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

[Hussar]

I would not. I don't have the foggiest idea what the PCs' stats are for one, and no matter how charismatic or well-spoken the player is, everything I'm judging still boils down to a goal and approach. The dump stat will come into play if and when the die is cast and, given how swingy a d20 is, it probably doesn't matter all that much unless the DC is particularly high.

Out of this entire thread, I think this, right here, this specific approach, which isn't uncommon at all, is probably the biggest impediment to understanding, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s and company's style of play.

To me, and, again, I'm not criticizing here, despite prior, ahem, perhaps less that tactful responses, to me, this illustrates why some of us really don't "get" [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s approach. To me (I'm repeating myself deliberately so as to at least try to show that I'm only speaking for myself and not making any broader statement other than my own personal preferences), the notion that the DM doesn't "have the foggiest idea what the PC's stats are" is not something I would ever do.

One of the few things I actually do try to enforce during the game is that you will play the character you brought to the table. No amount of talking will change that. So, no, you don't get to make with the talky bits and avoid a check. You will almost always make a check, because making the check is how I enforce players actually playing the characters that they made. If you have no skill in persuasion and you have an 8 Cha, you don't actually say whatever it is you, the player, have said. What you actually said in the game world is defined by the check you made to persuade that NPC to do something.

To me, the narration comes AFTER the check, not before. The check gives you the direction for that narration, which you, the player can then narrate. But, to me, the check always comes first. In the same way you cannot narrate climbing a wall or jumping really far, or calming your horse or tracking those orcs before your die roll, you cannot narrate any check before the roll.

At least that's how I do it. So, please, don't quote the PHB at me, and don't tell me I'm doing it wrong by 5e rules. I know I'm doing it wrong by the 5e rules. Fair enough. But, that's how "I" do it. The dice are, IMO, very important in ensuring fairness at the table. And, besides, I find the randomness a lot more fun.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think I did follow it. I showed that the assertion is incorrect (he stated unless the DC was high the D20 roll matters more than the skill, that's just not correct).

Well, okay, then, you win?

It's actually a pretty big difference, and not narrow at all.

What it means under this paradigm: if the player picks the "correct" approach and can avoid rolling, his character has the same chance of success (certainty) regardless of his CHA or focus on social skills in a social challenge situation.

Maybe, if the approach is deemed to have no chance of failure or no cost for the attempt or consequence for failure. As someone that runs in this style, this happens often for many things that are not of significance -- for instance, you'd not need a check to walk into the troll king's throne room. You would very, very, very likely need a check to explain before the troll king's guards attack you for doing so.

The focus of the game shifts towards narratively interesting moments, where it's very, very likely that uncertainty in outcome exists, so checks exist. I know the focus of this thread seems to be on traps or doorknobs or finding treasure under beds, but that's honestly just not a big part of my game at all. Convincing the troll king to let your friend go would be, and that seems like something that's very, very likely to be uncertain regardless of approach.

Also, there's no "correct" approach. I have no idea in mind what will work for problem I present -- or, rather, I don't try to guess what my players will do. If their approach sounds reasonable, they'll at least get a check out of it, regardless of what I might have chosen to have done in their stead. Problems are what I present, not puzzles with solutions.

 

[Charlaquin]

Out of this entire thread, I think this, right here, this specific approach, which isn't uncommon at all, is probably the biggest impediment to understanding, @iserith's and company's style of play.

To me, and, again, I'm not criticizing here, despite prior, ahem, perhaps less that tactful responses, to me, this illustrates why some of us really don't "get" @iserith's approach. To me (I'm repeating myself deliberately so as to at least try to show that I'm only speaking for myself and not making any broader statement other than my own personal preferences), the notion that the DM doesn't "have the foggiest idea what the PC's stats are" is not something I would ever do.

One of the few things I actually do try to enforce during the game is that you will play the character you brought to the table. No amount of talking will change that. So, no, you don't get to make with the talky bits and avoid a check. You will almost always make a check, because making the check is how I enforce players actually playing the characters that they made. If you have no skill in persuasion and you have an 8 Cha, you don't actually say whatever it is you, the player, have said. What you actually said in the game world is defined by the check you made to persuade that NPC to do something.

To me, the narration comes AFTER the check, not before. The check gives you the direction for that narration, which you, the player can then narrate. But, to me, the check always comes first. In the same way you cannot narrate climbing a wall or jumping really far, or calming your horse or tracking those orcs before your die roll, you cannot narrate any check before the roll.

At least that's how I do it. So, please, don't quote the PHB at me, and don't tell me I'm doing it wrong by 5e rules. I know I'm doing it wrong by the 5e rules. Fair enough. But, that's how "I" do it. The dice are, IMO, very important in ensuring fairness at the table. And, besides, I find the randomness a lot more fun.

