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

[Ovinomancer]

That's so true. Last night, my Eberron session kicked off with an important social interaction challenge that was pivotal to their success on the overall adventure. They needed to team up with NPCs who were hostile toward them without letting them know their true motives for helping (which would undermine a kingdom's plot to overthrow the government of another nation). I prepared the central NPC's ideal, bond, flaw, and agenda, and fleshed out the personality traits of the other four NPCs. I then presented a series of objections to what the players were putting forward. Overcoming those objections would slowly improve the NPCs' attitudes. Once the "final attitude" was resolved, then came the ask - could they work together?

They overcame some objections handily, gaining automatic success. But some weren't so clear cut and I called for rolls. Every single one was filled with tension as the mostly un-charismatic PCs considered what arguments to make and what limited resources to apply to improve their odds. You'd think they were trying to avoid disintegration traps.

In the end, they succeeded in convincing the NPCs to team up. It was as tense and interesting as any combat. And being an alliance built upon a lie, we'll see how this goes awry soon, I'm sure!

As an added example of a failure, one of my players wanted their character to get in good with one of Sigil's factions. However, his previous associations meant this would be a challenge. He first attempted to gain an audience and failed his DC 15 CHA check (the DC was set because the faction was unfriendly and his approach was a pretty straightforward ask). This meant he was told that the prelate was busy at the moment, but that the PC was welcome to wait to see if a there was a time to work him in. I also told the PC that he was certain that this was a brushoff and that there wouldn't be any openings for him (a no-check Insight on the clerk). The player elected to call the bluff, and spent a his week of downtime to wait in the waiting room every day during business hours. I determined that this expenditure of resource was sufficient to overcome the challenge of getting a sit-down without another check, so, towards the end of the week, the PC got his meeting. Of course, nothing had changed, so the starting DC was still 15. The player made a reasoned argument that his association with the other faction was only due to being hired for a job, which he prides himself in always completing contracts, and offered his considerably useful services to the this faction in exchange for certain privileges. The factor was interested in this as the PC did have useful skills, and the explanation was enough, I felt, to lower the DC a bit, so I called for a CHA DC 12 check. The player bombed it (around an 8, I recall). As a consequence, I had the factor offer a very tough "interview" job with a 'do it or don't come back' statement and almost no informational assistance to accomplish the task. This wasn't what the player wanted (he wanted access for his character to certain resources, and not to have to involve the rest of the party in this) as he know had to ask other party members for help in accomplishing this goal. They agreed, but that led to another failure where the whole party was defeated and left for dead (they got better, for a given sense of the word). Now, that situation stands with the target of the task completely in the wind and unreachable without much hard work and the faction quest failed with no access whatsoever and any goodwill remaining gone. The player hasn't yet engaged back with this as another party member's needs are currently driving the group, but we'll be back to this in another session or two. I believe the PCs are discussing a rather daring plan to try to lure the target back to Sigil for a pit-fighitng betting opportunity and then grab him at the match -- which one of the PCs will be fighting in! Sounds like a great opportunity for some more rolls to go horribly wrong for them and maybe land the whole party on the wrong side of the Hardheads (Sigil's self-appointed police force)!

 

[iserith]

As an added example of a failure, one of my players wanted their character to get in good with one of Sigil's factions. However, his previous associations meant this would be a challenge. He first attempted to gain an audience and failed his DC 15 CHA check (the DC was set because the faction was unfriendly and his approach was a pretty straightforward ask). This meant he was told that the prelate was busy at the moment, but that the PC was welcome to wait to see if a there was a time to work him in. I also told the PC that he was certain that this was a brushoff and that there wouldn't be any openings for him (a no-check Insight on the clerk). The player elected to call the bluff, and spent a his week of downtime to wait in the waiting room every day during business hours. I determined that this expenditure of resource was sufficient to overcome the challenge of getting a sit-down without another check, so, towards the end of the week, the PC got his meeting. Of course, nothing had changed, so the starting DC was still 15. The player made a reasoned argument that his association with the other faction was only due to being hired for a job, which he prides himself in always completing contracts, and offered his considerably useful services to the this faction in exchange for certain privileges. The factor was interested in this as the PC did have useful skills, and the explanation was enough, I felt, to lower the DC a bit, so I called for a CHA DC 12 check. The player bombed it (around an 8, I recall). As a consequence, I had the factor offer a very tough "interview" job with a 'do it or don't come back' statement and almost no informational assistance to accomplish the task. This wasn't what the player wanted (he wanted access for his character to certain resources, and not to have to involve the rest of the party in this) as he know had to ask other party members for help in accomplishing this goal. They agreed, but that led to another failure where the whole party was defeated and left for dead (they got better, for a given sense of the word). Now, that situation stands with the target of the task completely in the wind and unreachable without much hard work and the faction quest failed with no access whatsoever and any goodwill remaining gone. The player hasn't yet engaged back with this as another party member's needs are currently driving the group, but we'll be back to this in another session or two. I believe the PCs are discussing a rather daring plan to try to lure the target back to Sigil for a pit-fighitng betting opportunity and then grab him at the match -- which one of the PCs will be fighting in! Sounds like a great opportunity for some more rolls to go horribly wrong for them and maybe land the whole party on the wrong side of the Hardheads (Sigil's self-appointed police force)!

