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

[Hussar]

Also note, that 5e does have a mechanic for "extended" skill checks - downtime activities. Spend a week on information gathering and find the document, if the check is successful. Depends on what level of granularity you want.

 

[Oofta]

Using Skills versus Declaring Actions
The reason I think the distinction is important is that if you start allowing players to just state, "I make an X check" you are essentially training them to stop thinking. Why put the clues together and realize you should look under the drawer when you know you can just make a skill check? And if the DM knows the players are just going to make a skill check, why put the work into creating the clues?

Summary
While Hussar's play style is legal & valid, I think it's leaving a lot of fun & interesting gaming on the table. It's qualitatively if not quantitatively the same as rolling Investigation from the tavern instead of first going to the office. Yes, it does take more DM prep to do it iserith's way, and if that work isn't done then, yeah, all this stuff is "just the boring part before you get to fight something."

I've had DMs that wanted me to describe how I searched a door for traps. How the frick would I know? I'm not a rogue. I'm not trained in finding traps. Besides if I describe how I carefully sprinkle talcum powder or use a small mirror on a stick to check that spot I can't quite see is it's boring. Not only to me, but to everyone else at the table.

Sometimes traps are more than just traps. It's a puzzle you have to figure out (although I pretty much hate puzzles/riddles in most games as well). Sometimes searching the office should be more than just searching the office. For me, most of the time it's just either "you only have a moment to search" in which case they probably wouldn't find the note taped under the drawer unless they rolled extremely high or "the guards are nowhere in sight, do you want to take your time?" In that case I may not even require a search check, or have them make one just to see how long it takes. Sometimes I'll ask something along the lines of whether they're being careful to not leave a trace that they searched the room.

I would no more ask a player to describe how they are searching the room than I would ask them how they are cooking dinner. Unless of course they (and the group) enjoy that kind of thing.

As far as "training them to stop thinking", I simply disagree. I'm simply not forcing them to play "my way". Sometimes interacting with the environment can be enjoyable, but most of the time it just feels like filler that does nothing to advance the story. Frequently filler that only engages one person. It has nothing to do with being a lazy DM, but the reality is that my time, and the group's play time, is limited. I'd rather spend my time figuring out that the captain of the guard is really the baron's cousin and they've been conspiring together to steal from the merchants who have become more powerful while framing a political dissident and how to drop bread crumbs for the group to follow if they want.

When the player does an insight check it prompts me to think of a way to reward that initiative by uncovering something up with some subtle clue. Maybe the guard is a bit nervous and glances in the direction the captain just came from. Maybe I would have thought to do that without the request for the skill check, maybe not.

For me, I just think describing your actions by asking to do a skill check is a perfectly fine shortcut the majority of the time. When it's not, I'll prompt for details.

As far as what's fun, different people have different preferences. When I judged for public games, my tables were always one of the first to fill up. My games are very heavy RP and I've had people put up with me as a DM for years on end. My style is just different than yours.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I've had DMs that wanted me to describe how I searched a door for traps. How the frick would I know? I'm not a rogue.

That is an important question for GMs to ask, to avoid the following situation.

Player: I search the door for traps.
GM: As you touch it, contact poison seeps into your skin, make—
Player: Hang on, I never said I touched the door! That's not fair!

 

[Guest 6801328]

I've had DMs that wanted me to describe how I searched a door for traps. How the frick would I know? I'm not a rogue. I'm not trained in finding traps. Besides if I describe how I carefully sprinkle talcum powder or use a small mirror on a stick to check that spot I can't quite see is it's boring. Not only to me, but to everyone else at the table.

If you think what some of us are saying is as simplistic as this, you're not understanding it. I'm certainly not asking somebody to know how to search for traps in the general sense, but I might ask them to use previous hints and clues to know what to do in a specific case.

Sometimes interacting with the environment can be enjoyable, but most of the time it just feels like filler that does nothing to advance the story.

That's how I feel about "skill" rolls that require no thinking or narration. Take the following:

Player: "I'll check the chest for traps with Investigation...I rolled an 18"
DM: "You find a poison needle trap."
Player: "I'll try to disarm it using my Thieves' Tools...I rolled a 21!"
DM: "You disarm it."

What was the point of ANY of that? Literally the only skill on display here is the player's ability to remember rules. As Hussar says, this should be rushed through because it's totally boring. Let's get to the fight!

 

[Guest 6801328]

I will add that you will never find me arguing a position in D&D by comparing it to reality or realism. I want to be clear on that point so that you don't conflate my position with others.

I almost never argue from a basis of realism, either.

In this particular case I'm just pointing out that to interpret the text to mean that you can "detect lies" would make it the only skill that doesn't map to a normal, mundane, real-world, non-magical (and non-supernatural, if Tony is listening) activity. I'm not saying an ability should be realistic, but perhaps we can infer designer intent by comparing to others in the same category.

