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

[Sadras]

This to me would ruin all the mystery of a who-dunnit like this. No thanks. The shopkeeper should be a primary suspect. The reason to ask for an insight check is to maintain that air of mystery and doubt. The shopkeeper is less likely to be involved, but there's no way to be certain.

What air of mystery would that be?

1. The one where the PC knows he rolled well or badly or just plain average - leaving everyone else in the party make Insight check rolls too?

2. The one where the DM narrates that the shopkeeper shifts uncomfortably in his seat as questions are asked?
Firstly do you really need an Insight skill to notice that? Secondly, any suspicious descriptor now added by the DM about the shopkeeper means the PCs will press on with diplomacy, bribery and intimidation - and usually in that order.

 

[iserith]

Meanwhile, my group rolled a single die roll and went on their merry way because faffing about trying to guess a plausible solution bores the tears out of us. Heck, I didn't even have to ask for it. They just did it. Poof, done. All that wasted effort in designing a trap that no one but the DM actually cares about that could have been better spent in other places. Or, if they failed the checks, they would be spread out trying to disarm the traps and the ghouls show up. Either way, it's the ghouls showing up that I'm interested in. The trap is mostly incidental. And the means to bypass the trap is pretty much whatever the players tell me it is, AFTER they've made the check(s).

Different strokes obviously.

The trap is an exploration challenge, which is part of the three pillars of this game.

I'll add that the second group got past the trap with ZERO die rolls. The first group had to make a few, chiefly Acrobatics checks as the wizard made his way across. Neither group actually disarmed the trap. How does your one die roll at all resolve the trap? I could see the characters spending some time to deduce its workings based on the available clues (which were right out in the open) which may call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check. But that only resolves how it works, not how to get past it, which would be separate actions.

Alternatively, you can find a way around. All you need to do, in this dungeon, is backtrack to a door near the entrance, go through it, deal with some smoke mephits (combat or social interaction challenge), repair a damaged secret door (optional: loot gems out of a statue there), open the secret door, fight some shadows, crypt dogs, and a goblin mummy (optional: loot the tomb), climb down a hole in the floor into a sub-level kruthik nest, sneak past or carve your way through a over a dozen adult kruthiks, young kruthiks, and flying kruthiks, find another hole in the ceiling, and climb up through it. This hole is past the corridor trap and opens up into the final chamber of the upper level of the dungeon.

Lots of solutions here.

 

[iserith]

I suppose one does have to wonder why the ghouls wouldn't have been destroyed by this trap long ago. It's not like ghouls just sit in one room and never move.

Ghouls do whatever the DM says they do.

But if you really wanted to know as a player, you could just ask them - if you speak Goblin. Or further explore the chamber from which they came which may reveal who they were. Or not. Up to the players.

 

[iserith]

For me, I guess the basic problem in this discussion is that I'm perfectly willing to admit that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s approach is perfectly fine. I just wish folks would stop telling me how wrong I am for not adopting their approach and how if I just understood what they were trying to tell me, I'd switch right over. No. I do understand. I understand very well. I'm just not interested.

Again, telling you that your arguments against others are weak or inapplicable isn't the same as criticizing how you play. I'm not criticizing how you play at all. Remember how you invited me to dismiss your approach as being "house rules" and I refused to do that?

I'm not even trying to convince you to play as I do and the rules say. I'm only describing how I play and refuting the incorrect assertions you are making. Your apparent persecution complex is entirely on you, and it's not a good look. We might have a more productive discussion if you'd stop thinking anyone gives a single flumph about how you play and getting defensive about it.

 

[Oofta]

What air of mystery would that be?

1. The one where the PC knows he rolled well or badly or just plain average - leaving everyone else in the party make Insight check rolls too?

2. The one where the DM narrates that the shopkeeper shifts uncomfortably in his seat as questions are asked?
Firstly do you really need an Insight skill to notice that? Secondly, any suspicious descriptor now added by the DM about the shopkeeper means the PCs will press on with diplomacy, bribery and intimidation - and usually in that order.

I've run insight (and investigate) checks a couple of ways. Let the players roll and trust them to not use meta-game knowledge or ask for their modifier and roll myself.

I prefer the former because I trust my players but I can see that it would not work for everyone.

As far as narrating nervousness or other behavior ... it just depends. Sometimes I broadcast sometimes I don't by how I act when responding. In my brief scenario the shopkeeper is calm. But that means nothing. If an NPC is proficient with deception they'll also appear to be calm as well unless you're really good at detecting deception. Hence the skill known as "insight".

If the DM has to spoon-feed this kind of stuff (i.e. "He's telling the truth") or be good enough of an actor to always portray intent and the players have to be good enough to pick up on it ... well that's not a game I want to play. I don't want to spoon feed. I don't want to rely on DM or player abilities to portray and interpret every little nuance.

 

[Sadras]

I've run insight (and investigate) checks a couple of ways. Let the players roll and trust them to not use meta-game knowledge or ask for their modifier and roll myself.

I prefer the former because I trust my players but I can see that it would not work for everyone.

As far as narrating nervousness or other behavior ... it just depends. Sometimes I broadcast sometimes I don't by how I act when responding. In my brief scenario the shopkeeper is calm. But that means nothing. If an NPC is proficient with deception they'll also appear to be calm as well unless you're really good at detecting deception. Hence the skill known as "insight".

