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

[Hussar]

Heh, thinking about it, how does that pedestal trap work? It sinks if there isn't the right amount of weight on it? Hang on, how exactly do you do that?

Which, in my mind, is why I generally don't futz too much on the details. Too much risk of making stuff that, under a bit of scrutiny, doesn't actually work. I remember running the World's Largest Dungeon years ago. One of the most egregious examples of what I see as "describe what you do" play was in a room description where it actually says something to the effect (it's been a number of years, I could get the exact quote if you really want me to), PC's who state they are looking at the ceiling have a chance of noticing the darkmantles hidden there (DC whatever). Those who don't are automatically surprised".

Yeah, I don't play that way. If you say you are looking around the room, that includes up. So, yeah, to me, simply saying, I look for traps in the room is perfectly fine. I'm not interested in any more detail than that.

 

[iserith]

Heh, thinking about it, how does that pedestal trap work? It sinks if there isn't the right amount of weight on it? Hang on, how exactly do you do that?

Magnets.

Which, in my mind, is why I generally don't futz too much on the details. Too much risk of making stuff that, under a bit of scrutiny, doesn't actually work. I remember running the World's Largest Dungeon years ago. One of the most egregious examples of what I see as "describe what you do" play was in a room description where it actually says something to the effect (it's been a number of years, I could get the exact quote if you really want me to), PC's who state they are looking at the ceiling have a chance of noticing the darkmantles hidden there (DC whatever). Those who don't are automatically surprised".

Players who state they are staying alert to hidden danger while traveling the dungeon and don't turn their attention to other tasks that distract from that effort get to apply their passive Perception when the DM determines surprise.

Yeah, I don't play that way. If you say you are looking around the room, that includes up. So, yeah, to me, simply saying, I look for traps in the room is perfectly fine. I'm not interested in any more detail than that.

Where in the room are you looking? Do you move about the whole chamber freely? Is there any feature of the room as describe that you're careful to avoid? Are you using any items in your search? How long do you take to perform this task?

 

[robus]

Sorry about that. I guess I keep thinking there's a simple answer, and there's not.

As we have covered this in other threads and I do feel like there has been a simple answer for some time (Iserith, for example, is able to sum it up in a paragraph or less) I have to wonder why it isn't accepted as a simple answer?

Now you may not like the answer (and that's fine) but to keep asking for it to be explained and complaining that there's never a simple answer seems more like a desire to not understand?

In our games the player simply states an adjudicatable goal and approach. What are they trying to achieve and through what mechanism. "I want to get to the top of the wall by climbing it". "I want to tame the horse by offering it some hay". "I want to break through the door by kicking it in". The DM then takes those inputs and decides whether it succeeds, fails, or is uncertain (where failing has some meaningful consequence). For example, failing to break down the door might cause the occupants to be alerted.

That's all. Is that simple enough? Please let us know where any confusion might lie. Again, you may not like this way of handling player actions and that's fine. But it's really not complicated, just different from how earlier editions have run it (or so I understand).

To bring it back to the OP, "I want to determine if the NPC is telling the truth" cannot be adjudicated because there is no approach declared. The player could have said "by studying their behavior", "by reading their mind", "by casting zone of truth". The first might be resolved by the DM declaring that the NPC seems like they're being completely honest, no obvious attempt at deception. The others would be handled in the appropriate manner for those spells/abilities. But without an approach a goal has no way to be resolved.

 

[Charlaquin]

Heh, thinking about it, how does that pedestal trap work? It sinks if there isn't the right amount of weight on it? Hang on, how exactly do you do that?

Which, in my mind, is why I generally don't futz too much on the details. Too much risk of making stuff that, under a bit of scrutiny, doesn't actually work. I remember running the World's Largest Dungeon years ago. One of the most egregious examples of what I see as "describe what you do" play was in a room description where it actually says something to the effect (it's been a number of years, I could get the exact quote if you really want me to), PC's who state they are looking at the ceiling have a chance of noticing the darkmantles hidden there (DC whatever). Those who don't are automatically surprised".

Yeah, I don't play that way. If you say you are looking around the room, that includes up. So, yeah, to me, simply saying, I look for traps in the room is perfectly fine. I'm not interested in any more detail than that.

I don’t think most people would consider the “If the players don’t say they’re looking at the ceiling, they’re automatically surprised” to be at all reasonable. I certainly don’t. I want a goal and an approach to actions they take, but I don’t require that degree of specificity, and I certainly wouldn’t expect players to specify that they’re looking up when they’re just exploring the dungeon.

 

[Oofta]

As we have covered this in other threads and I do feel like there has been a simple answer for some time (Iserith, for example, is able to sum it up in a paragraph or less) I have to wonder why it isn't accepted as a simple answer?

