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

[Oofta]

It’s not about the player convincing the DM. It’s about the Player proposing an action based on the abilities, background, and proficiencies of their PC. You know, role playing.

Or it's about both RP which I have plenty along with appropriate use of skill checks that reward people for the decisions they've made while building their character. You now, balance and doing what people enjoy.

 

[iserith]

Also, as DMDave says, it's not "convincing the DM", although it is true that the DM has to adjudicate. But that's really no different that the DM setting the DC when playing by the straight "roll a skill" method.

From the DMG that no experienced DMs ever seem to read:

• "Consistency is a key to a believable fictional world."
• The DM is "...someone who is impartial yet involved in the game..."
• "...the DM is a natural fit to take on the referee role..."
• "A player tells the DM what he or she wants to do, and the DM determines whether it is successful or not, in some cases asking the player to make a die roll to determine success."

So the expectation is the DM is a consistent, impartial (yet involved) referee who determines success or failure, sometimes calling for a roll. If the DM is fulfilling these expectations, he or she is not being "convinced" or "gamed" as some - including myself once upon a time - call it. I just wish some would wise up and realize that concern describes a degenerate form of play, something to be avoided. The way to avoid that is to do this stuff above. And we don't need players pushing mechanics to achieve that goal.

 

[Oofta]

Wait...Insight check for what? The player didn't do anything, he/she just stated his/her beliefs. They are entitled to believe whatever they want. (Which varies from some posters, who believe an Insight check must be made, and success/failure dictates what the character has to believe, regardless of what the player wants.)

Good grief. Okay the player states "I study her closely looking for hints that she's not telling the truth." Or they simply state "Can I make an insight check. I don't believe her." Do you tell them they can't say those words? You tell the player that their PC can't be suspicious and try to discern the true intentions of the PC by "gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms." You know, make an insight check?

I don't believe there is such a skill in 5e.

Huh? Investigation and thieves tools proficiency are not used to find and disable traps?

....aaaaaannnnd you just described what @iserith has been evangelizing. Regardless of how you decide to adjudicate disarming the trap, once he fails all those options that you just listed are players taking actions based on the scene as described by the DM. The DM can now either grant success, grant failure, or ask for a dice roll if the outcome is uncertain.

Aaaannnnd I use a mix of tools to make the game enjoyable. Sometimes a straight roll, sometimes a more complex scene, sometimes a roll with a setback that sets up a complex scene.

Besides Iserith blocked me because he doesn't like that I question what he says. I've never blocked anyone, I doubt I ever will. Different people have different opinions; even if I disagree with someone I'm still open to other people's opinions.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Huh? Investigation and thieves tools proficiency are not used to find and disable traps?

Oh those skills. They are used for lots of things other than finding and disabling traps.

You made it sound like somebody specifically “invested” in finding and disabling traps, a la 3e.

Besides, if you treat all skills the same way, then nobody loses out for “investing” in the wrong skill.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Players can request that...but I do the rolling, behind the screen, then tell them something. I base the DC on how good the NPC is at Deception. Typically I'll choose the Deception DC based on the details of the interrogation/question. I mean, if the PC's have an NPC dead to rights with his hand holding a cookie and crumbs all over his shirt, "Did you eat the cookies?" will probably have a pretty low DC. Like, maybe 4 or 5. But if the NPC is completely confident and the PC's have virtually nothing to go on, the DC is probably in the high-teens to low 20's (18 to 22 or so), or maybe even higher.

Then I roll. If the Player beat the DC, I'll give him a REALLY strong hint, pretty much obvious: "You're pretty sure he's hiding something, and he gets visibly nervous to you when you mention the cookies going missing". But I NEVER say "Yeah, he's lieing". If the Player failed the DC, I'll either just say "Seems to be telling the truth", but if the Player failed miserably (by 10 points or more), I may give a slight hint the other way: "He seems to be telling the truth, but he did glance over at your half-orc hireling with a bit of a nervous look...". Or, of course, the other way around (so if the NPC is innocent, the PC might be told "He's definitely hiding something, and glances at your half-orc hireling..."...but what he's hiding may not be what the PC's are on about).

