Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7790678" data-attributes="member: 6750235">Not quite.&nbsp; If the player asks to use insight to see if someone is lying it's an active attempt to probe that person for information.&nbsp; This is how it would run in one of my games.NPC:&nbsp; *tells a lieDM:&nbsp; compares NPC's deception to the passive insight scores for the playersThe player isn't retroactively doing anything.&nbsp; If the NPC lied the check should have already been made.&nbsp; That's the time to give information on the results.&nbsp; How this appears to the PC's is the &quot;telegraphing&quot; that is actually the response to the roll instead of an indication that someone should roll.The pit is no different.&nbsp; Something already took place and resolved itself as falling into the pit and the athletics check is what gets the player out of the pit.&nbsp; Nothing prevents using a skill after the event.&nbsp; If the player sees the pit and doesn't fall in or does, he or she can either climb out or jump over.&nbsp; Noticing the pit is the first check and the athletics check is the active response.&nbsp; So getting back to the scenario...Resolution:&nbsp; check succeedsDM:&nbsp; &quot;Something about Bob's tone of voice indicates there's something he's not telling you.&nbsp; You don't trust he's being honest with you&quot;.Player:&nbsp; &quot;Can I roll insight to see if he's lying?&quot;At this point, the player is requesting knowledge and the answer is &quot;yes, he or she can roll insight&quot;.&nbsp; The action would have more firm if he or she stated he or she is using insight to confirm the lie.&nbsp; The player might be using the question because he or she is not clear based on my response.&nbsp; I can give that clarification and it won't change the fact the PC is already aware of dishonesty.&nbsp; I already indicated the NPC was lying and the character just wants more confirmation or details.This is also taking an action.&nbsp; Using a game mechanic request or in-game language doesn't change what the character is doing.&nbsp; The typical action could be described as &quot;I ask a few questions to get a better understanding of what's going on.&quot;&nbsp; Or could be played out as a series of questions.&nbsp; Or could as simple as going with the mechanical request.&nbsp; Different players play differently.&nbsp; As a DM, I see all those as the same thing.&nbsp; They don't change what information is available or the DC to find it.&nbsp; It's fluff vs mechanics.&nbsp; The game is colored with fluff but it still runs on mechanics.&nbsp; At least until some tables emphasize the fluff more.&nbsp; ;-)Player:&nbsp; Rolls a 2 and fails the active check initiated by the action.DM: &quot;You do not learn anything new.&nbsp; You know he is being dishonest with you but you don't know why and you are no closer to the truth than before.&quot;The point is that it was never a retroactive request.&nbsp; It was an active request to do something in response to the previous activity,The player might take the NPC into an interrogation room and browbeat him for a few hours.&nbsp; Then I would let the player &quot;take 20&quot; and give results I think are appropriate.&nbsp; The result is most people crack under interrogation.&nbsp; Getting information via interrogation is another common trope.&nbsp; I temper what can be learned with the NPC reactions as a reaction.&nbsp; A person can only convince someone to give up information based on the risk to themselves.&nbsp; Intimidation or persuasion can influence attitude towards the interrogator.So the NPC might give up quite bit of information.&nbsp; Some willingly, some more unwillingly, but the extent is never more than I, as the DM, feels is appropriate.&nbsp; It's also my opportunity, as the DM, to give information I also want the players to have or plant hooks or provide backstory etc.&nbsp; Hopefully that makes sense.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ashrym, post: 7790678, member: 6750235"] Not quite. If the player asks to use insight to see if someone is lying it's an active attempt to probe that person for information. This is how it would run in one of my games. NPC: *tells a lie DM: compares NPC's deception to the passive insight scores for the players The player isn't retroactively doing anything. If the NPC lied the check should have already been made. That's the time to give information on the results. How this appears to the PC's is the "telegraphing" that is actually the response to the roll instead of an indication that someone should roll. The pit is no different. Something already took place and resolved itself as falling into the pit and the athletics check is what gets the player out of the pit. Nothing prevents using a skill after the event. If the player sees the pit and doesn't fall in or does, he or she can either climb out or jump over. Noticing the pit is the first check and the athletics check is the active response. So getting back to the scenario... Resolution: check succeeds DM: "Something about Bob's tone of voice indicates there's something he's not telling you. You don't trust he's being honest with you". Player: "Can I roll insight to see if he's lying?" At this point, the player is requesting knowledge and the answer is "yes, he or she can roll insight". The action would have more firm if he or she stated he or she is using insight to confirm the lie. The player might be using the question because he or she is not clear based on my response. I can give that clarification and it won't change the fact the PC is already aware of dishonesty. I already indicated the NPC was lying and the character just wants more confirmation or details. This is also taking an action. Using a game mechanic request or in-game language doesn't change what the character is doing. The typical action could be described as "I ask a few questions to get a better understanding of what's going on." Or could be played out as a series of questions. Or could as simple as going with the mechanical request. Different players play differently. As a DM, I see all those as the same thing. They don't change what information is available or the DC to find it. It's fluff vs mechanics. The game is colored with fluff but it still runs on mechanics. At least until some tables emphasize the fluff more. ;-) Player: Rolls a 2 and fails the active check initiated by the action. DM: "You do not learn anything new. You know he is being dishonest with you but you don't know why and you are no closer to the truth than before." The point is that it was never a retroactive request. It was an active request to do something in response to the previous activity, The player might take the NPC into an interrogation room and browbeat him for a few hours. Then I would let the player "take 20" and give results I think are appropriate. The result is most people crack under interrogation. Getting information via interrogation is another common trope. I temper what can be learned with the NPC reactions as a reaction. A person can only convince someone to give up information based on the risk to themselves. Intimidation or persuasion can influence attitude towards the interrogator. So the NPC might give up quite bit of information. Some willingly, some more unwillingly, but the extent is never more than I, as the DM, feels is appropriate. It's also my opportunity, as the DM, to give information I also want the players to have or plant hooks or provide backstory etc. Hopefully that makes sense. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification