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

[Charlaquin]

Sorry if I am phrasing my summaries poorly.

You said that you aren't saying your players will take "Better options" just options that have no chance of failure.

Ok, I see the confusion here. You said:

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.

I said:

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.

You assumed that the part of your quote I took issue with was "makes them look for better options." In fact, I took issue with the "punishing players" part, along with the fact that your quote implies that "looking for better options" and "relying on their best skills" are mutually exclusive things.

Also, an option than has no meaningful consequence, you won't call for a roll, it will just auto-succeed. Meaning in the meta (since you are very specific in what you want to mean) those action would be considered actions that cannot fail, because the DM will make them succeed.

...Weird way to phrase that, but ok, I think I see what you mean.

But you also keep saying that you aren't trying to claim your players are picking better ways, or more effective ways.

Keep trying to claim? I corrected your misrepresentation of my stance one time.

There is an implicit thrust to this, that people not using your set of requirements are getting players who are not taking those actions, who are not coming up with actions that are likely to succeed or ideas that will likely work. If your system creates those types of actions, it seems you are implying we don't.

I have made no such claim. I claim that my way of doing things 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. In contrast to your assertion that my way of doing things punishes players and in so doing makes them rely on their best skills. I am not attacking your way of doing things, I am defending mine.

I understand the order of operations you are operating under, but I don't see what it is meant to achieve that my approach of just asking the players to tell me what they want to do, and being prepared for things to become skill checks, doesn't.

You keep suggesting that my way of doing things is somehow not "just asking the players to tell me what they want to do, and being prepared for things to become skill checks." This is not the case.

I might have been unclear.

I'm not coming up with a plan. I wanted to see what your plan was.

I don't have a plan. It is not my role as DM to come up with a plan for the player to escape. My role is to adjudicate the player's plan.

You're system incentivizes players to take actions that have no chance of failing, so, in that scenario, what is the foolproof plan that your system would incentivize you to make. I can think of plenty of plans that have a chance of failing, some maybe involving multiple rolls.

My system incentivizes players to think in terms of what their character is doing, in order to maximize their ability to avoid having to make checks. Again, if you just imagine your character existing in the world and describe what they do, most of the time what happens as a result will be pretty much what you expected to happen. If you have a pretty good idea about the most likely outcome of your character doing a thing, that's probably exactly what's going to happen. In the case that something bad might happen, you'll get fair warning about that. You're the one trying to force this "players need to come up with foolproof plans to succeed" narrative, not me.

I'm trying to understand you.

All evidence to the contrary.

I was going to respond to the part right above this, but this seemed like a better point.

How am I being uncharitable?

If there is a chance of success, a chance of failure, and consequences for the action. You will call for a roll. If there are consequences they must make the situation worse for the player than it started out as. There must also be consequences for not acting. The goal is not to roll the dice at all.

YOU KEEP SAYING THIS, AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT MEANS!!!

The only ways to avoid rolling the dice, would be to come up with a plan that cannot fail (removing the requirement of the action having a chance of failure) or to come up with a plan that has no consequence for failure (removing that structure instead). You could also avoid rolling by coming up with a plan that has no chance of success, but that means auto-failure, so that's not ideal.

This is what you have said, this is your system. Now, maybe you mean "the action has a decent chance of failure" instead "chance of failure" but just from what you have said, I don't want to assume that.

I have literally told you that I mean that.

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.

Now, it is likely we would call for rolls much of the same time, I might just call for more than you do. But, I don't see the difference you are trying to put between our two methods unless you are more strict in rulings or consequences than I am. Otherwise, this entire discussion has come about because I occasionally allow rolls you wouldn't instead of any major difference in our adjudication of rolls.

