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

[S'mon]

I can see this, but it still seems a bit odd - shouldn't good CHA/Perception/Persuasion make it more likely that the NPC can project an impression of You read me as sincere?

Well in this case it was a 'used car salesman' slaver who the PCs had reason to distrust - they were supposed to be capturing her for a crime boss & bringing her back for torture and execution. IME high Deception IRL doesn't really correlate to a general impression of sincerity!

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Here's the thing though: I (and others, no doubt) practice the "middle path." But those who are debating me (or us, as the case may be) are asserting that we're trying to ignore the dice (as the DMG puts it). You can see it in the assertions they make ("gaming the DM," "magic words," etc.) and the examples they use. Which is not true, from the DM's perspective. While the players should be trying to avoid rolling as much as possible (since the d20 is so unreliable), the DM is balancing out the dice and calls for automatic success over time, chiefly because there are factors in the environment that cannot be controlled by the PCs and that introduce uncertainty as to the outcome of a task and a meaningful consequence of failure - which is when we call for a roll.

All that to say, what you're seeing in this thread are strawman arguments and statements of preference against approaches that myself and others do not employ. So one wonders what they're arguing about at all.

Hang on though. You specifically stated that the goal of your style of play is to minimize die rolling. That the purpose of the descriptions provided by the players was to ensure that rolling doesn't happen.

How is that a strawman to say that that's not a balanced approach? To me, if your goal is to minimize die rolling, that's not the middle path. I mean, heck, right in THIS QUOTE, you are stating that the goal of your playstyle is to avoid rolling as much as possible.

Which, to me, means that the DM must judge when rolling is appropriate. After all, the players can't. So, if the player's goal is to minimize die rolling and the DM's role is the judge their attempts, how do you avoid gaming the DM? Isn't the player's goal pretty much directly tied to how well they can convince the DM?

WHere's the strawman here?

LOok, not every disagreement is a logical fallacy. When someone actually takes your specific argument and can show that your specfic point leads to an undesirable (from my point of view anyway) outcome, how is that a strawman?

Why can't folks actually come up with points without trying to score? You say I'm misrepresenting you somehow. I'm not seeing it at all. Claiming that it only applies to a "degenerative" form of your playstyle doesn't really convince me when THE WHOLE POINT of your play style is to convince the DM that a die roll isn't necessary.

 

[Hussar]

Would just like to say that there have been some really fantastic points raised in the past couple of pages. And I sincerely mean that for both sides of the fence. I know I come across as abrasive. I can't help it. I try to write in a pretty formal style which, I know annoys folks. I've never been able to break the habit.

Anyway, the two examples above that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is using are really excellent IMO. Needless to say, I would rule them slightly differently.

In the first example, the fighter is trying to bluff the bandit king. How this would work at my table would likely be (and, remember, I use Fantasy Grounds which allows players to make rolls that only the DM can see - it does speed things up considerably). Note, it's also entirely possible that this would be done in first person, I'm not going to bother here just because it's quicker. Imagine the in character speech happening. Some of my players do, some don't.

Fighter - Ok, I tell the bandits we have a posse of 40 warriors outside, they must surrender. ((Rolls on the Die Tower - cannot see the results)).

DM - ((Results are high enough to beat the bandit's insight)) - With disgust they lower their weapons and you take them prisoner.
DM - ((Results Fail)) - They see through your bluff and attack (honestly, probably the most likely outcome).
((Resuts Fail)) - The Bandit leader commands one of his flunkies to go outside and look. WHat do you do? (an outcome that is only likely if I am having a good day and there is more information I want to get into the player's hands. Possible, but, frankly, not likely)

Or, reverse situation:

DM - The bandit leader tells you that he has 80 bandits ready to strike the town if you don't surrender.
Player: I try to see if he's lying. ((Rolls Insight))
Player 2 : is there any way I can help here? ((Not really)), Ok, I'll insight too.
DM: ((Success)) You see through his bluff. What do you do?
DM: ((Fail)) You don't know. What do you do?

