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

[iserith]

Yeah, I’m aware of approach (2). It’s a legit way of doing things, but not my preference, personally. I’d use approach (2) if I was running, like, Dungeon World or another Powered by the Apocalypse game, because that’s how that system is designed to work. But I think approach (1) is a better fit for D&D 5e.

^ This. Different games, different rules, different approaches that work with those rules.

I'll quote the D&D 5e DMG (emphasis mine):

"When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores... only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure." It then goes on add another prerequisite, that being, if it has an uncertain outcome (somewhere between trivially easy and impossible).
​

This last bit is reinforced by the D&D 5e PHB (emphasis mine):

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."​

Taking these elements plus the rest of the rules into account (such as divorcing a fictional task from a "skill check") and I think the conclusion is as you say above. pemerton's Approach 1 is a better fit for D&D 5e. I don't particularly agree with the whole "engineering" bit (as I am by far no engineer), but the causal bit in the context of a fantasy world is a reasonable way of thinking about it in my view.

Having said that, I greatly prefer Approach 2! I argued for a more 4e-esque game than D&D 5e eventually became, and I love Dungeon world and was one of the original playtesters for that game. I lost that argument, however, and what we have is what we have. So my preferences get set aside to play in a manner that most suits the rules set as I see it. And what do ya know, we still have fun games. Different games, different rules, different approaches that work with those rules. It seems like madness to me to play every game the same way.

 

[Oofta]

Just for grins I decided to look up where people were getting the "there has to be a meaningful consequence for failure" so I looked it up. I think the phrase is being completely overblown and taken out of context.

When a player wants to do something, it’s often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character’s ability scores. For example, a character doesn’t normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
​

I think the example is fairly clear, but people quoting the rule seem skip the example which is kind of a critical clarification because it's pretty obvious they're talking about mundane tasks.

It also continues on to say:

When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:

Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?

If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate.​

So ... if a PC wants to try to break out of manacles, is there a chance of failure (for most PCs)? Yes. Therefore you need to look at the next line

If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate.​

There's no requirement for meaningful consequence for failure, just a chance of failure. Is this contradictory? I don't think so, it's just that the section is general suggestions written in a casual language not parsed as a legal document. Well, that and it's just a suggestion ... run the game the way that makes sense to you. But if you're going to quote rules, quote them in context.

 

[Bawylie]

Just for grins I decided to look up where people were getting the "there has to be a meaningful consequence for failure" so I looked it up. I think the phrase is being completely overblown and taken out of context.

When a player wants to do something, it’s often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character’s ability scores. For example, a character doesn’t normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
​

I think the example is fairly clear, but people quoting the rule seem skip the example which is kind of a critical clarification because it's pretty obvious they're talking about mundane tasks.

It also continues on to say:

When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:

Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?

If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate.​

So ... if a PC wants to try to break out of manacles, is there a chance of failure (for most PCs)? Yes. Therefore you need to look at the next line

If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate.​

There's no requirement for meaningful consequence for failure, just a chance of failure. Is this contradictory? I don't think so, it's just that the section is general suggestions written in a casual language not parsed as a legal document. Well, that and it's just a suggestion ... run the game the way that makes sense to you. But if you're going to quote rules, quote them in context.

I disagree that they’re not quoted in context. But if you want to take in an even larger context, why would you omit the 3 sections on use of the dice? Rolling with it, ignoring the dice, and the middle path. Seems like those sections provide quite a bit of context too.

Or the very last paragraph that says the dice don’t run your game. That’s a whopper. And goes right in with your conclusion: “run the game the way that makes sense to you.”

 

[Bawylie]

^ This. Different games, different rules, different approaches that work with those rules.

I'll quote the D&D 5e DMG (emphasis mine):

"When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores... only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure." It then goes on add another prerequisite, that being, if it has an uncertain outcome (somewhere between trivially easy and impossible).
​

This last bit is reinforced by the D&D 5e PHB (emphasis mine):

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."​

Taking these elements plus the rest of the rules into account (such as divorcing a fictional task from a "skill check") and I think the conclusion is as you say above. pemerton's Approach 1 is a better fit for D&D 5e. I don't particularly agree with the whole "engineering" bit (as I am by far no engineer), but the causal bit in the context of a fantasy world is a reasonable way of thinking about it in my view.