This conversation has come about because you are repeatedly (and seemingly deliberately) misinterpreting my position. Yes, we probably would call for rolls much of the same times. Yes, you probably do call for rolls more often than I do. The difference between our methods is that I have a more rigorous process that I personally follow in adjudicating actions - namely, I ask myself if the character's action has a reasonable chance of accomplishing the player's goal. If it doesn't, it fails. If it does, I ask myself if the character's action has a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the player's goal. If it doesn't it succeeds. If it does, I ask myself if there is a cost for attempting this action, or a consequence for failing. If it doesn't, it succeeds. If it does, I ask myself what Attribute this task would best be resolved with, and whether the task is easy, medium, hard, or very hard. Then I tell the player to make a check with the appropriate Attribute, at the appropriate difficulty, and let them know what will happen on a failure. I do these things primarily to insure that the characters successes and failures will largely be the result of the players' decisions, rather than the roll of the dice. Secondarily, I do these things to encourage players to think in terms of what their character is doing (rather than trying to guess what skill or skills I'll allow them to accomplish their goal with on a success), and to equip them with enough information to make informed decisions.

If your players think primarily in terms of what their characters are doing the way you run things, that's great. To be perfectly frank, I don't really care. You do whatever you want, it doesn't affect my game. In my experience, when I have allowed players to announce actions in terms of what skill they want to use instead of what their character is doing, it has not worked that way. I have had much more success running it the way I describe above. Your mileage may, and probably will, vary. And that's fine.

That's pretty much how I would handle it. Except for the 10 minutes part (but that has nothing to do with anything we're discussing) I just wouldn't tell them it was a DC 15 check. Might tell them it looks like a fairly basic lock if they have the time to study it.

The player asked to do something. They easily can beat the DC due to their abilities. They succeed.

Where is the need for your three step process and division between actions and checks? Since that gets resolved the same way... what do you think I'm doing differently?

The three step process is something I do to help me resolve actions in what I feel is the best way I can. If you don't need or want to use such a process, great. Again, I don't really care. As for the division between actions and checks, they are two different things. They just are. That's how they're defined by the rules. I quoted the exact sections of the rules that define them, I don't know what more you want from me. Actions aren't checks, checks are a tool you use to figure out what happens as a result of actions. This is not some ideological thing, this is literally what the words mean in terms of 5e's rules.

Right, you insisted something I said was wrong, because these two things are distinct. I cannot have checks which do not require a roll, because all checks require a roll only actions might not require a roll.

Rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing to a DC is the processes that constitutes the game rules term, "check." In some specific cases, certain abilities may make it possible to determine the results of a check without having to roll the d20.

And as I try and dig into this to understand why what I was saying was wrong... I'm finding almost no meaningful distinction, nor a reason you had to call out my statement as wrong. You just had to point out that you follow very strict definitions of the terms that have little impact on the game itself?



Why?



Why do you insist on this?

Because you thinking of the words "check" and "action" as essentially interchangeable seems to be getting in the way of you understanding my methods.

Is it really that hard for you to understand how this works?

I don't know, is it really that hard for you to undrstand that words mean things?

"I search the room for clues" is an investigation check.

No, it is not. It is an action. It's a thing the character is doing. It may or may not require a check to resolve, to which Proficiency in the Investigation skill may or may not be applicable. Personally, I'd say Perception would be more appropriate than Investigation here, but that's neither here nor there.

Sure, maybe the DM will just hand me a success, but if they do not it will be an investigation check to investigate the room.

And this way of thinking is a barrier to you understanding my method. Don't worry about what kind of check it is. Just say what you want to accomplish and how your character is going about it. Most of the time, what will happen is pretty much what you think will happen, no roll necessary. Sometimes, I might inform you of a potential consequence that action might have, and what you'd need to roll to avoid that consequence. If you don't want to take the risk, you don't have to.

"I shove the goblin off the cliff" is the shove action,

Correct. You'll note that the action is the thing your character is doing.

which is an athletics check, maybe the DM just wants to get the fight over with and my fighter will succeed, but if they do not it will athletics opposed by Goblin Dexterity to shove it off,

No, this is the mechanical process used to resolve the Shove action.

and the goblin will get a Dex save to catch the edge as well.

Possibly. That's a DM judgment call, really.

"I listen through the door to hear what they are saying about the Duke" is a perception check. Maybe the DM will just let me succeed, but if they do not it will be a perception check to hear a conversation through a thick wooden door.

No, it's an action, which may or may not require a Perception check to resolve.

You want me to divide these, to only think in terms of the actions, but the resolution of actions is done through skill checks.

Sometimes. But many actions can be resolved without skill checks.

