D&D 5E At Your 5E Table, How Is It Agreed upon That the PCs Do Stuff Other than Attack?

[Oofta]

Can you, as a player at your table, just say that your PC doesn't believe the NPC?

Sure. Of course I could be wrong. If I want to get an idea of their emotional state I can also ask for an insight check. Then when I ask for that insight check, much like attacking an opponent, the outcome is uncertain so I roll a check.

There's no difference between swinging a sword and using a skill in my game. In both cases you can add flavor, but it doesn't change anything.

 

[Hriston]

The character is also doing the search in fiction. So no ... there's not really a difference.

"not really"

A character might be searching [something] for [something] in the fiction, but the character is not making a Search check in the fiction. That's something the player is doing at the table, and glossing over the difference is not helpful for conversation. It might even be considered a deliberate obfuscation and exploitation (for the purpose of "winning at the interwebs") of the relationship between what is said and done at the table and the fiction the real people are imagining.

The question is why this is a hill on which you want to die. You clearly don't prefer players describing their character's action and intention with reasonable specificity over them announcing that they make an ability check. Why not just express your preference?

 

[Oofta]

"not really"

A character might be searching [something] for [something] in the fiction, but the character is not making a Search check in the fiction. That's something the player is doing at the table, and glossing over the difference is not helpful for conversation. It might even be considered a deliberate obfuscation and exploitation (for the purpose of "winning at the interwebs") of the relationship between what is said and done at the table and the fiction the real people are imagining.

The question is why this is a hill on which you want to die. You clearly don't prefer players describing their character's action and intention with reasonable specificity over them announcing that they make an ability check. Why not just express your preference?

I don't slap a padlock and lockpicking tools down on the table every time someone wants to open a lock. I don't break out the foam swords and start LARPing every time combat breaks out. I don't hide something in my kitchen and expect the player to find it without setting off that mouse trap. The player does not need to have the skills of the PC in order to have that PC be effective in my game. The character is searching, not the player. The mechanic used to resolve an in-world action when there is uncertainty is a roll of the dice.

There's no hill here other than potentially a hill of strawmen. The character exist and interacts with a fictional world, the player is not searching any more than they are picking that Master Lock. I am just expressing my preference, there's no difference in my game between a skill check and swinging a sword. We may add fluff, there may be complications, but ultimately if there is uncertainty on outcome dice will be rolled.

NOTE: There are exceptions and edge cases to every rule. If someone doesn't realize they're fighting an illusionary monster they still need to roll to hit even though they can never do damage. Roll low enough and the illusion just dodges out of the way. A persuasion check can be modified by what the character says.

EDIT: or maybe I'm just missing the whole point - that it's not my character rolling the dice to resolve the uncertainty. Which ... is a really weird thing to even point out or make a big deal out of. It has nothing to do with how I handle checks in the game.

 

[iserith]

I'm really not a big fan of the Insight check as a blanket lie detector, but the rules are usually read that way and its hard to convince players otherwise.

Curious what the objection is to this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Curious what the objection is to this.

Because every time an NPC says anything, PCs scream out, "Insight check!". And because someone in the party always has a crazy high Insight bonus, that essentially means no one can lie, and it's annoying.

 

[overgeeked]

EDIT: or maybe I'm just missing the whole point - that it's not my character rolling the dice to resolve the uncertainty. Which ... is a really weird thing to even point out or make a big deal out of. It has nothing to do with how I handle checks in the game.

Respectfully, I think you’re missing the point. You have a preference. It’s your preference. It’s not objectively true and right. The people you’re arguing with have a different preference. It’s their preference. It’s not objectively true or right. If you’re honestly trying to understand, why so argumentative over it? It’s a preference you don’t share. Shrug, accept it, and move on.

For some the fiction matters more than the rules. For others the rules matter more than the fiction. No one’s right. No one’s wrong. And there’s certainly no need to argue in circles about it page after page after page, thread after thread after thread.

Because every time an NPC says anything, PCs scream out, "Insight check!". And because someone in the party always has a crazy high Insight bonus, that essentially means no one can lie, and it's annoying.

Social skills as mind control and mind reading were some of the worst design choices WotC made. I mean, it’s a really long list. But these are on the list.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The player does not need to have the skills of the PC in order to have that PC be effective in my game. The character is searching, not the player. The mechanic used to resolve an in-world action when there is uncertainty is a roll of the dice.

All of these things are also true at a table that expects the player to be reasonably specific about the goal and approach of their PC.

EDIT: or maybe I'm just missing the whole point

@Hriston's point, as I understand it, is that there is a difference between a player asking to make a check (or just rolling on their own) and a player describing what their character is attempting and how they are going about it. Now, that difference may not ultimately matter to the game play at your table but it clearly does matter to game play at other tables.

 

[Voadam]

@Hriston's point, as I understand it, is that there is a difference between a player asking to make a check (or just rolling on their own) and a player describing what their character is attempting and how they are going about it. Now, that difference may not ultimately matter to the game play at your table but it clearly does matter to game play at other tables.

And for 5e default play as laid out in the DMG, the DM has total discretion on whether to call for an ability check in all situations. By the book RAW a DM can choose to never call for an ability check roll and just resolve the results of PC actions.

The DMG gives the DM discretionary options, using rolls, sometimes using rolls, never using rolls. It allows a lot for individual DM preferences that can vary.

 

[iserith]

Because every time an NPC says anything, PCs scream out, "Insight check!". And because someone in the party always has a crazy high Insight bonus, that essentially means no one can lie, and it's annoying.

My experience is that players do that because the DM is not presenting a meaningful consequence for failure. If they fail the roll, the DM says they don't notice anything. Nothing has changed, and that doesn't seem very meaningful or consequential to me. Introduce a complication as a result of failure and players tend to be a bit more judicious about taking that action.

But even if they are still taking this action a lot, my position is, okay, the PC notices the NPC may be lying. What do you do about that? It just leads to another decision point. It doesn't mean no NPCs can lie. It just means, knowing they are lying, how do you get what you want?

 

[Micah Sweet]

My experience is that players do that because the DM is not presenting a meaningful consequence for failure. If they fail the roll, the DM says they don't notice anything. Nothing has changed, and that doesn't seem very meaningful or consequential to me. Introduce a complication as a result of failure and players tend to be a bit more judicious about taking that action.

But even if they are still taking this action a lot, my position is, okay, the PC notices the NPC may be lying. What do you do about that? It just leads to another decision point. It doesn't mean no NPCs can lie. It just means, knowing they are lying, how do you get what you want?

What exactly is a meaningful consequence of failing an Insight check as lie detector? "You don't notice anything" is what actually happens.