Thanks for the response.
I may have not been completely clear on what I meant. And, yep, sometimes I'm overly sarcastic. As far as a PC asking to make a skill check, I don't see why it's a big deal.
Yes, you've said. The big deal should be for the player, as failure has a consequence in my game. You seem to keep missing this.
I also have no idea how you would respond to someone new at your table if they say "I make ___ skill check" because you've never really said as far as I remember other than that somehow it would never happen.
As this question has been answered ad nauseum, the only way you still don't know has to be studied inattention.
Of course it happens when I have a new player and am unwinding what other GM's have done in their games. If I need to, I explain it again, my other players explain it. Despite how hard you're trying to make it, it's really not hard at all. Once I made the mental shift to this style, it's been pretty easy to get players to.
There's a lot here, so just to summarize the point of the jewelry heist scene was multiple. The shopkeeper provided a great deal of info in a natural conversation. The perpetrator was able to get past all the locks and wards, may not have had a good way of knowing when the shopkeeper went to bed (no one left the building). There probably would have been some other cookie crumb to follow had the conversation gone past that point, like the fact that he only leaves the shop for his visits to The Red Head League meetings because I'm using Arthur Conan Doyle as an inspiration. In addition, it just makes sense to me that the group would want to talk to him. If they question people up and down the street, that may be hand-waved but the shopkeeper is central enough to get his moment in the spotlight and not just a handout.
:blink: okay.
I'm not going to argue about the insight check any more. Unless I exclusively use passive insight (I don't) if I don't call for it the players know the shopkeeper is not trying to be deceptive whether they acknowledge or even consciously recognize it. If he shopkeeper was trained in deception but a PC wins the contest, no one has stated that it's an automatic "he's lying, roll for initiative". I'd probably say "he's hiding something" or "there's something suspicious about his behavior". Maybe he keeps glancing at a spot on the floor where there's a loose brick where he hid the jewels.
Presumably the players were already suspicious when they asked for the check, so, if they succeed, you confirm they should be suspicious? What happens if they fail?
Look, you can, of course, play however you enjoy (and more power to you), but I put in a lot of thought about what checks actually mean in the fiction and what they do. I'm not going to call for a check if it doesn't do something concretely changing in the fiction on both a success or a failure. A check, in my game, will always, always,
always change the fiction. Something will happen to make it different from before. And, because of this, I've changed what's in my sessions. These fundamental changes mean that asking to roll a check in my game would be very suboptimal play.
A successful insight check uncovering an attempt at deception is not proof. It's just a bread crumb.
Then, what's the point? If the check does not resolve an uncertainty, what does it do?
I'd be perfectly okay with the player saying "I do an intimidation check" in which case I'd let him know he doesn't get advantage. If he had already rolled with advantage I'd ask him to roll again. This is where I simply don't care how a person states their intent and action where you seem to.
See, this is why people don't give you examples. You ignore the presentation of play and how method is utilized and zero in on a specific point, change it, and then say how you'd make a different call in the changed situation. Here, you say, "I'd be fine with just asking for an intimidate check." You ignore that the player presented an approach that tried to either get an automatic success (a pit fighting champion in spiked armor that gives off infernal smoke and with glowing red eyes is pretty threatening) or at least angling for advantage. And, his approach negated the disadvantage for trying to intimidate someone four times your size that has a bunch of burly friends at his back. Your roll, absent goal and approach, does what? What did the PC do? What do I have to assume to figure out what happens on a success or failure?
Did the PC use subtle threats against family? Don't know.
Did the PC threaten to burn down the bar? Don't know.
Why am I going to guess when I can just have the player tell me?
Bluntly, I don't remember seeing a description of removing a trap that I've seen on this thread from the descriptive folks made a mention of a die roll. In fact the concept being pushed has been summed up as "only use dice as a last resort".
Again, studied inattention is the only possibility. I've provided actual play examples with die rolls that you've responded to!!!
And, no one, as
in not a single person in this thread, has ever said "use dice as a last resort." They've said
players should avoid rolling, and that's because failure has consequences and you want to minimize your exposure. I call for dice all the time.
I'd say you badly misunderstand that response.
Now, if you're saying you use passive numbers extensively, that's fine. Depending on the situation I will do that as well. Sometimes that orcish encampment will have such poor quality traps that success is automatic. But I find people often like the randomness of rolling a die. Or maybe that's just me when my character is a halfling who has the "lucky" feat.
I only use passive numbers when a given approach calls for them. Also, since a check will
always change the fiction, I don't need to hide things and can ooenly ask fir passive values because things, at that point, are already going to happen.
If you like the randomness of the die, the GM probably isn't applying consequences for failure.
