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

[Yardiff]

Bluntly, few approaches will result in automatic success, so having a good skill bonus and using approaches that leverage those skills is immensely beneficial when the very likely skill check is asked for.

I don't know how often I have to say that approach is used so I don't have to assume anything, to set DCs appropriately, and to set up appropriate consequences. Apparently, it's at least once more.

Just to be clear, using the contact poison example, the character describing using a cloth to wipe the handle, you would ask for a skill check?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just to be clear, using the contact poison example, the character describing using a cloth to wipe the handle, you would ask for a skill check?

Likely, with advantage because the approach is well suited.

Failure would be exposure to the poison.

 

[iserith]

The example talks about times when Insight is impossible. Insight is about reading body language and tone and the like.

A letter says what is says, to determine if what the letter says is true you have to figure out what the facts are. In my experience when I run into people trying to Insight a letter, they aren't thinking of an approach. They are forgetting that they are dealing with the written word instead of the person talking to them.

After all, they can't see the letter, they just hear me talking. So, a reminder that it is a letter and you can't see if a letter is lying about what it says, usually is enough to get people thinking of other approaches to figuring out if the information is true that will actually yield results.

So to be clear, the proposed approach is to read the body language or tone of the letter, which fails to achieve the goal of assessing the letter's veracity.

Yeah, look, I get it. Really I do. Some people are like rabid dogs defending a bone when it comes to their character's autonomy. Because of whatever reasons.

But I'm not going around making stuff up out of nowhere when I do this. I play off of the recent events in the story, off of the established pattern of your character's personality. I don't tell the selfless paladin he's thinking about murdering that guy in the bar who spilled his drink, but the barbarian whose established he's a vindictive jerk who holds even the smallest grudge? That's perfectly in character for him to think that.

And, again, if you don't like my description. If it offends you, then we can come up with something else. But, we know something had to have happened, because you failed at your goal.

Edit: I'm coming across a little harsh here, and I want to step back for a moment.

I also get annoyed when DM's tell me what actions my character takes. I'm still salty about a DM ruling where a fellow player was trying for a non-lethal takedown, but because a crticial hit the DM ruled it was a maiming blow that left the target footless.

But at the same time, I've also had players who bristle at the slightest hint of me doing anything with how their character feels. IE:

"As the terrifying form of the dragon rises over the-"
"Wargros isn't scared. You can't tell me how he feels, he's seen way more terrifying things than that dragon"

And the momentum of the scene is ruined, because some guy had to get upset that his warrior might feel fear. Or awe. Or any emotion at all.

It is frustrating as a DM to end up with a player with whom you can use no descriptive language at all, because you can't tell them how their character feels about anything at all. And I've dealt with that, and it annoyed the crap out of me.

I would say in some situations the momentum of the scene is ruined not because of the player's response, but because the DM is stepping outside of his or her role in the game to establish something about the character that is solely in the player's domain to establish. That is so easily avoided it's a wonder why DMs insist on doing this. And it's pretty common in my experience, especially in games where the players are asking to make checks without specifying a goal and/or approach. Because some of the necessary fiction to build the scene is missing, the DM feels the need to fill in the blanks the player left which then sets the stage for potential conflict. I think a better response from the DM is to encourage the player to fill in those blanks him or herself as that is the player's role and responsibility in this game and, eventually, to do that without prompting.

That said, your example of describing the dragon as terrifying is not so much stating the emotional response of the character, but an attempt at using evocative language to describe the environment. It's fine in my view. If you flat out say Wargros is scared, that is a different story altogether and it doesn't actually matter if Wargros has been portrayed as being afraid of dragons in the past - the DM is well-advised to stay out of establishing anything about the characters in this regard.

 

[5ekyu]

Bluntly, few approaches will result in automatic success, so having a good skill bonus and using approaches that leverage those skills is immensely beneficial when the very likely skill check is asked for.

I don't know how often I have to say that approach is used so I don't have to assume anything, to set DCs appropriately, and to set up appropriate consequences. Apparently, it's at least once more.

"Bluntly, few approaches will result in automatic success, so having a good skill bonus and using approaches that leverage those skills is immensely beneficial when the very likely skill check is asked for."

