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

[Oofta]

So is a Grandmaster "National Living Treasure" glassblower a lot harder to kill than an apprentice glassblower? Why?

And, if not, aren't you using an entirely different meaning of "level" than what we've been talking about?

The reason I've used it in the past was for me to get a general feel for proficiency. For example, what deception proficiency should a used horse salesman have. I would say that potentially ties this conversation back to the OP but used car horse salesman never tell the truth.

 

[Yardiff]

So is a Grandmaster "National Living Treasure" glassblower a lot harder to kill than an apprentice glassblower? Why?

And, if not, aren't you using an entirely different meaning of "level" than what we've been talking about?

Did you read what I posted? The 'levels' are not combat prowess their just a way to express experience in what they do.

 

[Charlaquin]

So is a Grandmaster "National Living Treasure" glassblower a lot harder to kill than an apprentice glassblower? Why?

And, if not, aren't you using an entirely different meaning of "level" than what we've been talking about?

I feel an abstraction points vs meat points discussion coming on. We’re really checking all the boxes in this thread, aren’t we?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Did you read what I posted? The 'levels' are not combat prowess their just a way to express experience in what they do.

No, you're right, I didn't read carefully.

But if it's not combat prowess, what does it represent? Just skill increase? So some "classes" increase in skills only, but some also increase your combat prowess? Which ones get to know about monsters? Does a high level fighter who retires and farms for a few decades actually lose levels? Does that mean he forgets about the monsters, too?

You wrote:

'Levels' are pretty easy to understand for those who play level based RPGs.

And I think that's kind of true...unless you start looking too carefully at them, and expecting them to answer too many questions, and then you realize that it's such a metagame abstraction, and so divorced from any kind of reality, that the whole thing sort of falls apart.

 

[Yardiff]

No, you're right, I didn't read carefully.

But if it's not combat prowess, what does it represent? Just skill increase? So some "classes" increase in skills only, but some also increase your combat prowess? Which ones get to know about monsters? Does a high level fighter who retires and farms for a few decades actually lose levels? Does that mean he forgets about the monsters, too?

You wrote:



And I think that's kind of true...unless you start looking too carefully at them, and expecting them to answer too many questions, and then you realize that it's such a metagame abstraction, and so divorced from any kind of reality, that the whole thing sort of falls apart.

Its just a down and dirty way to express the difference between a novice, a master etc. If you have a problem with the word 'level' just leave it off and say a novice is a 1 in skill at their trade while a master is a 10 in skill at their trade.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Its just a down and dirty way to express the difference between a novice, a master etc. If you have a problem with the word 'level' just leave it off and say a novice is a 1 in skill at their trade while a master is a 10 in skill at their trade.

What's the point? I don't understand what is gained by using levels for non-PCs or some few NPCs. Especially when level has become so loosely defined as to just mean "better."

 

[pemerton]

Because people are role playing? Putting themselves into the mindset of a person that just lopped the head off this weird green giant-like creature that just freakin' got back up?

Because their reactions to be a reflection of their PC, not them?

I don't see why you wouldn't want people to play that way since you're so into immersive game play.

To me it doesn't seem very immersive. It actually seems rather artificial.

I'll have fun responding as if my PC is freaking out. I won't actually be freaking out of course (I'll probably have a hard time keeping a straight face), but if it's logical that my PC would be then he will respond accordingly.

This seems to reinforce the fact that it's artificial rather than immserive.

That's not to say that it might not be fun. But if you're having a hard time keeping a straight face while playing your PC as freaked out, how are you immersed?

Interesting that once is only acting (not experiencing characters fear) but the other is experiencing the emotions of the character. Since your only acting out a role how are you experiencing these emotion? Is the other persons acting a different kind of acting then yours?

In the first example given by [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], the player's fear that s/he will lose the encounter and have his/her PC die matches the PC's fear of the trolls. That's immersion. It's not acting or pretending, because the fear of losing is real, not feigned.

Overall I don't think a GM should HAVE to use new creature to challenge a low level party run by 'veteran' players.

But no one said that.

The focus was on a particular aspect of monster design and associated tactcial play, namely, monster resistances and vulnerabilities.

If I as a player know that fire kills trolls, and the GM frames my PC into a troll encounter, and is expecting me not to use my knowledge, what's the challenge? The only challenge I can see is one of persuading the GM that, at point X during the encounter, it's OK to start swinging away with my flaming brand (or whatever). That's not the sort of challenge I play FPRGs for. And it brings all sorts of anti-immersive, artificial weirdness with it - like a genuine new player is allowed to use fire as soon as s/he likes, perhaps even by getting lucky, whereas the veteran player has to jump through whatever the GM's hoops are to be allowed to actually have a go at winning the encounter.

