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

[Bawylie]

I have not seen anyone who advocated a "player decisions dont matter" or a "roll everything" crowd. I haven't even seen a case where anyone is saying player decisions wont affect chances of success and fail at all during their game (as you make reference to "a game " in which those blah blah..

if you got cites for that, by all means post them. But i see what you are describing as a parody of what is being said.

Why?

Almost everybody in the "not the side of balance you prefer, i think" admits to using the advantage/disadvantage process for (mostly what the Gm describes as) things that would help or hinder success.

Additionally, there is the scope of success/fail, right? Are we talking success/fail on a check or success/fail at a goal?

Take combat, the player makes a ton of decisions, who to attack, who to heal, which weapon, do i rage or not, do i use sharpshooter or not, etc etc etc etc that *influence* the results of the actions but for the large number of them whether or not an individual action succeeds is in the hands of the dice (especially if it directly affects the adversaries.)

So, the descriptions don't always or necessarily even most of the time affect the die rolls or odds on the task level, but whether or not the choices of targets, timing etc make sense within the fight has a huge impact on whether or not the goal is achieved, the fight is won.

Consider a fight in which say a fighter was rolling randomly for each turn what their actions were (even if limited to who do i attack, where do i move and what weapons do i use) vs one where the player is choosing the actions for his character. I would suggest that in the vast majority of cases the fight would be more likely won by the latter, player choices, than the former.

So, even if the player choices never "influenced" a single die roll and certainly do not auto-success any attack, they still have a major impact on the success and fail, right? Player choices matter.

But, it seems to me the real differences being put forth here are not that at all, but (as i said earlier off of your previous example - thanks again) how often does the Gm put a "auto-win without checking character" option to solve the challenges that matter? How often is it able to be solved soleey at the player side before the character stats even come into play?

In the example i gave above, the player choices greatly influence the outcome, the result but at the various stages it is the character specs that guide the mini-resolution.

Contrast that to say a game in which it is seen, put forth and even proclaimed that getting to even use your stats in a roll is cheating yourself because you see there are so often "no spec needed" auto-wins?

That seems to me to be the bigger divide here.

Not the extremes you put forth as your portrayal of "the other side".

As pointed out earlier...

***

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.

Where:
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."
***

I’m afraid I don’t understand most of your post. I’ll attempt to address what I do understand.

I’m more concerned with success/fail of a stated action than of a check. To me, a check is a process by which the outcome of an action can be determined. The check itself is not anything that is happening in the game world - it’s a game process happening outside the game world, the result of which determines the outcome of the in-game action (in cases where the DM cannot make that determination themselves).

Even in combat, I adjudicate the player’s actions to see whether dice are even required. I think everyone must. Surely “I rage” is an action that doesn’t require a check. Likewise, taking in-game actions to set up a Sure-Thing (in my game we call this “check-mate”) is an auto-success that bypasses the process. (By way of example, I had a player take an enemy captain hostage and put a dagger to their throat. By the game rules, that dagger doing 1d4+2 could never kill that captain outright, regardless of the die roll. But that’s dumb! So the judgment kicks in and I rule that captain is check-mated. The player can auto-kill that captain if they choose to do so).

Finally as to whether the DM “puts in” solutions, I can only say I don’t put in ANY solutions to obstacles. Any player’s approach may be a valid/possible, invalid/impossible, or automatically successful. But I won’t know what to set the DC at (if at all) until after I hear how a player sets about overcoming that obstacle. So for me, declaring “I’m going to make an insight check” isn’t a sufficient declaration. I’d like clarification. What do you hope to find out? How are you finding it out? If you just rolled and I didn’t give you anything close to what you intended as a result, you might reasonably feel that was a waste of time or that your investment/action is of little value. By clarifying before the roll, I can at least ensure I’ve faithfully carried out what you proposed when I narrate the result of the roll.

Like if you rolled a 22 and I said “He’s a lecherous NPC motivated by sensual pleasure” you might be like “well, great but I was trying to find out if he’s working for the mob.”