Now you may not like the answer (and that's fine) but to keep asking for it to be explained and complaining that there's never a simple answer seems more like a desire to not understand?

In our games the player simply states an adjudicatable goal and approach. What are they trying to achieve and through what mechanism. "I want to get to the top of the wall by climbing it". "I want to tame the horse by offering it some hay". "I want to break through the door by kicking it in". The DM then takes those inputs and decides whether it succeeds, fails, or is uncertain (where failing has some meaningful consequence). For example, failing to break down the door might cause the occupants to be alerted.

That's all. Is that simple enough? Please let us know where any confusion might lie. Again, you may not like this way of handling player actions and that's fine. But it's really not complicated, just different from how earlier editions have run it (or so I understand).

To bring it back to the OP, "I want to determine if the NPC is telling the truth" cannot be adjudicated because there is no approach declared. The player could have said "by studying their behavior", "by reading their mind", "by casting zone of truth". The first might be resolved by the DM declaring that the NPC seems like they're being completely honest, no obvious attempt at deception. The others would be handled in the appropriate manner for those spells/abilities. But without an approach a goal has no way to be resolved.

What do you want me to say? I don't see a difference between "I make an athletics check 15 to climb the wall" as being significantly different than "I want to get to the top of the wall by climbing it". In both cases the player has made their intended action obvious.

I just don't see why people care. Either they can climb the wall or they can't. If they can climb the wall but require an athletics check I'll ask for one if they didn't give it to me already. If the wall can't be climbed, it can't be climbed no matter what they roll. If they didn't need to roll an athletics check to climb the wall in the first place then they just wasted a roll and I'll probably let them know there were enough hand-holds that anybody could climb it.

I can see that for some DMs knowing the number before they decide the DC could be problematic, it's never been an issue for me. As far as not requiring a roll for things that are auto-succeed or failure I've posted quite a bit on that. Sometimes I don't want the players shouldn't know it was an auto success or failure.

 

[robus]

What do you want me to say? I don't see a difference between "I make an athletics check 15 to climb the wall" as being significantly different than "I want to get to the top of the wall by climbing it". In both cases the player has made their intended action obvious.

I was hoping you'd to say that, yes, the answer is simple, and you just don't like it!

 

[robus]

Which, in my mind, is why I generally don't futz too much on the details. Too much risk of making stuff that, under a bit of scrutiny, doesn't actually work. I remember running the World's Largest Dungeon years ago. One of the most egregious examples of what I see as "describe what you do" play was in a room description where it actually says something to the effect (it's been a number of years, I could get the exact quote if you really want me to), PC's who state they are looking at the ceiling have a chance of noticing the darkmantles hidden there (DC whatever). Those who don't are automatically surprised".

WotC, IMHO, pulls this crap way too much in their published adventures. It's not only unpleasant for the players, it makes more work for the DMs as we try and figure out ways to telegraph some hint that there's some overhead trap.

 

[Oofta]

I was hoping you'd to say that, yes, the answer is simple, and you just don't like it!

If by that you mean that I'm more flexible on how my players let me know what they're trying to do, and that I don't expect them to utter some magic phrase or know how to accomplish a task their PC knows how to accomplish, then yes.

 

[robus]

If by that you mean that I'm more flexible on how my players let me know what they're trying to do, and that I don't expect them to utter some magic phrase or know how to accomplish a task their PC knows how to accomplish, then yes.

And this is why I think you're deliberately trying to misunderstand our position and pretend it's more complicated than it is. We're really not wanting players to jump through magic hoops, we just want them to clearly communicate an action through their goal and approach. You seem to assume that we have a predetermined phrase that the player must utter to pass our test (or expert domain knowledge that no one could reasonably expect). Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply want to the players to engage with the game world through their imagination rather than relying on the options listed on their character sheet.

Ah well, I tried...

 

[Immortal Sun]

I think the inherent problem is that "knowing the NPC is lying" relies on two things that aren't checks:
Does the NPC know their statement to be a lie? (lets assume for the moment they do)
Does the PC possess sufficient information to determine it to be so?

Quite simply, there may not be a DC to know for certain that a statement is or isn't a lie. The players may simply lack the appropriate information to determine it either way. It's why I don't set DCs for NPC statements to be determined to be truths, lies, or otherwise. I have the players roll their own checks based on the information they have or the beliefs they hold, basically against themselves to determine if they believe the statement from the NPC.

How do I determine that? Well, frankly it's character-specific.

And personally, it's far more fun when players/PCs don't know things 100% and they have to form beliefs and opinions on things based on incomplete or erroneous information, or their guts.