Actions are highly likely to have skill checks follow them.

Not at my table. The action-to-ability-check ratio is pretty steep at my table. Checks are made frequently, because my games focus on adventurous people in dangerous situations and naturally that will lead to a high frequency of actions with uncertain outcomes and dramatic consequences. But far more actions are declared that don't have uncertain outcomes or don't have dramatic consequences. When a check happens in my games, it's because things are getting tense.

So, thinking only about the action and not considering the mechanics behind the action just seems like poor play.

It's not. Again, short of actually coming to my game and seeing how it plays out, you're just going to have to take my word for it. But trust me, that is the best way to be successful in my games.

Especially when, if a check is called for at your table, you are going to tell me a DC and a consequence for failure, so I need to already be thinking in mechanical terms not surprised when you say I need to roll perception if I want to accomplish my task.

Why does it matter if you're surprised? I'm telling you exactly what you need to roll, what the difficulty is, and what the consequences could be, and allowing you to back out if you don't want to go through with it. In what way are you disadvantaged by not having predicted that I'd make that call?

As for me having a problem with a player being able to lay out all their options with precise DCs for each, before wasting any time or making any decision... yeah, I have a problem with that. It kind of ruins the narrative. Just like how I really never liked the VATS system in Fallout 3, because all of a sudden I could stop being in the world and pull up a screen of statistics to make the most mathematical optimal choice. You don't know what the mathematical best choice is between shoving past the guards on the stairs, jumping out the window, or leaping for the chandelier. You just know those are options, you are on the 3rd floor and the floor below the chandelier is at least 10 ft down. You have the information your character has, go ahead an make a choice.

Alright. You're allowed not to like that. Personally, I do.

But this has nothing to do with any of what you said. Why is your system about presenting chances of success and failure and consequences for failure and all these different mechanical options if your goal is simply "imagine your character is in the world". That's far simpler. That doesn't require anything you have been talking about. I should know, getting people to think like their character would is my entire goal, yet I never break down their choices into a three step verification process.

Sure, I think about the likelihood of success, but once they are thinking like their characters then they almost never make choices that have no chance of success. And they don't need to know the consequences for their actions, because those consequences that aren't obvious aren't things that the character is likely to know anyways. They didn't study the chandelier's structural integrity to see that a mistimed jump is going to cause it to rip out of the ceiling. They don't know that. They just know that they might be able to jump to it as one of their choices for avoiding the guards.

You go on about the process like that is the important part, but I'm reaching the same goal without your process and strict definitions.

Good for you, dude. If that works for you, go nuts. It has no impact on me and my games.

You kept calling me out for not doing things your way, indicating that following these rules make for the best game.

I have done no such thing. I don't care if you do things my way or not. I, personally, have found the most success running the game the way I do, which is why I do it. If it doesn't interest you, don't do it my way. Why would I care?

I've spent far more of our discussion defending why I said a thing, or trying to understand what I'm doing differently than you than I've spent picking apart your style, because you keep insising I'm not getting it

You have done nothing but pick apart my style in your quest to understand what you're doing differently than me. When in reality, it could not be simpler. You allow players to declare actions in terms of what skill they want to use, and you don't tell players the DC or possible consequences. I request that players declare actions in terms of goal and approach, and I do tell them the DC and possible consequences. Additionally, I only call for rolls under a particular set of circumstances (namely, a reasonable chance of success, a reasonable chance of failure, and a cost for the action or consequence for failure). That's it. It really isn't more complicated than that.

and implying your way is the best way.

For me, it is the best way I've found. I can only speak to my own experience. If your way works for you, have fun with your way.

But you make me highly aware of my stats first. By both assuring that there are consequences for failure if dice are rolled, and by telling me the exact DC, I know my precise chances of success. Once I have that information, I would find it very difficult to ignore that information and make decisions in spite of it. If I know my actions, despite being logical and exactly what I want my character to do, only have a 20% chance of success... then I'm breaking away from the story and instead delving into the mechanics.

Ok. That's your call to make. Whether you are making it because of what you imagine your character would do or based on your mental cost/benefit analysis, that's none of my business. My job is to give you the information you need to make decisions. What decisions you make or why is up to you.

