Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7788677" data-attributes="member: 6801845">There was another thread that linked to a blog by Angry DM that, among other things said that in order to play D&D 5E the "proper" way a player will never state "I make an insight check".  This is something that happens now and then in my game.  If it wasn't for message boards I would never give it a second thought.  The player is stating (using a bit of shorthand) that they don't know if the NPC they are talking to is telling the truth.  I don't see an issue with this so I wanted to go over a specific, simple example using an example similar to what happened in a recent game.  I don't really want to debate philosophy here, enough walls of text have been posted on that, I'd just like to know specifically how this scene would play out in your game.The setup:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The group is investigating a dead body found in an alley.  There are blood stains on the back door to a merchant's shop.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Ned the NPC: the proprietor of the shop. The PCs have never interacted with Ned before, they know nothing about him.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">PC Brog: Bob's barbarian PC is the suspicious type.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">PC Suiza: Susan's sorcerer led a sheltered life and is trusting to the point of gullible.</li> </ul>As a DM I don't know how suspicious the players think their PCs would be, and regardless I don't control what they think.Scene as it would play out in my game:Suiza: "Good day, sir. We found a body in the alley out back, do you know anything about it?" Ned: "I'm sorry, but I didn't see any body or anything unusual last night when I was locking up." Suiza: "Okay, thank you for your time, if you think of anything you can contact us at ..." Brog: "Wait a minute.  You didn't hear anything?  You live above your shop, right?" Ned: "Yes but I'm a sound sleeper.  Sorry I can't help you more." Bob: "Can I make an insight check?"We'd go from there.  Maybe the merchant knows something, maybe they don't and he's already given them all the info he can and the group will have to investigate other leads.  Brog is the suspicious type and needs no other justification to suspect the merchant of lying in this particular scenario.  How else is Bob supposed to indicate his PC's inner thoughts and suspicions?  Suiza on the other hand is naive and trusting so Susan is not going to ask for a check whether or not Susan is suspicious.So if Bob wants to roll a die, I let him*.  I allow the roll because it is reasonable for the PCs to suspect the merchant is lying in this scenario whether or not I know as the DM that the merchant is telling the truth.  I don't give the players information their PCs have no way of knowing.  If Ned is telling the truth a good roll will get "He seems to be telling the truth" while a really bad roll may result in "He seems to be hiding something".If the merchant is lying and is proficient at it, I'm not going to broadcast it to the players because I believe in resolving interactions with the game world using PC skill, not player skill.  I don't want to rely on my acting skills or lack therein. Unlike their characters Susan may be good at reading people while Bob is not.How would this specific scenario play out in your game?  If you have a strict "only the DM calls for a roll" what would Bob have to do or say to indicate that they are suspicious in order for you to call for an insight check?  What would Susan have to do or say to indicate her PC believes whatever the merchant says?*If Bob is asking for an insight check with every NPC they interact with, or if he tries to resolve every situation with a simple roll of the die, that's a separate issue and we'll discuss play style.</blockquote>

Verification