If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?

[iserith]

That's your goal. Not mine. Removing uncertainty is very much not a goal when we play.

So you've never had a character cast a spell or use a magic item that allows you to achieve success instead of attempt to do the same thing by "making a skill check?"

They can't. They can't do anything without your permission because they are not allowed to make skill checks until you ask them for one.

They don't want to "make skill checks." Why would they?

So, it is actually impossible for your players to unlock a lock (for example) without first asking you for a skill check. Or describing their actions in such a way that you judge it sufficient to not need a skill check.

For me, they just tell me, "I unlock the lock, 25" and poof, the lock is open, presuming they beat the DC. No further information is needed by me from the players.

The player's role and responsibility is to describe what they want to do. The DM decides if that an ability check is required to resolve uncertainty as the outcome if there's a meaningful consequence of failure. Those are the rules of this game.

ROTF. There's an entire industry based on people's inability to calculate odds. It's called gambling. The inability of people to calculate risk/reward is very nearly universal. I've already demonstrated it once here with the "look at the ceiling nets you advantage on stuff on the ceiling but disadvantage everywhere else" example.

The more calls you make as DM, the better you get at making good calls consistently. As with any skill, the more you do it, the better you get at it. I think that may apply to poker players, too, right?

Fantastic for you. Can you not at least accept that other people do not have your experience? So, again, IME, doing it your way results in a slower game that causes me to completely check out of the game. Maybe in your game I wouldn't. But, if it requires that I must play at your table to achieve this Nirvana of play, then, well, it doesn't help me much does it?

If your assertion was that the approach I use is slower than the approach you use, all I've shown is that you're wrong to make a blanket assertion, not that other DMs' games are slower than mine. I know they are. I play in a lot of games.

Believe me. I've done it your way. I've played it your way. I don't like it. I don't like it for the four reasons I listed. Your counter ideas don't really answer the problems. Mitigating randomness is NOT MY GOAL. So, stating it as a solution doesn't really help does it? And, frankly, mitigating randomness by gaming the DM is not something I'm interested in.

Because, no matter what you do, you are front and center of your players. You have to be, because the only way to mitigate randomness is to convince you, the DM, that my idea is good enough. I am not interested in that kind of play anymore. Been there, done that, found it not to my taste.

If you were able to look back at the playtest forums for D&D 5e both here and on the old WotC forums, you'd see me making the "gaming the DM" argument. I was very much for a similar style of play you currently prefer having been playing D&D 4e for 6 years up to that point and D&D 3.Xe for 8 years prior to that. But I came to realize that was simply describing a degenerate form of play which is all you and others are attacking in this thread, that nobody with whom you're engaging plays. It was me grasping at straws trying to cast the worst possible light on a playstyle I commonly saw in my AD&D 2e days. And though I ultimately lost that argument given the rules that were published, luckily, that's not the kind of playstyle the D&D 5e rules suggest adopting. And neither do the rules suggest playing this game as if it were D&D 3.Xe or D&D 4e either. So I do what I do now because that's what the rules suggest and my game has not suffered for it. I thus dropped the "gaming the DM" argument because it simply doesn't apply to the way I and some of the others here represent. It's a strawman and it's not a good look to argue against it.

As for mitigating randomness (or rather its effects), you don't spend Inspiration or otherwise seek out advantage? You don't make character builds to improve your odds of success? That's effectively the same thing. Some players just take that one step further and try to reduce that randomness to zero.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], by and large, most attacks are virtually identical. There's very little differentiating skill checks from attacks, other than you need to roll a LOT of attacks vs few or even only a single skill check to resolve things. But, looking at a single attack and a single skill check, there isn't a whole lot of difference.

----
[MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] - What is the good stuff? I dunno. Things like plot, characterization, building on themes, exploration, things that actually further the story, combat (I won't like, I likes me the hack), delving into themes, and probably other stuff I'm forgetting.

Unlocking that door? Talking to nameless guard #27? Searching the fifteenth chest for a trap? Yeah, not the good stuff.

 

[iserith]

I don't doubt that, but I think it also takes a while for players (and DM) to make an adjustment. I know when I introduce your version to players who aren't used to it, it does bog the game down.