I know information my character doesn't (the precise odds of success) and so I am going to work off of that information instead of what makes sense for the story.

See, on this we disagree. I think your character can and should have a decent sense of their own capabilities. Just like you can look at a cliff and make a fairly accurate prediction about whether or not you'd be able to climb it and what would happen if you failed. Just like you, your character is a sapient entity with a concept of cause and effect, who can make predictions about the likely effects caused by their own actions, to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Me telling you the DC and consequences is an abstraction of that knowledge, and if you go through with it, the possibility of failure is an abstraction of the possibility of your character misjudging their capabilities, the difficulty of the task, or both. And we are telling the story together. Whatever decision you make, that's what makes sense in the story. That's your right as a player, you have full autonomy over your character's actions.

So, I'm supposed to ignore any sort of mechanics until you pull aside the curtain and decide it is time to talk about them? There are plenty of reasons the King might not be swayed by my speech, and plenty of ways I could flub it up. Maybe I'm just against the idea of undoing player actions. I feel like at your table, the closest I would come would be asking "okay, what if I said something kind of like this" instead of staying in character and talking to the king, because the idea of "unringing a bell" once there is a chance for failure bothers the heck out of me. It makes me want to be too risk averse.

I don't think you being risk averse is a bad thing. The point is to allow you to succeed and fail based more on your choices than on random chance. If your decision is to avoid risk, great! If your decision is to dive headfirst into risk, also great! But it should be an informed decision either way, otherwise we're just flailing about and asking the dice to tell us what happens, which is not my cup of tea.

Now, my way may not be your cup of tea either. By the sound of it, it's very much not. And that's perfectly ok. We don't have to like the same things, and if my style isn't for you, then all I can say is, I hope you have more fun with your own style than you would with mine.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ah, well then thanks for confirming that I will be accused of misrepresenting you.

I know I'm a bit sarcastic and I obviously run my game differently but without going to actual quotes I did my best.

Was I mistaken? The Cliff Notes version:

• Players should not declare use of skills, the DM calls for skills if necessary.
• There should never be a skill check unless there is a significant penalty for failure.
• The DM should never call for (or allow a player to ask for) a skill check if there is no chance of failure (i.e. no insight check if the NPC is telling the truth like the OP).
• Players should always avoid a skill check if possible, which includes describing for example how they disarm a trap.*
• Traps and challenges should be broadcast so that they are obvious

I think I'm probably missing one but I'm drawing a blank. I'm also not saying you personally run your game that way.

Now you could give me blocks of text on why you prefer this style, but I don't really see a point. You like playing the game this way? Your players enjoy it? Fantastic!

*I have no problem with people bypassing a trap altogether by taking another route, but if disarming a simple trap in my game you need to make a roll.

For what it’s worth, I think this is a perfectly fair and accurate representation of the style I prefer. The previous post had two specific things that made it a less good representation of the style, which I attempted to point out in my response to it, but I recognize and respect that you are not interested in discussing it further, so I won’t harp on about them.

 

[Bawylie]

Ok, I see the confusion here. You said:


I said:


You assumed that the part of your quote I took issue with was "makes them look for better options." In fact, I took issue with the "punishing players" part, along with the fact that your quote implies that "looking for better options" and "relying on their best skills" are mutually exclusive things.


...Weird way to phrase that, but ok, I think I see what you mean.


Keep trying to claim? I corrected your misrepresentation of my stance one time.


I have made no such claim. I claim that my way of doing things 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. In contrast to your assertion that my way of doing things punishes players and in so doing makes them rely on their best skills. I am not attacking your way of doing things, I am defending mine.


You keep suggesting that my way of doing things is somehow not "just asking the players to tell me what they want to do, and being prepared for things to become skill checks." This is not the case.


I don't have a plan. It is not my role as DM to come up with a plan for the player to escape. My role is to adjudicate the player's plan.


My system incentivizes players to think in terms of what their character is doing, in order to maximize their ability to avoid having to make checks. Again, if you just imagine your character existing in the world and describe what they do, most of the time what happens as a result will be pretty much what you expected to happen. If you have a pretty good idea about the most likely outcome of your character doing a thing, that's probably exactly what's going to happen. In the case that something bad might happen, you'll get fair warning about that. You're the one trying to force this "players need to come up with foolproof plans to succeed" narrative, not me.