That seems to be lacking necessary info to be a necessarily valid conclusion or even a meaningful description that tells us anything. That is I think part of the communication issue here, very ambiguous claims.

So let me ask, did you mean "few challenges will be seen in play to be resolved by auto-success approaches" or did you mean "challenges will have only a few approaches that lead to auto-success"?



If there are only 1 or 2 approaches per "challenge that matters" that produce auto-success without checks and character stats coming into play, but lots more of approaches for each that would require checks too, you could still see every single "challenge that matter" resolved by players choosing those 1-2 autos never once having to "leverage those skills".

That's why I broke it down to how often do you as GM setup (or do your players see resolution in play) of the challenges that matter having (being solved by) non-skill auto-success "approach wins" vs "leverage skills checks immensely wins?

Might be good to separate out vombat challenges thst mstter from non-combat, given even some of the "approach wins advocates seem to see combat challenges as "uncertain due to the whole roll-a-1 thing.

My baseline estimate in my games was roughly
60% require/resolved-by some form of checks (possibly passive, possibly auto-success due to stats (DMG proficiency.), approach/method reflected by advantage/disadvantage)
20%* require/resolved-by either some form of checks (as above) *or* some key approach/methods.
20%* require/resolved a combo of checks (as above) *and* some key approach methods used in tandem.

Practically none of my "challenges that matter" are resolvable by method/approach alone regardless of stats.

* Honestly this 20-20 varies and is more WAG than anything else. Not more than 30-10 or 10-30 I figure.

So, this means my folks see in play when it matters that most of the time the charscter's skills that the players chose to highlight and the player's in character choices go hand in hand to reach an outcome. They see in a few cases both are needed and in a few cases they can get by on method/approach slone.

That sounds like a very different thing and gameplay outcome than one gets when an "approach gm" goes into how it's actually "cheating yourself" to go mostly with skill checks for outcome as a player.

 

[Guest 6801328]

And why would pouring fermented grape juice on it do anything at all?

Others have amply addressed the rest of your post, but to me this was the most interesting.

Why does fermented grape juice work? Because the player says it does, and their character is expert in these things. (Character skill, not player.)

One of the myths that you and Hussar keep repeating is that somehow the player needs to be expert in things like, well, poison. No, they do not. They just have to be imaginative and creative. They don’t even have to be consistent: “Oh, did I say wine last time? That’s because it was spider venom based. THIS poison reacts to urine.”

WHATEVER.

All that matters (to me) is that the player is telling a good story, playing their character. Realism matters not a whit.

I know you feel otherwise...you’ve made that abundantly clear...but *I* think this mode of play is infinitely more fun than “I roll to detect traps” “You find one” “I open the door” “you didn’t roll high enough to find the other one; take 7 damage”

God I would rather watch paint dry. Or gargle with broken glass. Or even watch Critical Role.

 

[Yardiff]

Others have amply addressed the rest of your post, but to me this was the most interesting.

Why does fermented grape juice work? Because the player says it does, and their character is expert in these things. (Character skill, not player.)

One of the myths that you and Hussar keep repeating is that somehow the player needs to be expert in things like, well, poison. No, they do not. They just have to be imaginative and creative. They don’t even have to be consistent: “Oh, did I say wine last time? That’s because it was spider venom based. THIS poison reacts to urine.”

WHATEVER.

All that matters (to me) is that the player is telling a good story, playing their character. Realism matters not a whit.

I know you feel otherwise...you’ve made that abundantly clear...but *I* think this mode of play is infinitely more fun than “I roll to detect traps” “You find one” “I open the door” “you didn’t roll high enough to find the other one; take 7 damage”

God I would rather watch paint dry. Or gargle with broken glass. Or even watch Critical Role.

Question: if a player said their character was "Using a magnifying glass and a lantern (shining the light from the lantern this way and that) to see if there was contact poison on the door handle" plus stating/reminding that the character has proficiency in alchemy/poisoner kit. Would this action require a skill(investigation) roll? Also the player then says his character takes a rag and wipes the door handle, would THIS action require a skill(Thief's Tools) check?

 

[Oofta]

Sigh, you keep saying this, but then you do not listen and instead insert your imaginings in place, like saying you don't understand why there couldn't be a dialog. Where have I, or anyone else, said there's never a dialog? This is your assumption, and it's wrong.

