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

[iserith]

Yes? What does this have to do with what I was trying to say?

You stated: "I think that is almost worse than 'correct' since there is some inherent sarcasm in the idea of a correct approach that highlights what it was Mort was objecting to. Mainly, that describing a set of actions that the DM agrees with means you will not have to risk failure. Which leads to what some people refer to as 'gaming the DM' where they can dump intelligence or charisma stats and still dominate the social and exploration parts of the game, because they know how to describe things to the DMs liking, while players who have those stats and abilities but can't or don't describe things to the DMs liking end up suffering because of it."

I pointed out that this outcome is only if the DM behaves in a manner inconsistent with the standards the DMG sets forth for how the DM acts, in that the DM is not acting as "...an impartial yet involved referee who acts a mediator between the rules and the players. And who, by following the 'middle path' is balancing the use of dice against deciding on success to 'encourage players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world.'"

If you agree with that statement, then this addresses your objection and, in the context of the overall discussion, looks like progress of a kind to me as it a recognition that not doing things in the manner the rules expect can lead to undesirable outcomes.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, no, I don't think you do actually. You ask the players to narrate how they attack? How they make a saving throw? By and large, I don' think it's too contentious to say that most tables don't expect a "How" statement before any of those checks. Nor do we generally make "how" statements for physical skill checks - how are you jumping? how are you climbing the wall? how are you doing a backflip? Not really, do you? So, while these are all checks which have uncertain outcomes and certainly consequences for failure, we generally don't ask for any narration before the roll.

I simply apply that same standard to all d20 rolls.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the point you are trying to make, I think this is still showing a fundamental misconception of what goal-and-approach is.

It's not simply narration. It's not describing "how" you are climbing the wall, it's describing how you overcome the obstacle of a wall being in your path. And maybe the way you do that is indeed by climbing, in which case the DM probably calls for an Athletics check. But maybe you think of another way (was there a ladder in that last room? what if you move all those crates to the base of the wall? etc.)

Goal-and-approach isn't a way of resolving ability (skill) checks; it's a way of storytelling past obstacles. Sometimes that results in ability (skill) checks. Sometimes it doesn't.

And that's why goal-and-approach is also not mutually exclusive with roll-then-narrate:

1. Player describes a goal and an approach
2. DM either tells him it succeeds, it fails, or it's going to take some kind of roll that will carry a consequence if it fails.
3. If it takes a roll, the player rolls and then can narrate the result. "I slip on the moss I didn't notice and crash into the crates that the wizard is busy piling up at the bottom of the wall."

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, no, I don't think you do actually. You ask the players to narrate how they attack? How they make a saving throw? By and large, I don' think it's too contentious to say that most tables don't expect a "How" statement before any of those checks.

I expect the players to at least state what target they intend to attack, and with what weapon or spell, which is exactly as much narration as I expect from any action - a goal and an approach. With saving throws, I narrate what the character can observe about the triggering incedent (“you feel a tile sink beneath the weight of your foot and hear a ‘click,’ what do you do?” or, “the dragon takes a deep breath, and you can see its gullet bulge as it prepares to exhale, what do you do?” The goal in this case is implicit (as goals often are) - avoid whatever danger is triggering the save. Based on the player’s approach, (I pull up my shield and try to block whatever is coming,” or “I tuck and roll out of the way,” I might grant advantage or impose disadvantage on the save.

It is worth noting, I don’t think my way of handling saving throws is necessarily typical of goal and approach. It is, however, my preference, because it allows me to maintain consistency in the standards I apply to d20 rolls.

Nor do we generally make "how" statements for physical skill checks - how are you jumping? how are you climbing the wall? how are you doing a backflip? Not really, do you? So, while these are all checks which have uncertain outcomes and certainly consequences for failure, we generally don't ask for any narration before the roll.

Usually a physical action is an approach, not a goal. Jumping is the “how” to the “what” of “get across the chasm.” Climbing is the “how” to the “what” of “get to the top of the cliff.” Doing a backflip is the “how” to the “what” of “impress the onlookers.” And as I mentioned, goals are often easy enough to infer. If I can’t tell what the character is trying to accomplish by backflipping or whatever, I’ll ask for clarification before asking for a roll.

I simply apply that same standard to all d20 rolls.

So do I, it’s just a different standard than you apply.

 

[iserith]

Well, no, I don't think you do actually. You ask the players to narrate how they attack?

I do. I need to know who you're attacking and with what and sometimes more detail than that. Isn't that the case at your table?

How they make a saving throw?

