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

[Charlaquin]

All I can say is that I first encountered what you're terming "middle path" long, long before it was a term. As in back in the 80s. I didn't like it then and I still don't. Different people play for different reasons, not every DM is going to be a good fit for every player.

That’s absolutely fine, but you’ve been framing this conversation in terms of trying to understand “the middle path” (which I put in quotation marks because I’m not really a fan of that term for it, but it’s faster to type than “the goal and approach method”). I’m not interested in trying to convince you to adopt the method in question. I’ve been trying to help you understand where I’m coming from as someone who does like it, because that was what you said you wanted. If you already understand it and just don’t like it, what are we doing here?

Choices matter in my campaign and can have world-altering consequences. I have people on the edge of their seats engaged on a reasonably regular basis. I just don't like bypassing skills by having players describing how they're freezing the acid vials.

I don’t doubt that many choices do matter in your campaigns. Just not choices about how to disarm traps. Which is why I would find traps boring in your game. I would probably enjoy the parts where you make choices with world-altering consequences and want to get past the parts where there are traps as quickly as possible so we could get to those more interesting parts sooner. Whereas, in campaigns like the ones Iserith runs, I do find traps interesting because my choices matter when interacting with them, in addition to my choices mattering in higher stakes situations. Personally, I like liking things more than not liking them, so I tend to prefer games where I like interacting with traps more than games where traps are boring.

Much like how some people like sushi, it's not a question of whether I've tried it or not. I tried it, it wasn't for me.

So, again, why are you framing this in terms of trying to understand sushi when you already know exactly what sushi is, have already tried it, and already know it’s not for you? What are you hoping to accomplish other than annoying sushi lovers?

 

[Guest 6801328]

You sound just like all my friends who who are always saying "But you just haven't tried good sushi." My food preferences have grown since I was a kid growing up on the farm, but I still like my fish cooked.

Well, they’re right. I mean, I’m willing to eat mid-market sushi, but until you’ve had GREAT sushi...like sitting at the bar at Sushi of Gari while the chef serves omakase...you haven’t lived.

But I'll also point out that you are proudly laying claim to a habit of deciding what you do and don't like based on...based on...deciding what you will and won't like. I wonder if there's any relevance to the last 50 pages...

 

[Guest 6801328]

You just gave an example of how someone could disable a trap by freezing vials of acid therefore not needing to do a skill check. I think that's using player skill instead of PC skill to overcome an obstacle. I don't see how what I've stated as my preference mischaracterizes anything.

Well, that shows you weren't really reading/understanding. I said...pretty specifically...that maybe the DM would still require some sort of skill check for one of those other methods.

And here's the thing: I made up those answers without relying on any kind of expertise about vials of poison components or anything. I just made it up. It's not my graduate training in toxicology that let me suggest those things, it was just me making stuff up. So there's no skill required, just a willingness to engage with the fiction. You (and Hussar) keep insisting that the middle path requires "player skill", whether in improv acting or mechanical engineering or something else, but that couldn't be further from the truth.

Sure, it requires a willingness to spin a yarn. I'll grant you that.

But if you really want to rip that out of the game, why not just play board games? Lots of dice rolling there.

EDIT: And here's something else for you...you're so worried about "investment" in skills, but if the adventure prescribes a specific skill with a specific DC to solve a problem, it means you have fewer chances to use your skills. If the description of the combination lock says, "DC 18 Intelligence check required to open" and you interpret it as a mandatory skill roll, it means that the rogue with sleight-of-hand or thieves' tools has no chance to solve it using that skill he invested so much in. I would think that you, of all people, would want to be able to say, "I'd like to try to overcome this challenge by doing something I'm good at, rather than the thing the book says."

 

[Oofta]

So, again, why are you framing this in terms of trying to understand sushi when you already know exactly what sushi is, have already tried it, and already know it’s not for you? What are you hoping to accomplish other than annoying sushi lovers?

Because I like making fun of people who don't know how to cook food?

Kidding aside, there's been a lot of replies that I did not find clear. Skills still matter, but if you can describe how your PC is disabling a trap they aren't used. Saying "I inspect the door" is somehow better then "I roll investigation and get a 15" when the PCs are standing in front of a door wondering if it's trapped except when it's not. Players never pick up on the fact that if someone is telling the truth the DM doesn't ask for an insight check. Players can ask to make an insight check unless they can't. Saying "my eyes glow red" is plenty of information when "I try to intimidate him" is not.