Is it possible to be a veteran character but still be low level?

Sure. Play a 1st level fighter! (At least in some editions.)

Or start your 1st level PC as a 50 year-old hermit.

Or whatever else floats your boat!

 

[pemerton]

On the issue of can the GM narrate PC activity as part of the narration of a failed check: my view is that if the activity is not deliberate, is relatively modest, and is a possibility that is implicit in the deliberate action that the player has declared, then the answer is yes.

For example, suppose the PC is fighting an orc on muddy ground. If the player rolls an attack, and misses, I think it's acceptable for the GM to narrate "You have trouble keeping your footing in the mud, and can't land a blow on the orc."

If the PC is trying to disarm a trap, and a check is made and fails, I think it's legitimate for the GM to narrate a slip, or a failure to notice one of the wires, or a drop of sweat from the PC's brow, etc

Is it acceptable to narrate "You use the shortcut your master showed you - but this trap must have been built by your master, because it's got a failsafe against the shortcut- that you only discover too late!"? I would regard this as highly table-specific.

Similarly, if the player of the scholarly character fails a knowledge check, can the GM narrate "You must have skpped that lecture!"? That too looks to me like a highly tablle-specific thing.

Upthread, [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] suggested allowing players to narrate their own failure. That's certainly one possibility, but some tables prefer the GM to be the one who carries the responsibilityi for introducing adversity into the game. I don't think there's anything in the 5e rules that contradicts that preference.

 

[Oofta]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], if I can play a PC that believes dragons are real, I can play a PC that doesn't know you need to use fire on a troll.

There are many things I don't personally believe that I act out my PC believing. It's almost like I'm, I don't know, playing the role of someone I'm not. If only there was a term for that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Man, I kind of feel like a grump with how much humor and fun snuck into these last few pages, but I don't like ignoring people's responses.

I didn't say you were wrong though. The rules, however, are clear about who says what in D&D 5e.

*facepalm*

To paraphrase, "I didn't say you were wrong, just that you were breaking the rules."

You do understand that breaking the rules is generally considered "wrong", right?

I don't, especially given that I don't know you or your players. But ostensibly you are making statements and asking questions in what appears to be an attempt to understand the point of view of several posters in this thread. I'm offering you the basis for those viewpoints - the rules themselves - so you can see where some of us are coming from.

Okay, but why keep repeating it?

I mean if the conversation is

"I say this"

"You can't"

"What's the difference between this and that"

"The rules say you can't"

"Okay, but what's the difference"

"The rules say you can't"

Wouldn't it make sense that going beyond "but the rules say" might be useful? And if you're entire point is to simply educate in where you are coming from, why do you feel the need to swoop in every time simply to remind me I am breaking the rules? I know. You've said. You can stop repeating it. I know.

The rules say the player determines how the character thinks and acts. The DM can only narrate the result of how you act. You may choose to justify your character's actions, if you wish, but you're not required to. That appears to be an assumption based on how you choose to play. I make no judgment as to whether it's a good idea to do what you say you do or not.

So no consideration should be made about other players at the table or the DM. I should only care about myself?

Obviously that's not what you believe, but the rules don't say I need to care about the other players, so I don't have to.

I'm done with this thread of conversation. I was asked why I would ever ask to roll dice, I gave an example, I've been brought to task repeatedly for that example, and the only thing you seem to care about is the absolute supremacy of the player's autonomy. Bully for you.

Pick two distinct games other than D&D. Play one as if you are playing the other. Let me know if that works the same, better, or worse than just playing the way the rules say. If the games are similar in some ways, it may still be playable, but no doubt there may be difficulties that are not present otherwise.

Right.

"I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just hiding behind all this reasonable sounding stuff to make it sound like you don't know what you are doing, and are wrong"

Getting bored of this. Just come out and say what you mean.

Asking to roll a check is not an action a character takes in the game. A check is not a task. It is mechanic used to resolve the outcome of a task when that outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. This is a core concept that seems to be a point of confusion as you discuss related matters with posters in this thread.

Right, my confusion stems from the fact that considering the context, asking to roll will tell me what actions a player intends to take 80% or more of the time.

Yet, that is impossible because the rules say a check isn't an action... nowhere really, it is just heavily implied.

But do you touch it? Assuming you do opens me up to “but I didn’t say I was touching it!” or touching it springs a trap, and assuming you don’t opens me up to “but I didn’t say I wasn’t touching it!” if you miss information that you would have needed to touch the door to uncover. Besides that, it is not my place to say what your character does. If you want to look through the keyhole, tell me. If you want to touch the door, tell me. I will not make assumptions about what your character is doing. It’s not my role as DM, and overstepping my role can lead to problems.

