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

[Charlaquin]

Or it's just that some people like rolling dice because, as it says in the DMG under "The Role of Dice" and "Rolling With It", it gives people a feeling that anything is possible.

For me I use a mix depending on the situation, but different people play for different reasons.

Personally, I don’t like that feeling that anything is possible. It only makes it harder for me to predict likely outcomes and decide on a plan of action I think is likely to result in success. Beating the odds can be fun, absolutely, but only within the bounds of what seems logically plausible. I Also think a more grounded world makes smaller victories feel more rewarding. When “anything is possible”, you only get the rush of beating the odds on crazy WUXIA stunts that make Matt Mercer raise his eyebrows and say “you can certainly try.” In a more grounded world, you can get that same rush pretty much every time the die is rolled.

At least, that’s my preference. As you say, different people play for different reasons, and despite what it may sound like, I do see the appeal of the “anything is possible” feeling. Even though it’s not my preference, I have had fun in “anything is possible” games.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, it does seem like dice or mechanics are often a shield against DMs running the game in that fashion. The DMG warns against the "one solution" issue. I think the design of D&D 3e and later D&D 4e were based in part on assuming this was a known, widespread problem and working to mitigate it through the mechanics. (I recall reading that somewhere, perhaps from Monte Cook.)

Mike Mearls said something to this effect on Twitter a ways back.

So in a sense your using the take 10, take 20 from 3x.


Ok I understand that. Personally I think you might be using it to freely but that's just me.

To be honest, I think take 10 and take 20 were an attempt to incorporate the “dont call for checks when there aren’t any stakes” philosophy into an edition that, as Iserith observes, was specifically designed to arm players against bad DMs.

 

[Charlaquin]

The DMG mentions that while players relying on the dice can give them a sense that anything is possible, but that the drawback is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success.

Exactly.

 

[Mort]

Personally, I don’t like that feeling that anything is possible. It only makes it harder for me to predict likely outcomes and decide on a plan of action I think is likely to result in success. Beating the odds can be fun, absolutely, but only within the bounds of what seems logically plausible. I Also think a more grounded world makes smaller victories feel more rewarding. When “anything is possible”, you only get the rush of beating the odds on crazy WUXIA stunts that make Matt Mercer raise his eyebrows and say “you can certainly try.” In a more grounded world, you can get that same rush pretty much every time the die is rolled.

This is a bit off topic from this thread, but IMO, it's 100% the DMs responsibility to establish what exactly is possible in the context of his game - with or without dice. If the same character (say in the same session) manages a wuxia style 30' leap, but then for some reason can't make a measly 5' jump; Absent a great explanation or extraordinary circumstances, that'll cause a pretty big disconnect for me.

And no, rolling a 1 or a 20, wouldn't, for me, count as a great explanation or extraordinary circumstances.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is a bit off topic from this thread, but IMO, it's 100% the DMs responsibility to establish what exactly is possible in the context of his game - with or without dice. If the same character (say in the same session) manages a wuxia style 30' leap, but then for some reason can't make a measly 5' jump; Absent a great explanation or extraordinary circumstances, that'll cause a pretty big disconnect for me.

And no, rolling a 1 or a 20, wouldn't, for me, count as a great explanation or extraordinary circumstances.

I agree. Larger than life action can be awesome, as long as the world behaves in a consistent way and players can develop a clear sense of what is and isn’t possible.

 

[5ekyu]

This is a bit off topic from this thread, but IMO, it's 100% the DMs responsibility to establish what exactly is possible in the context of his game - with or without dice. If the same character (say in the same session) manages a wuxia style 30' leap, but then for some reason can't make a measly 5' jump; Absent a great explanation or extraordinary circumstances, that'll cause a pretty big disconnect for me.

And no, rolling a 1 or a 20, wouldn't, for me, count as a great explanation or extraordinary circumstances.

Exactly. Just because you roll that doesnt change the possible and impossible outcomes. That's more of a misrepresrntation than a reality.

I assign DCs based on the objective criteria setup in my world and set advsntage and disadvantage based on plans, circumstances etc.

I think it's more often the crowd who insist that you only roll if there is a chance of success and failure who get so hung up on the "if I roll 20 I get awesome crazy" side of the coin.

At least, in these discussions the times I see the roll impossible thing put forth its been more often by those on the more GM narrative decision side of the coin.

