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

Ovinomancer said:

Oofta said:

Traps don't have neon signs saying "I'm trapped" in my campaigns. On the other hand, I don't use traps particularly often but when I do they're logical located and I rely heavily on passive skill checks.

Click to expand...

Sure they do, to highly competent tomb raiders. There's holes in odd places, discolorations, mismatched tiles, etc. If you actually treat traps as utterly invisible until the player guesses it's time to make a check and succeeds (or invests in a high passive score to avoid secret traps), then you should take it as given we play very different games. To me, traps aren't gotchas that players can stumble into, but are encounters all their own -- they have tells and signals because I want the players to interact with them, not hide them.

Click to expand...

Small heads up.

You just accidentally told him about how things work in his game. I'm sure you didn't mean to, but it looks bad.

Oofta said:

My point is I don't see a reason to state a goal in most cases. It just becomes "I listen at the door" aka "I make a perception check at the door". The goal is obvious. As far as what senses are used I believe the phrase was "I sniff at the door to see if I smell the perfume". If a PC is at the door and doing a perception check I'm going to give them the smell of the perfume if it's important to the game. The way it was stated made it sound like it would not be obvious unless they were specifically saying they were sniffing the air. Conversely if they were sniffing at the base of the door they may not hear something. Not my style. If it's not yours either than I don't see why it matters how they describe their perception check.

Traps don't have neon signs saying "I'm trapped" in my campaigns. On the other hand, I don't use traps particularly often but when I do they're logical located and I rely heavily on passive skill checks.

Click to expand...

Well that’s interesting. And I suppose I could posit you a half dozen “what-ifs” and that you might answer something like “that’s why ‘I roll perception’ works in all cases.” Fair enough - it does work.

But let’s say I’m DM-ing a game and you’re a player. As a table, we’ve agreed (for whatever reason; mystery, whatever) that I will make all dice rolls behind the screen for all players and NPCs alike. All the players will need to do is say what they’re characters are doing in the game world. Does/would that change how you play?

I ask this because when I first started I was 8 years old and playing with the neighbor boys, he oldest brother was the DM (and this was the old AD&D) and he kept literally everything behind the screen, rolling all checks. Also we only had one set of dice, and maybe that was a big reason he rolled everything. Later in life when I played 2nd edition onward, the ThAC0 roll and the attack matrix were player info and we did get into the habit of calling rolls instead of stating actions. Only since like 4E have I (and my tables) gone back to narrating actions. So I just wondered whether “who rolls” would change the way you might approach the game world.

Satyrn said:

Small heads up.

You just accidentally told him about how things work in his game. I'm sure you didn't mean to, but it looks bad.

Click to expand...

Really? I mean, that takes a whole lot of wanting to read it that way. I'm not going to tiptoe around such delicate readings.

Charlaquin said:

Solid GMing advice! And accordingly, I do not demand that my players speak in first person or an accent, nor do I discourage them from doing so if they wish. I myself iften narrate NPCs actions and dialogue in third person. Note, however, that Paul still describes his character’s attitude and actions, he does not simply annonice skills he wishes to roll.

Now, the DMG does specifically discuss allowing players to simply declare checks. It is given as one of three ways a DM might go about adjudicating actions. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with using any of those three styles, or any other style you might have independently developed. Personally, I prefer the style described as “the middle path” by the DMG, because it is the only one of the three that is says does not have disadvantages.

Click to expand...

Just as a point of order, if you're referring to the "Rolling With It" method on DMG page 236, it does not say players declare checks, only that "some DMs rely on die rolls for almost everything." It goes on to say the DM is the one who calls for checks.

To my knowledge, there is no support in the D&D 5e rules for players declaring or asking to make checks, except in some circumstances the player might ask if a skill proficiency applies to an ability check for which the DM has already called. Players asking to make checks appears to come from nearly 15 years of people playing D&D 3.Xe and D&D 4e where this was an expectation. It continues commonly to this day despite no suggestion to do so in D&D 5e.

If you're referring to some other section that makes this claim, I'd very much like to see it as perhaps I've missed something.

Ovinomancer said:

Really? I mean, that takes a whole lot of wanting to read it that way. I'm not going to tiptoe around such delicate readings.

Click to expand...

Really.

That took no amount of wanting to read it that way. Indeed, I want to read it like you're saying how things work in your game, but I have to ignore what you're actually saying to get there. Lookat what he said and how you replied:

Him: Traps don't have neon signs saying "I'm trapped" in my campaigns.
You: Sure they do.

Do you really not see it?

iserith said:

Just as a point of order, if you're referring to the "Rolling With It" method on DMG page 236, it does not say players declare checks, only that "some DMs rely on die rolls for almost everything." It goes on to say the DM is the one who calls for checks.

