Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7788881" data-attributes="member: 6857506">To me, this seems like a rather big leap.  Insight has a much broader application that just whether an NPC is telling the truth.The obvious answer seems to be that he could just articulate them.  It also seems like you certainly would have thought of this answer.  Trying to understand what is behind this - if Bob said, "Brog is suspicious that Ned is not telling the truth." and you thought that it was uncertain whether Brog could tell, would you not call for an insight check? (Admittedly, that statement by Bob is still not as clear about Brog engaging in an intentional process as some would insist on, but it's probably good enough for me most of the time even though I would prefer a clearer statement of intent and method.)  I don't understand the connection between thinking that it is reasonable for the PCs to suspect the merchant is lying (a matter of the fiction) and how you handle the conversation between the DM and the players (a matter of game play).  It is perfectly possible for the DM to think that it is reasonable for the PCs to suspect the merchant of lying, but want the players to declare actions, not ask for checks.Neither do I, but again I don't understand the connection between that and how you handle the DM-player conversation.How would it play out?  Well, I think no matter whose table it is, the party will end up killing Ned and/or destroying his shop because players.  I mean, it could be an accident as in, "we just summoned the balgura to intimidate him into telling us the truth, and things got out of hand," but really when the PCs come knocking the only safe thing for an NPC is to just not be home and, preferably, not on the same plane of existence.  Buuut maybe that is not what you meant by "play out"...At my table, I would treat Bob's query as more or less equivalent to the assertion, "Brog is trying to figure something out."  So I would ask questions to find out what Brog is actually trying to do.  I understand that in constructing your example you already had in mind what Brog would actually be trying to do, but I don't think that there is actually enough information in Bob's utterance to tell.  As noted, Insight has much broader application than just whether an NPC is telling the truth.  To me, it seems just as reasonable that Brog might want to ascertain whether Ned is hostile toward the party, or whether Ned seems afraid.Um, having said that you don't want to debate philosophy, you have asked a question predicated on, and questioning, a play style, which seems pretty close to philosophy.  Maybe I misunderstand what you meant.  Anyway, first, I don't have strict policies for stuff like this, but I do have general BKMs, one of which is that generally the players say what they're trying to accomplish and how, and the DM calls for rolls when needed.  There are a few common situations, weapon and spell attacks in combat being the most common, in which some of this can be shortcut, but that is because the rules and our practices at the table are such that in the same situation, the same game mechanics are employed the same way in the overwhelming majority of instances.This question seems to assume that getting the DM to call for an insight check is a reasonable goal.  If I take that literally, it makes no sense - making checks is not a goal of game play.  It also seems to assume that how a PC feels is cause for a response from the DM; that seems off also.  So I'll assume that Bob's actual goal is to get the DM to narrate the result of Brog trying to determine whether Ned is telling the truth.  Put that way, the answer seems pretty straightforward: Bob should say that Brog is trying to determine whether Ned is telling the truth.The only objection that I can see to this is that some might feel this forces Bob to be too specific, so that maybe, "Can I make an Insight check?" is sort of a stand-in for, "Brog attempts to discern anything that might be covered by the Insight skill."  Is that the effect that you are after?In more general terms, asking for a check just seems like a suboptimal choice since it forces the DM to infer the player's intention.  I don't see how it improves the game to be indirect about communicating what your PC is doing.Again, she could just articulate that, but I don't see how that leads to anything that requires a response from the DM and how it is germane to the issue being discussedCertainly.</blockquote>

Verification