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

Oofta said:

For the hundredth time: if the DM doesn't call for an insight check or if the player is not allowed to ask for one then the players know there was no skill contest. Since there was no skill contest the players now know the NPC was not trying to deceive them.

Click to expand...

That is an assumption made at your table, perhaps, but that is not part of the game in any official sense.

Bawylie said:

So close. 5 of those words ought to mention how. Probably the 1st 5. “Using my thieves’ tools...” for instance.

Click to expand...

A magnifying glass is also a good choice and may grant advantage on the Wisdom (Perception) check - should the DM determine a check is appropriate - if the trap is hidden in, for example, a highly-detailed carving on the door.

Imagine that - two different approaches to the same goal and one of those approaches might be more efficacious than the other.

Elfcrusher said:

That is an assumption made at your table, perhaps, but that is not part of the game in any official sense.

Click to expand...

Players know how contests work. They know that deception is countered by insight. I assume my players are not idiots.

Bawylie said:

So close. 5 of those words ought to mention how. Probably the 1st 5. “Using my thieves’ tools...” for instance.

Click to expand...

Use thieves tools to investigate a door for traps? Cool trick. Not applicable at all, but it's your game.

Now if they remind me they're using eyes of minute seeing or ask if they can use a magnifying glass, that might be information they should impart. Unless of course they always use the eyes of minute seeing and it's just their standard modus operandi unless there's any question of whether it would be useful or not.

Oofta said:

Use thieves tools to investigate a door for traps? Cool trick. Not applicable at all, but it's your game.

Now if they remind me they're using eyes of minute seeing or ask if they can use a magnifying glass, that might be information they should impart. Unless of course they always use the eyes of minute seeing and it's just their standard modus operandi unless there's any question of whether it would be useful or not.

Click to expand...

Thank you; it is a cool trick.

But if it isn’t applicable, are you saying the attempt automatically fails?

Oofta said:

Players know how contests work. They know that deception is countered by insight. I assume my players are not idiots.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. There is absolutely nothing in the 5e rule set that says if an NPC is lying there is something a player can say or do that always results in an Insight check.

So if your players accurately assume no roll = truth, that is basically a house rule. Maybe a house rule common among players of other editions, but a house rule nonetheless.

And that’s fine. House ruling is part of the culture. But I want to correct your assertion about the actual rules.

Although “The Medellin Interpretation” is pretty clearly what the 5e ruleset says, this conversation would be more engaging if we could stop debating correctness and focus instead on the pros and cons of, and dispelling myths about, the various approaches.

Oofta said:

For the hundredth time: if the DM doesn't call for an insight check or if the player is not allowed to ask for one then the players know there was no skill contest. Since there was no skill contest the players now know the NPC was not trying to deceive them.

Click to expand...

Yup. The problem with your assertion here is that this happens pretty much only when the interaction is trivial or unimportant. If it's a crux moment in the game, I'm very unlikely to determine there's no consequence for failure (it's a crux moment) or that there's no uncertainty. Just because you can imagine a situation where it's somehow important if the PC lies and where you think I (or others) won't ask for a check doesn't mean this is a normal or even rare occurrence in our games.

Fundamentally, this is one of the reasons I keep telling you that you don't understand the approach -- you make these very bad situations as if they're commonly occurring.

The consequence of no insight skill check is a confirmation that the NPC is not trying to be deceptive. Technically there is no "failure" for the PC. The DM is the one who failed by conveying information via meta-gaming that the players should not have had. Maybe you don't care. I do.

Click to expand...

I'm not following this at all -- presumably the player rolled, and can read the dice, and if it's a very low roll they will know they failed? Hmm. Perhaps you always do this contested, so the player doesn't know the NPC's check value because it's behind the screen? Okay, well, that's interesting, because then I don't actually understand what the roll represents in the fiction -- it would appear that the player doesn't know if they succeed or fail because the hidden result of the NPC check is, well, hidden. So, the outcome isn't made clear to the player, only a result that they do not know if they can trust, in which case, I'm not understanding the role of the roll, here -- it's not resolving uncertainty at all.