I'm not interested in imagining a dialog between players and me in my game. I felt yours was fine up until the point I said 'full stop' because it reasonably looked like something that could happen in my game up until that point. It, in fact, at that point that it became farce.

Thanks for the response.

I may have not been completely clear on what I meant. And, yep, sometimes I'm overly sarcastic. As far as a PC asking to make a skill check, I don't see why it's a big deal. I also have no idea how you would respond to someone new at your table if they say "I make ___ skill check" because you've never really said as far as I remember other than that somehow it would never happen.

There's a lot here, so just to summarize the point of the jewelry heist scene was multiple. The shopkeeper provided a great deal of info in a natural conversation. The perpetrator was able to get past all the locks and wards, may not have had a good way of knowing when the shopkeeper went to bed (no one left the building). There probably would have been some other cookie crumb to follow had the conversation gone past that point, like the fact that he only leaves the shop for his visits to The Red Head League meetings because I'm using Arthur Conan Doyle as an inspiration. In addition, it just makes sense to me that the group would want to talk to him. If they question people up and down the street, that may be hand-waved but the shopkeeper is central enough to get his moment in the spotlight and not just a handout.

I'm not going to argue about the insight check any more. Unless I exclusively use passive insight (I don't) if I don't call for it the players know the shopkeeper is not trying to be deceptive whether they acknowledge or even consciously recognize it. If he shopkeeper was trained in deception but a PC wins the contest, no one has stated that it's an automatic "he's lying, roll for initiative". I'd probably say "he's hiding something" or "there's something suspicious about his behavior". Maybe he keeps glancing at a spot on the floor where there's a loose brick where he hid the jewels.

A successful insight check uncovering an attempt at deception is not proof. It's just a bread crumb.

Dwarf's player: Okay, I'm going to activate my smoking armor and my glowing eyes helmet and then threaten him.

I'd be perfectly okay with the player saying "I do an intimidation check" in which case I'd let him know he doesn't get advantage. If he had already rolled with advantage I'd ask him to roll again. This is where I simply don't care how a person states their intent and action where you seem to.

Bluntly, few approaches will result in automatic success, so having a good skill bonus and using approaches that leverage those skills is immensely beneficial when the very likely skill check is asked for.

I don't know how often I have to say that approach is used so I don't have to assume anything, to set DCs appropriately, and to set up appropriate consequences. Apparently, it's at least once more.

Bluntly, I don't remember seeing a description of removing a trap that I've seen on this thread from the descriptive folks made a mention of a die roll. In fact the concept being pushed has been summed up as "only use dice as a last resort".

For example:

Oof. That gets a hard Nope from me. No, I do not only glance at the handle. I told you I looked closely, sniffed the air, and wiped the handle with a cloth to see if there was any residue. I get control over one thing and one thing only in this game, and that’s my character’s actions. Take that away from me and what am I even here for?

Now, if you're saying you use passive numbers extensively, that's fine. Depending on the situation I will do that as well. Sometimes that orcish encampment will have such poor quality traps that success is automatic. But I find people often like the randomness of rolling a die. Or maybe that's just me when my character is a halfling who has the "lucky" feat.

 

[Satyrn]

Question: if a player said their character was "Using a magnifying glass and a lantern (shining the light from the lantern this way and that) to see if there was contact poison on the door handle" plus stating/reminding that the character has proficiency in alchemy/poisoner kit. Would this action require a skill(investigation) roll? Also the player then says his character takes a rag and wipes the door handle, would THIS action require a skill(Thief's Tools) check?

For me, the answer is it depends.

In a quiet room, with no pressure neither of those would require a check. They'd both work automatically, even if the character wasn't proficient with alchemy/poisoner kit.*

If there was a fight raging in the room, or some other chaos, they'd both require checks with advantage.


* One of the major assumptions in my hand is that the PCs are "omnicapable:" They are fairly skilled in all things that I'd call dungeon-stuff. This means that not having Proficiency (game term) in a skill or tool does not mean they aren't proficient (English word) in this sort of thing.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's difficult to have this conversation and not occasionally make posts sound like attacks. If I've done that I apologize.