Okay this? This is a reasonable concern.

And, generally, if a specific thing like touching would make a difference, I ask the player "Okay, do you touch it or are you keeping your distance". And I don't always do it for bad things, sometimes it is for benefits, but as long as I am careful I can mitigate that risk.

And, if a player wants to give me more detailed information of what they are doing, I'll accept that. I'm fine with it, I just do not demand that they never say "I roll perception" and I don't chastise or try to lead them out of it if they do. There is enough of an understanding of the fiction between myself and the player to move forward, and I'm not worried about offending them.

Is there something wrong with resolving those actions sequentially?

Time comes to mind. If you end up always getting three to four actions to resolve a single challenge, you are very likely to end up bloating up obstacles. Especially if you are building uncertainty into your players minds.

So first off, it seems I have misconstrued the way you handle checks, and for that I apologize. There was someone I was discussing this subject with who earlier said something along the lines of “if you try to pick the lock it’s a thieves tools check, if you try to freeze the vials with Magic it’s an Arcana check, if you try to break the chest open, it’s an Athletics check,” essentially suggesting that in the example given, a check had to be made for the trapped chest to be open, and that different approaches would only affect what skill was used. My mistake for conflating that argument with yours. That said, if you don’t tell your players the DC of the check and the consequences for failing, how do you expect them to know if a different approach might have better chances? If all you say is “make a Perception check,” without telling them the DC or what happens if they fail, do you honestly expect them to say, “wait, nevermind, I want to try something else”? Worse, if they say “I make a Perception check. 14.” they’re deffinitely not weighing the risks - they can’t even know whether or not there are risks, let alone what the risks are or if another approach might be less risky.

First off, no hard feelings, this thread has stretched long and it is easy to lump and confuse things.

As to why I don't give out DCs... I like to keep the mystery I suppose. Sometimes the person you are talking to is more dangerous than they appear, and intimidating them is a DC 25, not a DC 10. But hearing that intimidating the foppish bard you found tied up in the woods is a DC 25 gives away the game of slowly revealing who it really is.

That isn't to say I don't give them any idea of the challenge. A rogue looking to pick a lock is going to be able to get a decent sense of how hard a lock it is, but I don't feel compelled to tell them an exact number, or tell them about the hidden glyph that might go off if they fail.

Also, as a player, I'm fine just knowing "easy, medium, hard, really hard" because knowing the exact number turns on my math brain. Every number on a d20 is 5%, mod is X, so I need DC-X which is Y%. It turns my risky maneuver into a math equation to be solved, and I don't want that when I'm doing skill checks.

Exactly. So why would you leave whether or not they know either of those things up to a dice roll?

Because it can be interesting. It forces us to come up with a why, and sometimes I just don't let them try. I say "no", but when I'm uncertain... the dice get rolled. That's their job.

The statement “Most skill checks would require rolling at some point” speaks to a fundamental difference in the way you and I view skill checks. In my view, all skill checks require a roll, but not all actions require skill checks to resolve. Skill checks aren’t things that are out there in the wild, waiting to be overcome with a high enough roll or bypassed with a clever alternative. They are a means of resolving actions with uncertain outcomes.

I agree with you.

But I don't like absolutes, and for example, a 20 rogue saying they use stroke of luck, I'm probably not going to bother actually rolling the die, but I would still count that as a "skill check"

A difference seems to be that you think this thread about skills is somehow a thread about "Actions players can take". Those are different types of discussions, we didn't start this thread with "What are all the ways you can tell an NPC is lying" it started with "If an NPC is telling the truth, and Insight is rolled, what DC is it to know they are telling the truth"

But you can’t just isolate the resolution from the action like that. You’re arguing that the DM should have narrated the failure differently, but there shouldn’t have been a failure to narrate in the first place. In order for there to be a failure there needs to be a check, and in order for there to be a check there needs to be an action with an uncertain outcome, which there was not in the example. That was the point of the example - to illustrate the absurdity of calling for checks without taking into account the player’s goal and approach.

It was an absurd example, specifically called out to be an absurd example by the poster.

But, poor style is still poor style, and it bugged me. So I addressed the style concern. I have never and will never say that a payer who said all those things would have to roll a die and have any potential for failure. I have repeatedly said they would have automatically succeeded.

But saying "No, you fail, take damage" is really poor technique. And I reserve the right to critique style when an example is called out to be absurd and not meant to be taken as a serious argument.