 

[Oofta]

This is a bit off topic from this thread, but IMO, it's 100% the DMs responsibility to establish what exactly is possible in the context of his game - with or without dice. If the same character (say in the same session) manages a wuxia style 30' leap, but then for some reason can't make a measly 5' jump; Absent a great explanation or extraordinary circumstances, that'll cause a pretty big disconnect for me.

And no, rolling a 1 or a 20, wouldn't, for me, count as a great explanation or extraordinary circumstances.

In my games a 1 is not an automatic failure and a 20 is not an automatic success. If making a leap further than normal a 1 could be fairly significant downside because you slipped on a loose rock as you leaped, you hit the cliff on the other side much lower than expected. A 10 may mean you make it to the other side but are just barely holding on to the edge. A 20 could mean you get to the other side and use your momentum to hoist yourself up in one smooth action. Or something similar based on the scene.

But no, it's not going to mean a difference of 25 feet.

 

[Oofta]

For all the back and forth on this topic that we seem to have every time it comes up, I think the majority of game play would actually be quite similar for most of us.

However there are still things I don't think I will ever understand:

• Why is "I use [INSERT SKILL]" forbidden if the intent and action is clear? Because 80% of the time when people say it in my game it is. That other 20%? I ask for clarification. I encourage more descriptive play, but that may be as simple as "I use [INSERT SKILL] by doing [INSERT DETAIL]".
• How are you not diminishing the values of investment in skills if a person can just describe what they're doing to get an automatic success*?
• Why is finding/disabling the once in a blue moon trap/secret door with a couple of dice rolls a deal breaker for you if you aren't the person doing it and it takes a minute or so to resolve? It's a minor speed bump I put in for flavor, not the focus of the game for me.
• Why is it a big deal if the DM wants to keep the players guessing about whether or not the PC is using deception by having people roll an insight check?

*I don't know how many people do this, but at least some do or they have not made it clear if they ever call for a roll. [EDIT: there are times I don't bother with a roll because someone's skill is high enough they're not going to meaningfully fail]

 

[5ekyu]

For all the back and forth on this topic that we seem to have every time it comes up, I think the majority of game play would actually be quite similar for most of us.

However there are still things I don't think I will ever understand:

• Why is "I use [INSERT SKILL]" forbidden if the intent and action is clear? Because 80% of the time when people say it in my game it is. That other 20%? I ask for clarification. I encourage more descriptive play, but that may be as simple as "I use [INSERT SKILL] by doing [INSERT DETAIL]".
• How are you not diminishing the values of investment in skills if a person can just describe what they're doing to get an automatic success*?
• Why is finding/disabling the once in a blue moon trap/secret door with a couple of dice rolls a deal breaker for you if you aren't the person doing it and it takes a minute or so to resolve? It's a minor speed bump I put in for flavor, not the focus of the game for me.
• Why is it a big deal if the DM wants to keep the players guessing about whether or not the PC is using deception by having people roll an insight check?

*I don't know how many people do this, but at least some do or they have not made it clear if they ever call for a roll.

* Why is "I use [INSERT SKILL]" forbidden if the intent and action is clear?

Obviously in my games it isnt. If I need more info, I ask. If it's a new player, I may try to coax more out of them with leading questions if there is an obvious hook in the scene to gain advsntage, as a teaching tool for newboes.

* How are you not diminishing the values of investment in skills if a person can just describe what they're doing to get an automatic success*?

In my game, in challenges that matter, the auto-successes will almost always derive from their skills. My game primer outlines the auto-success by skill parameters we use - and they are driven by stats not dialog. An exceptional plan (which is a lot more than just describing the most obvious "how we do this" like "I wipe a handle") can get you advantage. A bad plan, disadvantage.

* Why is finding/disabling the once in a blue moon trap/secret door with a couple of dice rolls a deal breaker for you if you aren't the person doing it and it takes a minute or so to resolve? It's a minor speed bump I put in for flavor, not the focus of the game for me.

That's about the frequency I see these in my games.

In fact, Mondsy I expect a player to auto-spot a fake wall section because his passive scores are high enough to do so.

* Why is it a big deal if the DM wants to keep the players guessing about whether or not the PC is using deception by having people roll an insight check?

Hah. In my games, players make every roll, ever. I do not touch dice. (They roll "armor check" to "not get hit" for example.) They are also told in rule "you can use the die roll in your and your character's assessment and conclusion, as a measure of how confident your character is about the result. It's not meta-gaming." I as GM carry through on that with my descriptions and narration. A roll of 2 gets a narrative which shows it was not a result that's all that convincing, conclusive. Typically it adds something in the narrative that shows some environmental factor monkeying the wrench.

