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

[Oofta]

Seems like there’s a “player decisions don’t matter; only dice rolls do” group and a “player decisions matter and dice rolls may determine the outcome of those decisions” group.

I’d personally prefer a game in which my decisions impacted the chance of succeeding or failing versus a game in which my decisions were irrelevant compared to what I throw on a die.

If the game is just throwing dice, and no decision making or real choices, i don’t feel like I’m actually playing anything. Even Yahtzee has choices and decision points, after all.

But if it’s just “roll to continue” over and over - I’ll pass.

I don't know where any of that comes from. Player decisions absolutely matter. It's what sets D&D apart from video games.

An example. The group needs to gather information from an NPC. If the NPC is hesitant or hostile, in my games getting information will largely be PC skill driven. What the players decide to do with that information is completely up to them.

But even when gathering that information, approach, details and arguments do matter. I don't think people are stating otherwise. I just don't care if it's "I roll an intimidation check ___ and remind them of X, Y and Z" or a more detailed back and forth. I prefer the latter but sometimes the former is simply more expedient or is the style the player is more comfortable with.

However there are times when the group just doesn't care about certain aspects of the game. If they'd rather have some hireling go off to gather info while they have a dart throwing contest why would I care? All I care about is that they're engaged and having fun.

 

[Hussar]

Demonstrating faults in your arguments is not the same as saying you're playing wrong.

The player is who is being challenged in a game-play sense by making choices appropriate to the situation. The character has resources that, when applied along with a goal and approach, reduce the difficulty (or perhaps increase it, if the player makes bad choices). The character is only being challenged in a fictional sense. And I've already addressed the matter of "gaming the DM" several times, which is also a bogus assertion. It does not describe a mode of play that anyone with whom you're discussing this topic engages.

Also, will I get a response to my question here or shall I give up hope that we'll find a point on which we can agree?

So, repeatedly stating that you're doing what the game expects you to do, isn't for the purpose of proving that you're doing things right? Then why repeat it with every single post you've made for the past several? Why do you keep restating this over and over and over again if you're not making an appeal to authority in order to tell everyone who disagrees with you that they're playing the game wrong?

And, sorry, but, my linking isn't working so well, there's at least one poster here who has me blocked. IIRC, your question was something along the lines of should players try to minimize risk? Was that the question? Sorry, I never thought it was an actual question, because it seemed like such a basic answer. Of course they would. So, sure, engage the mechanics - Help action, that sort of thing - to try to succeed. But, "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" or, to put it simpler, gaming the DM which is precisely what you are advocating, regardless of how many times you try to say you aren't, is not something I enjoy.

I'll agree that even when you're "challenging the character" you're still challenging the player, just in a different way.

So it comes down to, in a really coarse sense: do you challenge the player's ability to remember rules, or do you challenge their ability to narrate creative solutions?

@Hussar says he doesn't want to advantage some players over others, because it's all about the characters, but doesn't his version of "challenge the characters" advantage those who are good at memorizing rules?

Or did I just repeat what @Bawylie was saying?

Oh noes, I give advantage to players who actually play the game? The shame, the shame. Sorry, but, if you want to play a game, learn how to play. I have zero interest in playing with people who cannot be bothered learning the mechanics anymore. I've been there. Played with that guy who spent the first six months not even knowing the most basic things on his character sheet. Yeah, not interested in that anymore. Play the game we've all agreed to play or find another table.

In no other game would this even remotely be tolerated. Can you imagine sitting down to play poker with someone who has been taught the game, plays weekly for six months and still cannot remember if two pairs beats a three of a kind? Blarg. No thanks. It's not like gaming is really that complicated. If you cannot learn one page of information (what's on your character sheet) in thirty or forty hours of play I no longer have patience with that person.

I guess those players didn't memorize the part where it's the DM who calls for ability checks. Better luck next edition maybe.

Heh, yup, I'm doing it wrong. You keep stating this stuff like it's a carved in stone rule and that D&D cannot encompass numerous playstyles. Why are you insisting that your way is the one true way? Why is it so hard to accept that not every table does it your way and not everyone views play advice as the holy writ of gaming? Sheesh.