First off, I think not knowing the PCs’ stats is an Iserith thing, not a “middle path” thing. I personally do like to know what all the PCs stats are, cause I find it helps me build challenges appropriate to the party. That said, I do think you’re right on the money in terms of this being the core of our disagreement. I’ve seen it referred to as “challenge the character, not the player” to put a spin on it that favors your style, I’ve described it as placing success and failure on the player’s decisions over random chance, which I think casts my style in a more positive light. But at the end of the day, this is what it’s about, one way or another. Personally, I HATE when the result of the die roll determines what the character does or says. It’s MY character, I should be the one to decide what they do or say, not the dice. If at any point the result of the roll overrides my agency as a player, the dice are overstepping their role, in my opinion. Now, I’m well aware that others feel differently, and that’s fine. Some people find, the idea that the 8-Charisma barbarian could give a stirring speech without having to roll really high just as atrocious as I find the idea that “your character didn’t really say that, you didn’t roll well enough.” And there’s really no reconciling such diametrically opposed playstyles.

EDIT: I will say, I’ve been on the other side of this fence. I used to be very concerned that players being able to do well at things they had low stats in without at least rolling high was tantamount to metagaming, which I just kind of took for granted was a terrible thing. But when I actually tried running the game the way a lot of folks online had been recommending, I found that not only did it not ruin my game to stop worrying about metagaming, it actually made the experience significantly more enjoyable, both for me and for my players. Of course as always, your mileage may vary. But in my personal experience, the game got way better when I stopped trying to maintain a hardline division between player knowledge and character knowledge and police what characters “would do” or “wouldn’t do.”

 

[Ovinomancer]

First off, I think not knowing the PCs’ stats is an Iserith thing, not a “middle path” thing. I personally do like to know what all the PCs stats are, cause I find it helps me build challenges appropriate to the party. That said, I do think you’re right on the money in terms of this being the core of our disagreement. I’ve seen it referred to as “challenge the character, not the player” to put a spin on it that favors your style, I’ve described it as placing success and failure on the player’s decisions over random chance, which I think casts my style in a more positive light. But at the end of the day, this is what it’s about, one way or another. Personally, I HATE when the result of the die roll determines what the character does or says. It’s MY character, I should be the one to decide what they do or say, not the dice. If at any point the result of the roll overrides my agency as a player, the dice are overstepping their role, in my opinion. Now, I’m well aware that others feel differently, and that’s fine. Some people find, the idea that the 8-Charisma barbarian could give a stirring speech without having to roll really high just as atrocious as I find the idea that “your character didn’t really say that, you didn’t roll well enough.” And there’s really no reconciling such diametrically opposed playstyles.

To add my own, different answer: I am similar to [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] in that I only have a vague clue what the stats of my players' characters are. I know a lot about their motivations, their flaws, traits, bonds, etc., and what they've done, but I couldn't tell you what anyone's stats are. I mean, I figure the wizard is probably trained in arcana and has a decent INT, but that's the extent of my knowledge.

But, no amount of flowery acting is going to get a free pass in my game, because I care about adjudicating the approach and goal, not the nice words you used when you attempt to act that out. So, the 8 CHA barbarian can speak as nicely as the player wants, but I'm going to judge if his goal is achievable by his approach (speak flowery words) and, most likely, determine that this has a chance of failure and probably a consequence of failure and call for a CHA check. The flowery words the player spoke just don't enter into this.

If, however, the player chose to leverage the target's bonds to get a favorable response with the flowery words, that goes into the approach -- use bond and flowery words -- and they'll likely get advantage. If what the character is asking for is straight down the leveraged bond, it might succeed automatically, not because of flowery words, but because they're asking the target to do something the target would already want to do.

So, no, I only have a foggy idea what the character's stats are, but I assure you those stats come up quite a bit because my game focuses on situations were goals and approaches will likely be uncertain. I only need to pay attention to what they characters are asking and how, and only that will determine if a check is called for. No amount of acting out the flowery words will make a difference. Excepting, of course, it's fun to act and my players will do it for that reason only.

 

[robus]

It's actually a pretty big difference, and not narrow at all.

What it means under this paradigm: if the player picks the "correct" approach and can avoid rolling, his character has the same chance of success (certainty) regardless of his CHA or focus on social skills in a social challenge situation.

One thing we have to stop saying is that there’s “a correct approach”, there a good approaches and bad approaches. It’s very poor DMing (Imho) to have situations with a single acceptable approach. In fact I never even consider approaches when I put obstacles in the way of the players, I just think of what would naturally be the result of either their or NPCs actions (or the environment) and throw them in their way. Their job is to figure creative ways to overcome them. One reason I dislike the published adventures providing ability checks (and DCs) it encourages the belief that there’s one “correct” approach.

 

[robus]

Out of this entire thread, I think this, right here, this specific approach, which isn't uncommon at all, is probably the biggest impediment to understanding, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s and company's style of play.

To me, and, again, I'm not criticizing here, despite prior, ahem, perhaps less that tactful responses, to me, this illustrates why some of us really don't "get" [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s approach. To me (I'm repeating myself deliberately so as to at least try to show that I'm only speaking for myself and not making any broader statement other than my own personal preferences), the notion that the DM doesn't "have the foggiest idea what the PC's stats are" is not something I would ever do.