But, with success, failure-no progress and failure- some progress with setback all PHB core, this does not remove or limit my ability to make insight checks very fun and useful and mysterious. Or any other check, for that matter.

That said, I am not a GM who goes in for actual puzzles. Much more a fan of more interactive challenges like social or mysteries myself.


All that said, the part I still see very few clear answer on is - and I cant figure out if it's very odd or very telling - for all of the bluster and banter about how approach-method-no-dc-until-method-only-roll-if-method-uncertainty and huff about how they suto-success vs checks and stats etc etc etc... is how often does it happen?

How often does a challenge that matters get resolved thru method-approach without a comparison of "difficulty to skill of character" (not necessarily numbers) vs how often are these challenges resolved using comparisons of diff to skill of characters?

We saw one poster say it was 50/50 out of combat iirc.

Me, I gave a more detailed breakdown that basically puts it at about 1 in 10 for my games at most. 9 times in 10 character stats vs difficulty is used in resolving challenges that matter and method-approach is limited to the advantage/disadvantage side.

Has one which said there were normally only very few approaches that auto-success but was not clear if that was per challenge - so not really sure.

It's just odd for something so lauded so strongly, the actual number of times the method-approach removes uncertainty auto-success is applied seems to be something that keeps getting, well, it seems... hidden.

I mean, if I am promoting something that I do in my games, how often it happens and makes a diff is not usually something I am shy sbout.

 

[Guest 6801328]

[*]Why is "I use [INSERT SKILL]" forbidden if the intent and action is clear? Because 80% of the time when people say it in my game it is. That other 20%? I ask for clarification. I encourage more descriptive play, but that may be as simple as "I use [INSERT SKILL] by doing [INSERT DETAIL]".

Because if that approach is equally effective as "goal and method" you are training your players to skip the goal and method, nudging your game closer to a bland series of dice rolls.

[*]How are you not diminishing the values of investment in skills if a person can just describe what they're doing to get an automatic success*?

Because those who don't invest in the skills are much less likely to get automatic successes? (Seriously, I don't understand how this one could not be understood...)

[*]Why is finding/disabling the once in a blue moon trap/secret door with a couple of dice rolls a deal breaker for you if you aren't the person doing it and it takes a minute or so to resolve? It's a minor speed bump I put in for flavor, not the focus of the game for me.

Even if it happens very rarely, if it exists in your game it exists in your game, and then players feel they either need to say "I use (skill) to search for traps!" at every door and chest, or @Hussar's fears are realized and they start going through a pre-flight (or pre-kick-in-the-door) checklist on every portal.

[*]Why is it a big deal if the DM wants to keep the players guessing about whether or not the PC is using deception by having people roll an insight check?

*I don't know how many people do this, but at least some do or they have not made it clear if they ever call for a roll.

I think you left a word or two out of that one, but I get the gist. This one is mostly me.

1. NPCs don't "use deception" they lie. Or leave out details. Or exaggerate. If and when it comes down to a contested roll, their success at doing so may be determined with an appropriate ability check. (Just have to get our terminology straight.)
2. For me this is not a rules thing, it's a flavor thing: most of the time I think it's more interesting and immersive for the players to have some uncertainty about what the truth is. We could spend all day listing books and movies that would have been boring if the audience (or the characters) figured out who was lying at the beginning of the story rather than having it be revealed at the end.
3. (related to 2) If a player's decision to suddenly say, "I use Insight to see if he's lying" means that your hard work setting up an exciting and scary story could be completely unraveled. It would mean you basically can't have...or, at least, shouldn't bother planning...adventures where a supposed ally is actually the villain. If the DM isn't a really great liar, and accidentally drops a hint, all a player has to say is, "Wait a sec...I use Insight!" and, poof!, hard work gone.
4. It diminishes the value of magical lie detection, which...as somebody concerned about the value of "investment" into characters...you should understand. Imagine if the Deception skill were as powerful as a 2nd level illusion? Or even more so specifically because it is not magical?
5. Lastly, although I'm not a realist/simulationist by any stretch (I don't really care how much authentic plate armor weighs, for example) "high confidence, non-magical lie detection" is just my personal pet peeve. Humans suck at detecting lies in strangers. No, you can't be trained to detect "tells". It's a total myth (with countless bad convictions resulting from the belief that it works.)