But for the most part I just don't understand why this topic is so touchy. Different people have different styles and different ways of playing.

 

[pemerton]

If one does not trust the DM, and/or if a DM does not trust the players, then I can see how totally objective, interpretation-free rules would have some appeal.

To be frank I think this is a red herring.

There are a large number of RPGs that rely on dice rolling to determine which direction play unfolds in (roughly, as the players want for their PCs, or as the GM conceives of things developing adversely to the PCs). The best-known on these boards would probably be PbtA games like Dungeon World.

The reason people enjoy Dungeon World has nothing to do with distrust of GM rulings.

 

[Guest 6801328]

To be frank I think this is a red herring.

There are a large number of RPGs that rely on dice rolling to determine which direction play unfolds in (roughly, as the players want for their PCs, or as the GM conceives of things developing adversely to the PCs). The best-known on these boards would probably be PbtA games like Dungeon World.

The reason people enjoy Dungeon World has nothing to do with distrust of GM rulings.

Which is a funny argument, because I find the Dungeon World (Apocalypse World) approach to be very much philosophically aligned with "goal and method". I don't really know the history of AW, but I would not be surprised if it were a reaction to the mindset that produced 4e, in the same way that 5e is.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Skills still matter, but if you can describe how your PC is disabling a trap they aren't used.

Really? We're going over this AGAIN?!?!?

Maybe dice aren't rolled if the DM decides it would be easy for you...because of your proficiency in the skill. The skill is used it just doesn't require dice to be rolled. If your friend without proficiency tried the same thing, the DM might very well ask for a dice roll, or just rule that it fails. How is that not "using" your skill?

Or maybe somebody proposes something that simply doesn't require any special skills. That doesn't mean that skills don't matter in the game...just that the character/player found a creative way to avoid uncertainty.

(All those italics...I feel the caricature of the American tourist, trying to make himself understood in a foreign country by speaking in a really loud voice.)

 

[pemerton]

I prefer keeping the players guessing just as much as the PCs should be guessing because there is no way to know 100% if someone is telling the truth or lying without concrete evidence.

Then what is the point of the skill check? How is that affecting the fiction?

Which is a funny argument, because I find the Dungeon World (Apocalypse World) approach to be very much philosophically aligned with "goal and method". I don't really know the history of AW, but I would not be surprised if it were a reaction to the mindset that produced 4e, in the same way that 5e is.

I'll ignore your remark about 4e, which to me suggests a lack of familiarity with the best way of playing that system (as set out in its DMG and DMG2).

Dungeon World is based around "moves", which are events that occur in the fiction that trigger rolls that happen at the table which lead to new events happening in the fiction. Who gets to decide what the new events are (player or GM), and subject to what parameters, depends on the outcome of the dice roll.

The point of the dice roll is to allocate authority to determine the fiction. It's nothing to do with trust or distrust of players or GM. Nor to preferences in respect of 4e. (The earliest RPG I know of to present the function of dice rolling this way is Prince Valiant, which is late 80s - I think 1989. The best discussions of this approach to RPGing that I'm aware of are found on the Forge in the early 2000s.)

Here's an example of a DW move (p 68 of the rulebook) that seems relevant to the topic of this thread (the bolded bit indicates the relevant triggering event in the fiction; the roll is 2d6; ability score bonuses are as per Moldvay Basic; on a 6-, the player accrues 1 XP and the GM is entitled to evolve the fiction in some adverse direction):

Discern Realities
When you closely study a situation or person, roll+Wis.

✴On a 10+, ask the GM 3 questions from the list below.
✴On a 7–9, ask 1.

Either way, take +1 forward when acting on the answers.

• What happened here recently?
• What is about to happen?
• What should I be on the lookout for?
• What here is useful or valuable to me?
• Who’s really in control here?
• What here is not what it appears to be?

. . .

[T]he answers you get are always honest ones. Even if the GM has to figure it out on the spot. Once they answer, it’s set in stone.​

I hope this example makes clear how the point of the die roll is to establish parameters and authority for the development of the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

Some people do allow players to bypass skills with a good description

Yeah, how could I possibly come to the conclusion that some DMs allow players to bypass skill checks completely.