In short, Yes, but I roll in secret for the Player and I give a hint or strong hint. Ultimately it's up to the Player to decide what to do with the information. Making an Insight roll is not the same as casting Detect Lie.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Oofta]

Oh those skills. They are used for lots of things other than finding and disabling traps.

You made it sound like somebody specifically “invested” in finding and disabling traps, a la 3e.

Besides, if you treat all skills the same way, then nobody loses out for “investing” in the wrong skill.

Yes, because thieves tools are so useful for ... um ... dentistry? If someone has expertise in a toolkit or skill I try to reward them for it.

As far as "treating all skills the same" I have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yes, because thieves tools are so useful for ... um ... dentistry? If someone has expertise in a toolkit or skill I try to reward them for it.

Um...locks?!?!?! Maybe I've been playing wrong, but I've always let tools be applied to most/all locks, but relatively few traps.

In fact, upthread I thought I was being funny allowing Thieves' Tools proficiency to be used to "disarm" a poisoned doorknob, and since nobody commented I thought nobody noticed. But maybe you didn't see anything wrong with it?

As far as "treating all skills the same" I have no clue what you're talking about.

I was referring to the sentiment that it's not fair to not let people "roll skills" whenever they want to, after they had "invested" in them. Since the only thing you can spend those points on is skills, if I treat all skills the same way then nobody can make a "bad investment".

I suppose you could argue that somebody chose the Rogue class in order to be a skill monkey, and if I don't "let them" use their skills they are being cheated. I still give the rogues plenty to do (in fact I try to find things for everybody to use their proficiencies on) I just don't always ask for a roll. Nine times out of ten I'll just let somebody with Thieves' Tools proficiency open a lock without having to roll. (I'll sometimes say out loud, "Since you have proficiency..." just to let them know.)

 

[5ekyu]

Yes, because thieves tools are so useful for ... um ... dentistry? If someone has expertise in a toolkit or skill I try to reward them for it.

As far as "treating all skills the same" I have no clue what you're talking about.

Thieves tools are good for use in weaving. "In fact, those are weaving tools used in knitting and stitching, not lookpicks at all. Would you like to see some of my pieces, guardsman? I am particularly proud of the stitching on this one. It's a fashion all the rage among the young ladies in Waterdeep. No, no, you hang onto that and if your sweetie likes it come by and see me for more. We are always happy to work with fine keepers of the peace like yourself."

According to my halfling who is very very good with her "weaving tools"...

 

[iserith]

I suppose you could argue that somebody chose the Rogue class in order to be a skill monkey, and if I don't "let them" use their skills they are being cheated.

They're cheating themselves if they ask to roll a swingy d20. Outright success is always better than rolling, if succeeding is your goal. Good ability scores and skill proficiencies are just insurance against failure in case you do have to roll (which you will frequently enough if you're the sort of adventurer who is boldly confronting deadly perils).

 

[5ekyu]

Yes, because thieves tools are so useful for ... um ... dentistry? If someone has expertise in a toolkit or skill I try to reward them for it.

As far as "treating all skills the same" I have no clue what you're talking about.

Sometimes folks seem to think that if all of a set are treated the same, all skills treated the same, then there isnt a punished group.

I find that odd because class-by-class skills are varied in importance so, it's not like its just skill-vs-skill but its "four skills with expertise features" vs "two skills and action surge" etc.

Also, of course, some skills have direct in-combat gains where it's at least questionable whether the same degree of "talk your way to auto-success" happens.

But yeah, when some folks boil it down to processed and outlooks passed to their players about how getting to the dice is the losing strategy or however they want to phrase it, the idea of choosing builds or characters where significant features are focused on expertise and the like become - well - not what I would refer to as "maintaining a balance" between the options.

I can imagine a fighter player being told up front they should be working to not have to fight to get a better chance of success because they might lose fights.

But again, everybody has a different view of what balance is right for their groups.