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

[Charlaquin]

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.

I used to struggle with questions like this a lot. Eventually, I found that the best answer (for me - obviously others will have different experiences) was “don’t worry about it.” Just adjudicate the players’ actions and don’t sweat what the characters “would do” or “wouldn’t do.” Let the players decide that for themselves, and focus on adjudicating those actions as best you can. The game won’t fall apart because the 8-Cha fighter is a smooth talker or the 20-Int Wizard isn’t a genius. And to boot, most players will enjoy the game more. At least that’s been my experience.

 

[Hussar]

In case folks here think that I'm being unfair to [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], I'd point out that in a handful of posts in the last two pages, he has pointed to the rule books no less than SIX times:

I don't see anything in the game that suggests the DM should "enforce players actually playing the characters they made."

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Again, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], for the love of little fishies, WE GET IT. WE REALLY, REALLY DO. We UNDERSTAND that the rules don't support what we're playing. We KNOW. Can you please, please, please, stop beating this horse? Let the poor thing die.

 

[iserith]

In case folks here think that I'm being unfair to [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], I'd point out that in a handful of posts in the last two pages, he has pointed to the rule books no less than SIX times:

I bet if you set your forum settings to show more posts per page, it will increase my rules-mentions to 6 in one page which will make me look even more like a monster.

Again, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], for the love of little fishies, WE GET IT. WE REALLY, REALLY DO. We UNDERSTAND that the rules don't support what we're playing. We KNOW. Can you please, please, please, stop beating this horse? Let the poor thing die.

From my perspective, it looks more like I point to rules to show why I do what I do, not to show why you're "wrong." Because I don't think you're wrong. You just play differently.

 

[Mort]

Yeah, insulting the king doesn’t go over well no matter what your charisma is.

Let’s take 2 adventurers. One with Cha 20 and Persuasion and one with Cha 10. Both wish to convince the king to lend them a vanguard for use in a dance competition in the slums. The king feels this is a terrible use of trained soldiers. Both adventurers decide they will attempt to persuade the king to lend the vanguard by convincing him it will show a friendlier side of the guard to the people. The king sort of cares about his soldiers’ rep but not much.

As DM, I judge this to be a difficult task. The goal is clear - get the king to lend the vanguard. The approach is clear - try to convince him of the reputation benefits. The DC is clear - 20 for a hard task.

The adventurer with 20 Cha and Persuasion needs to hit a 12. The adventurer with 10 Cha needs to hit a 20.

It’s way more likely our silver-tongued ally will succeed than our more blunt ally. But the DC is a 20 regardless. What’s more, it doesn’t matter how good of an explanation either Player gives. No matter how many eloquent words the player of the blunt character uses, the DC is still 20 for this particular approach to this particular goal. And no matter how much of a mumble-mouth our player of the Cha 20 character is, they’ll still have a +8 to the roll.

Pretty neat, eh? The scenario challenges the players. The difficulty of the task challenges the characters.

What this example also shows:

Despite the many, many pages of bickering the execution and end result of the player asking for a check or the DM calling for a check after the player states the action he wishes to take - often (likely more often than not) end up in exactly the same place.

 

[Charlaquin]

In case folks here think that I'm being unfair to [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], I'd point out that in a handful of posts in the last two pages, he has pointed to the rule books no less than SIX times:

Again, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], for the love of little fishies, WE GET IT. WE REALLY, REALLY DO. We UNDERSTAND that the rules don't support what we're playing. We KNOW. Can you please, please, please, stop beating this horse? Let the poor thing die.

For what it’s worth, I find these citations helpful. For instance, the part about attack rolls was actually pretty enlightening to me. It’s also worth noting that Iserith is on record as preferring the DMing style he attributes to 4e. He just places a higher priority on playing each game as its own rules suggest than on playing in his preferred style if it doesn’t mesh with the intended play of the system being used. I could be wrong, but I suspect Iserith enjoys running 4e more than 5e, but would rather run 5e as written than try to run it like he would 4e.

If that’s not your bag, that’s cool.

 

[Bawylie]

What this example also shows:

Despite the many, many pages of bickering the execution and end result of the player asking for a check or the DM calling for a check after the player states the action he wishes to take - often (likely more often than not) end up in exactly the same place.

Yes but my way is better ;-)

 

[iserith]

For what it’s worth, I find these citations helpful. For instance, the part about attack rolls was actually pretty enlightening to me. It’s also worth noting that Iserith is on record as preferring the DMing style he attributes to 4e. He just places a higher priority on playing each game as its own rules suggest than on playing in his preferred style if it doesn’t mesh with the intended play of the system being used. I could be wrong, but I suspect Iserith enjoys running 4e more than 5e, but would rather run 5e as written than try to run it like he would 4e.

Just like I don't run Dungeon World like D&D 4e or 5e. Or Life like Monopoly. Or Cards Against Humanity like Dominion.

 

[iserith]

What this example also shows:

Despite the many, many pages of bickering the execution and end result of the player asking for a check or the DM calling for a check after the player states the action he wishes to take - often (likely more often than not) end up in exactly the same place.

Seemingly small fundamental differences can be magnified greatly in the actual play experience though. My game will look a lot different than others where players are asking to make checks, even if my players make just as many checks on average.

 

[robus]

What this example also shows:

Despite the many, many pages of bickering the execution and end result of the player asking for a check or the DM calling for a check after the player states the action he wishes to take - often (likely more often than not) end up in exactly the same place.

I dunno, it’s hard to tell a player their pre-rolled nat 20 didn’t accomplish anything...

Edit: I retract that, you’re talking about asking, not rolling without asking. Apologies.

 

[Charlaquin]

What this example also shows:

Despite the many, many pages of bickering the execution and end result of the player asking for a check or the DM calling for a check after the player states the action he wishes to take - often (likely more often than not) end up in exactly the same place.

Hence my advice, “don’t worry about it.” We DMs have a way of working ourselves and each other into a frenzy over things that don’t actually matter nearly as much as we think they do when the dice actually hit the table. I used to think of metagaming as the cardinal sin of RPGs, the root of all roleplaying evil. In my defense, this was pretty much treated as common knowledge in the 3.5 and 4e eras that I was brought up in, and I never thought to question it. But then a funny thing happened during the 5e playtest. A lot of high-profile DMs started making the bold public assertion that metagaming wasn’t a big deal. I was skeptical at first, but eventually I decided to try letting go of my anxieties about metagaming. And not only did the game survive, it improved.