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

Oofta said:

A key difference to our approaches is that what you know determines whether or not the players do an insight check.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "do an Insight check".

A) If you mean the players state they want to use Insight ("Can I roll Insight?" "And me, too?"), then here I'm totally with [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]: the players should state what they do and the DM will determine if an Insight check is called for.

B) If what you mean is that the DM calls for an Insight check, then I don't think I'm changing much. If the players say, "I'd like to look at her body language and listen carefully to her words and see if I can get any clues as to whether she's being truthful" then I can either ask for an Insight check, or just decide to give them the clue, and say, "Well, all she's said is that she hasn't seen him, not that she hasn't heard from him, or tried to contact him..." and see if they take the bait.

As far as the players are concerned the letter could have been a forgery. Or maybe she did write the letter but ensured it would never be delivered and she's just covering her tracks.

To be clear - I have back-and-forth conversations with NPCs all the time. But in this scenario you aren't resolving a contest so the players now know she's telling the truth, at least about the direct answers she's given.

Click to expand...

Sure. But as I've said before in many cases (including this one) I think games are more dramatic and immersive (in the sense that you feel what your character is feeling) if you never know with certainty if somebody is lying.

So to me, the specific scenario doesn't matter. If the players think the PCs would suspect the NPC is lying, then the PCs suspect the NPC is lying. The logical result of that would be to try to determine if the NPC is lying: an insight check.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I just don't think the result should be black & white. (Note that even if you parse the description of Insight the way Hussar does, it most definitely does not say you should get clear, unambiguous answers.)

So a specific scenario? Like the one I gave earlier. The PCs are searching the house of Baron Von Uppity-Up who they suspect is really The Black Snake. Mr Snake has a reputation of being paranoid, and is someone likely to booby-trap their house.

The group has no idea what specifically is trapped or how. If anything is trapped. What does that session look like in your game?

Click to expand...

Ok, you got me. By a "specific scenario" I meant one trap (or one lie). For the occasional trap I can make it a puzzle to solve instead of a straight dice roll.

My answer here is that I would just never run an adventure like this. (At least, I would never write an adventure like this. If somebody like [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] or [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] wrote it I would definitely take a look.) D&D just isn't suited for interesting resolution of traps.

And, as a player, if were in this adventure and it was literally just Investigation roll followed by Thieves' Tools roll, I would be bored stiff. Either that or I would play something with high survivability and then storm through the house kicking open all the doors and smashing all the chests, and hope for the best.

Chaosmancer said:

I think covers a huge bit of it.

Yeah, table time is precious, but my players get interested by some of the more obscure parts of the system sometimes. We've run afoul of the crafting system so many times because I have a cache of players who love exploring that system, despite how it does not work right per RAW (We've come up with a variety of HB options, but none quite right yet)

And so, sometimes they get interested in seeking out some random merchant, especially if I mention they are particularly quirky, and making it into a roleplaying moment. So I'm mentally prepared to have any encounter turn into a social encounter almost at the drop of a hat.

Sounds like your tables have a much more established SOP and they don't end up committing to things quite so randomly, so for you them looking up a crazy old woman to buy chicken blood from her (seriously, they were super-impressed about that chicken blood for some reason) is a rare occurrence, while for me it happens often enough I try and account for it in my SOP, such as it is.

Click to expand...

I don't always play with the same people, and within that group there's variance, so sometimes I still get the sort of thing you're describing. I'm really not good at on the spot improvisation, but one thing I do is have NPC "roles" that need to be filled, and if the players do something unexpected then I can create an NPC on the fly who is going to fill that role. Now the crazy old lady selling chicken blood fits neatly into my adventure, because she's the one who gives them that clue I was saving.

And sometimes I just have to do my best with the improv, fulfilling their need to explore. But when they say, "I want to see if I can detect any signs that she's lying" I don't call for Insight and then say, "Not as far as you can tell" no matter what they roll. I just shrug and say, "She doesn't seem to be doing anything suspicious...I mean, aside from being a nutty old woman who sells chicken blood."

I've been thinking more about how to handle a house full of traps. Now, this might piss off some of you, but here's how I might do that:

As my players describe where they look for traps I'll respond by describing a trap in every location they look.