Having said that, I greatly prefer Approach 2! I argued for a more 4e-esque game than D&D 5e eventually became, and I love Dungeon world and was one of the original playtesters for that game. I lost that argument, however, and what we have is what we have. So my preferences get set aside to play in a manner that most suits the rules set as I see it. And what do ya know, we still have fun games. Different games, different rules, different approaches that work with those rules. It seems like madness to me to play every game the same way.

I have to disagree here. I think 3rd/PF plays better when you do it like 5th than when you play it like 3rd/PF. But to be fair, I’m way more interested in the answer to “what do you do?” than i am in the answer to “what did you roll?” And I might be closer to “ignoring the dice” than I am to “rolling with it,” though I still consider myself middle-path.

 

[Oofta]

I disagree that they’re not quoted in context. But if you want to take in an even larger context, why would you omit the 3 sections on use of the dice? Rolling with it, ignoring the dice, and the middle path. Seems like those sections provide quite a bit of context too.

Or the very last paragraph that says the dice don’t run your game. That’s a whopper. And goes right in with your conclusion: “run the game the way that makes sense to you.”

First of all, I can't quote the entire DMG. What I was addressing was a very specific claim that the rules say that there has to be a meaningful consequence for failure as a prerequisite for rolling dice. That's obviously not true, or the rules contradict themselves in the space of a couple of paragraphs.

Then again, I don't claim to be a rules lawyer and I look at this kind of stuff as general guidance and not "thou must playeth this way" so I have no clue by what you mean "that's a whopper". I've stated how I run the game. I don't see a reason for there to be a meaningful chance of failure as a prerequisite for a roll of the die. If you do, run your game that way.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think what most got me in the post you quoted was Charlaquin's claim that punishing players makes them look for better options instead of relying on their best skills.

This is very,very far afield of my claim. My claim was/is that not calling for a roll unless the action has a logical chance of success, chance of failure, and cost for the attempt or consequence for failure, encourages players to look for ways of resolving actions that don't have a chance of failure or don't have a cost for the attempt or consequence for failure.

To my perspective, it would do the opposite. I would fight like crazy to avoid situations where I had to use a skill I was bad at, to the point where I'd cede the narrative to another player.

The thing is, a more successful strategy to avoid situations where you have to use a skill you're bad at is to avoid situations where you have to use a skill. Try to eliminate the chance of failure by coming up with effective approaches, rather than relying on your stats to mitigate the chance of failure.

And, if your play involves leaving players no choice but to hope for the best, because both acting and not acting have dire consequences... that can be fun occasionally, but wouldn't it be better for the players to seek out these moments instead of being driven to them?

Where are you getting this idea from?

So the reasonable chance of failure has nothing to do with the success or failure of the check?

No. The existence of the check has everything to do with the logical outcome of the action.

I'm glad we are clearing up confusion, but you realize then that we now have a chance of failure in an action which cannot fail. Which could get very confusing if I tried to explain it to a player for example.

No, we have an action that can fail, being resolved by a check that cannot. That's why it's important to distinguish between the action the character performs and the check the player must make to resolve it.

But that makes me re-look at the barmaid example. Chance of success? Yep. Chance of failure? Yep. Stakes? Possible depending on the circumstances. So, would you call for a DC 5 check, if there were high enough stakes? You aren't considering the mechanical effects what so ever, it is purely within the fiction, the mechanical comes afterwards.

Eh, to be honest, I don't think flagging down the waitress has a reasonable chance of failure. Like, could it technically fail? Sure, but so could tying your shoes, and we don't make checks for that. That's why I say "reasonable chance of failure" instead of "possibility of failure." Whether or not a check is called for depends not only on if the action could fail, but if failure is a plausible and dramatically significant possibility. In other words, if it has a chance of failure and a consequence for failure.

That said, I'm happy to examine the hypothetical situation where failing to flag down the waitress is both reasonably likely and has a meaningful consequence. Maybe the restaurant is really busy so it might be too noisy for her to hear you, and she might be too distracted to notice you, but there is a chance she might see or hear you. And maybe you're running late for an important meeting, so if you do fail to get her attention quickly enough, you might not make it in time to your meeting and you'll get in trouble. Ok, now we have met all the criteria for this action to be resolved by way of a check. Seems like Charisma, and seems easy to moderate to pull off. So sure, I'll ask for a DC 5 Charisma check. Maybe Performance would be applicable. I'd say that, and if your Charisma + Performance was +4 or higher, or if you had some feature like Reliable Talent that would prevent you from rolling lower than a 5, you could tell me so, and I'd say you succeed.

