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

Charlaquin said:

I have made no such claim. I claim that my way of doing things encourages players to look for ways of resolving actions that don't have a chance of failure or don't have a cost for the attempt or consequence for failure. In contrast to your assertion that my way of doing things punishes players and in so doing makes them rely on their best skills. I am not attacking your way of doing things, I am defending mine.

You keep suggesting that my way of doing things is somehow not "just asking the players to tell me what they want to do, and being prepared for things to become skill checks." This is not the case.

Click to expand...

Then why is it, when I opened this conversation, I was told, well actually you should do it this way. Since, all I do is let players tell me what they want to do and am prepared for things to become skill checks?

Why do you keep telling me that we do things differently, when in the end we do them the same way?

Charlaquin said:

I don't have a plan. It is not my role as DM to come up with a plan for the player to escape. My role is to adjudicate the player's plan.

Click to expand...

So you never play as a player?

That might explain a whole heck of a lot here, because I DM and play as a player. I switch between adjudicating the plan and making the plan depending on the day of the week. If you never play but only DM that might explain why we are having a hard time communicating.

Charlaquin said:

YOU KEEP SAYING THIS, AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT MEANS!!!

Click to expand...

ALL CAPS!!!

Sorry, had to get that out of my system.

At some point in this rambling conversation it was brought up that players who would worry about failing a roll and making a situation worse would simply choose not to roll. They would remain neutral as a counter to the consequences of failure.

So, it was proposed, that there should not only be consequences for failure, but consequences for doing nothing. So, exactly what I said. Consequence for failing and consequence for doing nothing.

Now, since that seems to be something you have a hard time grasping, considering your RESPONSE, I'm guessing you missed out or forgot that side conversation. But, I'm trying to cover my bases in this discussion to not misrepresent the playstyle.

Charlaquin said:

This conversation has come about because you are repeatedly (and seemingly deliberately) misinterpreting my position. Yes, we probably would call for rolls much of the same times. Yes, you probably do call for rolls more often than I do. The difference between our methods is that I have a more rigorous process that I personally follow in adjudicating actions - namely, I ask myself if the character's action has a reasonable chance of accomplishing the player's goal. If it doesn't, it fails. If it does, I ask myself if the character's action has a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the player's goal. If it doesn't it succeeds. If it does, I ask myself if there is a cost for attempting this action, or a consequence for failing. If it doesn't, it succeeds. If it does, I ask myself what Attribute this task would best be resolved with, and whether the task is easy, medium, hard, or very hard. Then I tell the player to make a check with the appropriate Attribute, at the appropriate difficulty, and let them know what will happen on a failure. I do these things primarily to insure that the characters successes and failures will largely be the result of the players' decisions, rather than the roll of the dice. Secondarily, I do these things to encourage players to think in terms of what their character is doing (rather than trying to guess what skill or skills I'll allow them to accomplish their goal with on a success), and to equip them with enough information to make informed decisions.

Click to expand...

If this was just about your personal checklist, why have you felt the need to correct me so many times about the way I play?

And, I still don't see the connection between the things you do and ensuring success and failure come about because of the player's decisions instead of a die roll. Your process is just about when to roll the dice based off player decisions, so it has equal chances of dice rolls going bad. And bad dice rolls don't invalidate the decision, do they? And how does this work towards making sure the players are thinking in terms of their character's actions instead of their skills?

Especially if you don't share your checklist and from the outside there is no difference between our approaches?

Wait...by "guessing" are you just worried about DMs who say "Well, this is a locked door, they need to use the lockpicking skill" and ignore every other plan until the players decide to pick the locks? Did you think that was the style I was advocating at any point?

Charlaquin said:

I don't know, is it really that hard for you to undrstand that words mean things?

Click to expand...

You know, breaking my statements into smaller chunks is making it harder to respond succinctly. I've been dealing with that, but this? Taking this where you have and giving such a sarcastic response does nothing to address anything and is just a jab.

You wanted to quote this with the rest of the section that followed, great, throw in your jab and then address my points. But, don't break it this far apart so that my only possible response is to be rude back. It encourages nothing but trouble.

Charlaquin said:

No, it is not. It is an action. It's a thing the character is doing. It may or may not require a check to resolve, to which Proficiency in the Investigation skill may or may not be applicable. Personally, I'd say Perception would be more appropriate than Investigation here, but that's neither here nor there.

