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

[iserith]

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

The rules lay out a couple of basic options in the PHB for failed ability checks - no progress toward the objective or progress combined with a setback. So I think it's fair for the DM to say upon seeing the failed check that the PC has noticed a tell that the NPC is lying (progress), but the NPC also notices they gave something away (setback). Now the NPC's attitude may shift in the wrong direction, hampering the PCs from getting what they want. They may break off the interaction or perhaps just become more cagey, making it more difficult or impossible to suss out what they're lying about, their agenda, ideal, bond, flaw, or next move.

 

[Oofta]

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.

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.

I don't care how others run their games. I repeat on most posts that everyone has their own preferences and way of doing things.

 

[Oofta]

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.



@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.

I'm honestly not sure what @Hriston was trying to get at. But he accused me of deliberate obfuscation and exploitation while try to "win".

I take offense at that because I'm just expressing my personal preference and how I choose to run my game. I really have no idea why they went off on this tangent.

So I don't know what else to say. We all have different styles, different preferences, different approaches. I've tried to explain why i hold my preferences and I'm accused of ... well I'm still not sure. But it has something to do with a hill of fallacies.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't want players to state their goal when they state an action. I want to take the action or question (i.e. knowledge check) on face value and then evaluate what possible outcomes are. Sometimes the only consequence is simply not succeeding.

Meh - I don't mind their stating a goal, but their ability to potentially stumble on to something different in the process is always in play.

Example:

Player: "I search the bedchamber for the Baroness' famous opal necklace - that'll be my biggest score in years!"
DM (who knows the necklace isn't there but goes through the motions and rolls well* anyway): "Well, no luck on the necklace but you do find a ve-ery interesting letter to her, signed by Count Casanova..."

* - I always do rolls like this in secret to avoid giving info the characters wouldn't have.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Well, yes it does; because that lie's going to get caught almost every single time and thus it becomes nearly impossible to misdirect the PCs.

And yet the PCs can lie through their teeth if they want and not get caught, unless you allow NPCs to make insight checks; and how is that fair?

It just means, knowing they are lying, how do you get what you want?

Mind control magic. Torture. Spells or devices* that make a lie obvious to everyone present.

* - I play a character who has such a thing: a ring that when she wears it, no lie can be told within (30 feet? I forget the exact range) without the teller's voice suddenly becoming high and squeaky. She as the wearer is also affected by it, which makes it easy to prove she's being honest with whoever she's talking to....but she's pretty straightforward and honest anyway, if a bit blunt, so it works well.

 

[CleverNickName]

But even if, heaven forefend, someone is just fishing. So what? If you're trying to solve a mystery there are going to be times when you just have to ask the dumb question, review the situation, think on what is happening and what you've seen. I don't have an adversarial relationship with my players (although the NPC might) so of course I'm going to help them out. I'll do it by giving them clues to the target's emotional state, which is what insight is designed to infer. There's no reason to withhold that.

I wasn't suggesting it was a problem when players start "fishing" for more information. If anything, it's a helpful cue to me, the DM, to start dropping more hints and describing things in better detail. Those cues are useful! So I'll let them ask for an Insight check, they'll roll it, but I'll ignore the result and start giving them more hints and information anyway. (I thought that was what I said in my post.)

 

[iserith]

Well, yes it does; because that lie's going to get caught almost every single time and thus it becomes nearly impossible to misdirect the PCs.

Players misdirect themselves all the time. They don't need my or my NPC's help. And again, so what if they know the NPC is lying? It's not like I have a hidden plot they are trying to uncover. So the NPC is lying. What do you do about it?

As well, I can tell you from direct experience, players who have their characters stung with meaningful consequences for failing a Wisdom (Insight) check tend not to try to discern truthfulness that way. It's more effective for them to learn the NPC's agenda, ideal, bond, or flaw so they can use that information to improve their chances of success in getting the NPC to do what they want. That payoff is more worth the risk.

And yet the PCs can lie through their teeth if they want and not get caught, unless you allow NPCs to make insight checks; and how is that fair?

If a player is making an action declaration to tell a lie and I find that there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure, then a Charisma (Deception) check is called for. I don't need to make an Insight check for NPCs. Though I could if I wanted to.

Mind control magic. Torture. Spells or devices* that make a lie obvious to everyone present.

Not every NPC will be a suitable candidate for these options, if they have a certain level of status or power in the setting.

 

[Oofta]

I wasn't suggesting it was a problem when players start "fishing" for more information. If anything, it's a helpful cue to me, the DM, to start dropping more hints and describing things in better detail. Those cues are useful! So I'll let them ask for an Insight check, they'll roll it, but I'll ignore the result and start giving them more hints and information anyway. (I thought that was what I said in my post.)

I may have misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Lanefan]

If a player is making an action declaration to tell a lie

How do you "make an action declaration to tell a lie?" without eschewing in-character roleplay completely?

and I find that there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure, then a Charisma (Deception) check is called for. I don't need to make an Insight check for NPCs. Though I could if I wanted to.

OK.

Not every NPC will be a suitable candidate for these options, if they have a certain level of status or power in the setting.

 

[iserith]

How do you "make an action declaration to tell a lie?" without eschewing in-character roleplay completely?

You tell the NPC a lie via active roleplaying. (Though there's nothing wrong with descriptive roleplaying either.)