Chris Perkins doesn't use Passive Insight

[S'mon]

The question is, though, why are these Paragon or Epic creatures confined to those Valleys and Citadels? If the Invincible Overlord has scads of Paragon level creatures to command, why doesn't s/he just send them out to take over all the low level lairs and towns? Why hole up in some dingy "Paragon dungeon" when you could take a kingdom and live in luxury?

Uhm, the Invincible Overlord, as the name implies, does rule a kingdom & live in luxury. NPCs with Epic levels and a will-to-power generally are found as overlords. That goes for some monsters too, eg an elder dragon will rule or ravage a vast domain. There are some entities that don't seek conquest, though.

Basically, a Paragon tier entity like Grendel may seek to wreak havoc, but if it does so too widely will be squelched by other Paragon+ opposition like Beowulf. An Epic tier entity is likely to be able to defeat direct threats within a wide area and will have its own realm where it is unopposed.

I don't see the problem here. Asking why the most powerful entity doesn't rule anything is like asking "Why doesn't the USA rule the world?" and there are similar answers - it *does* have a vast area of influence, it *can* destroy direct threats, but it is not omniscient, it inherently has somewhat limited reach (esp in 4e), it's not worth the trouble to micromanage everything, there are still things it's afraid of, etc.

Edit: Many Paragon & Epic characters may well leave their citadels and valleys, but the world is large, Paragon & especially Epic entities are few, and the PCs either happen to start in a low-power area (village + starter dungeon setup), or they start in a high-power area but can have adventures that initially fly under the radar of the big boys (rogues in the city setup).

In both my current 4e campaigns, a lot of territory is in mid-high Heroic, with patches of low-Heroic. A territory with high Heroic NPCs (typical human border town) can defend against raids from Paragon zones (local Underdark Drow city, say). If an Epic threat attacks they would be squelched, but Epic threats are rare and if 'active' they are typically surrounded by either their own big empires or by wastelands of their creation.

 

[S'mon]

Again, it's just very abstract. There's no logical reason that everyone can't try to get their own gut feelings, there's just a game-logic-balance reason, and that can have a lot of unfortunate effects at the table (wrenching you from an in-character moment, for instance).

They can try to get their own gut feelings, but the prior dice rolls will stand.

 

[MrMyth]

I don't see any "Skilled Investigator" class in my PHB. Just an Insight skill which as described is a resource PCs can call on, should they choose to do so.

So, just to be clear... your idea is that it is acceptable for someone to want to play a strong barbarian, an intelligent wizard, or a wise cleric, and have the game mechanically support their ability to do so, but if they want to play a character who is a skilled investigator, you do not feel that is acceptable, and instead is something that should be driven entirely by player skill, with no recourse to character skill?

Again, I suppose there is an approach that style can work for. For myself, I'm not a huge fan of it - just as, if I am playing a thief who is very skilled at finding and disabling traps, it is frustrating when a DM has my character trigger the traps anyway because I didn't describe properly how I was disabling the traps.

Part of the point of playing a character is that the character can do things that a player, in real life, cannot. One doesn't expect a fighter's player to actually be able to swing a sword or bash through a doorway - or a wizard's player to actually be able to hurl lightning! So the approach of expecting the thief's player to actually be the one figuring out how to disable traps (with no benefit from their character's skills), or an investigator's player to actually be able to tell when the DM is lying (with no benefits from their character's skills)... well, it seems an unbalanced style of play. At least, in my opinion.

That's how reality works, and I don't see anything in the 4e rules to say this little bit of reality should not be applied for game purposes. It doesn't take a skilled liar to have people believe something they already expect to be true, or have no reason to doubt. A skilled liar like a good used car salesman can get people who have every reason to be suspicious to go along with his claim.

Example: Stranger asks me

"Do you have the time?"

I check time - watch says 3.40pm. I reply:

"It's 3.30pm."

Realistically the guy is not going to get an Insight check, active or passive, because he has no grounds to be suspicious. Whereas a policeman investigating a crime, or (most) buyers going to buy a used car, will be using insight, because they are suspicious - yet they can still be deceived.

I... I don't think that is remotely true.