And this way of thinking is a barrier to you understanding my method. Don't worry about what kind of check it is. Just say what you want to accomplish and how your character is going about it. Most of the time, what will happen is pretty much what you think will happen, no roll necessary. Sometimes, I might inform you of a potential consequence that action might have, and what you'd need to roll to avoid that consequence. If you don't want to take the risk, you don't have to.

Correct. You'll note that the action is the thing your character is doing.

No, this is the mechanical process used to resolve the Shove action.

Possibly. That's a DM judgment call, really.

No, it's an action, which may or may not require a Perception check to resolve.

Sometimes. But many actions can be resolved without skill checks.

Click to expand...

I think the shove example is the one that stands out the most out of this list, but frankly, I'm getting tired of the circle.

You want to divide the narrative action from the mechanical resolution. To the point where your advice to me as a player is to not even worry about how my action might resolved. At least, not until you've told me there will be a check and the DC and the consequences for failure.

What am I supposed to be gaining here? If I want to move really fast, I don't just say that and wait for the DM to tell me that I can take the Dash action, I know the Dash action is a thing and I consider both the story and the mechanics. I treat spells, combat actions, and skills mostly the same way. Combat gets reversed more often than not, but social and exploration are handled the same way.

And, I guess what I'm supposed to be gaining is an understanding of your personal checklist for resolution... woo?

Charlaquin said:

I have done no such thing. I don't care if you do things my way or not. I, personally, have found the most success running the game the way I do, which is why I do it. If it doesn't interest you, don't do it my way. Why would I care?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but why would I be defending my style if you weren't commenting on how I was doing it wrong? And then, instead of saying "Hey, it's just the way I prefer to do things" you double down, telling me I don't understand it, that I'm making mistakes in my use of terms, that your method leads to more people making decisions as their characters instead of... on something else since I'm starting to question what exactly you are trying to avoid.

I've been digging into what you are saying, trying to figure it out, and it seems our difference is simply you have a strict checklist that you don't share with your players and just mentally work through? That's what this entire thing exploded from?

pemerton said:

Action declarations sometimes have checks follow them. The action declaration, like the check itself, is an event in the real world. On the other hand, the action is an imagined event that (we pretend) occurs in the fictional world of the game.

I think that keeping these things distinct aids clarity, especially when trying to compare different approaches to action resolution.

For most versions of D&D, including 5e, for many action declarations this simply isn't true. In 5e the action declaration I cast a spell is not normally resolved by calling for a check. Nor is the action declaration I pick the sword up from the ground. Nor is the action declaration I use the key to unlock the door.

Click to expand...

Actually, if we want to get really pedantic to quote [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] "Rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing to a DC is the processes that constitutes the game rules term, "check.""

So, almost all spells are resolved through a check. Either an attack roll or a saving throw.

But while we can pedantically argue down the primrose path, I think another point here is more important. That bolded section... is that the only point to keeping them separated? Just for ease of comparing different styles, most of which will still follow "declaration before roll" no matter what may find its way between? (I think it is fair to say no one has been advocating rolling then declaring an action afterward)

In that case, awesome, I appreciate it existing for that. Why am I getting taken to task for saying there are some checks that don't require a roll (reliable talent, barbarian strength) and that the action and check are so closely linked that I don't see a point in dividing them at the table?

I was told I was wrong for equating actions and checks, that I'm misunderstanding that actions and checks are different, that I'm resolving skills incorrectly because I keep thinking of them in terms of checks instead of actions.

But the entire point of a harsh division... is to help people with different styles be more clear in their discussions. So... I wouldn't have been wrong about any of that. I wouldn't have been resolving actions incorrectly. There was no point in calling me out as being wrong.

pemerton said:

When you say that you disagree, are you (i) doubting the accuracy of my report of my experience, or (ii) reporting your own experience with this approach, or (iii) offering a conjecture?

To me, everything you talk about here is about GMing technique. Yes, if GMs use poor techniques they will get poor games. But that's why we don't use poor techniques!

To elaborate: in most D&D games I've participated in, observed, or read about, the non-combatants don't get to let the fighter "handle" the fighting. The GM establishes situations that put PCs other than just the fighter under pressure. Social situations can be framed the same way. Is the bard the fighter's herald? Well, then, the troll king (or whomever) does not want to deal with flunkies and go betweens - I wish to treat directly with your lord? Is the fighter there in the company of the bard - then the NPC asks, So, what do you have to say? Is the fighter going to refuse to respond? Will the fighter reply "I let our bard do all my talking for me?"