Well except in the case where I point out that if you do this while questioning subjects as to whether they're the criminal then the answer is "no of course that's not how it works".

Click to expand...

Huh?

Ummm ... I'm not sure I would have run things that much differently. I also have no idea where your getting this idea that I call for checks that have no consequences. Can the players ask or make checks that have no consequence? Sure. People attempt the impossible all the time. People overcompensate all the time. PCs are people. Sometimes they'll kick in the door only to find out that it wasn't locked in the first place. So? The last time this happened we all got a chuckle out of it as the fighter hit the door and had to make a dex save because there was no resistance.

I've given examples (most recently of investigating the house of a potential rogue) where passive checks were the rule of the day to notice traps unless they specifically called it out. If someone failed a disarm trap there were several possible outcomes depending on how much they missed it by.

Where I may run things differently is that if the rogue approached the door he could simply say "I investigate the trap and get a ___". Then I'd tell him the info. If the information was obvious, he may not have needed to roll but I don't see why that matters. He just rolled to save some time.

Click to expand...

If the roll doesn't matter (which I thought you said no rolls without consequences for failure?0, how does this save time? What process was hastened by making an unneeded roll? I'm trying to understand, because you keep telling me that how you do it is just like how I do it, but I'm not following it at all. I mean, I know how you do it -- I did it that way for decades. What I don't follow is how you think your way is like my way when it's different and you keep providing examples of how different it is, while telling me it's largely the same and it's just a cosmetic difference.

When the barbarian declares they're going to charge and gives me a number to smash down the door I might give him a wisdom check (with disadvantage because he's a berserker) to let him know that it looks like it could hurt before I tell him the outcome.

Click to expand...

Why? Why would the barbarian possibly be confused that running into a stone door might hurt? Why would he not know what the rogue just explained about the danger of the trap? What's the consequence of failure for that check -- because this, again, seems to be exactly the same situation as before the check, the barbarian isn't aware of possible dangers.

While the scenario you gave would probably play out much the same other than I don't care if people just call out what skill they are using, this is hardly typical of other situations that have been described. That's better summarized by "avoid skill checks whenever possible by describing things in such a way that my DM will judge my performance to be of such quality that I automatically succeed" which is being pushed. In other words, it's the player's skill not the PC's skill that matters.

Click to expand...

Avoided skill checks: the second similar trap because the ranger was using a light source. Had the ranger looked at the trapped doors instead of choosing to not to, he'd have discovered the groves automatically (because stopping to examine something rather that walking past it is a different approach).

But your scenario? I don't see any of that.

Click to expand...

Exactly -- it has none of the huge bugaboos you imagine our method has. The real difference is that there's not a single die roll that doesn't have a consequence.

Later in the dungeon, there's a sarcophagus that had runes etched all around it in a language none of the characters spoke or were familiar with (Primordial). The cleric attempted to discern if there was any religious significance to the runes -- a question I did not prep. I said it'll be harder due to the lack of knowing the language, but since she is a grave cleric and funeral rites are her bag, baby, I set the DC at 15 and the danger was that if there were any wards or protections embedded in the runes, she'd trigger them. She rolled a 1. The binding of the runes (they were there to keep the mummies in) was broken and a fight started. I hadn't planned any of that beforehand, but the player's choice to try to use her priestly knowledge was interesting and I don't refuse reasonable approaches. A danger was introduced to account for the failure state and the dice rolled -- because it seemed uncertain that the cleric could decipher funeral markings in a language she didn't know.

This is a key point in how I run -- I do not set solutions, I set problems. The players' approach determines the actual solution, or failure, to the problem. My traps, when set, are problems. The encounter above was a problem of how to deal with trapped mummies who had treasure. I have no idea how my players are going to try to solve these problems, but I have a method -- I clearly set the scene, including elements of the problem (scenes without problems are dealt will 'offstage' in downtime); players tell me how they're engaging the problem; if I think it's uncertain, I call for a roll; and I narrate the results.

Oofta said:

I think the biggest difference I see is that I try to reward PC skills instead of player skills. I see overcoming obstacles that require skills as being the responsibility of the PC, not the player. Several classes and builds have their contributions to the game tilted towards non-combat skills. I want to let people play to the strengths of their PC.