Sometimes, but as the rules say, saving throws are distinct from attack rolls and ability checks in that they are an instant response to a harmful effect and are almost never done by choice. A fireball spell calls for a Dexterity saving throw as the character's defense (like armor class is a defense against attack), for example. Other times, situations can arise that call for a saving throw that aren't laid out as neatly as in a spell description, when the character is subjected to a harmful effect that can't be hedged out by armor or a shield. In that case, I'll need to know how the player might have his or her character attempt to defend against it e.g. dodge out of harm's way, withstand an effect that subsumes personality, endure a hazard that saps vitality, etc.

 

[Guest 6801328]

@Charlaquin and @iserith raise an excellent point, which maybe will clear up some of the confusion. Players do, after all, often say a lot more than, "I attack." They describe where they move. They say which target they are going to attack. They use bonus actions. They invoke special abilities. The expend resources.

Notice this is not just the "narration" you keep invoking. It's not that they wrap colorful adverbs around the actions. They are describing specific things they are doing to achieve their goal. And those decisions have mechanical impact.

The other two pillars have far, far fewer mechanics designed to support them, so to make those pillars as rich you need to give the players some leeway to be creative. As I suggested above, maybe they go fetch a ladder, or stack up some crates, to climb a wall. I'm glad the game doesn't have specific class mechanics for activities like these; I'd rather leave it to improvisation and DM judgment. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be mechanical effects.

 

[Hussar]

@Charlaquin and @iserith raise an excellent point, which maybe will clear up some of the confusion. Players do, after all, often say a lot more than, "I attack." They describe where they move. They say which target they are going to attack. They use bonus actions. They invoke special abilities. The expend resources.

Notice this is not just the "narration" you keep invoking. It's not that they wrap colorful adverbs around the actions. They are describing specific things they are doing to achieve their goal. And those decisions have mechanical impact.

The other two pillars have far, far fewer mechanics designed to support them, so to make those pillars as rich you need to give the players some leeway to be creative. As I suggested above, maybe they go fetch a ladder, or stack up some crates, to climb a wall. I'm glad the game doesn't have specific class mechanics for activities like these; I'd rather leave it to improvisation and DM judgment. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be mechanical effects.

Meh, needless hair splitting. If there's a ladder, there's no check at all. Why would there be? Or, if they stack crates, then again, there's no check. But, again, if the player simply states, "I climb the wall, Athletics 17", I am not going to stop him and ask what he's doing. Needlessly adding all these superfluous elements to the example is just pointless.

I move here, I attack that orc, I use my bonus action to cast Hunters Mark on that target is, to me, no different than, "I climb the wall, Athletics 17". Because, unlike you, I don't ask the players for an attack roll. The players don't have to ask me to cast Hunter's Mark or whether or not they can move to that location.

You're claiming that there isn't any difference, but, that's the primary difference all the way along. In your method, which has been repeated over and over and over again, the player CANNOT CALL FOR A SKILL CHECK. That's been the common refrain all the way along. Yet, in combat, the player calls for every check, tells the DM exactly what's going to happen and doesn't wait for anything. The player doesn't say, "Oh I attack this orc" and the DM replies, "OK, make an attack roll". The player doesn't state "I'm casting Hunter's Mark" and then wait for the DM to call for a bonus action.

Combat is the exact opposite of everything you folks have INSISTED on all the way through this thread. The player calls for checks in combat. The player states actions and doesn't even wait for DM adjudication most of the time. Heck, the player tells the DM to make a saving throw for this or that creature, essentially telling the DM to make checks.

So, no, you don't raise an "excellent point". You have just completely contradicted every single post that you folks have made for the last 111 pages of this thread.

I run skill checks the same way I run combat - the players generally tell me what checks to make and whatnot. For me, it's simply applying the same standard across the game.

 

[5ekyu]

I'm not going to get terribly concerned about how you want to describe the guy who fails 50% of the time or more. That's not really the point. The point is, the untrained guy, as [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] points out, fails social checks that carry any sort of real penalty at least half the time. Again, not a very persuasive person. And, since, by the rules, if the NPC is actively hostile, the untrained, low Cha character (Cha 8) has zero chance of success, I'd say that he's not very persuasive.

But, the point being, I'd rather you make the check first and then narrate. Solves all the inconsistency issues and falls in line with every other d20 roll you ever make. You don't narrate before an attack, you don't narrate before initiative, you don't narrate before a saving throw. You can't narrate before most other checks as well - physical checks is what I'm thinking here. You can't narrate a climb before you make your check.

So, I simply follow the same method for all checks - make the check first and then deal with the fallout.