And if the player of the fighter makes a check and fails, why does that mean the fighter put his/her foot in his/her mouth? Why is the GM narrating that as the consequence of failure? When the player of the mage rolls a failed opportunity attack, does the GM narrate that the mage accidentally stabs him-/herself? If not, why narrate social failures in such a fashion. Or to put it another way, why frame the stakes as that the fighter does or doesn't put his/her foot in his/her mouth rather than (eg) that the troll king does or doesn't agree to the fighter's proposal?

To quote a post from another thread:

Click to expand...

I'd say it is more inline with option (ii), but (iii) sprinkles in there.

I have had far too many players who are so scared of failing and making things worse for the party that instead they opt to do nothing.

So, when I see people saying that by adding more consequences for failing a roll than simply defaulting to the status quo, and that makes their players more eager to act, that goes against everything I have seen with new players. The more consequences there are, the more likely they are to withdraw. Now, I do have more experienced players who love diving into issues and getting bloodied up in the process, but I don't need to guarantee that every check has a direct consequences for that to happen.

Failing forward is great, I love that style. But that was not the style I was addressing. This style seems more like "checks shouldn't be rolled unless failure hurts" and that is why I said the fighter puts there foot in their mouth. Under that style, as I understand it, it cannot be that the fighter simply fails to persuade the Troll King. It must be that the fighter makes the situation worse by failing to persuade the Troll King. Losing him as an ally, turning him into an enemy, accidentally getting embroiled in an honor duel, something to make the situation worse than it was before the fighter took the check.

And players can easily shield non-social characters most of the time. The Troll King wants to adress the man in charge, well, why isn't the bard the one in charge? He's the best at giving rallying speeches and dealing with political intrigue. The Fighter is just his Captain of the Guard, good at hitting stuff and not dying.

But you know, I want anyone and everyone to be able to get in on that sort of scene, not just those good at it, which is why I object to a style that says every failure of the dice must make things worse. Sure, sometimes they make things worse, but it should not be a requirement of the check.

Charlaquin said:

Do you, though? Like, I know that punishing dump stats is a time-honored tradition, but... Should it be?

Click to expand...

If there is never a point where a player wishes they had a higher mod in a stat, then alternatively, there would rarely be a situation where a player is getting to utilize that stat to its full extent.

If the melee brute never thinks a task would be easier with a higher charisma, or regrets wearing heavy armor because it ruins stealth, then are the stealthy and social characters really getting their chance to shine? Are they not occassionally regretting having a low strength and low AC?

For choices to matter, both good and bad must be present.

Charlaquin said:

I really like this way of doing things, but I've found that under goal-and-approach, it usually arises organically. For a simple example, look at the locked door with an ogre on the other side. The ogre is not aware of the party. The party barbarian decides to bash the door down with her axe. Chance of success? Check. Chance of failure? Check. Cost for the attempt or consequence for failure? You betcha.

DM: Ok, that's going to require a DC10 Strength check, and the noise is going to alert any nearby creatures to your presence.
BARBARIAN: Can I apply Athletics?
DM: Absolutely.
BARBARIAN: Damn, natural 1, so that's a total of 7.
DM: Your axe clangs against the door, but it doesn't give way.
BARBARIAN: Can I try again?

Now we've got a new action. Again, the barbarian wants to break the door down with her axe. Chance of success? Check. Chance of failure? Check. Cost for the attempt or consequence for failure? Not this time. The ogre on the other side has already heard the noise, it's already aware of the party's presence. Failing again won't meaningfully change the party's situation, so the action is successful.

DM: No need, now that any nearby monsters have heard you, there's no more danger in taking all the time you need to bust the door down.
BARBARIAN: Guys, we sure we don't want to look for another way?
ROGUE: No time, remember? That's why I didn't want to take the 10 minutes to pick the lock.
BARBARIAN: Alright, everyone get ready, in case there's an ambush waiting for us on the other side.
CLERIC: I'm gonna cast Bless on everyone real quick, just to be safe.
BARBARIAN: Good call, thanks. Alright, everyone ready? Three, two, one... I break the door down!

