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

[iserith]

It's not a player's call in YOUR game.

It's not a player's call per the rules. The rules inform my approach.

What you see as rules, I see as advice. Good advice for those that want to play that way. Bad advice for those that don't. I certainly don't see this as rules. And, the notion of such a hard divide between player and DM roles is not something I enjoy. I WANT the players to have as much control over the game as I possibly can give them. I am not interested in having such a hard divide in roles.

We know. But you made an assertion about the DM's role in my game and I responded with what I'm actually doing.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But, as to the second question, is the DC the same regardless of what their character's do, yes, it's an absolute DC. You can describe it however you like, but, frankly the DC isn't going to change. To me, that's the only way to be fair and consistent. I have one player who is utterly tongue tied when trying to talk to NPC's. He just isn't very good at it. And, really, he isn't terribly interested in the whole "funny voices" aspect of gaming. While, OTOH, I have a player who really has the gift of the gab and can come up with excellent approaches very quickly on the fly.

Sorry, but, I refuse to penalize one or reward the other. They both have the same DC to persuade that guard. Maybe, if I'm honest, I'm a bit freer with Inspiration with the second guy because he makes me laugh more often (although, again, I encourage the group to award Inspiration rather than rely on me), but, hey, no one's perfect.

Oh my. That seems like an incredibly narrow way of defining roleplaying. So much so that I'm wondering if you misunderstood the question, or if I misunderstand your response.

There are LOTS of ways to narrate what your character does, without having to act it out or use funny voices. Roleplaying works perfectly well in 2nd person.

So, no, I'm not talking about judging the quality of the acting, or ask if you, yourself, are persuaded. I'm talking about describing how one's character goes about doing something, and judging the likely effectiveness of that strategy.

Would you really give the same DC to find something hidden in a chest to a player who says, "Can I roll Investigation" and one who says "I'll look in the chest?"

Or the same DC to Persuade somebody to a player who says, "Can I roll Persuade" as opposed to one who uses known information about the subject to propose something that would likely persuade him?

Here's a specific example: you're using a published adventure and there is a locked chain. The notes say it's a DC 18 to pick the lock, or DC 22 to break the chain. A player thinks for a minute and says, "Hey, I'm going to go back to the room with that polished steel chariot axle, get it, and use it as a lever to break the chain."

Are you REALLY not going to give that person a lower DC?

 

[Bawylie]

Ok “roll everything” crew -

A hypothetical. You’re the DM. You’ve posed a scenario in which adventurers have to overcome some obstacle - let’s say give a password or something. Or punch in a combination. Something like that such that there’s a right answer, wrong answers, and the ability to roll some check to bypass the obstacle.

If I, a hypothetical player in this hypothetical scenario, guess the password/ combo correctly on my first try, are you having me roll the dice anyway? What if I’m correct but my ability check fails?

What if I take an action in your game - a manifestly correct action by any reasonable account - and my die roll fails?

 

[Hussar]

Oh my. That seems like an incredibly narrow way of defining roleplaying. So much so that I'm wondering if you misunderstood the question, or if I misunderstand your response.

There are LOTS of ways to narrate what your character does, without having to act it out or use funny voices. Roleplaying works perfectly well in 2nd person.

So, no, I'm not talking about judging the quality of the acting, or ask if you, yourself, are persuaded. I'm talking about describing how one's character goes about doing something, and judging the likely effectiveness of that strategy.

Yup, that right there? That thing I underlined? I don't do that.

Would you really give the same DC to find something hidden in a chest to a player who says, "Can I roll Investigation" and one who says "I'll look in the chest?"

Absolutely. Why wouldn't I?

Or the same DC to Persuade somebody to a player who says, "Can I roll Persuade" as opposed to one who uses known information about the subject to propose something that would likely persuade him?

Why would the DC change? I might, if I'm thinking about it, give advantage, but, again, it's unlikely.

Here's a specific example: you're using a published adventure and there is a locked chain. The notes say it's a DC 18 to pick the lock, or DC 22 to break the chain. A player thinks for a minute and says, "Hey, I'm going to go back to the room with that polished steel chariot axle, get it, and use it as a lever to break the chain."

Are you REALLY not going to give that person a lower DC?

Ok, now, this is a bit different. You've actually changed the parameters of the scenario by adding in the chariot axle (although, to be honest, the notion that the character would actually know that the axle was "polished steel" is exceptionally small. There might be a chariot, but, it's very, very unlikely I would ever be that detailed in a description). Using a tool to get advantage? Sure. That's pretty much par for the course. DC doesn't change though.