What problem? The closest you've come to telling me there is a problem is that I'll suddenly stop allowing people to succeed without a roll... which isn't true. So what problem do you see in thinking that breaking manacles with pure muscle strength (maybe the aid of a crowbar) is a DC 20? They have an AC and HP too, is it a problem to start thinking of breaking manacles as being a combat roll with damage as well? DC to pick the lock is 15 I do believe, so now I also have the problem of thinking of them as a DC 15 picking check.

All three are true, all three I can consider, and yet keeping those in mind is a problem? How? Why?

Again, keeping those things in mind is not a problem. Conflating the mechanical process of the DC 20 Strength check, the DC 15 Dexterity check, or the attacks made to destroy the manacles with the action of trying to break out of them, trying to slip out of them, or trying to smash them with something is. It leads to confusion, as you pointed out earlier, when you mistake an action that could fail being resolved by a check that could not with an action that could not fail.

Actually, baby, I was making a decision based off of the mechanics of the roll and what was my highest modifier. The thing you said your style would de-emphasize.

If I was thinking about how my character would act in a fictional setting... I'd consider their personality. Are they are hot head who is going to rage about and try and break out, or are they cool headed and going for a plan that involves deception. I didn't consider any of that, I didn't think about my role, I looked at hard numbers for the most likely path to success. My character didn't matter at all, only my statistics.

Alright, then I guess that's how you made your decision. I'm not the thought police. The important thing, to me, is that you thought about the situation, thought about what your character would do in that situation, and told me what your character was doing, rather than just telling me the name of a stat you wanted to roll with.

And I'm curious, about the bolded part. What do you do with information the player cannot have? I don't see guards, and I seem to be alone, but they've actually got a guard post with a scrying eye set up. Do you tell me that I'm secretly under observation so I can make my decision?

I tell you the DC and possible consequences of your action. "That'll require you to succeed on a DC 10 Strength check, plus Athletics if you've got it. On a failure, you might attract the attention of the guards." That doesn't really tell you anything you couldn't otherwise know. I'm not telling you there's a secret scrying sensor, I'm not telling you you're not alone, I'm telling you that making noise could attract guards.

And how long would I have to have to be under "no pressure" timewise? An action is a few seconds, if I have ten minutes during the guard switching or dragging a prisoner off is that enough time to auto-succeed? Would you tell me that, so I could make the most complete decision?

I would say if you only have 10 minutes, that is enough time pressure to require a check. I tend to work in 10-minute intervals for simplicity's sake, so in that situation I'd probably rule that you could get it done in less than 10 minutes on a success, but not on a failure. Something like: "You could do that quickly with a DC 10 Strength check. On a failure, it'll take 10 minutes."

No role is necessary to look at my stats. And, I know that any roll to break something via strength of arm is 90% likely to be an athletics check. Just like I know "I huddle into the corner to blend with the shadows so the guards can't see me" is a stealth check. I'm trying stealth. Whether or not I dress it up is immaterial to me knowing what mechanical call is likely to be made from my actions.

But, see, you're still thinking in terms of action = check. Breaking something is not 90% likely to require a check. If it does, yes, it is 90% likely to be Strength based, but I'll also tell you if it requires a check and give you the opportunity to take action to mitigate the risk or to back out if you so choose. "I try to break it with my hands" might result in "Ok, it breaks" or might result in "that'll take a DC (whatever) Strength check, and on a failure (whatever). What do you do?" There's never a situation where you're forced to make a Strength check because the action you described is physical in nature. I'll always tell you the risk, and you are always free to say "On second thought, nah, I'm gonna try something else."

My mechanical stats are informing decisions of the narrative, exactly what you said would not be the case. "Players are more likely to look for the action most likely to succeed instead of simply rolling a check." Well, I'm looking at the most likely mechanical check to succeed and you are praising me for my roleplaying, with no regards to any role.

Again, you are still making your decisions based on an assumption that action = check. Instead of looking for what stat you're most likely to succeed on a roll with, you would have more success thinking about what your character could do that seems like it would probably work without a roll. And in actual play, with players who are genuinely interested in engaging with the game instead of trying to prove that my DMing style is bad, that's what I find most of my players doing, including ones who are initially reticent about having to describe actions in terms of in-character approach.

