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

[Oofta]

I'm not sure this is exactly what you're going for, but I have an answer here:

When the dice are fairer than the DM.

As in, the DM asks for specifics on how you resolve a task, but always seems to "gochya" on those specifics. Yet when simply rolling, he let's the dice fall where they may.

I encountered this exact situation last Gen Con. Most of the games were great, but there was one, where the DM would ask for specifics on task resolution "describe how you check the door," "how do you inspect the staff lodged in the stone," etc. And when given anything would play gotcha (clearly he had specific solutions, but since we couldn't read his mind we never seemed to get them)
. I (and everyone else) resorted to just asking for checks. He allowed it, Things went much smoother.

So there you go.

Or it's just that some people like rolling dice because, as it says in the DMG under "The Role of Dice" and "Rolling With It", it gives people a feeling that anything is possible.

For me I use a mix depending on the situation, but different people play for different reasons.

 

[Mort]

Or it's just that some people like rolling dice because, as it says in the DMG under "The Role of Dice" and "Rolling With It", it gives people a feeling that anything is possible.

For me I use a mix depending on the situation, but different people play for different reasons.

Absolutely, rolling dice works just fine for me.

But the problem here was the DM seemed disconnected from how his game actually ran best.

 

[iserith]

I'm not sure this is exactly what you're going for, but I have an answer here:

When the dice are fairer than the DM.

As in, the DM asks for specifics on how you resolve a task, but always seems to "gochya" on those specifics. Yet when simply rolling, he let's the dice fall where they may.

I encountered this exact situation last Gen Con. Most of the games were great, but there was one, where the DM would ask for specifics on task resolution "describe how you check the door," "how do you inspect the staff lodged in the stone," etc. And when given anything would play gotcha (clearly he had specific solutions, but since we couldn't read his mind we never seemed to get them)
. I (and everyone else) resorted to just asking for checks. He allowed it, Things went much smoother.

So there you go.

Yes, it does seem like dice or mechanics are often a shield against DMs running the game in that fashion. The DMG warns against the "one solution" issue. I think the design of D&D 3e and later D&D 4e were based in part on assuming this was a known, widespread problem and working to mitigate it through the mechanics. (I recall reading that somewhere, perhaps from Monte Cook.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm not sure this is exactly what you're going for, but I have an answer here:

When the dice are fairer than the DM.

As in, the DM asks for specifics on how you resolve a task, but always seems to "gochya" on those specifics. Yet when simply rolling, he let's the dice fall where they may.

I encountered this exact situation last Gen Con. Most of the games were great, but there was one, where the DM would ask for specifics on task resolution "describe how you check the door," "how do you inspect the staff lodged in the stone," etc. And when given anything would play gotcha (clearly he had specific solutions, but since we couldn't read his mind we never seemed to get them)
. I (and everyone else) resorted to just asking for checks. He allowed it, Things went much smoother.

So there you go.

If one does not trust the DM, and/or if a DM does not trust the players, then I can see how totally objective, interpretation-free rules would have some appeal.

But I would think that finding a more trustworthy DM and players would have even more appeal.

 

[Yardiff]

I sense a trap, not a question motivated by curiosity. But I’ll roleplay a failed check...

As others have said, I’m only using the contact poison on the doorknob example because of the thread. I’ve never actually used that in a game.

But assuming this is the situation, and I’ve dropped some hint that there might be contact poison here, then I’d probably make either of those actions an auto success.

EDIT: I was assuming no extra pressure. As Saturn says, if there’s time pressure or the rogue is trying to do this on his turn during a combat then I might ask for a roll, because lost time is a meaningful consequence of failure.

So in a sense your using the take 10, take 20 from 3x.


Ok I understand that. Personally I think you might be using it to freely but that's just me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So in a sense your using the take 10, take 20 from 3x.


Ok I understand that. Personally I think you might be using it to freely but that's just me.

I suspect those rules were an attempt to address the same problem of meaningful consequences that we’ve been discussing. So in that sense, yes: same philosophical underpinnings.

 

[Mort]

If one does not trust the DM, and/or if a DM does not trust the players, then I can see how totally objective, interpretation-free rules would have some appeal.

But I would think that finding a more trustworthy DM and players would have even more appeal.

Sure, when looking for a consistent game. This was a convention, one shot.

But as to your general point, yes I agree. Trust (players of the DM and DM of the players) is one of the most important, if not the most important, elements of a successful long term game.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Whereas I would just say I disagree. It wasn't meant as an attack, I'm not saying you do it wrong. I was just saying how I would handle it.

As far as this particular scenario, I got a bit of a chuckle. Somehow "my armor smokes and my eyes glow red" is okay but saying "I try to intimidate him" is not. I know who the PC is. Presumably I know what they're capable of. If I didn't understand what a player was trying to do I'd just ask for clarification.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not sure this is exactly what you're going for, but I have an answer here:

When the dice are fairer than the DM.

Exactly this. I’m pretty sure this is the primary reason many players want to make checks. It’s a common enough issue, especially with inexperienced DMs, and since many new players’ first play experiences are with equally new DMs, they develop this reliance on the dice as a defense mechanism early, and it ingrains itself into their still-developing play style.

I encountered this exact situation last Gen Con. Most of the games were great, but there was one, where the DM would ask for specifics on task resolution "describe how you check the door," "how do you inspect the staff lodged in the stone," etc. And when given anything would play gotcha (clearly he had specific solutions, but since we couldn't read his mind we never seemed to get them)
. I (and everyone else) resorted to just asking for checks. He allowed it, Things went much smoother.

So there you go.

This is one example of how the dice can be more reliable than the DM. On the other end of the spectrum are DMs who require a roll for things that seem like they should have no chance of failure and/or allow rolls for things that should have no chance of success. The “anything is possible” feeling can be exciting, but it really undermines the players’ ability to accurately predict the likely outcomes of their actions. When tying your shoes can lead to serious injuries on a natural 1 and elementals can be seduced with a natural 20, it can feel pretty pointless to bother coming up with a logical approach to achieving your goals - it’s gonna end up coming down to a d20 roll no matter what, so might as well pick the skill you have the highest bonus in that seems relevant to the task and ask the DM if you can roll that, rather than bothering to think of what your character is doing and risk being told to roll something you have a low bonus or even a penalty in.

 

[iserith]

This is one example of how the dice can be more reliable than the DM. On the other end of the spectrum are DMs who require a roll for things that seem like they should have no chance of failure and/or allow rolls for things that should have no chance of success. The “anything is possible” feeling can be exciting, but it really undermines the players’ ability to accurately predict the likely outcomes of their actions. When tying your shoes can lead to serious injuries on a natural 1 and elementals can be seduced with a natural 20, it can feel pretty pointless to bother coming up with a logical approach to achieving your goals - it’s gonna end up coming down to a d20 roll no matter what, so might as well pick the skill you have the highest bonus in that seems relevant to the task and ask the DM if you can roll that, rather than bothering to think of what your character is doing and risk being told to roll something you have a low bonus or even a penalty in.

The DMG mentions that while players relying on the dice can give them a sense that anything is possible, but that the drawback is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success.