Awesome, I just wrapped a Planescape campaign before I started Eberron and that sounds like just the sort of antics my players got up to - all Clueless, new to the planes, who eventually became a Hardhead, an Athar, a Xaositect, a Sinker, and a Guvner. (There were more players than that, but these were the "regulars" of the player pool.) The Blood Pit featured heavily as well!

 

[Oofta]

Exactly! Your play is different. You have a different set of assumptions as to what an action entails, and a different way of adjudicating them. This is perfectly fine, but it's not the same way that a goal and approach method uses. You really need to accept that this is so and stop trying to judge the method from how you play and instead try to understand how it's actually used.


I promote a sense of paranoia, but I don't use the mechanics as the means to do so, I use the fiction in play. I don't need to be vague about a success, with and answer of 'they seem to be telling the truth' because that's not needed -- I have plenty of other tools to inflict paranoia on my players.

This is my point, the difference in our play is that I do not see the mechanics, either in success of failure, as a place to make the player uncertain of outcomes. Those are where outcomes become certain. I get to play with the before and after.

So, again, our play is different -- we're prioritizing different things, and this means that you cannot judge my play by situations that occur in your method because they're not the same situations as in my method.



In my game, this player would be doing themselves a disservice because asking for a check is asking for a chance to fail, and failure has consequences that are not the status quo. That's my point -- if you do not add consequence to every check, and, indeed, only ask for checks when there is a consequence (and a chance for success/failure), then asking for a check makes perfect sense -- it's the only way to get the GM to divulge their hidden story to you. I do not play this way. My method does not work in your method of play. This should be obvious, but I keep having to say it.

This is because your point of conflict is "is this NPC lying to me." That's, frankly, utterly boring to me.

If I present a lying NPC, figuring out the NPC is lying will not resolve whatever the actual issue is. It will just lead to a new point of contention. Why did the NPC lie? What do we do know that we know the NPC lied?

To go back to the shopkeep example you proposed, determining that the shopkeep lied would never be a check in my game. I'd never need to prevaricate to preserve uncertainty so that my plot continues. Instead, discovering the lie is just one more means to advance the plot and do something different. You'd need evidence, and could then brace the shopkeep with it to expose the lie and get the truth (which leads to more adventure), or maybe you engage in discussion, discover something about the shopkeep, like that he loves his little girls, and use that to get him to confess to the lie. Or, maybe, you do not, and have to come at the problem a completely different way. To me, discovering a lie is just like opening a door -- something you have to do to move the game along. As such, if it's uncertain, there will be a consequence to failure that will change how the fiction sits -- the status quo will not hold. On the other hand, a success is a success -- the character reaps the reward and I don't try to diminish the success. Why would I? The character just took a risk I'd hammer home on a failure, so a success deserves nothing less than actual success at the intended goal. Or, for complex goals, a solid step forward.



That's fine, but it's also why you need to have the "shortcut" of letting players ask for rolls and why you don't seek approaches -- there's no change if they fail and they can only benefit (maybe vaguely) on a success. You've built your game around the idea that asking for checks is what's what, so that behavior is prioritized. This is not a shortcut, or even a good idea in my game, because rolls will change the fiction -- for the better on a success and for the worse on a failure -- so it's better to seek to not to roll. This is accomplished by providing an approach and goal so the GM has the best information possible to determine you might automatically succeed or, if it's going to be a roll, that you get the best possible chance by leveraging your character's abilities to the maximum extent possible. And, a good approach might net you advantage!

This difference -- rolls change fiction -- is absolutely a huge difference in our game. If you ever say, "nope, you don't find any traps," and nothing else on a check looking for traps, then this is a huge difference in our games, and, indeed, why our methods differ. This is not something that is ever said in my games. Instead, it's, "<sharp intake of breath> ooh, that's not going to be good."

So ... this all starts out fine. We play differently. We have different styles.

Then you go off the deep end. My games are boring and I'm doing it wrong. If only I did it just like you, my game would be so much better.

