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

[Oofta]

Um...locks?!?!?! Maybe I've been playing wrong, but I've always let tools be applied to most/all locks, but relatively few traps.

In fact, upthread I thought I was being funny allowing Thieves' Tools proficiency to be used to "disarm" a poisoned doorknob, and since nobody commented I thought nobody noticed. But maybe you didn't see anything wrong with it?



I was referring to the sentiment that it's not fair to not let people "roll skills" whenever they want to, after they had "invested" in them. Since the only thing you can spend those points on is skills, if I treat all skills the same way then nobody can make a "bad investment".

LOL, true. Long day. I guess I also had the impression that you would find locked doors boring too.

 

[Hussar]

Since thieves tools come with pliers, wouldn't "disarming" the doorknob be simply using the pliers to open the door?

Again, since I pretty much never bother with this sort of thing, the player is 100% free to describe anything he or she likes after she's succeeded on the check. Heck, if the player wants to Fonzie Bump the door open, I'm happy.

 

[Oofta]

Ok “roll everything” crew -

Wait, there's a "roll everything" crew? I thought there was a "roll as a last resort only if the DM asks for it possibly because the player can describe what they're doing without invoking the forbidden I make a skill check statement" vs the "use a mix, don't penalize people for preferring to use dice" crew.

A hypothetical. You’re the DM. You’ve posed a scenario in which adventurers have to overcome some obstacle - let’s say give a password or something. Or punch in a combination. Something like that such that there’s a right answer, wrong answers, and the ability to roll some check to bypass the obstacle.

If I, a hypothetical player in this hypothetical scenario, guess the password/ combo correctly on my first try, are you having me roll the dice anyway? What if I’m correct but my ability check fails?

How do they know the password? If it's something I mentioned in passing two games ago, I'll just tell them what it was especially if in-game it was yesterday. If I gave them the password/combination there is no skill check. If it's something I've dropped clues about it's great if they picked up on it and remember. If not I may ask for intelligence check to see if they remember.

But just guess by sheer luck? How would that even work in any game?

What if I take an action in your game - a manifestly correct action by any reasonable account - and my die roll fails?

What kind of action? You mean that action that I had envisioned as being difficult but then someone elegantly describes how they're doing it without really changing anything? Just because they can describe in minute detail how to track a bear in the woods does not mean I won't ask for a survival check.

If you mean they just walk over to the other side of the room to use the hallway when I thought they were going to have to scale the exterior wall then there's no need for any check.

In other words, if they are resolving the challenge in the same way someone would have solved it using a skill with no additional in-world mechanical advantage it's no different. They still need to roll although I may reward inspiration. If they come up with an alternate solution that bypasses the challenge then no roll necessary.

Social skills are a little different in certain cases. I don't care if you're a silver tongued devil who makes a compelling argument or just say "I point out X, Y and Z", bringing up relevant details can affect the outcome. While I encourage the former I don't force the latter. I don't expect people to play my way.

In other words, I try to minimize player skill and emphasize PC skill in my games.

 

[Oofta]

Since thieves tools come with pliers, wouldn't "disarming" the doorknob be simply using the pliers to open the door?

Again, since I pretty much never bother with this sort of thing, the player is 100% free to describe anything he or she likes after she's succeeded on the check. Heck, if the player wants to Fonzie Bump the door open, I'm happy.

If invoking the Fonzie bump, I do break my general rule of using a player skill check. They must give a thumbs up and an "ayyy" or it doesn't work. Sorry, but I have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[Oofta]

Wait...Insight check for what? The player didn't do anything, he/she just stated his/her beliefs. They are entitled to believe whatever they want. (Which varies from some posters, who believe an Insight check must be made, and success/failure dictates what the character has to believe, regardless of what the player wants.)

BTW, you never answered my question. If the player states "I study her closely looking for hints that she's not telling the truth. I'm trying to glean clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms." what do you do? Ignore them?

If you ask for an insight check since that's the definition of the skill, what's wrong with them saying "I make an insight check?"

If you tell them they can't do that, how is that not telling them what their character does?