If the DM has to spoon-feed this kind of stuff (i.e. "He's telling the truth") or be good enough of an actor to always portray intent and the players have to be good enough to pick up on it ... well that's not a game I want to play. I don't want to spoon feed. I don't want to rely on DM or player abilities to portray and interpret every little nuance.

Bold emphasis mine - I too am not a fan of this black/white use of Insight.

I usually provide the following straight off the bat, particularly if someone is proficient in Insight (no roll required): change of tone in voice, shifting uncomfortably, side-way looks, eyes darting, nervous twitch, signs of perspiration, repetitiveness, ...etc.
I'm not saying this is the correct way to do it, it is just something I do. If I remember I will provide all this information immediately, in the framing of the scene and not need any prodding by a player's action declarations or even mentioning their Insight skill.

I prefer the Insight roll to provide clues, of an empathetic nature (undertones/shades of emotion) or things that might seem obvious to the DM but has escaped the players (relationship links, hidden benefits, deceptive manipulation...etc). I do not always get this right though.

 

[robus]

I'm dead certain [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] (and myself, for certain) are not looking for the one approach we have written in our notes because there are NO approaches written in our notes, only the problems.

This is actually one of the major issues I have with the published adventures, they assume approaches (by indicating the desired ability/skill) and set DCs, and given this it's easy to understand why it is often the default mode of play instead of the recommendation in the PHB.

I'd much prefer that the adventures just describe the situation and indicate the expected challenge level, easy, medium, hard, deadly. Let us worry about approaches and DCs (and this is something the Starter Set should have covered, hold the DMs hand in chapter 1 (suggest possible approaches and appropriate DCs), loosen the grip in chapter 2 (just suggest approaches, no recommended DC - let the DM decide) and let go completely in chapter 3 (no approaches, no DCs, just challenges).

 

[iserith]

This is actually one of the major issues I have with the published adventures, they assume approaches (by indicating the desired ability/skill) and set DCs, and given this it's easy to understand why it is often the default mode of play instead of the recommendation in the PHB.

I'd much prefer that the adventures just describe the situation and indicate the expected challenge level, easy, medium, hard, deadly. Let us worry about approaches and DCs (and this is something the Starter Set should have covered, hold the DMs hand in chapter 1 (suggest possible approaches and appropriate DCs), loosen the grip in chapter 2 (just suggest approaches, no recommended DC - let the DM decide) and let go completely in chapter 3 (no approaches, no DCs, just challenges).

It's a bit of a mixed bag in my experience. Sometimes it spells out the approach pretty well, but many times it is just implied. I will say that when I write up some of my short-form scenarios without DCs, it takes more words to describe my intent. So this may simply be a way to save page space. As well, module writers are not immune to legacy thinking.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ok...ehem...I'm at a keyboard. Here's my understanding of the "it's all about character skill" approach:

DM: "In front of you is a door, looks like oak with metal strap hinges, riveted on. There's a pull ring in the center."

Rogue: "Hmmm...we found that poison lab. I'm going to carefully inspect that pull ring to see if there's any foreign substance on it. I'll look from different angles, and maybe sniff the air. Oh, and I'll cut off a piece of that cultist cloak I found and carefully wipe the pull ring to see if anything comes off. I have proficiency in Poisoner's Kit so I should know how to do this safely."

DM: "Roll Investigation."

Rogue: "Hmm...11."

DM: "Nope, seems clean."

Rogue: "Ok, I'm going to pull the door open."

DM: "It has contact poison on it; roll a save versus Constitution."

Rogue: "What? I looked for contact poison!"

DM: "Yeah but the DC was 12; you just missed."

Rogue: "Wait a sec...it was only a 12 DC, but an 8th level rogue with Poisoner's Kit proficiency specifically looking for contact poison in the right place didn't find it?"

DM: "Not if you fail the roll. Maybe you looked on the wrong part of the pull ring."

A while later...

DM: "Ok, you come across another door, this one looks like..."

Rogue (interrupting, in a resigned voice): "...I roll Investigation looking for traps...14"

DM: "Nothing."

Cleric: "I'll roll, too...12, darn."

Wizard: "I got a 17..."

DM: "Nope"

Fighter: "Nat 20! So, um, 19."

DM: "YOU find the trap! Congratulations! Ok, who is going to roll to disarm it?"



Oh, the fun to be had. I'm just giddy with anticipation.

 

[robus]

It's a bit of a mixed bag in my experience. Sometimes it spells out the approach pretty well, but many times it is just implied. I will say that when I write up some of my short-form scenarios without DCs, it takes more words to describe my intent. So this may simply be a way to save page space. As well, module writers are not immune to legacy thinking.

Yeah - I'm working on an adventure scenario right now, and it's much harder than it looks But I still think WotC (at least) should be trying to think about framing these challenges in a way that encourages creative thinking and not trip up DMs by documenting an assumed approach and DC and when the players try an obvious but different approach, leaving the DM to wonder why they bothered even writing that? I would much prefer they say something like "expertly disguised trap", or "hastily set trip wire", or something like that. Give us the flavor of the challenge, or the motivation(s) of the NPC (to pass onto the players) and let us worry about how to resolve the uncertainty. (And I guess it also assumes that there will be uncertainty, which again flies in the face of the PHB guidance, because a particular approach might eliminate all uncertainty, and their assumed approach cannot be the only one). There's a lot of useless fluff in the published adventures and not enough actionable information IMHO. I guess it makes for a more interesting read away from the table, but gets in the way when you actually try to run it.

That's probably enough on that digression!