When someone, in real life, actively tries to decieve someone else, there are often all sorts of cues that can give the heads-up that something is off. Now, many folks might be good at, and be able to cover up those elements.

Which we have a way to mechanically represent in the game, in the form of a Bluff check.

The idea that a bumbling idiot can walk up to a group of PCs and tell the exact same lie as a silver-tongued con man, and is exactly as effective at doing so if the DM doesn't think the PCs have any reason to be suspicious... now that pretty severely breaks my suspension of disbelief.

Now, I suppose it does depend on what you mean by PCs having reason to be suspicious. You mention that an unskilled liar can still convince PCs of something they have no reason to doubt. But how often does that actually come up?

How often does a PC ask an NPC the time, and the NPC deliberately tell them a slightly different time for little to no reason?

Almost any deception I can see cropping up for the party will often be of much more significance, and I don't see any reason in those situations to simply assume that PCs accept everything as truth, despite some of those PCs being game-mechanically good at telling when someone is lying to them.

I generally wouldn't require a to-hit check for the PC to hit a helpless, unconscious enemy in a non-combat situation, no. There are plenty of cases where failure is effectively impossible because the action is unopposed.

Well, yes. That's what I said in my very next statement - that there are times and places where you can handwave attack rolls.

But an NPC trying to deceive a PC, and the PC having some chance of detecting it, is not some rare scenario akin to a PC attacking a sleeping foe. It is the social equivalent of a direct combat itself.

Like I said, what are some examples of what you are referring to? If you are truly talking about handwaving bluff checks only in inconsequential or meaningless situations (such as NPCs telling PCs a slightly different time), that's probably fine. But you make it sound like you are applying these rules to pretty much all bluff checks, unless you as the DM decide the PCs have reason to be suspicious and are magnanimous enough to let their PCs' skills be relevant.

Now, this is a decision, as a DM, you have the right to make. You can totally run things this way. But it absolutely is not RAW, nor do I think it accurately resembles reality, nor do I think it is a fair way to handle the skills and abilities a player has invested in their character.

Now, there may still be reasons to choose to run it the way you desire, and there can absolutely be benefits to valuing player skill over character skill. But you should at least acknowledge the truth of what you are doing, and it most definitely is not adhering to the rules themselves, nor is this in any way a more accurate reflection of how deceit works in reality.

 

[MrMyth]

A failed roll = "You can't do the thing you are trying to do". A bad fail on climb can equal "You fall", but the GM is not supposed to control the minds of the PCs, sans magic, therefore a bad Insight roll should not be "You believe him".

If necessary you can have gradated failure on Insight, but (a) it's not in the RAW and (b) would require hiding dice rolls, which I hate.

For myself, I do tend to offer out misleading info for PCs who flub certain checks (whether trying to tell if someone is lying, trying to gather information and rumors on the street, etc).

But I don't hide dice rolls - the players typically know they flubbed the check and their PC has bad info, but the PC doesn't. And maybe I'm unusual in this, but my players are perfectly capable of keeping IC knowledge seperate from OOC knowledge, and often get quite a kick out of RPing their incorrect knowledge.

 

[MrMyth]

I guess that's why computer games are so popular then - the computer can't possibly show favouritism! I refuse to accept that the best DM is the DM most like a computer, or that the best game is the one with the least role for player ability - or charisma. RPGs are a great venue for normally shy people to practice being charming.

Except that the approach you encourage is one that would actively hinder such a thing. If the game rewards charming players over charming characters, than the shy player will always get sidelined by the charming player - even if the shy player has a diplomatic bard, and the charming player an uncouth barbarian.

Now, by all means, I am a fan of an approach that rewards characters who have clever solutions or RP well or the like. But the second you say that should be the only measure of success, that player skill is the most important thing... well, you are both throwing the social skill system out the window, and giving a substantial benefit to socially adept players, along with characters who only invest in combat or magic or the like.

 

[S'mon]

So, just to be clear... your idea is that it is acceptable for someone to want to play a strong barbarian, an intelligent wizard, or a wise cleric, and have the game mechanically support their ability to do so, but if they want to play a character who is a skilled investigator, you do not feel that is acceptable, and instead is something that should be driven entirely by player skill, with no recourse to character skill?