IOW, the end results aren't all that different really. Only real difference is, I let the players leverage their characters rather than their ability to tell me things like "by gleaning clues from his body language, speech habits, and changers in mannerisms (approach)." Because, frankly, I have to assume that the if the player doesn't tell you these things, he will automatically fail, no? He's not allowed to just say, "I use Insight". He has to tell you how he's using insight. And, presumably, the player can't simply quote the PHB to you every time. I highly doubt that that's acceptable after the third or fourth time.

 

[iserith]

Hang on though. You specifically stated that the goal of your style of play is to minimize die rolling. That the purpose of the descriptions provided by the players was to ensure that rolling doesn't happen.

As I point out in the part of the post you quoted, that is the players' approach. As a player, one wants to position the character to succeed automatically. Or, failing that, gaining advantage and/or minimizing the DC and/or engaging in tasks for which the character has a good related ability score and skill proficiency. Why put your faith in a fickle d20 by asking to make checks (directly or indirectly) if success is your goal? That would be a terrible strategy.

The DM, by practicing the "middle path," balances ruling automatic success and calling for ability checks.

How is that a strawman to say that that's not a balanced approach? To me, if your goal is to minimize die rolling, that's not the middle path. I mean, heck, right in THIS QUOTE, you are stating that the goal of your playstyle is to avoid rolling as much as possible.

Which, to me, means that the DM must judge when rolling is appropriate. After all, the players can't. So, if the player's goal is to minimize die rolling and the DM's role is the judge their attempts, how do you avoid gaming the DM? Isn't the player's goal pretty much directly tied to how well they can convince the DM?

WHere's the strawman here?

LOok, not every disagreement is a logical fallacy. When someone actually takes your specific argument and can show that your specfic point leads to an undesirable (from my point of view anyway) outcome, how is that a strawman?

Why can't folks actually come up with points without trying to score? You say I'm misrepresenting you somehow. I'm not seeing it at all. Claiming that it only applies to a "degenerative" form of your playstyle doesn't really convince me when THE WHOLE POINT of your play style is to convince the DM that a die roll isn't necessary.

Here, again, you try to assert that what we're doing is the "ignoring the dice" method (as the DMG calls it) with all the "gaming the DM" and the "pixel-bitching" that comes with it. That's not the approach we're using as DMs. So when you criticize the approach as having those things, you're attacking a method we are not using.

 

[iserith]

IOW, the end results aren't all that different really. Only real difference is, I let the players leverage their characters rather than their ability to tell me things like "by gleaning clues from his body language, speech habits, and changers in mannerisms (approach)." Because, frankly, I have to assume that the if the player doesn't tell you these things, he will automatically fail, no? He's not allowed to just say, "I use Insight". He has to tell you how he's using insight. And, presumably, the player can't simply quote the PHB to you every time. I highly doubt that that's acceptable after the third or fourth time.

So as you show in your second example, one player is trying to give the other player advantage on the Insight check via working together on the task (or at least tries to). That is reasonable behavior if you're trying to succeed.

Now take it one step further as a player: Before asking the DM to make a check (which is not supported by the rules of this game, but we can ignore that for now), try to remove the uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence for failure so you don't have to roll at all. The DM can't call for an ability check if there is no uncertainty or meaningful consequence for failure. That may or may not be possible in this specific situation, but that is something the players are aiming for because, again, the d20 is nobody's friend - automatic success is more desirable if success at the least cost is the goal.

But, again, that is the player's goal. The DM is employing the "middle path" approach. In the example I wrote, the DM calls for ability checks because the players have not removed the uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence of failure.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Any time I see the phrase, "middle path" I automatically parse it as, "one true way".

 

[Guest 6801328]

See, by responding to an insight by telling me that the mechanic wants to make "a lot" of money, you are setting me up to believe he is lying to get more money.

