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

Oofta said:

I think this bears repeating. I don't think a failure of a check maintaining the status quo means there should be no check. It's quite illogical to me to say that every failure must have a negative consequence.

In this case there was a possible positive outcome for success, I can't imagine what a penalty could be that would make sense.

Click to expand...

A guard notices your attempt. You strain yourself and take damage. A wandering monster appears and you're still manacled.

It's not hard if you make the mental leap to bad things must happen to then come up with bad things. It's endemic to the mindset that checks are just checks to not be able to see a consequence. Another point for "our play isn't the same except for some wording."

Yep. I don't believe insight equates to mind reading. If it did and was admissable as evidence then it would solve every mystery with a simple "Did you do it?" Now that would be boring.

But some of the responses make it sound like people have never read a mystery or watched a police procedural. Some of the questioners coming out of the interrogation saying things like "I think they're lying" or "They're hiding something, we need to figure out what" is just par for the course. Even if they use insight as magical truth detectors they still have to find proof.

Click to expand...

Again, you confuse your play for ours and assume our games do not provide the same kinds of satisfaction. I put it to you that mimicking the fiction of a police procedural does not rest on a specific preference for mechanical resolution. I get that kind of fiction just fine with my methods. Yours is not the only way to run an exciting or interesting mystery. The difference is what points get mechanical resolutions and, indeed, what actually counts as the mystery.

Ovinomancer said:

A guard notices your attempt. You strain yourself and take damage. A wandering monster appears and you're still manacled.

It's not hard if you make the mental leap to bad things must happen to then come up with bad things. It's endemic to the mindset that checks are just checks to not be able to see a consequence. Another point for "our play isn't the same except for some wording."



Again, you confuse your play for ours and assume our games do not provide the same kinds of satisfaction. I put it to you that mimicking the fiction of a police procedural does not rest on a specific preference for mechanical resolution. I get that kind of fiction just fine with my methods. Yours is not the only way to run an exciting or interesting mystery. The difference is what points get mechanical resolutions and, indeed, what actually counts as the mystery.

Click to expand...

If I'm not being clear, I'm just saying how I run it and what makes sense to me. I see no reason to always have a cost of failure, I think it actually detracts from the game because I don't want to discourage creativity.

You've added cost of failure as a pre-condition for a check, I don't think it's necessary and would frequently feel artificial to me.

I am not commenting on your play style one way or another. Run your game the way you want.

IMHO, I think the best example of how to model Insight is by looking at the character of Patrick Jane in the Mentalist. He has an very high Insight. He can do things that seem mysterious, but just rely on his insight into human behavior. He isn't a walking lie detector, but he notices "tells" that give people away.

The difficulty in modeling this for the DM is working it into the narrative without relying on dice rolls, but still letting the player know that his skill investment is paying off. I had a similar issue with a player on the Observant feat. It came up all the time in play, but since it is mostly passive, he didn't realize its use and was thinking of swapping it out.

Oofta said:

If I'm not being clear, I'm just saying how I run it and what makes sense to me. I see no reason to always have a cost of failure, I think it actually detracts from the game because I don't want to discourage creativity.

You've added cost of failure as a pre-condition for a check, I don't think it's necessary and would frequently feel artificial to me.

I am not commenting on your play style one way or another. Run your game the way you want.

Click to expand...

In our game, if there is no cost to failure then the action can just be narrated as an automatic success or an automatic failure. We don't bother with rolling if there is no meaningful consequence to failing.

Silly example:

With no cost of failure:
Player: My character howls at the moon to see if the Goddess of the Harvest will respond.
DM: Ok. Cool howl. The Goddess does not respond. Now what would you like to do?

With a cost of failure:
Player: My character howls at the moon to see if the Goddess of the Harvest will respond.
DM: Ok. Make a Charisma (Performance) check. DC 15. If you fail, the wolves that you've been hearing in the distance will take offense.
Player: On second thought...

At our table, knowing that any action might have a meaningful cost of failure does not discourage creativity - in fact, it is quite the opposite in practice. Creativity is often rewarded with lower DCs, Advantage, or automatic success, depending on the situation.

DM Dave1 said:

In our game, if there is no cost to failure then the action can just be narrated as an automatic success or an automatic failure. We don't bother with rolling if there is no meaningful consequence to failing.

Silly example:

With no cost of failure:
Player: My character howls at the moon to see if the Goddess of the Harvest will respond.
DM: Ok. Cool howl. The Goddess does not respond. Now what would you like to do?

With a cost of failure:
Player: My character howls at the moon to see if the Goddess of the Harvest will respond.
DM: Ok. Make a Charisma (Performance) check. DC 15. If you fail, the wolves that you've been hearing in the distance will take offense.
Player: On second thought...

At our table, knowing that any action might have a meaningful cost of failure does not discourage creativity - in fact, it is quite the opposite in practice. Creativity is often rewarded with lower DCs, Advantage, or automatic success, depending on the situation.

Click to expand...

This.
[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] you've said multiple times that you see asking for a check as only being stylistically different from the goal and approach method, yet we've shown there are clear differences in both methid and design. Are you now willing to acknowledge that there are clear differences in the styles, or will you continue to maintain you see liitle difference?

Chaosmancer said:

Also, because I enjoy puzzle solving, I'm curious how that trap with the portcullis and the barrels works. I'm assuming that the portcullis being triggered breaks the barrels and unleashes the poison (though how they can tell poison gas from a distance...) but isn't that a really easy trap to get past? Hit the barrels from a distance and wait for the poison to dissipate or settle. Heck, might even be able to use it against the trap designer by pushing the poison further past the portcullis.