To estimate, I would say 15-25% of actions taken in game result in automatic success or automatic failure (although in the case of auto-fail I usually say “your character knows this won’t work - you want to try something else?”). The remaining 75% of actions are usually uncertain enough to require checks. However, that includes combat. Out of combat id estimate it’s closer to 50/50.

 

[5ekyu]

I’m afraid I don’t understand most of your post. I’ll attempt to address what I do understand.

I’m more concerned with success/fail of a stated action than of a check. To me, a check is a process by which the outcome of an action can be determined. The check itself is not anything that is happening in the game world - it’s a game process happening outside the game world, the result of which determines the outcome of the in-game action (in cases where the DM cannot make that determination themselves).

Even in combat, I adjudicate the player’s actions to see whether dice are even required. I think everyone must. Surely “I rage” is an action that doesn’t require a check. Likewise, taking in-game actions to set up a Sure-Thing (in my game we call this “check-mate”) is an auto-success that bypasses the process. (By way of example, I had a player take an enemy captain hostage and put a dagger to their throat. By the game rules, that dagger doing 1d4+2 could never kill that captain outright, regardless of the die roll. But that’s dumb! So the judgment kicks in and I rule that captain is check-mated. The player can auto-kill that captain if they choose to do so).

Finally as to whether the DM “puts in” solutions, I can only say I don’t put in ANY solutions to obstacles. Any player’s approach may be a valid/possible, invalid/impossible, or automatically successful. But I won’t know what to set the DC at (if at all) until after I hear how a player sets about overcoming that obstacle. So for me, declaring “I’m going to make an insight check” isn’t a sufficient declaration. I’d like clarification. What do you hope to find out? How are you finding it out? If you just rolled and I didn’t give you anything close to what you intended as a result, you might reasonably feel that was a waste of time or that your investment/action is of little value. By clarifying before the roll, I can at least ensure I’ve faithfully carried out what you proposed when I narrate the result of the roll.

Like if you rolled a 22 and I said “He’s a lecherous NPC motivated by sensual pleasure” you might be like “well, great but I was trying to find out if he’s working for the mob.”

To estimate, I would say 15-25% of actions taken in game result in automatic success or automatic failure (although in the case of auto-fail I usually say “your character knows this won’t work - you want to try something else?”). The remaining 75% of actions are usually uncertain enough to require checks. However, that includes combat. Out of combat id estimate it’s closer to 50/50.

For your "i do not put in the footnote, to cover both cases of where a GM says they do plan for solutions or not - whats important is how often the resolution process is seen to go one way or the other. " thats why i added the footnote "* 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. "

if i knew that out-of-combat auto-success in tasks would occur without reference to character stats applying to checks 50/50 that would give me great pause in investing in those traits as opposed to investing in traits that would see more actual influence. i would figure i could at least get 50/50 without "spending" a trait and its better to go with traits that will see much more use - not be as easily "auto-beat".

But, to be fair, i am not including "non-score" elements in this at all. So, given "i rage" is always an auto-success or auto-fail" and whether you can go into rage or not is never part of the "role of the dice" at all, i wasn't counting that. if i was, i guess the numbers would be like 99.99999999999999999999% in favor of auto-success since moving, drawing weapons, and so many other things are not matters of that issue at all.

Going into a rage is never a challenge in my games (or so rarely one), so i dont include it in my 50-60% B, rarely A and split the CD figure i gave.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

But, i can sure understand for a game driven by "describe how" more than "character skill" that approach might be not acceptable.

To expand on that: the "describe how" method is based on "character skill". The player with the Wizard PC, for example, is less likely to describe how they are going to pick the lock if that is not something they are skilled in. The player with the Rogue PC will gladly describe how they are picking the lock because that is based on a skill proficiency they have. It's a recipe for more success if you describe actions that your PC is good at.

That's probably not really what you are getting at, but I didn't want that point lost.

I see the contrast as "player describes how" vs "player just rolls ability check" -- both rely on character skill, the former chooses to be more narrative about it up front.