That example got away from me a little bit. My point is, the above is functionally similar to progress with a drawback - the door can be opened in a single roll either way, and either way the party is in a worse position if that initial roll fails. The difference is, the above example affords the party the opportunity to reassess their situation after failing the roll and seeing that they've incurred a drawback. They can break down the door without rolling again if they want to, but they can also decide that now that the drawback is in play, they don't want to open it any more, or they can make preparations before opening it, like the Cleric casting Bless in the above example.

Click to expand...

What would have happened on a success?

I almost didn't like the second set of interactions, but it did allow the cleric to buff the party before the barbarian was done breaking down the door, so I understand why it was there. But, if the players succeeded they get the same penalty that they did for failure?

Or was the reward for success getting surprise on the Ogre?

Elfcrusher said:

Wow, chill. Ok, I shouldn't have typed "your scenario" because you (and I) were picking up the given scenario. Sorry. It should have been "your take on the scenario."

But do you understand the distinction I'm trying to make? It's "you're now in this situation and must make a skill roll" vs. "you are facing this problem what do you want to do?"

Maybe I'm misunderstanding and the fighter/player have options other than relying on a Cha skill, but it doesn't feel like it.

Click to expand...

Still?

Again, the example I picked up was a case where the player saying their character answered the question was already stated.

The talking with troll king ship had sailed. Maybe there were ten trillion alternatives, maybe only 13. I wasnt involved in that part.

I acknowledged they could have refused to answer. But the example picked up at they did answer.

At that point given the declaration of "I answer the question" and uncertainty of the net outcome (reaction) I would have called for a Charisma check. Whether it was persuasion, deception, intimidation or even some knowledge proficiency perhaps that adjusted is impossible to determine without context. There **might** be an insight proficiency playing a part - as in the motel case - but thsts all gonna depend on the specific nature of the scene.

But, my players and I are on the same page about what each of the six abilities represent and cover that we all know that the question of "is this strength, dexterity, constitution, intelligence, wisdom or charisma?) as far as results of a conversation is gonna most likely be "charisma" unless there is something obvious driving it another way.

So, if you think resolving reactions influences with charisma unless there is compelling reason to use another stat in cases of uncertainty boxing someone in, then YUP YOU GOT IT. I boxed that sucker in.

Just like if they want to carry something heavy I box them in by checking strength.

5ekyu said:

Still?

Again, the example I picked up was a case where the player saying their character answered the question was already stated.

The talking with troll king ship had sailed. Maybe there were ten trillion alternatives, maybe only 13. I wasnt involved in that part.

I acknowledged they could have refused to answer. But the example picked up at they did answer.

At that point given the declaration of "I answer the question" and uncertainty of the net outcome (reaction) I would have called for a Charisma check. Whether it was persuasion, deception, intimidation or even some knowledge proficiency perhaps that adjusted is impossible to determine without context. There **might** be an insight proficiency playing a part - as in the motel case - but thsts all gonna depend on the specific nature of the scene.

But, my players and I are on the same page about what each of the six abilities represent and cover that we all know that the question of "is this strength, dexterity, constitution, intelligence, wisdom or charisma?) as far as results of a conversation is gonna most likely be "charisma" unless there is something obvious driving it another way.

So, if you think resolving reactions influences with charisma unless there is compelling reason to use another stat in cases of uncertainty boxing someone in, then YUP YOU GOT IT. I boxed that sucker in.

Just like if they want to carry something heavy I box them in by checking strength.

Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying, and my deepest apologies for offending you so deeply with my attempts at discussion.

Chaosmancer said:

If there is never a point where a player wishes they had a higher mod in a stat, then alternatively, there would rarely be a situation where a player is getting to utilize that stat to its full extent.

If the melee brute never thinks a task would be easier with a higher charisma, or regrets wearing heavy armor because it ruins stealth, then are the stealthy and social characters really getting their chance to shine? Are they not occassionally regretting having a low strength and low AC?

Click to expand...

It's possible different people imagine different things with the language used. By "punish" I (and I think others) are imagining the DM intentionally trying to make sure the player/character is forced to use the dump stat. But maybe others use "punish" to mean just letting people play the game, and not always giving the player an "out" to avoid using the dump stat.

What would have happened on a success?

I almost didn't like the second set of interactions, but it did allow the cleric to buff the party before the barbarian was done breaking down the door, so I understand why it was there. But, if the players succeeded they get the same penalty that they did for failure?