It seems too simple, so am I missing something or is that one supposed to be an easy one?

Click to expand...

It is essentially that simple, yes. I don't know how simple it will actually prove to be in play, because my players often unexpectedly complicate things by thinking it can't be as simple as it looks*.

To answer the question you put in parentheses:

I don't intend to tell the players that the barrels are full of poison (actually more like an acidic poison gas). In describing the scene I'll mention that the barrels are faintly labeled in Goblin speak (or whatever language I chose, I forget the details). Someone bothering to read the labels will discover that the labels are a prayer beseeching the gods to keep the fatal dissolving gas contained until the right time, or some such nonsense.

All the other questions you ask are excellent, and are exactly the sort of thing I hope to elicit from my players, and they investigate it and decide how to deal with it. Maybe they disable it, harmlessly trigger it, or even weaponize it.

As a DM,and as the trap designer, I don't care which they do. I just hope that is an interesting enough puzzle so my players enjoy doing with

This trap is a pretty straight forward puzzle with a simple "win condition" (get to the other side). If you make it past the trap and find a way to use it against your enemy**, that's a bonus . . . but that is more complicated than just getting past, which probably will be more dangerous because now you're probably interacting more closely with the poison, too.


(I should also maybe mention that I tend to make a straightforward trap like this significantly dangerous if it does hit someone. I think this trap deals 10d6 damage per round, and the gas lingers for several minutes, but again, I can't remember the details)


*As an example, see the next footnote.

**This is what I'm talking about.

DM Dave1 said:

In our game, if there is no cost to failure then the action can just be narrated as an automatic success or an automatic failure. We don't bother with rolling if there is no meaningful consequence to failing.

Silly example:

With no cost of failure:
Player: My character howls at the moon to see if the Goddess of the Harvest will respond.
DM: Ok. Cool howl. The Goddess does not respond. Now what would you like to do?

With a cost of failure:
Player: My character howls at the moon to see if the Goddess of the Harvest will respond.
DM: Ok. Make a Charisma (Performance) check. DC 15. If you fail, the wolves that you've been hearing in the distance will take offense.
Player: On second thought...

At our table, knowing that any action might have a meaningful cost of failure does not discourage creativity - in fact, it is quite the opposite in practice. Creativity is often rewarded with lower DCs, Advantage, or automatic success, depending on the situation.

Click to expand...

Whereas I would say that there doesn't need to be a meaningful cost of failure other than you did not succeed. Sometimes there will be a cost, other times there won't. If I think failure would have no meaningful consequence I'm not going to make something up just to meet some arbitrary requirement of "failure has to have a cost".

In other words, if someone tries to climb a 10 ft wall they aren't going to fall far enough to take damage. If they can keep trying until they succeed then I'll narrate them getting over. If there's a time constraint or other reason they can't continue to repeatedly attempt to climb then I'll ask for a roll even though there is no direct cost to failure.

Ovinomancer said:

This.
[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] you've said multiple times that you see asking for a check as only being stylistically different from the goal and approach method, yet we've shown there are clear differences in both methid and design. Are you now willing to acknowledge that there are clear differences in the styles, or will you continue to maintain you see liitle difference?

Click to expand...

I agree that I probably wouldn't want to play at your table based on my understanding of what you say you do. I'd give specifics but I'm tired of being told what I think and how I "misrepresent" what you say.

I freely admit (and tell new players) that not every DM is a good fit for every player. My style, restrictions on no evil PCs and allowed races may not work for them. The way I handle obstacles may not work for you. I may not throw in enough puzzles for [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION]. It's hardly the end of the world.

Have a good one.

Ovinomancer said:

This.
[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] you've said multiple times that you see asking for a check as only being stylistically different from the goal and approach method, yet we've shown there are clear differences in both methid and design. Are you now willing to acknowledge that there are clear differences in the styles, or will you continue to maintain you see liitle difference?

Click to expand...

Not Oofta but how in the example just provided does that differ from asking for a check wpproach.

First example - context - no dangerous wolves or creatures in area. PCs not hiding. Check has no chance of success. So, this falls into let them make the roll and move on. Maybe describe the difference in nearby noises. Might make them worried. But more to the point, if they achieve a high score and were proficient, I might well give them a reward... something does hear them and come by... not dangerous but interesting. Or maybe, right after their howl, lights appear below in the woods. See, their "goal" might be impossible but that in no way prevents something cool ftom coming of the effort - since we are determining results of actions not a more strict "did you achieve goal."

Second example, context shifts - threats are around. The check is set as a degree of difficulty to sound enough like wolves to not draw unwelcome attention or get lucky enough that they dont get to you. Now, success can be treated like above. But failures likely get setbacks. But hopefully, some of the others point out the risk.

As for creativity, Oofta has like I have made multiple references to giving advsantage etc for various choices, now I personally dont give rewards for creativity. If something gets advantage, it will do so the first time, the twentieth time etc, not just when it fits some creativity check mark.

But, I am sure your viewpoint of your play proves to you that you are right about its merits. But it remains mostly a self-referential cycle.

Oofta said:

Whereas I would say that there doesn't need to be a meaningful cost of failure other than you did not succeed. Sometimes there will be a cost, other times there won't. If I think failure would have no meaningful consequence I'm not going to make something up just to meet some arbitrary requirement of "failure has to have a cost".

Click to expand...

Neither are those of us who say there must be a cost or consequence for there to be a check. If there is a chance of success, a chance of failure, but no cost or consequence, then the action is successful.