 

[Bawylie]

For your "i do not put in the footnote, to cover both cases of where a GM says they do plan for solutions or not - whats important is how often the resolution process is seen to go one way or the other. " thats why i added the footnote "* 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. "

if i knew that out-of-combat auto-success in tasks would occur without reference to character stats applying to checks 50/50 that would give me great pause in investing in those traits as opposed to investing in traits that would see more actual influence. i would figure i could at least get 50/50 without "spending" a trait and its better to go with traits that will see much more use - not be as easily "auto-beat".

But, to be fair, i am not including "non-score" elements in this at all. So, given "i rage" is always an auto-success or auto-fail" and whether you can go into rage or not is never part of the "role of the dice" at all, i wasn't counting that. if i was, i guess the numbers would be like 99.99999999999999999999% in favor of auto-success since moving, drawing weapons, and so many other things are not matters of that issue at all.

Going into a rage is never a challenge in my games (or so rarely one), so i dont include it in my 50-60% B, rarely A and split the CD figure i gave.

Going into a rage was just a demonstrative example of the idea. Drawing a weapon, too. But because we agree that not EVERY action (even in combat) warrants a check, I can describe my “check-mate” position as a natural extension of the idea. Sometimes you can do things, even big things, and their outcome isn’t dependent on the dice. And the borderline of whether or not the dice need to be involved is whether the outcome is uncertain.

So the knife-to-the-throat thing, there’s no uncertainty. That the game rules fail to adequately handle that situation means that the DM must step in and make a ruling.

As a matter of course I use my own judgment BEFORE I engage dice if only to ensure we’re faithfully carrying out the player’s intent and checking against impossibilities or rules-induced absurdities.

 

[5ekyu]

I’m afraid I don’t understand most of your post. I’ll attempt to address what I do understand.

I’m more concerned with success/fail of a stated action than of a check. To me, a check is a process by which the outcome of an action can be determined. The check itself is not anything that is happening in the game world - it’s a game process happening outside the game world, the result of which determines the outcome of the in-game action (in cases where the DM cannot make that determination themselves).

Even in combat, I adjudicate the player’s actions to see whether dice are even required. I think everyone must. Surely “I rage” is an action that doesn’t require a check. Likewise, taking in-game actions to set up a Sure-Thing (in my game we call this “check-mate”) is an auto-success that bypasses the process. (By way of example, I had a player take an enemy captain hostage and put a dagger to their throat. By the game rules, that dagger doing 1d4+2 could never kill that captain outright, regardless of the die roll. But that’s dumb! So the judgment kicks in and I rule that captain is check-mated. The player can auto-kill that captain if they choose to do so).

Finally as to whether the DM “puts in” solutions, I can only say I don’t put in ANY solutions to obstacles. Any player’s approach may be a valid/possible, invalid/impossible, or automatically successful. But I won’t know what to set the DC at (if at all) until after I hear how a player sets about overcoming that obstacle. So for me, declaring “I’m going to make an insight check” isn’t a sufficient declaration. I’d like clarification. What do you hope to find out? How are you finding it out? If you just rolled and I didn’t give you anything close to what you intended as a result, you might reasonably feel that was a waste of time or that your investment/action is of little value. By clarifying before the roll, I can at least ensure I’ve faithfully carried out what you proposed when I narrate the result of the roll.

Like if you rolled a 22 and I said “He’s a lecherous NPC motivated by sensual pleasure” you might be like “well, great but I was trying to find out if he’s working for the mob.”

To estimate, I would say 15-25% of actions taken in game result in automatic success or automatic failure (although in the case of auto-fail I usually say “your character knows this won’t work - you want to try something else?”). The remaining 75% of actions are usually uncertain enough to require checks. However, that includes combat. Out of combat id estimate it’s closer to 50/50.