All evidence to the contrary.


YOU KEEP SAYING THIS, AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT MEANS!!!


I have literally told you that I mean that.



This conversation has come about because you are repeatedly (and seemingly deliberately) misinterpreting my position. Yes, we probably would call for rolls much of the same times. Yes, you probably do call for rolls more often than I do. The difference between our methods is that I have a more rigorous process that I personally follow in adjudicating actions - namely, I ask myself if the character's action has a reasonable chance of accomplishing the player's goal. If it doesn't, it fails. If it does, I ask myself if the character's action has a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the player's goal. If it doesn't it succeeds. If it does, I ask myself if there is a cost for attempting this action, or a consequence for failing. If it doesn't, it succeeds. If it does, I ask myself what Attribute this task would best be resolved with, and whether the task is easy, medium, hard, or very hard. Then I tell the player to make a check with the appropriate Attribute, at the appropriate difficulty, and let them know what will happen on a failure. I do these things primarily to insure that the characters successes and failures will largely be the result of the players' decisions, rather than the roll of the dice. Secondarily, I do these things to encourage players to think in terms of what their character is doing (rather than trying to guess what skill or skills I'll allow them to accomplish their goal with on a success), and to equip them with enough information to make informed decisions.

If your players think primarily in terms of what their characters are doing the way you run things, that's great. To be perfectly frank, I don't really care. You do whatever you want, it doesn't affect my game. In my experience, when I have allowed players to announce actions in terms of what skill they want to use instead of what their character is doing, it has not worked that way. I have had much more success running it the way I describe above. Your mileage may, and probably will, vary. And that's fine.


The three step process is something I do to help me resolve actions in what I feel is the best way I can. If you don't need or want to use such a process, great. Again, I don't really care. As for the division between actions and checks, they are two different things. They just are. That's how they're defined by the rules. I quoted the exact sections of the rules that define them, I don't know what more you want from me. Actions aren't checks, checks are a tool you use to figure out what happens as a result of actions. This is not some ideological thing, this is literally what the words mean in terms of 5e's rules.


Rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing to a DC is the processes that constitutes the game rules term, "check." In some specific cases, certain abilities may make it possible to determine the results of a check without having to roll the d20.


Because you thinking of the words "check" and "action" as essentially interchangeable seems to be getting in the way of you understanding my methods.


I don't know, is it really that hard for you to undrstand that words mean things?


No, it is not. It is an action. It's a thing the character is doing. It may or may not require a check to resolve, to which Proficiency in the Investigation skill may or may not be applicable. Personally, I'd say Perception would be more appropriate than Investigation here, but that's neither here nor there.


And this way of thinking is a barrier to you understanding my method. Don't worry about what kind of check it is. Just say what you want to accomplish and how your character is going about it. Most of the time, what will happen is pretty much what you think will happen, no roll necessary. Sometimes, I might inform you of a potential consequence that action might have, and what you'd need to roll to avoid that consequence. If you don't want to take the risk, you don't have to.


Correct. You'll note that the action is the thing your character is doing.


No, this is the mechanical process used to resolve the Shove action.


Possibly. That's a DM judgment call, really.


No, it's an action, which may or may not require a Perception check to resolve.


Sometimes. But many actions can be resolved without skill checks.


Not at my table. The action-to-ability-check ratio is pretty steep at my table. Checks are made frequently, because my games focus on adventurous people in dangerous situations and naturally that will lead to a high frequency of actions with uncertain outcomes and dramatic consequences. But far more actions are declared that don't have uncertain outcomes or don't have dramatic consequences. When a check happens in my games, it's because things are getting tense.


It's not. Again, short of actually coming to my game and seeing how it plays out, you're just going to have to take my word for it. But trust me, that is the best way to be successful in my games.


Why does it matter if you're surprised? I'm telling you exactly what you need to roll, what the difficulty is, and what the consequences could be, and allowing you to back out if you don't want to go through with it. In what way are you disadvantaged by not having predicted that I'd make that call?


