D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[EzekielRaiden]

And vice versa! Insight-as-lie-detection, I'm looking at you.

How do you attempt to determine whether someone is lying to you in real life, then? Or do you simply take the path of being completely credulous?

If so, I have a bridge and some lovely moon real estate to sell you.

 

[Mort]

And vice versa! Insight-as-lie-detection, I'm looking at you.

I've always liked skills actually doing cool stuff.

Ever seen the show Lie to Me? Why CAN'T someone seriously good at insight do that?

And with skills at least there's some granularity and room for the DM to have opposition (high deception vs. high insight, let's see who wins). With D&D spells? They just work, or the save is made and they just fail - it's kinda binary and boring really.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've always liked skills actually doing cool stuff.

Ever seen the show Lie to Me? Why CAN'T someone seriously good at insight do that?

And with skills at least there's some granularity and room for the DM to have opposition (high deception vs. high insight, let's see who wins). With D&D spells? They just work, or the save is made and they just fail - it's kinda binary and boring really.

Moreover, one can have variable success, e.g. if you only barely pass the opposed check, you know something was a lie but not what; if you only barely fail, you have unsubstantiated suspicions and need to defend your skepticism or else lose face.

 

[Mort]

Moreover, one can have variable success, e.g. if you only barely pass the opposed check, you know something was a lie but not what; if you only barely fail, you have unsubstantiated suspicions and need to defend your skepticism or else lose face.

Right, it leads to more nuanced, interesting situations.

Especially if the DM is willing to treat skills with a bit of cinematic reality (again, like, Lie to Me) as opposed to some over adherence to "realism."

 

[Bill Zebub]

How do you attempt to determine whether someone is lying to you in real life, then? Or do you simply take the path of being completely credulous?

If so, I have a bridge and some lovely moon real estate to sell you.

Well, I know that we humans are terrible at knowing when other people are lying and let our preconceived notions color the evidence. Even with the people we know especially well. There have been times I have been sure my young children are lying to me, because it's the sort of thing they often lie about ("have you brushed your teeth?", "did you hit your brother?") only to discover that in this case I was completely wrong.

Thus, what I try to do is hedge, based on risk and reward. I don't know you, so I don't really know whether or not you have a bridge to sell me, but if I want a bridge and you seem to have a nice one I'll do some due diligence to see if you are the legitimate owner, or more likely outsource it to an expert in that area.

So, no, I don't know if somebody is lying to me. (And neither do you, whatever you may think, unless you are an anomalous human.) I have my hunches, but I try to choose courses of actions that don't depend on my accuracy.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Ever seen the show Lie to Me? Why CAN'T someone seriously good at insight do that?

Because they can't? I mean, they can in your fantasy setting if you want, but not in the real world.

Modern police interrogation techniques do not rely on detecting lies through intuition or watching "tells", which has been shown to be complete b.s., but by asking increasingly complicated questions then circling back to see if they eventually contradict themselves. If there was a cool way to model that in D&D (using Investigation? As a sustained opposed test?) I'd be all over it.

 

[FireLance]

Not to resurrect the whole martial vs. magical argument, but:

At what level should a ranger be able (or alternatively, what skill checks does a PC of any class need to make) to create a 10-foot radius safe shelter in the wilderness that: (a) cannot be entered (or visually detected, if that is more plausible) by creatures outside it; (b) is well-lit and comfortable, regardless of weather conditions outside?

 

[cbwjm]

Not to resurrect the whole martial vs. magical argument, but:

At what level should a ranger be able (or alternatively, what skill checks does a PC of any class need to make) to create a 10-foot radius safe shelter in the wilderness that: (a) cannot be entered (or visually detected, if that is more plausible) by creatures outside it; (b) is well-lit and comfortable, regardless of weather conditions outside?

What make it a ranger ability? It just sounds like a survival check to me, and the ranger in his own territory has expertise on the check. Though in the case of (a), I don't even allow that for tiny hut so neither the ranger nor the wizard can make it impossible to enter the area.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

At what level should a ranger be able (or alternatively, what skill checks does a PC of any class need to make) to create a 10-foot radius safe shelter in the wilderness that: (a) cannot be entered (or visually detected, if that is more plausible) by creatures outside it; (b) is well-lit and comfortable, regardless of weather conditions outside?

That's a really good yardstick.

I'd say that's something between a third and fifth level ribbon.

 

[Mort]

Because they can't? I mean, they can in your fantasy setting if you want, but not in the real world.

Modern police interrogation techniques do not rely on detecting lies through intuition or watching "tells", which has been shown to be complete b.s., but by asking increasingly complicated questions then circling back to see if they eventually contradict themselves. If there was a cool way to model that in D&D (using Investigation? As a sustained opposed test?) I'd be all over it.

We are not in "the real world."

We are in the world where dragons exist, mages bend/break reality by talking at it, and barbarians shrug off blows due to sheer manliness.