Click to expand...

Nope. The player does provide the goal and approach, sure. But, if that approach is uncertain, it's the character that dominates. So, if the player isn't describing approaches that match his character's abilities, a bad time will be had when I call for checks, which turns out to be pretty darned often.

This is never 100% possible of course. Someone who is better at tactics will in general see a better resolution of combat. Someone who is better at solving mysteries and picking up on clues is going to be better at that aspect. I try to balance it out with appropriate skills, whether that's investigation, medicine, survival or whatever I or my players think up.

Click to expand...

Funny thing, the tactics thing is right on because D&D strongly makes combat a challenge for players, not characters. But that mystery thing? I don't really have that problem, because the mysteries in my game aren't written out -- they're problems that the players propose solutions to. So, the character abilities feature very strongly in mystery resolution, and player ability to guess mysteries rarely helps because, when they fail a check, the mystery quite often heads off in a new direction.

That and I have no issue with how players state what they are doing. "I make an investigation check to see if the door is trapped and get a ___" is just as good as "I closely inspect the door looking for traps". It's just shorthand that speeds up the game.

Click to expand...

I guarantee my game runs super smooth and fast when dealing with untrapped doors. Example from recent play:

Me: The hallway ends in a door that is a plain stone door with a simple handle in the center, much like all the other doors in this complex.

Player: I'll open the door, ready for danger on the other side!

This happens because my players trust my narration, and two, because I telegraph things that PCs are looking for, like dangerous traps. For a trapped door, the PCs get this:

Me: The hallway ends in a plain stone door with a simple handle in the center. Your light glints off a strange, shimmery green discoloration on the handle. What do you do?

Player: Hmm. I'm going to inspect the handle without touching it - does it smell funny?

Me: Okay, make a DC 15 perception check to try to identify the substance on the door.

Player: I'm trained in poisoner's tools, does that help?

ME: Absolutely! You recognize the substance as Thieves Bane, a contact poison. It can be neutralized with alcohol.

Player: I have some wine, I'll pour it on the handle.

Me: You wash off the substance, rendering it inert, what next?

Player: I'll open the door, ready for danger on the other side!

I don't hide the game.

So that's it. I generally run a very heavy RP game which has little to do with how I balance player vs PC skill. It in no way means that player decisions have no effect on the game, it just lowers the impact of player skill on specific aspects of the game.

Click to expand...

I can't parse this very well, because it seems to encode a few assumptions of what "heavy RP" and "player vs PC skill" are. Since my players are currently in a large, trapped, temple complex, I'll go back to the session before they got in -- we had four extended social encounters where one group of PCs tried to improve relations with a faction (failed), solicited help from another faction (success), went to a prison to intimidate a witness into giving up a location (barely succeeded), and the other tried to track down a bad guy by talking to a third faction who pointed them at a contact (success), and then tried to intimidate that contact (failed). They all got back together and proceeded to track down a murderer and his gang, which had a social encounter that failed at the start (which I didn't expect but the players started, leveraging the limited fame of the dwarf in the pit fighting circuit to lull guards and try to get in to see the leader, but the dwarf absolutely bombed his CHA check) before having a big, multiple group fight as they went through the whole gang. Lots of RPing, lots of skill checks, where success and failure changed how the situation went. Want to know what I had prepped? None of it. Players surprised me at most every turn, but using goal and approach and assigning a consequence to failure, I was able to easily navigate the scenes. If the players succeeded, they got their goals and we moved to the next part. If they failed, they didn't get their goals and had to do something else. No magic words in sight.

Oofta said:

Use thieves tools to investigate a door for traps? Cool trick. Not applicable at all, but it's your game.

Now if they remind me they're using eyes of minute seeing or ask if they can use a magnifying glass, that might be information they should impart. Unless of course they always use the eyes of minute seeing and it's just their standard modus operandi unless there's any question of whether it would be useful or not.

Click to expand...

Thieves Tools said:

This set of tools includes a small file, a set of lock picks, a small mirror mounted on a metal handle, a set of narrow-bladed scissors, and a pair of pliers. Proficiency with these tools lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to disarm traps or open locks.

