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

[Bill Zebub]

It's not 0 cost.

You have to make a skill check and if you fail you might get a completely false reading.

What's the support for that in the rules? Is the DM rolling secretly for the player? Or using 'passive Insight'? Or are you expecting the player to roleplay believing the false reading, even though they know perfectly well it was a failed roll?

Or you might succeed but piss of the target.

And what's the support for that? Is that an Insight check, plus a Deception check to avoid being detected?

And there is a counter skill, which a decent percentage of opponents will have (especially in an intrigue heavy campaign).

That doesn't actually make it risky, just more difficult.

 

[Mort]

The trouble isn't that the insight skill isn't "realistic". The trouble is that what it enabvles is the same thing that "dust" in babylon5 enables but it's more aptly named there

Not at all. It's a slightly exaggerated skill at reading people.

Again, there's a whole TV show based on people good with the skill, and they're trained at the skill, not telepaths. Is it "real world" realistic? Who cares. It's a nice, nonmagic ability that might (gasp) give some non casters an edge.

 

[Mort]

What's the support for that in the rules? Is the DM rolling secretly for the player? Or using 'passive Insight'? Or are you expecting the player to roleplay believing the false reading, even though they know perfectly well it was a failed roll?

You DON'T know it was a failed roll actually. At best you know you rolled low, that's it. they player may trust the information less, but that's on them

And what's the support for that? Is that an Insight check, plus a Deception check to avoid being detected?

Simple, you are using a skill. The fail or succeed with a setback condition is up to the DM.

That doesn't actually make it risky, just more difficult.

It makes it risky to rely on information from the skill, because you might be relying on faulty information. Especially if you don't double check it

 

[Bill Zebub]

You DON'T know it was a failed roll actually. At best you know you rolled low, that's it. they player may trust the information less, but that's on them

Simple, you are using a skill. The fail or succeed with a setback condition is up to the DM.

It makes it risky to rely on information from the skill, because you might be relying on faulty information. Especially if you don't double check it

So, really, what using the skill as a lie detector means is that instead of your character detecting an NPC's lie, it's you, the player, detecting lies from your DM. Hmmm.

 

[tetrasodium]

Not at all. It's a slightly exaggerated skill at reading people.

Again, there's a whole TV show based on people good with the skill, and they're trained at the skill, not telepaths. Is it "real world" realistic? Who cares. It's a nice, nonmagic ability that might (gasp) give some non casters an edge.

The trouble is that the gm winds up somewhat limited by the role of the gm, the social contract, & the overhead of running the world+NPC+etc as a human while the player can meat puppet their PC & is not even bound by what they themselves claim about their character but can cry foul if the gm lies to them.

 

[Mort]

So, really, what using the skill as a lie detector means is that instead of your character detecting an NPC's lie, it's you, the player, detecting lies from your DM. Hmmm.

So now you're putting an adversarial motive into it too?

I get it, it's not "realistic" (whatever the heck that means in a fantasy world) so PCs shouldn't be able to do it without magic.

And my point is: It's a skill in a pretend world, why can't we let PCs have a few nice things that may not be "realistic" but are definitely not magical?

 

[Bill Zebub]

So now you're putting an adversarial motive into it too?

No, I just mean if the player doesn't know if they failed their roll or not, and the DM tells them the NPC isn't lying, they're going to be wondering if the DM is lying. If they have a hunch about that, it will inform what they think about the NPC. So really what they want to detect is DM lies.

 

[Mort]

The trouble is that the gm winds up somewhat limited by the role of the gm, the social contract, & the overhead of running the world+NPC+etc as a human while the player can meat puppet their PC & is not even bound by what they themselves claim about their character but can cry foul if the gm lies to them.

It's a skill, it's not by any means infallible.

It's only when the PC is dealing with creatures and the NPC tries to lie, not the DM directly.

I just beleive that if a player invests in something, and this DOES require investment, let them be good at it

 

[Mort]

No, I just mean if the player doesn't know if they failed their roll or not, and the DM tells them the NPC isn't lying, they're going to be wondering if the DM is lying. If they have a hunch about that, it will inform what they think about the NPC. So really what they want to detect is DM lies.

That's on the player. And frankly they'll be doing it regardless of character skill and whether they are rolling or not.

 

[Bill Zebub]

i just beleive that if a player invests in something, and this DOES require investment. Let them be good at it

I believe that, too, but Insight can be used for things other than detecting lies.