EDIT: What I will also argue here is that "lie detection" is a bad fictional device. As bad as "detect alignment". So many great story lines depend on the players being unsure of who to believe, who to trust. If that can be circumvented with a simple skill roll...I mean, WTF...why not let players Intimidate bosses into surrendering? "Hey, you rolled a nat 20, guess you don't have to fight the dragon after all; he'll give you his treasure!"

 

[Hussar]

If you think what some of us are saying is as simplistic as this, you're not understanding it. I'm certainly not asking somebody to know how to search for traps in the general sense, but I might ask them to use previous hints and clues to know what to do in a specific case.



That's how I feel about "skill" rolls that require no thinking or narration. Take the following:

Player: "I'll check the chest for traps with Investigation...I rolled an 18"
DM: "You find a poison needle trap."
Player: "I'll try to disarm it using my Thieves' Tools...I rolled a 21!"
DM: "You disarm it."

What was the point of ANY of that? Literally the only skill on display here is the player's ability to remember rules. As Hussar says, this should be rushed through because it's totally boring. Let's get to the fight!

But, how is that improved by insisting on the player providing extra narration? How is "I do x, y and z" improving anything? There's nothing wrong with a simple poison needle trap. Gives the rogue a reason to be there, he gets to bypass the trap and we move on. No worries. If he failed, there would be negative consequences.

 

[iserith]

EDIT: What I will also argue here is that "lie detection" is a bad fictional device. As bad as "detect alignment". So many great story lines depend on the players being unsure of who to believe, who to trust.

A conclusion one might draw here is that D&D 5e isn't as good as other games at creating those kinds of stories as written. It can be done, but I think D&D is better at... dungeon and dragons... than hardcore mysteries or the like.

If that can be circumvented with a simple skill roll...I mean, WTF...why not let players Intimidate bosses into surrendering? "Hey, you rolled a nat 20, guess you don't have to fight the dragon after all; he'll give you his treasure!"

It may seem like splitting hairs, but it's not the "skill roll" that is doing anything other than resolving the outcome of a task the players have described as wanting to do. And it's an ability check that the DM doesn't have to call for if he or she finds the outcome to be a failure. (It's a good idea to get out in front of the players here in these sorts of situations and establish certain tasks as being impossible while describing the environment.) In any case, the task is what matters which is why we want player to say what they are trying to do and how they're going about doing it.

 

[Yardiff]

That is an important question for GMs to ask, to avoid the following situation.

Player: I search the door for traps.
GM: As you touch it, contact poison seeps into your skin, make—
Player: Hang on, I never said I touched the door! That's not fair!

The tables I've played at, this example would only happen on a failed check to find traps. Since contact poison on the door is a trap then a successful investigation would have spotted it.


Edit: Depending on the edition it would only happen if the investigator failed by 5 or more. Not sure of the rules in 5e.

 

[Hussar]

I almost never argue from a basis of realism, either.

In this particular case I'm just pointing out that to interpret the text to mean that you can "detect lies" would make it the only skill that doesn't map to a normal, mundane, real-world, non-magical (and non-supernatural, if Tony is listening) activity. I'm not saying an ability should be realistic, but perhaps we can infer designer intent by comparing to others in the same category.

EDIT: What I will also argue here is that "lie detection" is a bad fictional device. As bad as "detect alignment". So many great story lines depend on the players being unsure of who to believe, who to trust. If that can be circumvented with a simple skill roll...I mean, WTF...why not let players Intimidate bosses into surrendering? "Hey, you rolled a nat 20, guess you don't have to fight the dragon after all; he'll give you his treasure!"

What's wrong with that?

One thing I loved in 4e was the fact that you actually COULD use intimidate this way. Freaking fantastic. Note, nat 20 has ZERO meaning in a skill roll, other than simply being high. Obviously the DC to intimidate a dragon would be rather high, and, frankly probably impossible. But, otherwise? Love the idea of clearing out a bunch of mooks with an intimidate check.

Then again, I love morale rules in D&D. Use them all the time.

 

[iserith]

One thing I loved in 4e was the fact that you actually COULD use intimidate this way. Freaking fantastic.

Like D&D 5e, the D&D 4e DM determines if a skill check* is appropriate in a given situation and directs the player to make a check if the circumstances call for one. Unlike D&D 5e, however, D&D 4e suggests that the player often initiates a skill check by asking if they can make one. And almost always, according to the D&D 4e rules, the DM says yes.

A player can attempt to intimidate the boss monster into surrendering in D&D 5e. The player just doesn't get to ask for a check and instead describes what he or she wants to do. And here is where trying to determine the boss monster's ideal, bond, flaw, and agenda (an action that may be resolved with an Insight check) is important since that is exactly the sort of leverage the character might want to coerce the enemy into doing as asked.

* Minor point: There aren't actually "skill checks" in D&D 5e. That term does not exist. There are ability checks and there are skill proficiencies that may apply to the ability check.