You know what? I've retained multiple players for more than a decade. I've been told without solicitation that I'm people's favorite DM when I run games (public and private). So you can go to ... well you can go play your own game because I don't care any more.

Have a day.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So ... this all starts out fine. We play differently. We have different styles.

Then you go off the deep end. My games are boring and I'm doing it wrong. If only I did it just like you, my game would be so much better.

Nope, I woukd find that example boring. If you see your game in that example, all I've said is that I'd find that part boring.

So, save the fake outrage for someone ekse. I'm not buying it.

You know what? I've retained multiple players for more than a decade. I've been told without solicitation that I'm people's favorite DM when I run games (public and private). So you can go to ... well you can go play your own game because I don't care any more.

Have a day.

Awesome! Me, too. And, given how many times you've said you don't care anymire but still bring this up in other threads, I'm not buying that, either.

 

[jgsugden]

OK, a few folks took this conversation off this flame war and bounced ideas back and forth. Here is what we came up with:

Basic Insight DC: 20. This is the DC to be confident the speaker is telling the truth. If you miss it by 10, you're convinced they're lying. If you miss it by less than 10, you're unsure.

Modifiers:
* Subtract the speakers persuasion from the DC.
* Add to the DC if there is reason to doubt the truth. Examples (everything below is believed to be true by the speaker):
* No modifier: The merchant is telling you that he is selling the product to you at his cost.
* +5: You come across a man in an alley standing over a corpse. He has a bloody weapon in his hand and is trying to convince you that he did not kill the dead person.
* +10: The sage reveals that the God the PC worships is not a God, but is instead a Demon Lord.
* +15: The sage reveals that the PCs are just characters in a game and do not really exist.
* If the speaker would have advantage on their persuasion, lower the DC by 5. If there would be disadvantage, raise it by 5.

 

[Oofta]

OK, a few folks took this conversation off this flame war and bounced ideas back and forth. Here is what we came up with:

Basic Insight DC: 20. This is the DC to be confident the speaker is telling the truth. If you miss it by 10, you're convinced they're lying. If you miss it by less than 10, you're unsure.

Modifiers:
* Subtract the speakers persuasion from the DC.
* Add to the DC if there is reason to doubt the truth. Examples (everything below is believed to be true by the speaker):
* No modifier: The merchant is telling you that he is selling the product to you at his cost.
* +5: You come across a man in an alley standing over a corpse. He has a bloody weapon in his hand and is trying to convince you that he did not kill the dead person.
* +10: The sage reveals that the God the PC worships is not a God, but is instead a Demon Lord.
* +15: The sage reveals that the PCs are just characters in a game and do not really exist.
* If the speaker would have advantage on their persuasion, lower the DC by 5. If there would be disadvantage, raise it by 5.

I can see this working and have done similar (just not as codified or exact phrasing) in the past. Do you roll for your players or have them roll? Asking because I go back and forth on this one for a few skills; by and large I trust my players to not meta-game and just let them have fun with it but I'm curious what other people do.

 

[Satyrn]

I see how you've decided to turn this into a problem, yes. Honestly, given the blatant misrepresentations that have been going on in this thread regarding my play, how should I react to someone calling me out on a very small matter of some less that perfect wording?

Well my intention in giving you that heads up was to be helpful. I thought that you'd like to edit your less than perfect wording into something that wasn't the opposite of what you meant to say.

Or, if you didn't want to do that, I thought that my pointing it out first might make it less likely that Oofta would focus on that part of your post and continue the conversation.



But whatever. I wish I was as wise as one of the Daves I know:

Never mind. Probably not as helpful as I first thought.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well my intention in giving you that heads up was to be helpful. I thought that you'd like to edit your less than perfect wording into something that wasn't the opposite of what you meant to say.

Or, if you didn't want to do that, I thought that my pointing it out first might make it less likely that Oofta would focus on that part of your post and continue the conversation.



But whatever. I wish I was as wise as one of the Daves I know:

Thanks, then. It's easy to take it the wrong way when you're suddenly held to task for a minor slip after a whole thread of larger slips by others. I suppose I was a tad defensive.

 

[Guest 6801328]

KUMBAYAAAAA

 

[jgsugden]

I can see this working and have done similar (just not as codified or exact phrasing) in the past. Do you roll for your players or have them roll?

They roll, but only I look. I have a dice chute that sends their dice to me, behind my screen. I then pass them back.

Asking because I go back and forth on this one for a few skills; by and large I trust my players to not meta-game and just let them have fun with it but I'm curious what other people do.

I trust my players to try not to metagame, but it is hard at times. If your PC is unsure if someone lies, but the player knows, it is hard to decide whether the PC will decide to treat them as a liar or not if the stakes are high.