Now, maybe you don't think the axle idea would work. After all, maybe you can't get the wheels off the axle, or you, the DM, think that the chain is too tight to wedge the axle inside. Does that mean that the player automatically fails?

Bawylie

Ok “roll everything” crew -

A hypothetical. You’re the DM. You’ve posed a scenario in which adventurers have to overcome some obstacle - let’s say give a password or something. Or punch in a combination. Something like that such that there’s a right answer, wrong answers, and the ability to roll some check to bypass the obstacle.

If I, a hypothetical player in this hypothetical scenario, guess the password/ combo correctly on my first try, are you having me roll the dice anyway? What if I’m correct but my ability check fails?

What if I take an action in your game - a manifestly correct action by any reasonable account - and my die roll fails?

Why are you guessing random combinations. Honestly, I probably don't even KNOW what the combination is. The combination is whatever you decide it is AFTER you successfully make your check. So, no, you could never guess the combination, since I, the DM, would never know what it is.

 

[Sadras]

You are claiming "middle path" here, but, to me, it's the DM's judgement as to whether or not a skill check should be made. And the reason he's forcing (not granting, because the players don't actually want a skill check) is because the DM isn't convinced that the players have removed uncertainty. The only way the players can remove that uncertainty is to convince the DM.

Thus, we're right back to gaming the DM.

Sure, in a sense, but the DM is the one designing/preparing the adventure. The players share no role in the design and preparation of adventures, therefore in such instances would the DM not be the most informed, especially over his/her NPCs or challenges being framed?

You have mentioned within this thread about the DMs and players being equal and yet players have the ability to Say No when it comes to their own creations when they believe there is no uncertainty, but when it comes to the DM's NPCs or framing of challenges he/she appears not to be afforded the same latitude at your table.

 

[pemerton]

I can't see all the posts in these exchanges due to blocks, but from what I can see in quotes or the like, it seems to me that players going straight to ability checks to resolve traps or social interactions is not so much an argument for expediency in play as it is an argument for the DM to not present boring or simplistic content the players would rather skip.

Something like a decade ago on these boards I posted that the real function of Perception and Diplomacy in 3E is as a player-side reframing device:

Perception: The GM says "You see a room with XYZ," player makes Perception check, GM responds "OK, you see a room with PQR."

Diplomacy: The GM says "You see an angry person," player makesd Diplomacy check, GM responds "OK, you see a friendly person."​

That said, I think my RPGing involves more checks than yours. On the weekend I ran The Dying Earth, and the centrepiece of that system is back-and-forth checks to find out who persuades whom to do what silly thing. And in my Classic Traveller game I follow the game rules pretty closely, and they call for checks in all sorts of situations.

This may be a function of system, but it may also be that I prefer systems that lean more towards "say 'yes' or roll the dice" rather than the "Middle Way" approach you've described in this thread. (Whether fictional positioning within the situation affects the dice roll is for me a system thing. In 4e, Prince Valiant, Classic Traveller and The Dying Earth, typically yes. In Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP, frequently no (because of the way dice pools are put together in that system).)

Where I would say my approach differs from the "reframing" approach is that I see these checks mostly as a way to evolve the fictional position within a framing, rather than to reframe. I'm happy to accept that this, and related notions like the stakes "evolving" or "crystallising" as opposed to just "changing", are matters of degree rather than sharp distinctions. I still think it's a real difference, though.

In D&D rulebooks, I think the 4e DMG's description of skill challenge adjudication is the best account of this sort of thing. But one thing it's a bit weak on is what I think is the most important feature of this way of GMing: that there be no predetermined expectation (or even menu of expectations) as to the resolution of the situation - so the dice results, rerolls when they occur, etc, can be followed where they lead.

That means that my approach doesn't lend itself well to eg "house full of traps" scenarios, or "get the info dump from the quest-giver" scenarios. Nor anything which involves working through a pre-established map/key/event-list/etc.

EDIT: I thought I'd give a very short example of what I mean about checks to evolve a situation and its stakes, with reference to something I recently posted in another thread:

The last thing I can think of as dissapointing in a game session would be a year or so ago in Traveller: the PCs were in a domed city on a world with a corrosive atmosphere, with their ATV and some vacc suits. And I was pretty determined that I was going to get them out of the dome in their vehicle and suits to see what happened. And I did! - but in the course of that I discovered that the on-world exploration rules in Traveller are probably the weakest sub-system in the rulebook, bogging down with no guarantee of a resolution. I pulled out of it in the next session and the actual firefight in vacc-suits was excellent, including snagged oxygen hoses and shattered face plates and desperate crawling into air-locks and all the stuff that I'd been hoping for.