Alright. You're allowed not to like that. Personally, I do.


Good for you, dude. If that works for you, go nuts. It has no impact on me and my games.


I have done no such thing. I don't care if you do things my way or not. I, personally, have found the most success running the game the way I do, which is why I do it. If it doesn't interest you, don't do it my way. Why would I care?


You have done nothing but pick apart my style in your quest to understand what you're doing differently than me. When in reality, it could not be simpler. You allow players to declare actions in terms of what skill they want to use, and you don't tell players the DC or possible consequences. I request that players declare actions in terms of goal and approach, and I do tell them the DC and possible consequences. Additionally, I only call for rolls under a particular set of circumstances (namely, a reasonable chance of success, a reasonable chance of failure, and a cost for the action or consequence for failure). That's it. It really isn't more complicated than that.


For me, it is the best way I've found. I can only speak to my own experience. If your way works for you, have fun with your way.


Ok. That's your call to make. Whether you are making it because of what you imagine your character would do or based on your mental cost/benefit analysis, that's none of my business. My job is to give you the information you need to make decisions. What decisions you make or why is up to you.


See, on this we disagree. I think your character can and should have a decent sense of their own capabilities. Just like you can look at a cliff and make a fairly accurate prediction about whether or not you'd be able to climb it and what would happen if you failed. Just like you, your character is a sapient entity with a concept of cause and effect, who can make predictions about the likely effects caused by their own actions, to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Me telling you the DC and consequences is an abstraction of that knowledge, and if you go through with it, the possibility of failure is an abstraction of the possibility of your character misjudging their capabilities, the difficulty of the task, or both. And we are telling the story together. Whatever decision you make, that's what makes sense in the story. That's your right as a player, you have full autonomy over your character's actions.


I don't think you being risk averse is a bad thing. The point is to allow you to succeed and fail based more on your choices than on random chance. If your decision is to avoid risk, great! If your decision is to dive headfirst into risk, also great! But it should be an informed decision either way, otherwise we're just flailing about and asking the dice to tell us what happens, which is not my cup of tea.

Now, my way may not be your cup of tea either. By the sound of it, it's very much not. And that's perfectly ok. We don't have to like the same things, and if my style isn't for you, then all I can say is, I hope you have more fun with your own style than you would with mine.

Yeah, actions and checks are completely different things. Check out your PH pg 192 “Actions in Combat.” Dodge, dash, disengage, etc. don’t need checks at all. And even the “Roll With It” path wouldn’t ask for checks on these things.

Here’s a real trip, look at “Search” as an in-combat action. The text says, “When you take the Search action, you devote your attention to finding something. Depending on the nature of your search, the DM might have you make a Wisdom (Perception) check or an Intelligence
(Investigation) check.”

Seems to indicate that the Approach(!) of your Search Action determines the ability (and skill) check you’d roll. You’ll note it doesn’t say “your [player’s] choice of Intelligence or Wisdom check determines how you find what you’re looking for.” The Action comes first, then, maybe, the check (if the DM decides that’s necessary and appropriate).

What’s more, that word “might” seems to play at two meanings. The DM may decide between two different Ability Checks, or may choose not to ask you to roll at all.

I wouldn’t say it’s poor play for a player to ask to make a check, but I would say that’s backwards. Players should concern themselves about what their character is doing and DMs should concern themselves with the application of the rules, or not, as warranted and agreed-on.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, actions and checks are completely different things. Check out your PH pg 192 “Actions in Combat.” Dodge, dash, disengage, etc. don’t need checks at all. And even the “Roll With It” path wouldn’t ask for checks on these things.

Here’s a real trip, look at “Search” as an in-combat action. The text says, “When you take the Search action, you devote your attention to finding something. Depending on the nature of your search, the DM might have you make a Wisdom (Perception) check or an Intelligence
(Investigation) check.”

Seems to indicate that the Approach(!) of your Search Action determines the ability (and skill) check you’d roll. You’ll note it doesn’t say “your [player’s] choice of Intelligence or Wisdom check determines how you find what you’re looking for.” The Action comes first, then, maybe, the check (if the DM decides that’s necessary and appropriate).