To my knowledge, there is no support in the D&D 5e rules for players declaring or asking to make checks, except in some circumstances the player might ask if a skill proficiency applies to an ability check for which the DM has already called. Players asking to make checks appears to come from nearly 15 years of people playing D&D 3.Xe and D&D 4e where this was an expectation. It continues commonly to this day despite no suggestion to do so in D&D 5e.

If you're referring to some other section that makes this claim, I'd very much like to see it as perhaps I've missed something.

Click to expand...

Nope, you’re right, I just misremembered the “rolling with it” section.

pemerton said:

I'm not saying it's impossible as an event at a gaming table! But I find it easy to imagine that in a lot of contexts, as a GM, that would not give me enough information to adjudicate it. I'd have to ask the player to elaborate.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and I'm a proponent of asking for clarification if the DM needs it.

Charlaquin said:

No worries. I was attempting to point out, with a bit of levity, that the frustration with having to constantly defend one's self against the same tired points over and over again runs both ways here. In hindsight, I too came off more bristly than I intended to, and I apologize for that.

Click to expand...

No problem, things always get heated when we talk about things we are passionate about.

Charlaquin said:

I think it's important to take into account the context surrounding Isereth's quoting of the passages in question. Isereth is a firm advocate of trying the rules as written first before altering anything, so that one knows how the designers intended the game to be played, and is better equipped to depart from that intent with specific intent. He's not saying "you're doing it wrong, look, here's where the book says so!" He's saying, "here's where D&D 5e tells you how the designers intended play to work. Don't knock it till you've tried it." And I've seen a few commenters say that this style isn't anything new, they played with DMs who did it that way in the 80s, and it wasn't for them. But D&D 5e wasn't out in the 80s. If you haven't tried running D&D 5e that way, you should really give it a shot before you judge it too harshly. It might work out better than you expect it to.

Click to expand...

See, I would agree with you if it was a few times, or if it was in regards to specific questions.

But, if I put an example of someone asking to roll a d20 for a skill, Isereth posts that they aren't allowed to do that.

That does not come across as advocating for a playstyle, that comes across as saying the attempt is invalid because of the rules.

Charlaquin said:

*Snipping individual yes and no's*

Only if you consider "roll perception" to be an approach. It's not. Rolling perception is something the player does to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of the character's action. In order to determine whether or not it is appropriate for the player to roll perception, I need to know what the character is doing that might have an uncertain outcome.

Click to expand...

Reading through all your negatives, it really seems like you are trying to be ultra-precise. You will not move forward with resolution until you have an action verb that is tied to a specific sense that could be used to perceive something.

I'm not that precise, and the only thing you seem intent on avoiding that this may help with is avoiding upsetting your players by resolving something based on an action they might have done. Which is a valid concern, but is not my primary concern when running the game.

Charlaquin said:

See, I wouldn't like that. That would undermine my confidence in the consistency of the world. If your players skills and abilities don't consistently behave the same way - if sometimes they can heal torn souls with Channel Divinity and other times they can't - then it's no surprise that they don't wan to describe what their character is actually doing in the world to try to figure out if there are monsters waiting to ambush them. They aren't certain how the world will respond to that action, because sometimes it works one way and sometimes it works another. It's only natural that they would feel the d20 is more reliable than their own sense of what might happen in response to their characters' actions. Which is saying something considering how swingy d20s are.

Click to expand...

I think we are getting mixed up with our "uncertainties" again.

A cleric can always attempt to heal a soul with channel divinity. It might not work because the damage was caused by a specific threat that left wounds you aren't powerful enough to heal. It might not work because you are standing in the dominion of a being opposed to your deity and your power for miracles is diminished here. Maybe it doesn't work because you couldn't handle the strain of channel so much divine power.

The world (at least as well as I can make it) isn't inconsistent. But it isn't spelled out all the time. A paladin is immune to disease, but a magical disease contracted by the paladin almost breaking their oath in the usage of an artifact of Orcus... maybe they aren't immune to THAT.

Demons are immune to poison, but are they immune to the Cosmic Serpent's venom?

It doesn't make for an inconsistent world, just one larger than the books laid out.

Charlaquin said:

But your use of "skill check" as interchangeable with the rules term "action" is causing actual confusion. Using the English definition of "action" to describe something that is an action by the english definition but is not an action as defined by the rules of D&D is not.

Click to expand...

That wasn't what I was saying when this line of discussion came up.

I just said not all skill checks need to be rolled, because sometimes a player's abilities would change the roll or negate the roll.

If a rogue has reliable talent they cannot roll below a 10. That means their minimum for a check is X. If X is higher than the DC you might not call for a roll. But, Reliable Talent only works for skill checks. If you refuse to call an action that doesn't require a roll a skill check (sorry, ability check, skill checks don't exist per the rules either) then Reliable Talent can't guarentee success.