Click to expand...

Huh, you're right, totally useless for finding traps. I could use the file to poke depressions, or the mirror to look at things from a different angle, or the scissors to cut any cloth or thin coverings away that might conceal mechanisms. Totes useless.

You keep saying that we're looking for magic words, or testing the player's ability to solve problems, but when presented with a situation where "i use my thieves tools to search for traps" it's you that's saying this is impossible whilst everyone that keeps telling you we don't use magic words is dumbfounded that you would say so. Of course it's a valid approach. We don't have a preferred solution, we have problems that the players tell us how they're going to solve. I'm dead certain [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] (and myself, for certain) are not looking for the one approach we have written in our notes because there are NO approaches written in our notes, only the problems. I never know how the players are going to solve a trap -- it's fun to find out how they do it. Like, maybe, a ranger not using a light source getting caught in a trap where the dwarf decides to head-charge the trap and bust it to free his friend. Never saw that coming.

Ovinomancer said:

I'm dead certain [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] (and myself, for certain) are not looking for the one approach we have written in our notes because there are NO approaches written in our notes, only the problems.

Click to expand...

Yep.

Ovinomancer said:

I never know how the players are going to solve a trap -- it's fun to find out how they do it.

Click to expand...

Recently, I adapted a D&D 4e Eberron adventure to 5e with significant modifications for my regular campaign, then spun off one of the dungeons in the adventure into a one-shot that I ran with another group one night. I modified a trap included in the module and made it a choke point that connected one section of the dungeon to another. I described the environment: "The rumbling of stone upon stone [which they'd been hearing in the distance for a little while] can be heard most loudly in this area. A 10-foot-wide hallway runs 70 feet west to east lined on the north by five alcoves. In each alcove a bloody spike protrudes out of the stone. The wall to the south is carved with stylized images of fierce hobgoblin heroes masticating and devouring many-eyed, tentacled monsters. The floor is damaged and in two places (30 to 40 feet away) the tile has fallen away completely revealing a space beneath the floor."

The basic idea here is that if you step on a pressure plate adjacent to the spike, the spike shoots out of the wall, stabs you, pushes you into a pit trap, the lid of which closes again after you fall in. The floor of the pit is a rolling stone sphere with a small gap between the walls and floor. Now sealed in the pit, you are slowly ground up into a fine paste. To make matters worse, certain areas of the floor in between the alcoves would tilt, so if you tried to jump over the pressure plate and pit trap, you'd land on the tilting floor and it would potentially force you back the other way into the pressure plate or pit trap you were trying to avoid. In short, you are chewed up, swallowed, and digested.

The two groups were different players with different characters. I knew how the trap worked, but I wrote no solution. That's not my job after all. And each group overcame the challenge in their own way. My regular group thought about having the rogue try to disarm the pressure plates one by one, but were concerned about time - every 10 minutes I was rolling to see if wandering kruthiks would show up and that was five potential wandering monsters which could eat up resources they would need later. They decided to piton a rope to the wall at their end and the far end of the corridor (70 feet away) and shimmy across it. The rogue wall climbed using the carvings for grip to get to the other end, then set about affixing the rope with pitons. He got about halfway through that job when the noise attracted some ghouls which attacked the rogue while his allies were far away! So now the rope was only partially attached, meaning the other PCs could use the rope for stability, but could not climb on it. The wizard busted out a Tenser's floating disk, let it trail behind him, and made his way across with help from the rope (and Inspiration!) while two other party members rode it, getting off when they got to a safe spot. Then they engaged the ghouls just as the undead were dragging the unconscious rogue away. It was a great scene.

The other party decided to use 10-foot poles to push hard on the pressure plate, which would cause the spikes to shoot out quickly and retract, but they kept the pressure on the plate so it wouldn't reset. While it was "stuck," they had a PC stand on it to keep it depressed, then they'd repeat the process, essentially leapfrogging it all the way to the end. This had the benefit of keeping the party together when the ghouls showed up, so they had an easier time in that fight than the first party did.