What’s more, that word “might” seems to play at two meanings. The DM may decide between two different Ability Checks, or may choose not to ask you to roll at all.

I wouldn’t say it’s poor play for a player to ask to make a check, but I would say that’s backwards. Players should concern themselves about what their character is doing and DMs should concern themselves with the application of the rules, or not, as warranted and agreed-on.

To be fair, there are also counter-examples in the rules that could muddy the waters, such as the “Detect” Legendary Action all Legendary dragons have:

Detect: The Dragon makes a Wisdom (Perception) check.

I kind of hate that action, cause it leaves me scratching my head, wondering to what end the Dragon is making this check. What is the dragon trying to find? How is the dragon trying to find it? Why is a check necessary to find it? What happens if the check succeeds, or if it fails?

Nearest I can tell, maybe the writers figured, the dragon is controlled by the DM, the DM obviously knows the location of any hidden objects or creature the dragon might be trying to find, so the dragon needs to succeed on a Perception check before it’s allowed to act on that knowledge. It very much feels like a 3.X-ism that slipped in under the radar to me.

 

[Bawylie]

To be fair, there are also counter-examples in the rules that could muddy the waters, such as the “Detect” Legendary Action all Legendary dragons have:

Detect: The Dragon makes a Wisdom (Perception) check.

I kind of hate that action, cause it leaves me scratching my head, wondering to what end the Dragon is making this check. What is the dragon trying to find? How is the dragon trying to find it? Why is a check necessary to find it? What happens if the check succeeds, or if it fails?

Nearest I can tell, maybe the writers figured, the dragon is controlled by the DM, the DM obviously knows the location of any hidden objects or creature the dragon might be trying to find, so the dragon needs to succeed on a Perception check before it’s allowed to act on that knowledge. It very much feels like a 3.X-ism that slipped in under the radar to me.

DM-side stuff doesn’t work like player-side stuff.

 

[Charlaquin]

DM-side stuff doesn’t work like player-side stuff.

Sure, but I still feel like “the dragon makes a Wisdom (Perception) check” doesn’t give me enough information to properly utilize the Legendary Action.

I’m sorely tempted, just for a laugh, to spend the Legendary Action and narrate the dragon pulling out an enormous 20-sided die, rolling it, and announcing that it got a (whatever number) on its perception check. Like, to no further effect.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

To be fair, there are also counter-examples in the rules that could muddy the waters, such as the “Detect” Legendary Action all Legendary dragons have:

Detect: The Dragon makes a Wisdom (Perception) check.

I kind of hate that action, cause it leaves me scratching my head, wondering to what end the Dragon is making this check. What is the dragon trying to find? How is the dragon trying to find it? Why is a check necessary to find it? What happens if the check succeeds, or if it fails?

Nearest I can tell, maybe the writers figured, the dragon is controlled by the DM, the DM obviously knows the location of any hidden objects or creature the dragon might be trying to find, so the dragon needs to succeed on a Perception check before it’s allowed to act on that knowledge. It very much feels like a 3.X-ism that slipped in under the radar to me.

It a direct lift from The Hobbit.

What is the dragon trying to find? Invisible hobbits (or any other hidden player characters).

How is the dragon trying to find it? Sniffing, listening, trying to feel vibrations...

Why is a check necessary to find it? Because it may or may not succeed.

What happens if the check succeeds? The dragon knows in which square the hidden PC is.

or if it fails? The dragon does not know in which square the hidden PC is.

 

[pemerton]

Actions are highly likely to have skill checks follow them.

Action declarations sometimes have checks follow them. The action declaration, like the check itself, is an event in the real world. On the other hand, the action is an imagined event that (we pretend) occurs in the fictional world of the game.

I think that keeping these things distinct aids clarity, especially when trying to compare different approaches to action resolution.

the resolution of actions is done through skill checks

For most versions of D&D, including 5e, for many action declarations this simply isn't true. In 5e the action declaration I cast a spell is not normally resolved by calling for a check. Nor is the action declaration I pick the sword up from the ground. Nor is the action declaration I use the key to unlock the door.