"Yup, there seems to be little holes in the ceiling. Some look like nozzles or vents."
"Yeah, you can see suspicious squares all over the floor."
"If you look carefully and tilt your head, you see light glinting off of faint gossamer threads criss-crossing the room, but they disappear as quickly as you see them."
"The scything blade traps in the doors are so obvious it's almost an insult to your expertise."
"Oh, yeah, your Detect Magic goes totally haywire. It's like staring at the sun, while tripping and listening to Pink Floyd."
etc.

No matter what they examine, I'll improvise a new trap. (Sam Kinison as DM: "You want a sandbox!?!?! HERE'S YOUR MUTHA$%#!ing SANDBOX!!!! Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!")

Maybe they look for a secret entrance into the place, and I'd put a master switch inside that (hopefully itself some kind of puzzle, but at least its only one puzzle to improvise.) Send Invisible Servants running through? I dunno, I'd have to see what they try, and then decide what the chances are of it working.

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.

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...

Really I think that's the heart of the disagreement. Those arguing for straight ability checks either:
A) Don't think it's boring, or
B) Agree it's boring, but think it's somehow a necessary part of the game.

Elfcrusher said:

Not sure what you mean by "do an Insight check".

A) If you mean the players state they want to use Insight ("Can I roll Insight?" "And me, too?"), then here I'm totally with [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]: the players should state what they do and the DM will determine if an Insight check is called for.

B) If what you mean is that the DM calls for an Insight check, then I don't think I'm changing much. If the players say, "I'd like to look at her body language and listen carefully to her words and see if I can get any clues as to whether she's being truthful" then I can either ask for an Insight check, or just decide to give them the clue, and say, "Well, all she's said is that she hasn't seen him, not that she hasn't heard from him, or tried to contact him..." and see if they take the bait.

Click to expand...

I don't ban the words "I make a [insert skill] check" at my table. If the intent is clear, I don't see why it matters. If the intent isn't clear I'll ask for clarification.

Elfcrusher said:

Sure. But as I've said before in many cases (including this one) I think games are more dramatic and immersive (in the sense that you feel what your character is feeling) if you never know with certainty if somebody is lying.

Click to expand...

This is where I get confused. If someone is using deception it can be countered by a insight check. Basic skill challenge 101. So if a player is suspicious of someone and wants to make an insight check and no insight check is called for then they know the NPC is not using deception.

Then you say that the player should never know with certainty that the NPC is telling the truth which I agree with. But if you didn't ask for an insight check there was no deception so they know the NPC is telling the truth but you say the player should never know ... and so on and so forth.

Or are skill checks just irrelevant in your game? Because you stated

Elfcrusher said:

The fact that she didn't try to hide the existence of the letter should be a strong hint she isn't lying. And now they have another clue, by asking her which inn she sent the letter to.

Click to expand...

So based on my understanding you would not ask for nor allow an insight check. If a player says something along the lines of "I don't believe her, the letter could just be her covering her tracks." Would you ask for an insight check then? Would you just ignore them? Tell them they have no reason to doubt her?

Because personally I'd be okay with "I don't believe her, the letter could just be her covering her tracks and I roll __ on an insight check." I'd roll a D20, ignore the result and say "She seems to be telling the truth."

Elfcrusher said:

Ok, you got me. By a "specific scenario" I meant one trap (or one lie). For the occasional trap I can make it a puzzle to solve instead of a straight dice roll.

My answer here is that I would just never run an adventure like this. (At least, I would never write an adventure like this. If somebody like [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] or [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] wrote it I would definitely take a look.) D&D just isn't suited for interesting resolution of traps.

And, as a player, if were in this adventure and it was literally just Investigation roll followed by Thieves' Tools roll, I would be bored stiff. Either that or I would play something with high survivability and then storm through the house kicking open all the doors and smashing all the chests, and hope for the best.

Click to expand...

So traps are pointless in D&D for you? People in your game should never invest in skills to find or disable traps?

Overuse of mundane traps is boring. Appropriate use of traps (even if resolved by a die roll) is very rewarding for some people who spend significant resources on being good at being the trap expert. I want to reward people for the compromises and design decisions they made for their character, not just reward players that know how to describe solutions in a way that make sense to me.