"So for me, declaring “I’m going to make an insight check” isn’t a sufficient declaration. I’d like clarification. What do you hope to find out? How are you finding it out? If you just rolled and I didn’t give you anything close to what you intended as a result, you might reasonably feel that was a waste of time or that your investment/action is of little value. By clarifying before the roll, I can at least ensure I’ve faithfully carried out what you proposed when I narrate the result of the roll. "

again we go back to this...

first, at my table, we develop a good shared understanding of what insight skill expertise represents well before it becomes the issue at the table. that is very important! We need to know this before we get to the rolling, be on the same page. Why?

because of course that player in chargen had the option to choose other skills to be proficient with. that kinda needed to be an informed decision, right? if they chose insight and what they thought was actually going to be covered by investigation in my game, we still gots a problem when it hits and they try it and even with the greatest descipriont ever the Gm says "roll investigate int check" and the player looks at his non-proficient 8 int check vs his proficient 16 wisdom check and goes WTF.

So, if your table is resolving those issues not at chargen but at the point of occurrence play, hey, glad that works for you. For me and mine, we find its a lot better to get that nailed down way way way way before that.

But if the case is still vague at the moment of play, somehow, i have found an amazing solution, i ask. if its not clear by context of the scene and the moment - if somehow its not obvious whether or not this insight check is for checking for lies or evidence of deception vs say trying to predict the targets next move, then i ask *if* it matters to the resolution.

That gods awful video about the way thw world ends in fire if a player calls for ca check used an example of a player saying " i check arcana as i examine the painting" and in fact for me thats fine, i give him whatever answers would be appropriate for that skill about that painting. In the case in question it would be about whatever arcane symbols and spell effects were evident.

But for me, almost always when a player tells me "i want an insight check" or "can i check insight on that" the context as to what they are after is obvious. So, this is a problem i do not see in actual play anywhere as much as it seems to be boogeymanned here.

but thats my table.

 

[5ekyu]

To expand on that: the "describe how" method is based on "character skill". The player with the Wizard PC, for example, is less likely to describe how they are going to pick the lock if that is not something they are skilled in. The player with the Rogue PC will gladly describe how they are picking the lock because that is based on a skill proficiency they have. It's a recipe for more success if you describe actions that your PC is good at.

That's probably not really what you are getting at, but I didn't want that point lost.

I see the contrast as "player describes how" vs "player just rolls ability check" -- both rely on character skill, the former chooses to be more narrative about it up front.

Sorry but its been made pretty clear by some that there are auto-success "approaches" that dont get to character skill as part of their resolution. So, you know, if we can get to that auto-success without checking, the wizard can very well solve that trap.

there is a huge difference in that and say the way i do, using the auto-success rule from the DMG on proficiencies as a baseline for tasks/challenges that matter.

 

[iserith]

To expand on that: the "describe how" method is based on "character skill". The player with the Wizard PC, for example, is less likely to describe how they are going to pick the lock if that is not something they are skilled in. The player with the Rogue PC will gladly describe how they are picking the lock because that is based on a skill proficiency they have. It's a recipe for more success if you describe actions that your PC is good at.

That's probably not really what you are getting at, but I didn't want that point lost.

I see the contrast as "player describes how" vs "player just rolls ability check" -- both rely on character skill, the former chooses to be more narrative about it up front.

I'd take it one step further and say that the whole "challenge the characters, not the players" position that underpins some of the posters' arguments here is completely bogus. The player is always the one who is being challenged. And the challenge in this game is to put your character in the best position to succeed at your desired goal. The difficulty depends on your stated approach relative to the fictional situation as described by the DM. The difficulty is higher when achieving the desired goal is less likely and lower when it's more likely.

I used to make the "challenge the characters, not the players" argument back when I was playing D&D 4e more often. That argument (and I) was wrong then and it's wrong now (so I no longer make that argument). The character is not a real thing. While it's being challenged in a fictional sense - a bold adventurer confronting deadly perils - in terms of game play, it's always the player that is being challenged.

