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

[DND_Reborn]

Sorry, I thought you knew that your posts could be viewed publicly by anybody on the internet. If you thought only people you personally recognize could see them, or had the right to comment on them, that’s not how the internet works.

Well, how about this... you won't see them anymore.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Kind of repetitive from last post. But don't lie.

Just say, you can't tell any more than the NPC is telling you.


You don't have to. If the check is successful tell them the NPC is hiding something or if really high, tell them something deeper as you see fit.

Heck you could use @iserith 's preference and allow insight to instead (it in addition) SUS out ideals bonds and flaws.

I see no reason to have the player pretend they don't know something they think they do - that just leads to absurd and worse, uncomfortable, game play

I was responding to your comment upthread where you said the result might be false information. I assumed that meant the DM is pretending the Insight roll was successful, although it wasn't, and therefore is going to tell a lie about what is learned.

Did I misunderstand?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, I got home tonight to find about 10 new pages of post! Never expected this to blossom like that. Thanks to all for your insights and discussions -- (up until the last page or so about lie detecting anyway ).

Quite a few of you made some very good points, so thanks again.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Every time someone says that, I see it as an excuse to ignore verisimilitude just because. Not my jam.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Every time someone says that, I see it as an excuse to ignore verisimilitude just because. Not my jam.

To be fair, their reason isn't "just because" it's to give non-casters shiny things. (Of course, Insight is Wisdom based, and casters are more likely to have high Wisdom, so...)

 

[Mort]

Every time someone says that, I see it as an excuse to ignore verisimilitude just because. Not my jam.

verisimilitude must be judged in the context of the game world.

If you hold skills to some "real world" standard,

But you allow magic to completely and consistently violate that standard? Then for me, verisimilitude, breaks as a result.

Non casters live in the game world too.

 

[Mort]

I was responding to your comment upthread where you said the result might be false information. I assumed that meant the DM is pretending the Insight roll was successful, although it wasn't, and therefore is going to tell a lie about what is learned.

Did I misunderstand?

Kind of,

An insufficient insight roll, for me, would simply mean telling the player they learn nothing new or or more significant the NPCs statement - which might give a false impression or it might not.

I probably conveyed that poorly, it's an imperfect medium.

The point is, I want the high insight player to have the potential to get additional information, thanks to their investment in the skill.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The point is, I want the high insight player to have the potential to get additional information, thanks to their investment in the skill.

That part I agree with, but I don't think the result of a successful Insight has to be a binary 'telling the truth'/'is lying' result. It could just be additional information that would help inform the PCs:

"He seems to be afraid of something, and it's not you."
"He's waiting for you to say or offer something that you haven't."
"He really respects his boss and wants to be loyal."
"He dislikes you."
"He is using street slang that you wouldn't expect from a merchant."

It might even be insight (see what I did there?) into what the person is saying, suggesting ways to verify it:
"If what he is saying is true, the bartender would be able to confirm it."
"All ownership documents for bridges and moon real estate would be registered at the town hall."
"Orders are always written, so he should be able (if not willing) to show his written orders."
Etc.

But lordy do I detest, "I'll roll insight to see if he's lying...18!" "You can tell he's lying." Arrrggghhhh.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

You can definitely do that, at your table. No one is saying you can't.

 

[Mort]

But lordy do I detest, "I'll roll insight to see if he's lying...18!" "You can tell he's lying." Arrrggghhhh.

While I'm sure it's been going on well before and will outside of Critical Role, I was disappointed when I caught a recent episode and the players would literally yell "insight check ..." After an NPC finished speaking. I'm not even that against a player asking for a check (I get it, it's a short cut) but this was just obnoxious!