Sure, some retraining is often required to undo the work of other DMs. That may be true of any change in playstyle. Apples to apples though, with players and DMs of either playstyle of more or less equal experience, there's no loss of speed. It's a bogus claim. How fast a session runs has very little to do with this and a lot more to do with player readiness.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ok, there's no way I can catch up on even 4 more pages. I have one more contribution and then I think I'd better bow out of this thread before it sucks down enough time to write a novel:

I am guessing that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] are coming from very different campaign/adventure structures. Hussar has made a bunch of references to dungeon crawls with repetitive checks. In which case his stance makes some sense. Just taking lockpicking as an example, if the players encounter lots of locked doors and chests in a game then, yeah, I can see why it might get tedious to feel like you have to run through the same checklist of actions every time.

On the other hand, Hussar himself talks about getting through those rolls quickly to "get to the good stuff". As he said, "nobody ever tells the story of the time the picked the lock." My question would be: if picking locks isn't considered "good stuff", why even include it? What value do all those locks add? (I think that was [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION]'s point.)

I think [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s approach is probably different. I suspect if there's a lock the players encounter, it can either easily be picked by one of the players, thus requiring no roll, or it can not be picked by any of the players, in which case there is no roll, or it's a highlight of the plot, and the players have already obtained clues about this particular lock, so "roleplaying" through attempting to open it isn't a matter of blindman's bluff, running through everything the players can think of. The players will say, "Oh, wait! Remember we found that Thingamajig! I bet that will help us pick the lock!" And, presto...it does! No roll needed.

This example is weak, but do I think that structured this way it is quite conceivable that the players might, years later, fondly remember the time they successfully picked a lock.

That's it for me. Good luck, all.

 

[Hussar]

So you've never had a character cast a spell or use a magic item that allows you to achieve success instead of attempt to do the same thing by "making a skill check?"



They don't want to "make skill checks." Why would they?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe they're playing a class that focuses on skills perhaps? Like a bard or a rogue? What's the point of making skill checks irrelevant when a major portion of my character is centered around making skill checks?

The player's role and responsibility is to describe what they want to do. The DM decides if that an ability check is required to resolve uncertainty as the outcome if there's a meaningful consequence of failure. Those are the rules of this game.

Ok, and, that, right there, is pretty much the reason we're not going to agree. You can point to the rules until you're blue in the face. I DO NOT CARE. I really, really, really don't care. Not even just a little tiny bit. I absolutely, 100% do not die a fetid dingo's kidney what the rules state.

So, stripping out a single line, that, IME, was included as a milksop to earlier edition players, isn't going to change my mind. It really isn't.

The more calls you make as DM, the better you get at making good calls consistently. As with any skill, the more you do it, the better you get at it. I think that may apply to poker players, too, right?

You'd think. Unfortunately, doesn't appear to be true since we've got an example IN THIS THREAD from a very experienced DM which demonstrates that it's not that cut and dried.

snip

But I came to realize that was simply describing a degenerate form of play which is all you and others are attacking in this thread, that nobody with whom you're engaging plays.

/snip

As for mitigating randomness (or rather its effects), you don't spend Inspiration or otherwise seek out advantage? You don't make character builds to improve your odds of success? That's effectively the same thing. Some players just take that one step further and try to reduce that randomness to zero.

Well, it walks like a duck and talks like a duck. AFAIC, it's a duck. And, since I don't like the play style you are advocating, I'm very unlikely to call it a swan barring some far more compelling evidence than, "Well, in my game, we do this".

This is an old play style. It's been around for years. Fair enough. It's obviously got its proponents. I'm not one of them. It simply isn't fun for me.

And, the notion that the goal of the skill system is to eliminate the skill system isn't really helping your argument. "We play this way so that we don't have to engage the mechanics of the game" is not exactly praising your play style to some one who has no issues with those mechanics.

I have no problems with the 5e skill system. Or, nothing serious anyway. So, proposing a play style where the stated goal is not actually using the system isn't going to score any points with me.

Again, I think the biggest issue I have here, or at least one of the bigger ones, is the complete unwillingness of proponents to admit to any flaws in the system. I have no problems telling you the flaws in what I do. It's shallow. It's facile. It skips over lots of stuff, including stuff that, potentially could be quite interesting.

Now, those are flaws that don't really bother me. I don't care that I reduce that guard interaction to a 30 second die roll and move on. Does not bother me in the slightest. If the players actually wanted to interact with that guard, they would.

IOW, I trust that my players will TELL me what they find interesting, rather than me trying to force every situation to be interesting by forcing the players to narrate in situations where they are really not interested.