Or was the reward for success getting surprise on the Ogre?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's it. If the Fighter had succeeded on the first attempt they might have surprised the ogre.

Elfcrusher said:

Good post. A couple of comments:

1) Certainly the players deciding to seek out the troll king (somewhat) changes the dynamic, as opposed to, for example, them being captured and then dragged in front of the troll king.

2) Still, even if that's the case, once the fighter is on the spot I don't like a pre-ordained "you must use a social skill now." Let the fighter propose something. "Let me fight your champion!" "I'll pull out that gem-encrusted goblet and offer it to the king as a gift of my esteem." Whatever. And maybe, depending on what the player proposes, the DM will still rule that it will require a skill check of some sort, and maybe even a Cha-based skill. What makes me wary is the idea that "You ARE going to have to make a Cha check to get out of this." (Especially if it's designed as some sort of punishment for dumping Cha, as at least one poster has suggested.)

Click to expand...

The examples you describe are alternatives to what exactly?

Instead of saying "I answer the question?"

Sure, I took up the example after that option was chosen. But there are lots of other answers. It sermsbodd to just blurt out "instead of me answering let me fight somebody?" Or some such before we have gone beyond "tense situation eith ttoll king talking but hey, it could be interesting.

But, how would a GM choose between the "troll king agrees to let them fight instead of answer" and "troll king decides he would rather get an answer" - in other words - did the characters appeal change the troll king's position? To me, that would be a Charisma check or possibly an intimidation strength check -depending on the specifics. Heck, if done right, it could be strength and perform for gosh sakes.

But again, that's not the same adjudication I would use for "I answer the question."

Now if you have jumped ahead to the scene, after the answer where a problem has occurred as a result of "I answer the question" and are suggesting a variety of ways to redolvevthat, that is another case.

Mort said:

I wasn't actually thinking of forcing a roll.

I was more thinking of the charismatic, well spoken player trying to downplay the 8 CHA, and still trying to act like a face.

In other words, if the player voluntarily tries to talk to the king - I'll filter the conversation with his CHA and skill level in mind.

Click to expand...

That’s cool if that’s the way you like to do things. Personally, I prefer to let the player’s goal and approach speak for themselves. When and if one of their actions requires a Charisma check to resolve, the -1 they’ll get to that roll is penalty enough for my taste, without me needing to filter the character’s social actions through my idea of whatever 8 charisma means.

Charlaquin said:

That’s cool if that’s the way you like to do things. Personally, I prefer to let the player’s goal and approach speak for themselves. When and if one of their actions requires a Charisma check to resolve, the -1 they’ll get to that roll is penalty enough for my taste, without me needing to filter the character’s social actions through my idea of whatever 8 charisma means.

Click to expand...

Right.

Every now and then that -1 will make a difference, but an 8 Charisma is not abysmal. It's just a little bit below average. In fact, exactly as far below average as a 12 Charisma is above average.

iserith said:

I would not. I don't have the foggiest idea what the PCs' stats are for one, and no matter how charismatic or well-spoken the player is, everything I'm judging still boils down to a goal and approach.

Click to expand...

Wait, you're saying that you'd accept the same approach from a high charisma trained bard as from an untrained low CHA barbarian? Or would you expect different approaches and adjudicate each on on its merits?

If they both tried the same persuasive approach, surely the chance out success should not be equal?

iserith said:

The dump stat will come into play if and when the die is cast and, given how swingy a d20 is, it probably doesn't matter all that much unless the DC is particularly high.

Click to expand...

Actually it would matter a lot.

Let's say you (as the DM) determine that a DC 10 persuasion check is what's called for.

A 5th level bard (or rogue) with expertise and an 18 CHA will auto make that check.

An 8 CHA untrained character of the same level will only have a 50% chance.

Mort said:

Wait, you're saying that you'd accept the same approach from a high charisma trained bard as from an untrained low CHA barbarian? Or would you expect different approaches and adjudicate each on on its merits?

If they both tried the same persuasive approach, surely the chance out success should not be equal?




Actually it would matter a lot.

Let's say you (as the DM) determine that a DC 10 persuasion check is what's called for.

A 5th level bard (or rogue) with expertise and an 18 CHA will auto make that check.

An 8 CHA untrained character of the same level will only have a 50% chance.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing the problem, here. What do you think should happen?