That really helps to explain how we’ve managed to talk at cross-purposes for so long! Except for things like passive perception, AC and level I know little else about the players character sheet.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think one possible and recurring misunderstanding is that some folks still suspect we are taking into account the player’s eloquence and acting. Now, it’s possible that being a human I’m not as good at this as I believe, but I at least try to look at the approach, not the delivery. So a brilliantly acted attempt to flatter the king, an awkward attempt to do so, and a monotone “I will try to flatter him with flowery language” all get treated identically.

And, yes, the grumpy barbarian gets the same DC as the dashing Paladin. Probably, but not necessarily, the Paladin has a higher bonus.

I suppose the million dollar question is whether I would treat both characters the same in terms of granting autosuccesses. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, is the best I can say.

I wonder if some of the pushback comes from an aversion to the DM wielding so much discretion?

 

[Charlaquin]

I think one possible and recurring misunderstanding is that some folks still suspect we are taking into account the player’s eloquence and acting. Now, it’s possible that being a human I’m not as good at this as I believe, but I at least try to look at the approach, not the delivery. So a brilliantly acted attempt to flatter the king, an awkward attempt to do so, and a monotone “I will try to flatter him with flowery language” all get treated identically.

And, yes, the grumpy barbarian gets the same DC as the dashing Paladin. Probably, but not necessarily, the Paladin has a higher bonus.

I suppose the million dollar question is whether I would treat both characters the same in terms of granting autosuccesses. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, is the best I can say.

I wonder if some of the pushback comes from an aversion to the DM wielding so much discretion?

Having seen both sides of this fence, as I mentioned in my edit, I think it has more to do with a desire to preserve the fidelity of the roleplay. Like Hussar said, “You will almost always make a check, because making the check is how I enforce players actually playing the characters that they made. If you have no skill in persuasion and you have an 8 Cha, you don't actually say whatever it is you, the player, have said. What you actually said in the game world is defined by the check you made to persuade that NPC to do something.”

It’s not so much about giving the DM too much power (though I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case for some folks), it has more to do with insuring that the players don’t “cheat” by dumping mental and social stats and then roleplaying around ever having to make checks with them. That’s where the whole “player skill vs. character skill” argument comes from. And saying that you are only taking into account the goal and approach, not the performance, doesn’t really do anything to assuage those concerns. Because the primary concern isn’t about being fair to players of all social skill and comfort levels (though I’m sure that is a goal.) The primary concern is not letting the characters succeed in arenas they have low stats in without a lucky roll.

 

[iserith]

Out of this entire thread, I think this, right here, this specific approach, which isn't uncommon at all, is probably the biggest impediment to understanding, @iserith's and company's style of play.

To me, and, again, I'm not criticizing here, despite prior, ahem, perhaps less that tactful responses, to me, this illustrates why some of us really don't "get" @iserith's approach. To me (I'm repeating myself deliberately so as to at least try to show that I'm only speaking for myself and not making any broader statement other than my own personal preferences), the notion that the DM doesn't "have the foggiest idea what the PC's stats are" is not something I would ever do.

For most campaigns, I usually have more players than seats per session and more than one character per player. So I might have 20 PCs in a given campaign and no clue which players and which characters might be at a given session. So I can't keep track of who has what Charisma score or whatever. And anyway I see nothing in the rules that suggest I should.

One of the few things I actually do try to enforce during the game is that you will play the character you brought to the table. No amount of talking will change that. So, no, you don't get to make with the talky bits and avoid a check. You will almost always make a check, because making the check is how I enforce players actually playing the characters that they made. If you have no skill in persuasion and you have an 8 Cha, you don't actually say whatever it is you, the player, have said. What you actually said in the game world is defined by the check you made to persuade that NPC to do something.

I don't see anything in the game that suggests the DM should "enforce players actually playing the characters they made." They do that by default by simply playing, right? They're also rewarded with Inspiration when they play according to specific personal characteristics.

To me, the narration comes AFTER the check, not before. The check gives you the direction for that narration, which you, the player can then narrate. But, to me, the check always comes first. In the same way you cannot narrate climbing a wall or jumping really far, or calming your horse or tracking those orcs before your die roll, you cannot narrate any check before the roll.

Yes, that's what I saw a lot of people doing in D&D 3.Xe and D&D 4e, particularly the latter. Mechanics first, fiction second. The mechanics were always "right," and you had to figure out how to make that make sense in context. "I diplomacy check that guy... oops, natty 1. I guess I insulted his mother."

At least that's how I do it. So, please, don't quote the PHB at me, and don't tell me I'm doing it wrong by 5e rules. I know I'm doing it wrong by the 5e rules. Fair enough. But, that's how "I" do it. The dice are, IMO, very important in ensuring fairness at the table. And, besides, I find the randomness a lot more fun.

Despite the perception some may have here, I bet I have more rolls in my game than most people's games. But only because my game is the sort of experience where you're going to be in situations with meaningful stakes for the entire 4-hour session. We aren't spending time ordering breakfast in inns, shopping, or interviewing cagey quirky NPCs to get exposition. We're boldly confronting deadly perils, engaging in high stakes diplomacy, and exploring our way through worlds of sword and sorcery.

 

[iserith]

It’s very poor DMing (Imho) to have situations with a single acceptable approach.

And THAT is what "pixelbitching" actually is.