But beyond that, you are telling me his goals, and if I rolled to find out a merchant wants to make money, I'd probably ask the DM if they want me to roll for realizing water is wet while I'm at it.

But what is their intent? Are they intent on gouging me for as much as I'm worth? Are they intent on providing the best service they can?

Because that is what the player is likely asking anyways, is that price a real price or an inflated price.

And frankly, why do this to someone anyways?

I've had cars that needed to go to mechanics constantly, and I hate dealing with that sort of "toss a coin, you don't know" BS. Are you really advocating putting players through that just for the sake of realism? Is the best they are going to get from insight things like "The farmer doesn't want to die" "The merchant wants to make money" "The King thinks you should listen to him"

The skill says it lets you figure out intentions. Is the mechanic intending to gouge me with false problems or inflated prices is a legit question, and your non-answer of "he wants to make a lot of money" means that we wasted our time, because I didn't need a skill roll to know that.

I may have phrased it poorly, but I think there's a difference between a merchant/mechanic "wanting to make money" (which is obvious) and the player/customer realizing that this particular merchant/mechanic is being greedy.

So let me elaborate a little bit.

First, if this is just a normal transaction, and the NPC is just a shop owner with no other role to play in the adventure, then I'm going to signal that to the players so they don't waste time. (And by "signal" I might mean something along the lines of, "He's just shop owner...he doesn't know anything.")

Now, I realize some people don't like that. They want the platonic ideal of a sandbox, where every NPC is a roleplaying opportunity that may lead to adventure. I don't like to play in games like that, and I don't run games like that. Table time is too scarce, and from my experience it's usually one player who wants to engage in a deep conversation with every NPC while everybody else sits around and fiddles with D&D Beyond. Also, I have very little interest in tracking copper pieces and haggling over prices. Unless something is going to cost a significant chunk of a character's stash I tend to hand-wave prices: I don't make players account for every mug of ale and night in an inn. So making skill checks (sorry, iserith, I meant ability checks with skill proficiency modifiers) to haggle over prices just doesn't interest me.

Ok, so with that out of the way, let's assume we're talking with an NPC who plays a more active role in the story. Somebody who, depending on how the interaction with the players go, could affect the outcome. And that's the core of it for me: will this interaction affect the trajectory of the story in a meaningful way? If so, then the merchant's...let's say he's a merchant...the merchant's "true intentions" matter. The players might, during negotiations (which itself, in my game, is a signal that this NPC is relevant) over a price for something, glean that he:
- Wants to gouge them
- Wants to be highly respected for his products/services
- Enjoys haggling for its own sake
- Is trying to rush them out the door
- Is trying to keep them here
- Doesn't want to do the work but won't say so
- Is fishing for something other than money
- Is lonely and just wants to talk

I lost momentum but with a little thought I could keep going. Do you see how each of those "true intentions" could be a hint as to the 'truth' of what he is saying, without it being a true/false lie detector? And maybe how using that clue as a basis to decide what to do next is a lot more fun than just rolling an 18, being told he's lying, and acting accordingly?

What clues did you seed into the world for Horse Trader #54 overcharging them for a riding horses?What series of events led to the clues the players will use when they randomly decide to search a traveling merchant's wagon that you only had pass by to deliver news of an orc presence to the south?

Clues and breadcrumbs work great for major plot points. For minor stuff that your player's blindside you with, not so much.

Hopefully what I wrote above addresses those questions/points.

My players recently broke into an enemy castle to free it from the influence of a cult of Orcus. The criminal asked to search for valuables and loot the place. It makes perfect sense, it also makes sense there are hidden treasures in the royal chambers. Didn't plan on it though, because mostly the paladin and cleric keep him reined in and not stealing everything (players are fine with the dynamic, and they all loved him turning it on them).

So, should I not have allowed him to search for treasures in the royal chambers?