 

[iserith]

Ok, there's no way I can catch up on even 4 more pages. I have one more contribution and then I think I'd better bow out of this thread before it sucks down enough time to write a novel:

I am guessing that @Hussar and @iserith are coming from very different campaign/adventure structures. Hussar has made a bunch of references to dungeon crawls with repetitive checks. In which case his stance makes some sense. Just taking lockpicking as an example, if the players encounter lots of locked doors and chests in a game then, yeah, I can see why it might get tedious to feel like you have to run through the same checklist of actions every time.

On the other hand, Hussar himself talks about getting through those rolls quickly to "get to the good stuff". As he said, "nobody ever tells the story of the time the picked the lock." My question would be: if picking locks isn't considered "good stuff", why even include it? What value do all those locks add? (I think that was @Bawylie's point.)

I think @iserith's approach is probably different. I suspect if there's a lock the players encounter, it can either easily be picked by one of the players, thus requiring no roll, or it can not be picked by any of the players, in which case there is no roll, or it's a highlight of the plot, and the players have already obtained clues about this particular lock, so "roleplaying" through attempting to open it isn't a matter of blindman's bluff, running through everything the players can think of. The players will say, "Oh, wait! Remember we found that Thingamajig! I bet that will help us pick the lock!" And, presto...it does! No roll needed.

This example is weak, but do I think that structured this way it is quite conceivable that the players might, years later, fondly remember the time they successfully picked a lock.

That's it for me. Good luck, all.

Yes, certain aspects of the objections being voiced do seem to center more on the DM presenting boring content rather than how it's all resolved. I mentioned this in a post upthread. That's not an issue with the playstyle but rather the DM's content. I love dungeons. You will not be bored if I decide that unlocking multiple doors or chests is one of the challenges. They will all be unique and interesting.

As an example, in an adventure I adapted as a one-shot ("Secret Party House of the Hill Giant Playboy"), I wanted to play up chest interactions as a thing for that adventure because it had a very old school vibe to it. So I put six chests in the adventure location, each one unique, locked in particular ways, trapped in other ways, set in places that were interesting to get to, and containing novel and interesting treasures that were fun to pick over. I tend to run one-shots multiple times with different pickup groups and one of things that the players like doing is comparing notes after the game to see who did what. The chests came up in discussion again and again as the highlight of the game because I took the time to make that content interesting.

 

[iserith]

Oh, I don't know. Maybe they're playing a class that focuses on skills perhaps? Like a bard or a rogue? What's the point of making skill checks irrelevant when a major portion of my character is centered around making skill checks?

You'll definitely make ability checks if you're adventuring, especially since we're not spending a lot of time on things where there are no real stakes involved. In those situation, you can't always remove uncertainty and/or the meaningful consequence of failure. Having a good number of skill proficiencies makes it so that when you do have to make ability checks, you've got an edge.

Ok, and, that, right there, is pretty much the reason we're not going to agree. You can point to the rules until you're blue in the face. I DO NOT CARE. I really, really, really don't care. Not even just a little tiny bit. I absolutely, 100% do not die a fetid dingo's kidney what the rules state.

So, stripping out a single line, that, IME, was included as a milksop to earlier edition players, isn't going to change my mind. It really isn't.

You don't have to agree. That those are the rules is a statement of fact. And it's why I don't run and play this game as if it is some other game.

You'd think. Unfortunately, doesn't appear to be true since we've got an example IN THIS THREAD from a very experienced DM which demonstrates that it's not that cut and dried.

All that shows is that one call was not perfect. It does not disprove my assertion that this is a skill that can be worked on.

Well, it walks like a duck and talks like a duck. AFAIC, it's a duck. And, since I don't like the play style you are advocating, I'm very unlikely to call it a swan barring some far more compelling evidence than, "Well, in my game, we do this".

This is an old play style. It's been around for years. Fair enough. It's obviously got its proponents. I'm not one of them. It simply isn't fun for me.

And, the notion that the goal of the skill system is to eliminate the skill system isn't really helping your argument. "We play this way so that we don't have to engage the mechanics of the game" is not exactly praising your play style to some one who has no issues with those mechanics.

I have no problems with the 5e skill system. Or, nothing serious anyway. So, proposing a play style where the stated goal is not actually using the system isn't going to score any points with me.

Again, I think the biggest issue I have here, or at least one of the bigger ones, is the complete unwillingness of proponents to admit to any flaws in the system. I have no problems telling you the flaws in what I do. It's shallow. It's facile. It skips over lots of stuff, including stuff that, potentially could be quite interesting.