 

[iserith]

So, repeatedly stating that you're doing what the game expects you to do, isn't for the purpose of proving that you're doing things right?

No. It's for the purpose of showing where I derive the approach I use.

Then why repeat it with every single post you've made for the past several? Why do you keep restating this over and over and over again if you're not making an appeal to authority in order to tell everyone who disagrees with you that they're playing the game wrong?

Often it's to refute abjectly incorrect assertions about my approach from posters such as yourself.

And, sorry, but, my linking isn't working so well, there's at least one poster here who has me blocked. IIRC, your question was something along the lines of should players try to minimize risk? Was that the question? Sorry, I never thought it was an actual question, because it seemed like such a basic answer. Of course they would. So, sure, engage the mechanics - Help action, that sort of thing - to try to succeed. But, "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" or, to put it simpler, gaming the DM which is precisely what you are advocating, regardless of how many times you try to say you aren't, is not something I enjoy.

I actually don't care what you do or do not enjoy. Not even a little. What I do care about is the aforementioned abjectly incorrect assertions you make because it may give other people reading this exchange the wrong idea. It's a curious thing why you'd do that.

But I am at least heartened by our agreement that mitigating the effect of a d20 is a good thing as a player. Do you agree that two different approaches to, say, opening a door might result in a situation where one is calls for an ability check and one is deemed an outright success?

Heh, yup, I'm doing it wrong. You keep stating this stuff like it's a carved in stone rule and that D&D cannot encompass numerous playstyles. Why are you insisting that your way is the one true way? Why is it so hard to accept that not every table does it your way and not everyone views play advice as the holy writ of gaming? Sheesh.

That was a joke. At least @Bawylie got it. I'd use a smiley but I find them unprofessional.

 

[Bawylie]

No. It's for the purpose of showing where I derive the approach I use.



Often it's to refute abjectly incorrect assertions about my approach from posters such as yourself.



I actually don't care what you do or do not enjoy. Not even a little. What I do care about is the aforementioned abjectly incorrect assertions you make because it may give other people reading this exchange the wrong idea. It's a curious thing why you'd do that.

But I am at least heartened by our agreement that mitigating the effect of a d20 is a good thing as a player. Do you agree that two different approaches to, say, opening a door might result in a situation where one is calls for an ability check and one is deemed an outright success?



That was a joke. At least @Bawylie got it. I'd use a smiley but I find them unprofessional.

Smileys are only unprofessional in a formal setting. This is informal. I’m not even wearing pants.

But don’t smile at that.

 

[Oofta]

That's not the definition of an insight check, it's a possible use.

The "problem" as you frame it for this is small in one way, large in others. It's small in the sense that a GM can run with it and assume things and most likely be right enough that it's a reasonable shortcut. It's large in that it assumes there's no consequence for failure and that this method doesn't work for more ambiguous checks.

Approaching the latter issue first, it's of little surpruse that examples chosen to highlight asking for rolls are very simple applications where approach can be easily assumed. In fact, I think you've said exactly this. So, really, this complaint isn't that asking fior approach is a problem, it's that you're comfortable assuming approach from an ask to roll. This leads to the former issue above -- lack of consequence.

Most of your examples of how you let players ask for rolls are absent consequence for failure. Before you go defensive, look at it. An ask for an insight check results in no change on a failure. The character suspected but doesn't know before the roll, and nothing changes after the roll. Same for looking for a trap -- the failire state is exactly the same as before the roll. In fact, this approach kinda lends itself to weird play because the player knows his character failed but has to play as if they don't know?

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.

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.

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".

The goal and approach method has, as an additional method, a failure state that is different from the state prior to the roll. As a broad approach, these failure states vary. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has said he might tick a wandering monster clock for a failure in some games, letting the character know they failed and can try again but still changing the situation to become more dangerous. I prefer more immediate changes, such that a failure thwarts the goal directly (so failing an insight check may end the social encounter or cause a damaging social gaffe). Regardless of preference for failure states, the approach will inform the failure state.

Again, I'll provide an in play example from a recent session:

The party knew they were entering an old temple complex full of traps. In the first hallway, there was a trap, a set of false doors that would snap shut to seal the hallway if a pressure plate was triggered. The party had their gloomstalker ranger scout ahead. Mindful of alerting possible enemies, he chose to advance down the hallway without a light source, relying on darkvision. This meant than the DC 12 passive perception check to notice deep groves on the floor showing the arc of closing for the false doors was missed (Passive of 16, -5 for dim light). Had they not, this clue would have indicated something odd and given insight into the nature of the trap. However, the player's chosen approach (use darkvision) to the goal of scouting for dangers, lead to an automatic failure.

The player then chose to move past the doors without investigating them, so, again, the chosen approach lead to automatically missing the trap. The pressure plate was triggered and the trap cut the ranger off from the rest of the party.

The party rogue then moved up to the trap with a light spell to examine it. As the trap was sprung and the mechanism obvious, he automatically succeeded in his action to determine the nature of the trap. (He had good light and stated he was inspecting it visually.) I told him what the trap did and that it was likely triggered on the other side where he couldn't see. He also could see that the mechanism was accessible but under a lot of pressure, so failing to disarm it may cause a violent release, likely spraying pieces like shrapnel as it disintegrated.

Meanwhile, the dwarven battlerager decided this was taking too long and charged the stone doors blocking the hall to break them down. A STR check was called for with failure causing danage for running into a stone door and success breaking the door but automatically causing the same violent release. The dwarf's player agreed and rolled -- success! The door was shattered and a DC 13 DEX save was called against 5d6 piercing damage, half on a save. Barbarians at his level have advantage on DEX saves from sources they can see and it was easily passed. The dwarf's approach given the established wirking of the trap directly resulted in the violent release of the mechanism. Had the rogue attempted to disarm, a success would have both disengaged the doors and avoided the explosion. A failure would have disabled the doors, but with an explosion.

The party has continued on, but now the ranger is using a light source which has already resulted in detection of a similar trap deeper in.

And, finally, my preferred method of requiring a goal and approach with consequences for failurr DOES NOT MEAN that your method cannot. Of course ypu can do this. But, instead of having to stop play to clarify things in situations where "I roll X" is insufficient, I've taken to preferring to bever assume and always have players describe approach. It's a preference that solves things at my table, and works well enough I like to advocate for it. Neither my method nor my play suffer at all if you do it different.

Almost any approach works, by the way, I most certainty don't require anything close to magic words. The trap I describe above had the following notes: [doors close to seal hall on sctivation of pressure plate, DC 12 passive to notice clues, once triggered doors under pressure]. That was it, no magic solve, any reasonable approach by players would have moved play further.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Bawylie]

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.

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.

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".



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.

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.

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.

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

The quality of the description doesn’t matter. 500 flowery words or 25 to-the-point words are equal so long as they convey an objective and a method.

 

[Oofta]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Oofta]

The quality of the description doesn’t matter. 500 flowery words or 25 to-the-point words are equal so long as they convey an objective and a method.

I agree. I think even a baker's dozen of words or less can convey objective and method 80% of the time. Such as: "I make an investigation check ___ to check for traps on the door"

 

[Bawylie]

I agree. I think even a baker's dozen of words or less can convey objective and method 80% of the time. Such as: "I make an investigation check ___ to check for traps on the door"

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

 

[Guest 6801328]

Oh noes, I give advantage to players who actually play the game? The shame, the shame.

???

Why the snark?

I'm not saying you're doing anything shameful, just that your assertion that you are advantaging some players over others is incorrect. You are just advantaging a different category of player.

Sorry, but, if you want to play a game, learn how to play. I have zero interest in playing with people who cannot be bothered learning the mechanics anymore. I've been there. Played with that guy who spent the first six months not even knowing the most basic things on his character sheet. Yeah, not interested in that anymore. Play the game we've all agreed to play or find another table.

That's fine. And as [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] has made quite clear, he is specifically interested in playing with people who don't know the rules. (I suspect not just to allow novices to play, but because that approach leads to a different style of gaming even for those who are expert in the rules.) And his/our way of playing makes that possible.

An attempt to unearth fundamental underlying differences is not necessarily a personal attack.