And my own experience in this sort of game is that if players have the choice between declaring an action that their PC will have only a modest chance of success in, or just conceding whatever it is that is at stake, then they will declare the action. For instance, I see this in my 4e game quite regularly - the player of the low-CHA fighter with no social skills nevertheless has his character talk to NPCs and try to persuade them of things, because (1) the player doesn't want his PC to just be standing there looking like a fool, and (2) because he ha views about what the NPCs should do, and wants those views to be realised. It's the same sort of reason that means that the wizard fights back when attacked, even though the wizard is a relatively weak combatant.

See, I disagree that it will happen under the system of consequences, and those consequences being worse than the status quo.

If the Fighter wishes not to look like a fool, attempting to do something could be far worse, because then they would be the fool who put their foot in their mouth and ruined the negotiation instead of letting the bard handle it. If there was no guarantee they could make things worse, I would agree with you, but if that guarantee exists then they are more likely to back out and express their desires by convincing the bard to agree with them rather than doing anything directly.

"Better to let people think you are a fool than open your mouth and prove it" as the saying goes.

When you say that you disagree, are you (i) doubting the accuracy of my report of my experience, or (ii) reporting your own experience with this approach, or (iii) offering a conjecture?

To me, everything you talk about here is about GMing technique. Yes, if GMs use poor techniques they will get poor games. But that's why we don't use poor techniques!

To elaborate: in most D&D games I've participated in, observed, or read about, the non-combatants don't get to let the fighter "handle" the fighting. The GM establishes situations that put PCs other than just the fighter under pressure. Social situations can be framed the same way. Is the bard the fighter's herald? Well, then, the troll king (or whomever) does not want to deal with flunkies and go betweens - I wish to treat directly with your lord? Is the fighter there in the company of the bard - then the NPC asks, So, what do you have to say? Is the fighter going to refuse to respond? Will the fighter reply "I let our bard do all my talking for me?"

And if the player of the fighter makes a check and fails, why does that mean the fighter put his/her foot in his/her mouth? Why is the GM narrating that as the consequence of failure? When the player of the mage rolls a failed opportunity attack, does the GM narrate that the mage accidentally stabs him-/herself? If not, why narrate social failures in such a fashion. Or to put it another way, why frame the stakes as that the fighter does or doesn't put his/her foot in his/her mouth rather than (eg) that the troll king does or doesn't agree to the fighter's proposal?

To quote a post from another thread:

RPGing is fun when the players are engaged. Combat is often engaging by default, because PC death is at stake. To make non-combat engaging, the players have to be able to see that something is at stake that they care about. This is what will get them wanting to engage. And they have to be confident that engaging the situation won't leave them hosed. The fear of being hosed leads to turtling, tedious tactically-focused play, a game that moves at the pace of treacle, etc.

<snip>

The other aspect I mentioned - avoiding a fear of hosing. "Fail forward" adjudication is designed to help with this. The key idea is that failure doesn't mean "You suck, it didn't work!" It means "Things didn't turn out how you wanted!" That could be because the PC sucks. Or because some external factor intervened that the PC didn't know about. Or maybe the GM narrates the failure by "revealing" (I use inverted commas because, at the table, the GM is making it up as part of narrating the failure result) some hidden aspect.

<snip>

Especially when it comes to getting a mediocre-skill fighter involved, these two things can work well together: if the non-combat situation involves something the fighter PC (and the player of that PC) cares about then the player will declare actions; and even if they fail, "fail forward" adjudication means that the player didn't just get hosed or make a fool of him/herself or his/her PC - the thing s/he cares about is still there, still in play, but the situation around it has changed. So the player (and hopefully the other players too) get drawn further into the game, fiction keeps developing

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Or to put it another way, why frame the stakes as that the fighter does or doesn't put his/her foot in his/her mouth rather than (eg) that the troll king does or doesn't agree to the fighter's proposal?

It could be framed either way. My DMing technique is to frame it in whatever way makes for the most entertaining story.

 

[pemerton]

It could be framed either way. My DMing technique is to frame it in whatever way makes for the most entertaining story.

Well, sure. But I was replying to a poster who said that the foot in mouth consequence would discourage the player of the fighter from declaring social actions. If a GM believes that to be the case, the solution is right there, ready-to-hand: frame the stakes differently!