And also, as a side of that conversation, you seemed very concerned that I might know that certain likely actions a player may take would require an ability check. For example, just this morning I had someone roll athletics to tear down a steel vault door. The barbarian player likes destruction like that, so when I put the door their I figured they would try and break it down and it was solid enough they might not be able to. We also just got a rogue, it was a well made door, so trying to pick the lock would be a skill check as well. Knowing those very likely scenarios exist, and that they would likely require skill checks isn't a problem. Yet, it seemed to bother you and this line of discussion spun off.

Charlaquin said:

Just so we're clear, are you saying that people who don't think a roll should be called for to determine whether or not a character who is not lying is lying should not participate in this discussion?

Click to expand...

No, like I said, we've moved far beyond the premise of this thread. But, if you are going to get upset at the assumption that a skill check might be called for in a thread that started off about how to resolve skill checks... maybe you should double check your assumptions.

Charlaquin said:

You gave an alternative style of the result of failing on a check that you said you wouldn't allow to fail. Do you not see why that might be confusing?

Click to expand...

Yeah, which is why in that example I specifically called out that fact, and said this was only an example of what I would do if for some bizarre reason we decided to call for a roll anyways. I incorrectly figured that would be enough to make it clear what I was doing.

Charlaquin said:

It's an expression. "A hill to die on" is a cause you defend in spite of significant resistance. Historically, it carries connotations of defending a point with no real tactical value. I'm saying that this point you've chosen to defend to the death doesn't seem to me like a point worth dying for.

Click to expand...

I know what the phrase means.

The point I'm trying to defend... do you even know what it is?

I specifically called out that I would have not allowed that roll to fail. So the point I am defending is I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

If you think defending yourself against false accusations is a strange hill to die on...

Charlaquin said:

Except that coca-cola has nothing to do with mustard on fries. Your alternative style of resolving the action in the example is directly related to the action in the example. You can say "but I would allow wiping the handle to automatically succeed!" until you're blue in the face, but as long as you keep following it up with, "but if we did agree to roll for it, this is what failure should have looked like," the first part doesn't really mean anything. A better analogy would be that if someone used mustard on fries as an example of a bad combination of foods, and you said, "obviously I would put catchup on my fries, but if someone did put mustard on their fries, they should go with dijon." Which kind of mustard is least disgusting on fries was never a point of contention, why are you bringing it up? The whole point was that putting mustard on fries is obviously gross. But the fact that you keep saying "yeah, it's gross, but if you put mustard on fries, you should use dijon!" makes me question if you really do think mustard on fries is gross. I know you keep saying it, but you sure seem insistent that dijon is better than yellow on fries. Almost like you're speaking from experience.

Click to expand...

Actually, dijon mustard is great on fries.

So, your entire problem with my statement is that I said "What you did wasn't right, but if we did it, we would at least do this part better"

Strange hills indeed.

Elfcrusher said:

Ok, guilty of the "every 5 feet" accusations. And I'm really not...honestly...accusing you (or anybody specific) of doing that; it's a little bit of illustrative hyperbole, because I've seen it happen. And I think in some ways it's the result of really old school (e.g., or really E.G.G., Tomb of Horrors) ideas about D&D.

But to answer the question at the top of your post, the point is that we're trying to get away from essentially random "Perception" checks...whether they are every 5' or simply at every suspicious door...because it feels, to us, like algorithmic playing. 'Don't forget to roll that trap check die at every suspicious door.' It doesn't...again to us...feel like storytelling.)

Click to expand...

I can see that, and appreciate it.

I also think that sometimes I want to get the drop on the players, and not just the characters.

Sure, a failed perception check would mean they don't know what is behind the door, but the telegraphing and very fact that they rolled it means they know something is beyond the door.

And so they will try and prepare and mitigate the unknown risk. And sometimes that is fine, and sometimes there is a part of me that wants them to panic a little bit, to get completely blindsided by a clever enemy or an unsuspected trap. Not often, not even once every campaign, but sometimes.

And if I have an unspoken contract that says that will never happen, I feel just a little more limited than I like.

Charlaquin said:

I don’t know, I think the word choice is accurate. I do think it works better to run it the way I do, that’s why I do so. You’re free to disagree with me. If your way works better for you, then I wouldn’t expect you to run it the way I do.

Click to expand...

I think it would have been better if you have written some thing like, 'I/We believe for my/our playstyle that it works better..."


Just saying 'it works better...'


See this way it comes across as your opinion instead of statement of fact that the game is better when run 'by the book'.


But it could be that I miss read what you were trying to convey.

Satyrn said:

Really.

That took no amount of wanting to read it that way. Indeed, I want to read it like you're saying how things work in your game, but I have to ignore what you're actually saying to get there. Lookat what he said and how you replied:

Him: Traps don't have neon signs saying "I'm trapped" in my campaigns.
You: Sure they do.

Do you really not see it?

Click to expand...

I see how you've decided to turn this into a problem, yes. Honestly, given the blatant misrepresentations that have been going on in this thread regarding my play, how should I react to someone calling me out on a very small matter of some less that perfect wording?

Never mind. Probably not as helpful as I first thought.