 

[Bawylie]

"So for me, declaring “I’m going to make an insight check” isn’t a sufficient declaration. I’d like clarification. What do you hope to find out? How are you finding it out? If you just rolled and I didn’t give you anything close to what you intended as a result, you might reasonably feel that was a waste of time or that your investment/action is of little value. By clarifying before the roll, I can at least ensure I’ve faithfully carried out what you proposed when I narrate the result of the roll. "

again we go back to this...

first, at my table, we develop a good shared understanding of what insight skill expertise represents well before it becomes the issue at the table. that is very important! We need to know this before we get to the rolling, be on the same page. Why?

because of course that player in chargen had the option to choose other skills to be proficient with. that kinda needed to be an informed decision, right? if they chose insight and what they thought was actually going to be covered by investigation in my game, we still gots a problem when it hits and they try it and even with the greatest descipriont ever the Gm says "roll investigate int check" and the player looks at his non-proficient 8 int check vs his proficient 16 wisdom check and goes WTF.

So, if your table is resolving those issues not at chargen but at the point of occurrence play, hey, glad that works for you. For me and mine, we find its a lot better to get that nailed down way way way way before that.

But if the case is still vague at the moment of play, somehow, i have found an amazing solution, i ask. if its not clear by context of the scene and the moment - if somehow its not obvious whether or not this insight check is for checking for lies or evidence of deception vs say trying to predict the targets next move, then i ask *if* it matters to the resolution.

That gods awful video about the way thw world ends in fire if a player calls for ca check used an example of a player saying " i check arcana as i examine the painting" and in fact for me thats fine, i give him whatever answers would be appropriate for that skill about that painting. In the case in question it would be about whatever arcane symbols and spell effects were evident.

But for me, almost always when a player tells me "i want an insight check" or "can i check insight on that" the context as to what they are after is obvious. So, this is a problem i do not see in actual play anywhere as much as it seems to be boogeymanned here.

but thats my table.

I haven’t seen that video.

The quality of the description isn’t relevant to the outcome.

I can’t nail down that stuff at char-gen because there are so very many variables in the instant these things come up. So I also ask for clarity. Sometimes it’s a negotiation. I may ask for one check and a player may go on to clarify why what they’re doing warrants a different check, instead.

This isn’t a problem I see in actual play ANYMORE since I started playing this way. It used to bog my 3rd ed games down to near-unplayability.

 

[5ekyu]

Going into a rage was just a demonstrative example of the idea. Drawing a weapon, too. But because we agree that not EVERY action (even in combat) warrants a check, I can describe my “check-mate” position as a natural extension of the idea. Sometimes you can do things, even big things, and their outcome isn’t dependent on the dice. And the borderline of whether or not the dice need to be involved is whether the outcome is uncertain.

So the knife-to-the-throat thing, there’s no uncertainty. That the game rules fail to adequately handle that situation means that the DM must step in and make a ruling.

As a matter of course I use my own judgment BEFORE I engage dice if only to ensure we’re faithfully carrying out the player’s intent and checking against impossibilities or rules-induced absurdities.

not gonna get drawn into the merits or demerits of a Gm fiat deciding to skip an entire process in the game that is integrally tied to character survival.

If thats an example you want to stand on for your "balance" between "the use of dice against deciding on success" that is pretty clear.

but for me, i do not have to use judgement before an ability check is made... i can decide "impossible", "auto-success" and DCs based on my consistent approaches to those that my players have seen in play whether it is before the roll or not. The only possible change is if the player did not realize they have advantage or disad, i can tell them to roll another die and why - again - in keeping with my established and shown in play patterns. that first clackety-clack of the bouncey die thingy does not force my brain to turn off, you know.

 

[Bawylie]

not gonna get drawn into the merits or demerits of a Gm fiat deciding to skip an entire process in the game that is integrally tied to character survival.

If thats an example you want to stand on for your "balance" between "the use of dice against deciding on success" that is pretty clear.

but for me, i do not have to use judgement before an ability check is made... i can decide "impossible", "auto-success" and DCs based on my consistent approaches to those that my players have seen in play whether it is before the roll or not. The only possible change is if the player did not realize they have advantage or disad, i can tell them to roll another die and why - again - in keeping with my established and shown in play patterns. that first clackety-clack of the bouncey die thingy does not force my brain to turn off, you know.

Okay.