No, they'd be well advised to have their PC be trained in various interpersonal skills - and they can then use those skills effectively to support their investigations, although technically they don't *need* any of those skills since in a tabletop game investigation can mostly be played out through in-character interaction. But the skills are a useful resource to have, like an item daily power. And the broader suite of skills, the better, like having several good at-will powers.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Both your examples comply with my GMing approach too - people tend to do things for understandable human emotions like greed, ambition & revenge. And the vast majority of captives IMCs are real captives, not monsters in disguise. Maybe we're not so far apart. NPCs will lie to my PCs, like the Zark example - it's just that I'm happy to give players plenty of chances to spot lies themselves, without relying on dice rolls, since I prioritise in-character interaction over the mechanics, I treat the mechanical abilities as player resources (the way the 4e PHB describes them), not as definitional of what happens in play, sim-style (as the 4e DMG advice tends towards). Some of the 4e DMG advice seems to see 'talky stuff' as 'getting in the way of the fun', whereas for me it is the highest part of the fun.

I don't think 4e is intended to make 'talky stuff' just some kind of formality of the game that you shove under the rug with a couple die rolls so you can get on with it though.

I mean, looking at your Zark example: Clearly the PCs have plenty of reasons to be suspicious of the NPC and the players have perfectly adequate information so they should see that. The whole Bluff/Insight thing IMHO is pretty much peripheral here. There were so many red flags (at least the way you tell it, the players might have for some reason seen it differently, that does happen) that regardless of how convincing the NPC was a prudent character would have considered the possibility of betrayal and should reasonably have taken precautions. For whatever reason the players didn't do that. Maybe they were playing characters that are fools, maybe they were a bit clueless, etc. It doesn't matter. Having the DM say "You think he's lying" couldn't have made it MORE obvious.

In a more general sense I think Passive Insight is just a fine way to have the characters sometimes pick up on something extra and the guy with high Insight gets rewarded that way more often. I dont' see a problem there. The DM can toss Bluff checks at whatever bonus behind his screen any old time he wants.

If a player thinks to have his character "be suspicious" and look for lies then he can throw an Insight check whenever he wants. If the guy is lying he might realize that, or he might not, in which case Bluff says the NPC is convincing. If the NPC DIDN'T Bluff and is telling the truth then I'd just have the result of the check be a moderate check of the PC's level and if he passes it he's sure the truth is being told and if not he's unsure, then it is up to the player to draw the correct or incorrect conclusions.

Naturally it can be advantageous for the DM to cast these dice to avoid meta-gaming, but I haven't always found it necessary. Now and then I'll toss dice and use them in place of the player's roll just to give them some realistic sense of possible doubt.

I mostly agree with KD in terms of what surprises are about. It is kind of pointless to keep things hidden or play obvious ploys that won't seem surprising to the players. It is more interesting to have them be situations where the players finally figure something out and they say "ohhh yeah! That makes sense, thing are really like X, not Y." That MIGHT discomfit the PCs and upset or alter their plans, but the object isn't particularly to mess them over, and some surprises will probably be good for them. OTOH now and then missing something will land you in a pickle. It should hopefully just be an INTERESTING pickle that presents new directions for the story to go in.

 

[S'mon]

Except that the approach you encourage is one that would actively hinder such a thing. If the game rewards charming players over charming characters, than the shy player will always get sidelined by the charming player - even if the shy player has a diplomatic bard, and the charming player an uncouth barbarian.

No, both players will be asked to make a Diplomacy check at some point, whenever the outcome of their persuasion attempt is uncertain, and then the Barbarian is all mouth and no trousers. He can maybe run on for a long time, but if he wanted to be reliably persuasive he should have invested resources in that direction (admittedly 4e and esp 3e make that hard).
Whereas as long as the Bard player steps on up, he has the mechanical resources to pull off significant diplomatising. The guy who refuses to talk at all is like the guy who runs from a fight - which I have also seen.

I'll also often go out of my way to give the charming swashbuckler PC chances to shine: to embarrass the clumsy guards, to wow the fair maiden, etc. I'm asking for a good faith effort to step-on-up; just don't be cringingly repulsive (which I have seen, but people who are genuinely unpleasant to be around are so in-game & out).