No, that seems a ridiculous answer. But, I also wasn't going to spend 10 minutes coming up with answers and deciding DC's only to have him roll a 1 (or a 2 or a 3, I know auto-fails are a houserule). So he rolled, and I decided based on his roll. It saved time and let him do something in character that made total sense.

As I mentioned in a previous post, this is the perfect place to use straight up dice rolls. I might do something like, "Ok, it's going to take a few successes with a high DC, and every attempt takes a few minutes, during which I am going to roll to see if the guards stumble upon you. What do you want to do?" It's not just make a roll, and if you succeed you find treasure, if you fail you don't. There's no consequences to that, no trade-off. (And I think the core idea underlying all meaningful games, not just RPGs, is trade-offs.)

In fact, just in general I would say that if there's no downside to failing a roll, I would rather not have a roll. In combat, missing your sword swing is bad. At the very least there's an opportunity cost: you would have been better off taking the Dodge action. Or spending Inspiration. Or whatever.

In fact, in the merchant example above I struggle with having any die roll at all, for exactly that reason. I might simply give a clue to whoever has the highest Insight. Or spread them around, if there are several clues. Just because there's no cost to failure of an Insight check. (And consequences can help mitigate "Can I roll, too?" syndrome.)

(This is why I kind of like the idea of a "lie detector" sub-system/mini-game, using a combination of Insight, Investigation, Persuasion, and Deception, which is an intentional attempt to trap somebody in a lie. It can be done purely mechanically, with dice, preferably over several rounds of rolling, and can give you a binary answer*, but it comes with a trade-off: you can easily anger the NPC.

*binary in the sense that you can determine he is lying, or be unable to determine he is lying, but maybe can't 'prove' he is telling the truth.)

And I'll also add, a lot of my players don't have the mental space to remember all my clues. I'm lucky this semester to have a player willing to take notes we can refer back to, but we play in a weekly game and expecting someone to remember a clue that might have been given over 160 hours ago when they had an entire week full of other things to deal with.... Yeah, I'm only doing that for the big things in the main plot, it wouldn't make sense to try it any where else.

Yes, that's an issue. I also have a couple of players who take notes, and I also email around a synopsis before each session.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Oh, and for those who would rather roleplay lie detection than simply make it a roll: give the players a piece of information that the NPC wouldn't expect them to have. They can use that in conversation to find out if the NPC is lying. If they are struggling, a successful Insight check could result in, "You realize that the NPC doesn't know that you know X..."

To address Oofta's concern: no, you don't give them bits of info for every single NPC in the game, so they can find out if the innkeeper is lying. You save this for the NPC who's truth/insincerity is going to have impact on the story.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Any time I see the phrase, "middle path" I automatically parse it as, "one true way".

That certainly seems like a problem you should work on.

 

[Bawylie]

Any time I see the phrase, "middle path" I automatically parse it as, "one true way".

The Middle Path, or the via media, is a philosophical and religious concept going back thousands of years. It’s the explicit rejection of dogma (and zealotry) and the embrace of moderation. The idea is to find a workable mode of operation among extremes without yourself becoming compromised by those extremes.

So if you read it as “the one true way” you’re actually arriving at the opposite of its aim - that is the rejection of all such “one true ways.”

You might say that IS advocating one specific approach over all others. But it’s not. It’s more like recognizing the wide space area between alcoholic and teetotaler and navigating between those extremes. There’s space between All Dice For All Actions and Never Roll Ever. Speaking for myself, I’m only looking to navigate that space in a way that is fair, avoids the appearance of being unfair, enables players’ decisions to influence outcomes more than dice rolls influence outcomes, and facilitated play.

So insofar as it is One True Way, it’s a way that’s 10 miles wide with very few delineations. I don’t argue that you must play my way to the exclusion of all other modes of play. I’m only saying I found a path that’s reasonably effective, clear, direct, and safe. A middle path.

The DC to determine whether or not I’m truthful about my position is null - no matter what you might roll, this is my sincere position. If you did roll for everything, even a negative result would be a success here.