So the reason that the on-world exploration stuff didn't work very well is that the rules tell you how to check for breakdowns, and terrain difficulties, and the like, but don't have a system for determining whether your get where you want to go and what it costs. (They assume that there is a map, and the players are calling directions, and the vehicle movement rate is applied. I don't like that approach in general, and in a sci-fi world-hopping game I think it's close to dysfunctional, though maybe good if the publisher has a lot of world map supplements to sell!)

What was good about the firefight was that the system supported tight resolution via checks at every point. Eg I crawl up to the pillbox, which is a potentially risky manoeuvre in a vacc suit so triggers the check rule for that, check fails, so now something bad has happened (I narrated a snagged oxygen hose) and then as per the rules that triggers another, harder, check to escape the situation, that fails too, so now the hose has ripped off and the character only has the air that was still in her suit, and we resolve the consequences of that.

Or, after the pill-box is taken, the player of the smallest lithest PC declares I squeeze through the slit, and again that triggers a risky manoeuvre check, which fails and so his suit is wedged - he pulls himself through anyway and so leaves the bottom half of his suit behind, and so we apply the damage rules for corrosive atmosphere (which had to be extrapolated from the rules for vacuum but that wasn't too hard) and then he makes a decision, inside the pill box, about whether to try and mix-and-match suit (he has a top half, the dead NPC in the pill-box has a shattered faceplate but an intact bottom half) or go through the air-lock that I narrate as being in the floor of the pill-box - he opts for the latter, and (as best I recall) I say "yes" rather than calling for a check because the "atmosphere" drama seems done and now it's about getting the rest of the crew into the enemy base and how that's going to play out.

I would say that while checks are determining in-fiction success, at the table they're not just about, or even so much about, player success but also/rather modulation of pacing/drama - is the situation getting hairier, or under control? (This breaks down a bit when what's at stake is PC death, which can happen in Classic Traveller. But in the example of play I'm currently describing, we never got there and so I didn't have to worry about it!)

 

[5ekyu]

Ok “roll everything” crew -

A hypothetical. You’re the DM. You’ve posed a scenario in which adventurers have to overcome some obstacle - let’s say give a password or something. Or punch in a combination. Something like that such that there’s a right answer, wrong answers, and the ability to roll some check to bypass the obstacle.

If I, a hypothetical player in this hypothetical scenario, guess the password/ combo correctly on my first try, are you having me roll the dice anyway? What if I’m correct but my ability check fails?

What if I take an action in your game - a manifestly correct action by any reasonable account - and my die roll fails?

Ok so, I am not a roll everything crew. I have yet to see anyone here who claims to be.

But i will tackle your question.

The situation you describe as one with a clear, pre-determined there is a right way, a one true way to best it without a check.

So, if *I had posed that* and someone guessed the right thing in character then they guess it. If they then try it, then they get the results.

But, what you describe is such a minute number of cases in games I run, it's not even a blip on the balance between the success determined by GM and the success determined hy action and dkill.

More likely to occur is that the guessing password is related to some in-game information that ties to both in-game blues and to some characters' proficiencies, class, background so that the "guessing game" is what they are left with if all else fails. In those cases, tho, its entirely likely that the random playing cards dealt me by the players at the beginning of the tun play a role in the solution rather than random guessing.

Another possibility to occur is that the key to a lock is somewhere and if you acquired the key the lock opens easily. That establishes a non-guessing pass automatically. But again, small number of cases.

 

[Hussar]

Sure, in a sense, but the DM is the one designing/preparing the adventure. The players share no role in the design and preparation of adventures, therefore in such instances would the DM not be the most informed, especially over his/her NPCs or challenges being framed?

You have mentioned within this thread about the DMs and players being equal and yet players have the ability to Say No when it comes to their own creations when they believe there is no uncertainty, but when it comes to the DM's NPCs or framing of challenges he/she appears not to be afforded the same latitude at your table.

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding you here. For one, the players can have a significant role in the design of adventures in a more sandbox environment - after all they tell the DM they want to do X. If the group says they want to go hunt griffons (for example), I'm going to be pretty sure to have griffons in their near future.

Note, I don't mean that they are equal. It's impossible in D&D to have equal roles. But, there is a significant difference between, "The DM has 100% control over anything that the players can't directly do" and "The players have a fair bit of latitude when deciding to engage game mechanics".