So you are perfectly fine with players backing out of moments of fictional importance because their mechanics don't match up with the challenge.

Roll playing is the term you are looking for to describe that.

Let's not resort to name-calling. Roll-playing is a meaningless term used only to insult playstyles one doesn't like.

Ah, I see the problem. You assume that because I'm fine with players saying "I roll insight" that all they need to do is say "persuasion 23" and that's it. They never come up with clever approaches.

Well, once more, assumptions are dangerous things. Yes, I would allow "I want to roll persuasion to convince the guards to let us go, we're heroes of the city after all". But, that doesn't mean I would allows "Persuasion 23" and just go with it. And my players also come up with clever approaches. I'd like to think I encourage that because they know that having a bad idea isn't going to hurt the party necessarily.

Aight, man. If that works for you, have fun. Not my style, personally.

Not that I don't also point out to them when they are making a poor decision "So you want to temporarily mind control the guard into letting you go... are you sure about that?"

Umm...

So you are perfectly fine with players backing out of moments of fictional importance because their mechanics don't match up with the challenge.

Roll playing is the term you are looking for to describe that.

???

Umm, you might want to reread your post

"Neither of us said there has to be a consequence for there to be a check. If there is no consequence the action is just successful (ie, no check)"

No, you might want to re-read my post

Whereas I would say that there doesn't need to be a meaningful cost of failure other than you did not succeed. Sometimes there will be a cost, other times there won't. If I think failure would have no meaningful consequence I'm not going to make something up just to meet some arbitrary requirement of "failure has to have a cost".

Neither are those of us who say there must be a cost or consequence for there to be a check. If there is a chance of success, a chance of failure, but no cost or consequence, then the action is successful.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have to disagree here. I think 3rd/PF plays better when you do it like 5th than when you play it like 3rd/PF. But to be fair, I’m way more interested in the answer to “what do you do?” than i am in the answer to “what did you roll?” And I might be closer to “ignoring the dice” than I am to “rolling with it,” though I still consider myself middle-path.

I mean, I agree with you on that, but I also think 3e and Pathfinder are... (warning: opinion incoming) bad systems. Running them like 5e helps address some of the problems with those systems. One certainly could design a game to work better with the players declare actions style of task resolution. I would argue that 4e is an example of such a system.

 

[Oofta]

Neither are those of us who say there must be a cost or consequence for there to be a check. If there is a chance of success, a chance of failure, but no cost or consequence, then the action is successful.

Which is fine, it's just not what the rules clearly state:

Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?

If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate.​

There is no mention of no cost or consequence, just a chance of failure. I really don't know how much clearer the rules can be.

As always, feel free to add whatever rules float your boat in your campaign.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which is fine, it's just not what the rules clearly state:

Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?

If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate.​

There is no mention of no cost or consequence, just a chance of failure. I really don't know how much clearer the rules can be.

As always, feel free to add whatever rules float your boat in your campaign.

Sure. "This is how the books say you're supposed to run 5e" is Iserith's hill, not mine. I, personally, care more about the results of different DMing approaches in actual play, and in my experience, requiring all three criteria leads to a better play experience, though of course your mileage may vary.

And to be honest, while I agree with Iserith and Bawylie's interpretations of the section in question, along with DMG pages 236-237, "The Role of Dice," I very much doubt that it is in line with the developers' intent, given what I've seen of Mearls', Crawford's, and Perkins' DMing.

 

[Bawylie]

First of all, I can't quote the entire DMG. What I was addressing was a very specific claim that the rules say that there has to be a meaningful consequence for failure as a prerequisite for rolling dice. That's obviously not true, or the rules contradict themselves in the space of a couple of paragraphs.

Then again, I don't claim to be a rules lawyer and I look at this kind of stuff as general guidance and not "thou must playeth this way" so I have no clue by what you mean "that's a whopper". I've stated how I run the game. I don't see a reason for there to be a meaningful chance of failure as a prerequisite for a roll of the die. If you do, run your game that way.

That’s precisely my point. Nobody quoting text is purposely ignoring context, but they’re citing passages relevant to their point. Specific passages for specific circumstances. They can’t quote the whole DMG. But they’re (and you’re) leaving out of context is functional, not an attempt to deceive.