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

[iserith]

Excepting, of course, it's fun to act and my players will do it for that reason only.

And sometimes the flowery speech (or whatever) might be worth Inspiration, depending on the PC's personal characteristics.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Well, yeah, but I think part of that is a fear of letting DM judgment override mechanics. That is, that the DM will let him/herself be swayed by player eloquence.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, yeah, but I think part of that is a fear of letting DM judgment override mechanics. That is, that the DM will let him/herself be swayed by player eloquence.

Partly, but it’s more than that. The thinking goes, no matter what your approach, if your goal is to kill the orc, you’re gonna need to make an attack roll. If, on the other hand, your goal is to persuade the king, and you can do that without having to make a Charisma check with the right approach, then the game is unfairly favoring physical stats.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Partly, but it’s more than that. The thinking goes, no matter what your approach, if your goal is to kill the orc, you’re gonna need to make an attack roll. If, on the other hand, your goal is to persuade the king, and you can do that without having to make a Charisma check with the right approach, then the game is unfairly favoring physical stats.

Ah, gotcha.

So maybe those people are also opposed to avoiding the fights through smart playing.

My motto remains: "Challenge the player, not the build."

 

[iserith]

Partly, but it’s more than that. The thinking goes, no matter what your approach, if your goal is to kill the orc, you’re gonna need to make an attack roll. If, on the other hand, your goal is to persuade the king, and you can do that without having to make a Charisma check with the right approach, then the game is unfairly favoring physical stats.

As an aside, with regard to attack rolls, the DMG has this to say: "Call for an attack roll when a character ties to hit a creature or an object with an attack, especially when the attack could be foiled by the target's armor or shield or by another object providing cover." The implication here is that there's something in the way of your success when you're making an attack roll. If there isn't, then an attack roll is superfluous. This leaves open the possibility, however remote, that as long as a character can figure out a way to get around the target's armor, shield, or cover sufficient to negate uncertainty, then there's no roll and damage is applied. @Bawylie sometimes brings up an example along these lines with regard to a PC holding a knife to a NPC's throat, effectively "checkmating" the NPC.

Even saving throws aren't a given. "A save makes most sense when something bad happens to the character and the character has a chance to avoid that effect." So if you have no chance to avoid the effect, you don't get to make a save.

All that to say - I don't see any reason, given a reading of the rules for D&D 5e, that anyone should assume there's going to be a roll in all situations. We have to examine the fiction first.

 

[Mort]

My motto remains: "Challenge the player, not the build."

Shouldn't one of the challenges to the player be playing within the confines of the build?

If a player has a character that has low int, no tactical skills and no background that would provide those tactical skills - yet consistently comes up with strategies and tactics that allow him and the group to overcome monsters and other challenges, is that player really playing the character he created?

 

[Oofta]

I admit that I struggle with the eloquence/good argument from a player with a PC that has a low charisma and I'm not always 100% sure how to handle it. On the one hand, I want people to contribute. I want people to be engaged and feel like they can speak up.

But ... people frequently play opposites. The guy that has good, persuasive arguments will play the low charisma tank. The guy that's not all that great at communicating ideas or coming up with persuasive arguments that doesn't necessarily like speaking up is playing the PC with the highest charisma at the table. The high intelligence wizard isn't the sharpest tack in the drawer and so on.

So that's my dilemma. How do I balance PC skills (which I try to rely on) vs player skill or lack therein. If you have a 20 charisma but just called the king an incompetent fool, it makes no sense to not give them disadvantage or increase the DC if a persuasion check is even possible.

In any case, I'm sure there's no one answer for all tables. There's probably not even one answer for my table.

 

[Ristamar]

Shouldn't one of the challenges to the player be playing within the confines of the build?

If a player has a character that has low int, no tactical skills and no background that would provide those tactical skills - yet consistently comes up with strategies and tactics that allow him and the group to overcome monsters and other challenges, is that player really playing the character he created?

Being an adventurer with a class level would likely indicate some ability to formulate a plan and execute on the battlefield, even at level 1, IMO. Much a like a "low INT" guy that only played a year or two as a QB at a small high school probably has a lot more practical knowledge of the tactics and strategies of football than most "high INT" armchair quarterbacks that have zero experience on the field.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Shouldn't one of the challenges to the player be playing within the confines of the build?

If a player has a character that has low int, no tactical skills and no background that would provide those tactical skills - yet consistently comes up with strategies and tactics that allow him and the group to overcome monsters and other challenges, is that player really playing the character he created?

You apparently have never met Jezebel, the 5 Int genius warlock.

 

[iserith]

Shouldn't one of the challenges to the player be playing within the confines of the build?

A player is welcome to do that if he or she wants. It's none of the DM's concern in my view and, so far as I can tell, nothing that is supported by the rules of the game.

If a player has a character that has low int, no tactical skills and no background that would provide those tactical skills - yet consistently comes up with strategies and tactics that allow him and the group to overcome monsters and other challenges, is that player really playing the character he created?

What business is that to anyone but the player of that character? If I can't have fun because I have a different idea of what an Int 8 character should be able to do strategically or tactically, perhaps the problem isn't that player. Perhaps it's me and how I think about what ability scores mean.

The PHB suggests that a player consider ability scores when imagining the character's appearance and personality and gives some examples of what ability scores could mean. There is, however, nothing suggesting what a given ability score must mean let alone which action declarations are valid given a set ability score.

Where we encourage players to portray the character in particular ways is via Inspiration. The PHB lays out the basic rules for that and the DMG (p. 240-241) discusses various options for specific things the DM might encourage. You could, if you wanted, award Inspiration when the player correctly guesses how stupid you think his or her Int-8 ought to act.