 

[5ekyu]

Going Retro the inquisitive in XGtE has this feature. Wonder if it has any impact on anyone who thinks there is no skill to detect lies?

When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you develop a talent for picking out lies. Whenever you make a Wisdom (Insight) check to determine whether a creature is lying, treat a roll of 7 or lower on the d20 as an 8.

 

[iserith]

That said, I think my RPGing involves more checks than yours.

This may be a function of system

My approach is informed by the rules of the system. We're talking about D&D 5e.

If we were talking about D&D 4e, I'd be arguing the other way. But we're not, so I'm not.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

What kind of action? You mean that action that I had envisioned as being difficult but then someone elegantly describes how they're doing it without really changing anything? Just because they can describe in minute detail how to track a bear in the woods does not mean I won't ask for a survival check.

/snip

In other words, I try to minimize player skill and emphasize PC skill in my games.

Pretty much this. This is the stuff. Just like I wouldn't penalize the player for not being able to talk as well as his character, I wouldn't reward that player for having knowledge that his character may very well not have.

I really wish I could remember the actual quote, but, years ago, on these boards, a very wise poster once said something to the effect of, "The dice provide the direction, I provide the script". So, yeah, most narration follows die rolls, not precedes it. Don't tell me how you're doing something, make the check first and THEN tell me what you did. Because, frankly, until you roll, no one at the table knows what you actually did.

I treat out of combat pretty much the same as combat. I would never grant auto success or failure during combat and I would never narrate an attack before the die roll. Why would I do that out of combat? You want to influence that NPC and bring him or her around to your way of thinking, roll first and THEN tell me what happens. Or, I'll tell you. Either way.

 

[5ekyu]

Pretty much this. This is the stuff. Just like I wouldn't penalize the player for not being able to talk as well as his character, I wouldn't reward that player for having knowledge that his character may very well not have.

I really wish I could remember the actual quote, but, years ago, on these boards, a very wise poster once said something to the effect of, "The dice provide the direction, I provide the script". So, yeah, most narration follows die rolls, not precedes it. Don't tell me how you're doing something, make the check first and THEN tell me what you did. Because, frankly, until you roll, no one at the table knows what you actually did.

I treat out of combat pretty much the same as combat. I would never grant auto success or failure during combat and I would never narrate an attack before the die roll. Why would I do that out of combat? You want to influence that NPC and bring him or her around to your way of thinking, roll first and THEN tell me what happens. Or, I'll tell you. Either way.

Simply put, yup. At least as far as challenges that matter.

That said, i do use the auto-success based on proficiency rule in the DMG. So, if auto-success in a challenge that matters hits, its due to character ability.

I once described it as "the player is the navigator (choosing the path and the direction and the destinations) but the character is the driver and so its the character's skills that mostly determine success and failure at the actual fiddly bits and events of the driving."

 

[iserith]

I really wish I could remember the actual quote, but, years ago, on these boards, a very wise poster once said something to the effect of, "The dice provide the direction, I provide the script". So, yeah, most narration follows die rolls, not precedes it. Don't tell me how you're doing something, make the check first and THEN tell me what you did. Because, frankly, until you roll, no one at the table knows what you actually did.

According to the rules of D&D 5e, the DM describes the environment, the player describes what he or she wants to do, then the DM narrates the result of the adventurer's action. (Repeat.) This pattern holds regardless of the content in the scene - combat, exploration, social interaction. Combat is a bit more structured than the other two pillars, but that loop remains. If a roll occurs, it happens after the player describes what he or she wants to do. The DM calls for this roll when there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure with an eye toward balancing calls for outright success with appropriate checks, if that DM follows the "middle path." If failure is indicated, the result can be straight-up failure or progress combined with a setback.

I find games run more smoothly when everyone at the table plays by the intended play loop. If a player physically cannot offer a goal and approach sufficient to communicate to the DM due to some personal hardship or challenges, then accommodations rightly should be made. But it does not take a smooth-talker, mechanical engineer, or weapons expert to be successful at D&D. Even the most flowery or technical language still gets boiled down to a goal and approach which is adjudicated accordingly.