In the scenario of investigating a paranoid trap-makers house I would use passive investigation everywhere and if someone was particularly suspicious (they find a chest or an ornate door to the lower level for example) then if they ask to do an investigation check (either "I do an investigation check" or "I look at it closely" works for me) then I'll either take their roll or their passive value whichever is highest. If the PC's skill is high enough that there's no chance of failure I'll just narrate it as a little pat on the back. "Because of your awesome skills you easily disarm every trap you come across."

Some traps would just be a simple roll. I don't know why you think that would always be boring. I think there can be a fair amount of tension even in a simple roll, not every action needs to be acted out. Not every swing of the sword needs to be narrated.

On the other hand, it can be quite fun. Let's say the check barely fails. "You start to disable the trap and there's a slight clicking sound. You realize that if you move a muscle there's a slab of stone that will fall on you, crushing you and blocking the passage. What do you do?" Now it's a team effort/scramble. Does the BDF use his athletics to try to push the stone back? Does the rogue try to give instructions to the wizard on how to reset the catch that is still barely holding the stone? Is there an inscription on the stone you can now see that could have religious meaning? Do the other PCs just ask where to send his personal effects and wish him luck?

Or the PCs discover a trap but it takes multiple people to disarm for some reason, or realize they just triggered a trap that's slowly filling the room with water, or the walls or going to slowly crush them unless their buddy Artoo-Deetoo at the control panel can disarm it first. There are a lot of ways of doing it, but when I use traps it's rarely boring.

Elfcrusher said:

Really I think that's the heart of the disagreement. Those arguing for straight ability checks either:
A) Don't think it's boring, or
B) Agree it's boring, but think it's somehow a necessary part of the game.

Click to expand...

Or, as others have pointed out, think that negating the value of skills sets up a two-tier system. If you're good at convincing the DM that your plan will work you never need to rely on skills which takes away a lot of the fun of the game.

If the checks were boring I wouldn't use them. There are many campaigns where there's nary a trap in sight because it doesn't work for the group.

Oofta said:

If you're good at convincing the DM that your plan will work you never need to rely on skills which takes away a lot of the fun of the game.

Click to expand...

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.

Oofta said:

Or, as others have pointed out, think that negating the value of skills sets up a two-tier system. If you're good at convincing the DM that your plan will work you never need to rely on skills which takes away a lot of the fun of the game.

If the checks were boring I wouldn't use them. There are many campaigns where there's nary a trap in sight because it doesn't work for the group.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's "negating the value of skills" you just don't actually roll the dice for them as often. I will often tell somebody who has a high proficiency they succeed, without bothering to roll. Or I'll pick the person with the highest Arcana or Perception or whatever to tell them something they know or notice.

And, yes, when there's uncertainty about the outcome, and the outcome matters, dice will get rolled.

Also, as DMDave says, it's not "convincing the DM", although it is true that the DM has to adjudicate. But that's really no different that the DM setting the DC when playing by the straight "roll a skill" method.

Oofta said:

So based on my understanding you would not ask for nor allow an insight check. If a player says something along the lines of "I don't believe her, the letter could just be her covering her tracks." Would you ask for an insight check then? Would you just ignore them? Tell them they have no reason to doubt her?

Click to expand...

Wait...Insight check for what? The player didn't do anything, he/she just stated his/her beliefs. They are entitled to believe whatever they want. (Which varies from some posters, who believe an Insight check must be made, and success/failure dictates what the character has to believe, regardless of what the player wants.)

So traps are pointless in D&D for you? People in your game should never invest in skills to find or disable traps?

Click to expand...

I don't believe there is such a skill in 5e.

On the other hand, it can be quite fun. Let's say the check barely fails. "You start to disable the trap and there's a slight clicking sound. You realize that if you move a muscle there's a slab of stone that will fall on you, crushing you and blocking the passage. What do you do?" Now it's a team effort/scramble. Does the BDF use his athletics to try to push the stone back? Does the rogue try to give instructions to the wizard on how to reset the catch that is still barely holding the stone? Is there an inscription on the stone you can now see that could have religious meaning? Do the other PCs just ask where to send his personal effects and wish him luck?

Click to expand...

....aaaaaannnnd you just described what [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has been evangelizing. Regardless of how you decide to adjudicate disarming the trap, once he fails all those options that you just listed are players taking actions based on the scene as described by the DM. The DM can now either grant success, grant failure, or ask for a dice roll if the outcome is uncertain.