Understood, and accepted. Likewise I apologize if my comments come off as attacking anyone. It’s an emotionally charged subject, but I assume we are all arguing in good faith.

So let me put this another way. If you use a descriptive style of play why would anyone ever invest in a skill beyond proficiency? If all I need is proficiency in thieves tools, then would it matter if my cleric with the correct background was the trap finder/remover? Assuming the player could describe how his PC disables the trap what does it matter that he has an 8 dex and doesn't have expertise? Or for that matter the 8 wisdom fighter who happens to have proficiency with insight played by someone eloquent? Why would someone with an +1 insight who's proficient with an 8 wisdom automatically get information over someone with a +5 insight because of their high wisdom?

Two things: first of all, the reason to invest in skills/abilities/etc is to shore up your chances for when outcomes are uncertain. Obviously the goal is to avoid uncertainty, but a certain amount of it is inevitable. Sooner or later, you will come across a scenario where you just gotta take the risk and try to mitigate it the best you can. Actually, it happens pretty often at my table. When it does, having an investment in relevant skills and abilities helps to mitigate that risk. It also naturally informs the kinds of approaches one tends to take. Someone with high Str and low Dex is more likely to take direct approaches to physical challenges because they have a greater chance of success when the outcome of a direct application of physical force is uncertain than when the outcome of a sensitive application of physical manipulation is uncertain.

Additionally, the fact that only minimal investment in a certain skill or attribute is required to be able to succeed is in my view a feature, not a bug. I much prefer that competence be the baseline and your character build allow you to decide in what arenas you want to have the best chances of success in the face of adversity, than for incompetence to be the baseline and your character build to allow you to choose what you can even attempt.

Speaking of traps, I don't use them all that often unless someone has invested heavily in the skills. In that case I like to play to people's strengths now and then. If I used a descriptive approach where your actual number didn't really matter I'd feel like I was cheating them. Some people might find it boring to find/disable traps by simply rolling but if handled that way it's such a insignificant percentage of the time we spend playing I don't see why it would matter.

In general traps are more window dressing to the scenario we're working through than a focus. If someone spending a minute or so on a trap is so boring you want to quit the game, I don't think that's
a problem with the style of play. On the other hand if you're the trap expert and you have fun giving detailed descriptions (and don't go overboard) then more power to you.

I used to hate traps before adopting the goal and approach style. Now I love them. They’re certainly not the focus of adventures I run, but they are features that I and my players enjoy interacting with. The present opportunities to make decisions as you imagine your character would, which is what roleplaying is all about.

Description, dialog, choices, interactions all matter. But so do the mechanics of the character's PC. I want to reward both. I want to cater to people who enjoy both aspects or either aspect of the game. When I hear people say "if you can describe a valid approach no roll is needed" it feels like the mechanics of the PC are being ignored.

Mechanics are very important to me. I like a crunchy game, to the point that 5e often feels very limited to me. Just because a goal and approach with no uncertainty in the outcome does not need a roll to be resolved does not mean that the game mechanics don’t matter. Trust me, you’re going to have plenty of opportunities to roll the dice at my table. But when they come up, they will always be tense, because they happen only when there is both uncertainty and risk.

I would also argue that the process of determining whether an action has a chance of success, chance of failure, and cost or consequence for failure, is a game mechanic. The most important game mechanic, in fact, because it’s the one mechanic that could not be executed by a powerful enough computer.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Question: if a player said their character was "Using a magnifying glass and a lantern (shining the light from the lantern this way and that) to see if there was contact poison on the door handle" plus stating/reminding that the character has proficiency in alchemy/poisoner kit. Would this action require a skill(investigation) roll? Also the player then says his character takes a rag and wipes the door handle, would THIS action require a skill(Thief's Tools) check?

I sense a trap, not a question motivated by curiosity. But I’ll roleplay a failed check...

As others have said, I’m only using the contact poison on the doorknob example because of the thread. I’ve never actually used that in a game.

But assuming this is the situation, and I’ve dropped some hint that there might be contact poison here, then I’d probably make either of those actions an auto success.

EDIT: I was assuming no extra pressure. As Saturn says, if there’s time pressure or the rogue is trying to do this on his turn during a combat then I might ask for a roll, because lost time is a meaningful consequence of failure.