind the screen. Roll monsters' stealth or the like against it. (Or, if you also don't want rolling-behind-the-screen to build tension/telegraph anything, even roll said checks in advance when placing said monsters.)

pemerton said:

Anyway, if the idea is that changes in the game state should all be consequent on players' action declarations, then these GM rolls appproaches seem just as undesirable as calling for a roll from the player.

Click to expand...

Exploring or traveling through an area is an action, no?

Oofta said:

Hold on. Going back, way, way back to the OP here. If someone is telling the truth what's the insight check to know that far back.

What I said was that I allow the players to roll and that the result is probably going to be "they seem to be telling the truth". Because I try to limit the amount of meta-game knowledge my players have.

Click to expand...

Calling for a check is fine, of course, as it just saying that he seems to be truthful (either because he is, or he's an awesome liar they have no chance of detecting).

I think part of the issue stems from 3.x, when your skill at lying was also your skill at telling the truth convincingly. That changed in 4e, it went from Bluff to Diplomacy, and IIRC, 5e hasn't changed it back.

Personally, I still find it all a tad dissatisfying. Honesty should, IMHO, be a solid option, not a dicey one.

*Deleted by user*