Now, those are flaws that don't really bother me. I don't care that I reduce that guard interaction to a 30 second die roll and move on. Does not bother me in the slightest. If the players actually wanted to interact with that guard, they would.

IOW, I trust that my players will TELL me what they find interesting, rather than me trying to force every situation to be interesting by forcing the players to narrate in situations where they are really not interested.

I'm not saying you have to like the playstyle under discussion. But I am telling you which of your assertions about it are completely bogus.

 

[Hussar]

All that shows is that one call was not perfect. It does not disprove my assertion that this is a skill that can be worked on.

Kinda like how your claims that your games are not slowed down by your playstyle shows only that YOUR GAMES are not slowed down by the playstyle? That claims that your play style will not ever result in slow downs so long as the DM becomes proficient in the style are somehow universal, but, pointing out examples in this thread don't mean that many DM's are not game designers and have a poor grasp of risk/benefit calculations?

Yeah, I'm going to take a page from [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] on this one. Anyone who insists on the perfection of their game, (even your treasure chests are a testament to the wonder of your game) is just not going to make any sort of discussion meaningful.

You do you. I'll do me. We'll both be happy.

 

[Imaculata]

Oh, I don't know. Maybe they're playing a class that focuses on skills perhaps? Like a bard or a rogue? What's the point of making skill checks irrelevant when a major portion of my character is centered around making skill checks?

Characters with a specialisation in a particular skill will always have an advantage compared to characters that don't. But within the fiction of the game, there are situations where it simply doesn't make sense for a character to fail based on his stated approach. For example, if a character is unable to open a wooden box, and so he decides to smash it, obviously that will work. Why would you still need a skillcheck for that? I don't believe in making my players roll for something if the outcome for failure is identical to that of success. That is a waste of everyone's time, and it also devalues the act of rolling dice in my opinion. When players roll in my campaign, it always matters. When it doesn't matter, they don't roll any dice.

One of the players in my group has invested a lot in disabling traps. So when he needs to open a simple wooden box that is locked, why would I ask him to make a roll? He has such a high bonus on the skill, that he simply cannot fail at some DC's. It's an auto success basically, so what does rolling the dice add? We all know what the outcome is going to be before he rolls a single die.

Ok, and, that, right there, is pretty much the reason we're not going to agree. You can point to the rules until you're blue in the face. I DO NOT CARE. I really, really, really don't care. Not even just a little tiny bit. I absolutely, 100% do not die a fetid dingo's kidney what the rules state.

So does this entire argument just revolve around you using houserules?

Kinda like how your claims that your games are not slowed down by your playstyle shows only that YOUR GAMES are not slowed down by the playstyle? That claims that your play style will not ever result in slow downs so long as the DM becomes proficient in the style are somehow universal, but, pointing out examples in this thread don't mean that many DM's are not game designers and have a poor grasp of risk/benefit calculations?

I think this is a bit of an unfair argument. Every style of DM'ing benefits from practice and repetition; you get better at it over time. So one example of a bad ruling is no indication that the style itself is bad. Speaking as someone who uses a similar style of DM'ing as @iserith, I've been getting a lot of compliments from my players lately over the way I make rulings. They've noticed a positive difference. I think that says something.

 

[Sadras]

I find both approaches work well during a session as @Elfcrusher mentioned they both have positives and that is what I take out of it. If I need some more nuance about an action declaration, I request the PC to provide me with some more details. The players generally pick up the die earlier than I'd like, but that is an inherent issue - players like their die.

We have limited game-time these days and that (along with the PC's level) very much informs my preferred playstyle - so I'm not going to have 10 empty rooms (as an example of repetitiveness) that will need to be searched. There are shortcuts and I very much take them:
Say Yes where there are no stakes, montage exploration...etc and the like. I'm only going to engage in meaningful descriptive action declarations where I believe them to be needed.

Sometimes I let them roll even with the "button press-type" action declaration, because should they roll, I might use that to inject some on-the-spot creativity in the fiction, something unscripted that might lead to something interesting.

i.e. They are searching an empty room (I have nothing planned), the player is eager to roll, I let them roll. They succeed, they find nothing, should they fail I inject a complication - As they examine the impeccably smooth wall slabs, a myriad incorporeal hands reach out from the wall in an attempt to touch the investigating PCs, the veil of illusion drops as the wall reveals itself to be a writhing mass of incorporeal undead all seemingly bounded uncomfortably together in haphazard fashion....