I think the point is that it's not because of a good description. It's because the described approach does not leave any uncertainty as to whether or not the PC achieves his/her goal.

The player is not changing the parameters of the encounter, nor are they finding a way to bypass it. They're simply describing it in a way that removes uncertainty. That's a player skill, not a PC skill.

Now, I don't know how many people really play that way. I've never said that you DM that way. But some people seem to allow a player to bypass skill checks by simply changing the narrative.

To me, this seems to be backwards.

For it to be the case that a player is bypassing a skill check, it would have to be the case that the game, by default, contains certain prescribed skill checks. But it doesn't. (At least, no RPG that I play has this. It sound like a total railroad.) A RPG unfolds by the players saying what their PCs do, and then - depending on details of system and fiction - a check might be required.

Suppose that the game is D&D, and the GM says "OK, you're at the edge of the cliff looking down on the orc camp at its base. What next?"

If a player says "I push a boulder over the edge so that it crashes down among the orcs," then in most versions of D&D the GM might call for some sort of STR check to successfully push the boulder in a controlled fashion. If the PC is wearing a Girdle of Giant Strength, though, then maybe not.

If a player says "I pull out my crowbar and lever a boulder over the edge so that it crashes down among the orcs," then my prediction is less confident. Some tables might treat this as some kind of buff to a STR check; others, which like to emphasise equipment and preparation, might allow this to work automatically.

If a playr says "I pull out my scroll of Major Creation and read the spell so as to bring a boulder into existence above the orc camp!," then in most versions of D&D that will not require a check.

It's not about bypassing checks. It's about whether or not the actions declared by the PCs, in light of system and fiction, require a check to adjudicate them. (EDIT: Ninja'd on this point by [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION].)

let's say I have a trapped chest. There's no way of opening it that it won't blow up first without disarming the trap which requires entering a combination the PCs don't have. I don't care how the player describes what they do, they're still going to either have to have the combination or disable the trap.

What if one of the PCs has the ability to make his/her hand ethereal?

Or to dissolve the chest in acid (subsequently recovering the jewels left behind)?

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?

The 2nd I've addressed above.

To the 3rd I would offer an answer that is similar to [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]'s - why are we including stuff in the fiction that doesn't matter to play?

On the 4th: in my GMing, the point of checks is to determine how the fiction develops, not to establish uncertainty on the part of the players as to how the fiction is developing.

On the 1st: I want to know what the PC is doing. I can't know how the ficiton will develop if I don't know what's happening in it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Then what is the point of the skill check? How is that affecting the fiction?

I'll ignore your remark about 4e, which to me suggests a lack of familiarity with the best way of playing that system (as set out in its DMG and DMG2).

Dungeon World is based around "moves", which are events that occur in the fiction that trigger rolls that happen at the table which lead to new events happening in the fiction. Who gets to decide what the new events are (player or GM), and subject to what parameters, depends on the outcome of the dice roll.

The point of the dice roll is to allocate authority to determine the fiction. It's nothing to do with trust or distrust of players or GM. Nor to preferences in respect of 4e. (The earliest RPG I know of to present the function of dice rolling this way is Prince Valiant, which is late 80s - I think 1989. The best discussions of this approach to RPGing that I'm aware of are found on the Forge in the early 2000s.)

Here's an example of a DW move (p 68 of the rulebook) that seems relevant to the topic of this thread (the bolded bit indicates the relevant triggering event in the fiction; the roll is 2d6; ability score bonuses are as per Moldvay Basic; on a 6-, the player accrues 1 XP and the GM is entitled to evolve the fiction in some adverse direction):

Discern Realities
When you closely study a situation or person, roll+Wis.

✴On a 10+, ask the GM 3 questions from the list below.
✴On a 7–9, ask 1.

Either way, take +1 forward when acting on the answers.

• What happened here recently?
• What is about to happen?
• What should I be on the lookout for?
• What here is useful or valuable to me?
• Who’s really in control here?
• What here is not what it appears to be?

. . .

[T]he answers you get are always honest ones. Even if the GM has to figure it out on the spot. Once they answer, it’s set in stone.​

I hope this example makes clear how the point of the die roll is to establish parameters and authority for the development of the fiction.

Yes, I know. I play Dungeon World.

Honestly I find this conversation a bit surreal. I'm not even sure how to respond. One of us totally doesn't understand what the other is talking about. Or possibly both of us.