I'm not sure what you mean by the players having the abiltiy to say no. Say no to what?

 

[5ekyu]

Yup, that right there? That thing I underlined? I don't do that.



Absolutely. Why wouldn't I?



Why would the DC change? I might, if I'm thinking about it, give advantage, but, again, it's unlikely.



Ok, now, this is a bit different. You've actually changed the parameters of the scenario by adding in the chariot axle (although, to be honest, the notion that the character would actually know that the axle was "polished steel" is exceptionally small. There might be a chariot, but, it's very, very unlikely I would ever be that detailed in a description). Using a tool to get advantage? Sure. That's pretty much par for the course. DC doesn't change though.

Now, maybe you don't think the axle idea would work. After all, maybe you can't get the wheels off the axle, or you, the DM, think that the chain is too tight to wedge the axle inside. Does that mean that the player automatically fails?



Why are you guessing random combinations. Honestly, I probably don't even KNOW what the combination is. The combination is whatever you decide it is AFTER you successfully make your check. So, no, you could never guess the combination, since I, the DM, would never know what it is.

Of course, there is a difference between "hidden in desk" and just "in desk."

Is something is " in the desk", its gonna be found pretty much by both parties since both are searching unless I get told at some point (by direct statement or our common parlance that someone is not looking in the desk. If there is any question, they get asked. But the assumption of competence is that searching a room with a desk will include looking in the desk.

After they get yo the desk, that's where the hidden or not kicks in and the DC or not.

As for tools that help, that falls squarely on advantage by the DMG standards.

But, again, DCs are set based on the task in my game. Based on a consistent set of thrm that is explained to the players day one. One that is show in narrative descriptions. When they discover an out of whack dc with what we see DC they treat it in character as a clue.

 

[5ekyu]

[MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] Thanks for a good post to spring off of to set up a question of balance that may help frame the discussion and differences.
.

In their post above a hypothetical case is put forth...
"A hypothetical. You’re the DM. You’ve posed a scenario in which adventurers have to overcome some obstacle - let’s say give a password or something. Or punch in a combination. Something like that such that there’s a right answer, wrong answers, and the ability to roll some check to bypass the obstacle."

In this case the GM has put a challenge before the party with both of the following presdnted:
1 An absolute correct answer - if I do this, if I say this literally in this case, I get thru. No checks, no character skills needed. Just pick/guess the right key/way AS PLAYER and walk thru. There may even be more than one absolute answer - more than one just "choose the win."
2 A way to use a CHARACTER's skill check (ability check) to get thru. May be more than one way to "check the win."

So, this is I think at part striking at the core of that "balance" the DMG mentions in its Middle Path and the others.

How often do you have challenges that matter that are*:
A only solvable by #1
B only solvable by #2
C that are solvable by either #1 or #2
D Only solvable by both #1 and #2 used in tandem

* Perhaps this is better expressed as "how often does our resolution process result in cases actually being solved by:" since that is what the players see in play and that shapes their views going forward.

That is what to me some of the primary disagreements on playstyles here is deriving from- our different views of balance between those.

How we balance those, that set of spices, in the recipes of our games determines the relative value of skills and ability checks to other options.

If our outlook as GM says there will be a lot of A & C, few if any B and a smattering of D, then we are setting that balance to one side of that path - one which says "the emphasize skills route is not that valuable. We may get to the point where to the players it looks like making a skill check is even "a bad choice" since there is so often a non-roll solution available it's really a case where actually using your character skill bonus is the consolation game, you already lost the auto-win.

So, to me a key point is that #1 is not relating to a character trait and #2 brings players choices about who their character is, what they are good at and bad at into play more directly.

As a result in my games for challenges that matter and involve ability checks, A is almost never a case I use, B is easily 50% of the ones I use and both C and D likely split the remainder relatively close. That's rough guess, not tabulated results.

But it seems to work for us because it gives those who focused on being better at ability checks more than a second hand role - behind A - when their choices to focus more on ability checks is actually in the spotlight.

This to me seems to balance how "focus on weapons and fighting and "focus on magic" works with how "focus on skills or ability checks does." In my games, during challenges where there are enemies, the "fighting guy" and the "caster guy" rarely if ever find that there is a " just choose the win way that puts their fighying and casting to the backup plan less likely to succeed.

But, as I have said, each of us has our own place where we see "balance" and " imbalance" and to me I tend to judge it as described here.