I realize this isnt the thrust of your point but... this is a gross misrepresentation or spin of my points and references to thevrukes...
"The point is, the untrained guy, as [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] points out, fails social checks that carry any sort of real penalty at least half the time."

I already gave the references to the charts on DCs etc. At best, your claim there is a cherry picked case expressed in a manner that makes it feel like a description of the system beyond its scope but which isnt. At worst, its deceptive or misleading.

So, you want to pursue that agenda, fine, but citing me as a reference when my post pushed back on the skin you are pushing is misrepresentative of what I said.

To be clear, by the system, for friendly and indifferent targets your persuasion efforts dont have the chance to make it worse and together you have a much higher than 50/50 chance of success - even with straight up approach. With effort (gain advantage) it gets even better.

So unless you are limiting it to persuading actively hostile folks as your benchmark **or** limiting your persuasive efforts to cases where you are asking them to put themselves at risk or make a sacrifice *&and** ignoring any efforts to get advantage, your presentation is flawed.

If you are limiting to those and then using those at your baseline for the general assessment of "not very persuasive" that's an odd baseline to be painted with such a broad tag.

 

[Oofta]

Meh, needless hair splitting. If there's a ladder, there's no check at all. Why would there be? Or, if they stack crates, then again, there's no check. But, again, if the player simply states, "I climb the wall, Athletics 17", I am not going to stop him and ask what he's doing. Needlessly adding all these superfluous elements to the example is just pointless.

I move here, I attack that orc, I use my bonus action to cast Hunters Mark on that target is, to me, no different than, "I climb the wall, Athletics 17". Because, unlike you, I don't ask the players for an attack roll. The players don't have to ask me to cast Hunter's Mark or whether or not they can move to that location.

You're claiming that there isn't any difference, but, that's the primary difference all the way along. In your method, which has been repeated over and over and over again, the player CANNOT CALL FOR A SKILL CHECK. That's been the common refrain all the way along. Yet, in combat, the player calls for every check, tells the DM exactly what's going to happen and doesn't wait for anything. The player doesn't say, "Oh I attack this orc" and the DM replies, "OK, make an attack roll". The player doesn't state "I'm casting Hunter's Mark" and then wait for the DM to call for a bonus action.

Combat is the exact opposite of everything you folks have INSISTED on all the way through this thread. The player calls for checks in combat. The player states actions and doesn't even wait for DM adjudication most of the time. Heck, the player tells the DM to make a saving throw for this or that creature, essentially telling the DM to make checks.

So, no, you don't raise an "excellent point". You have just completely contradicted every single post that you folks have made for the last 111 pages of this thread.

I run skill checks the same way I run combat - the players generally tell me what checks to make and whatnot. For me, it's simply applying the same standard across the game.

Which is exactly the same issue I've had ... which always gets countered by "you're misrepresenting what we're saying" and then something about how players don't call for skill checks. Which is exactly what we've been saying.

A wall in the way with no door, way around or ladder? "I make a 19 athletics check" is all a player needs to say. I know what they're doing, they're climbing the wall. If there was a ladder in the previous room or crates on the floor, obviously they are not using them otherwise they would have stated so. To say that we haven't communicated what the PC is doing and what their intent is is just silly. Same way that they can say in combat "I get 15, does that hit?" I don't quiz them on 15 what, 99% of the time we both know what they're doing. If for some reason unclear who they're attacking or how I'll ask.

When it comes to climbing or "I make a 15 perception check at the door" I know what they're doing, they know what they're doing. That doesn't mean I've "taken over their character" or that I'm going to do a DM gotcha, it's just that I don't want the game to go at a glacial pace while we all discuss how we climb the wall. It's just a wall. If the PC is going back to get a ladder or attack a different creature than they attacked last round or disengage from the monster they're currently fighting to go fight another one they will tell me. If there's an open hole in the wall and they tell me they're climbing, I'll prompt them about the hole.

But the vast majority of time? Telling me the result of a skill check tells me everything I need to know and there's no need for anything more. If they want to take a different approach I trust them to tell me. If climbing to the top of the wall will expose them to obvious danger that the PC is aware of, they trust me to prompt them about it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Meh, needless hair splitting. If there's a ladder, there's no check at all. Why would there be?

Because people sometimes fall off ladders.

 

[iserith]

Meh, needless hair splitting. If there's a ladder, there's no check at all. Why would there be? Or, if they stack crates, then again, there's no check.

So the approach to the goal of getting over the wall matters then, eh? Some approaches can also be automatically successful without reference to the dice or the character's ability scores? This is progress! Now apply that discovery to other goals a player might describe.