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

[iserith]

I always find it surprising how many DM's insist on only the DM calling for skill rolls. I've honestly never played this way. We've always assumed that a player can make a skill roll whenever the player chooses. Granted, of course, sometimes the DM will call for rolls too, fair enough, but, I've never played in a game where the players are not allowed to make skill rolls.

Maybe I'm just too gamist in my approach.

The D&D 3e and D&D 4e rules explicitly encouraged players to ask to make rolls and for the DM to be open to it. So if you play in a D&D 4e game that I run, ask for all the rolls you want!

D&D 5e, however, has nothing like that in its rules. The player describes what he or she wants to do, that's all. (Or at most can ask if a particular skill proficiency applies to an ability check the DM has already called for.) The DM then decides if a mechanic applies, which is when there's uncertainty as to the outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. Those two elements must be present for there to be a roll, otherwise it's just outright success or outright failure.

If the DM can decide that the character automatically succeeds on a task, then that's a far better outcome than taking a chance on a fickle d20. One worth striving for, I'd say, which means in such a game the smart play is not to ask to roll but to describe what you want to do in such a way that you remove the uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence of failure. In doing so, you're setting up a situation where the DM can't call for a roll which is far more reliable than rolling, if success if your goal. Further, players that are striving for this outcome tend to be more engaged and descriptive, delving into the environment for any edge they can get. I'd say that's a nice byproduct of the system.

 

[Oofta]

So for the people that say that only the DM calls for skill checks (which I don't necessarily agree with, but I'm not going to tell you how to run your game), I have a question. How do you handle it?

Personally, I may ask for clarification and encourage people but ultimately I don't care. So how would you handle the following

Player: "I make an athletics check to climb the wall and get ___."
DM option 1: "Okay, you climb the wall without a problem." Whether or not they really needed the athletics check.
DM option 2:"I'm sorry, that doesn't work, you must state your answer in the form of a question what your character is trying to do."
DM option 3: stare at player blankly.
DM option 4: ?

I really am curious. Because different people play for different reasons, different people are comfortable with different styles. I had one guy who was a lot of fun, but would never do anything but state what check they were rolling and would only rarely speak in character. It just wasn't his thing. Why is that a bad thing?

 

[Bawylie]

So for the people that say that only the DM calls for skill checks (which I don't necessarily agree with, but I'm not going to tell you how to run your game), I have a question. How do you handle it?

Personally, I may ask for clarification and encourage people but ultimately I don't care. So how would you handle the following

Player: "I make an athletics check to climb the wall and get ___."
DM option 1: "Okay, you climb the wall without a problem." Whether or not they really needed the athletics check.
DM option 2:"I'm sorry, that doesn't work, you must state your answer in the form of a question what your character is trying to do."
DM option 3: stare at player blankly.
DM option 4: ?

I really am curious. Because different people play for different reasons, different people are comfortable with different styles. I had one guy who was a lot of fun, but would never do anything but state what check they were rolling and would only rarely speak in character. It just wasn't his thing. Why is that a bad thing?

“Bad” suggests a value judgment that I’m not making. So I decline to defend a position I haven’t taken.

My choice is DM option 4. “Hold up with the dice for a second. Why are you making an athletics check? You can just climb without a check, at half your movement rate. Asking to make the check is essentially asking for the opportunity to fail. Would you like to fail here?”

Comes down to this, though: it depends on what this cat is trying to do. If they want to climb further than their movement speed would allow per the rules, that may well be a check. If they want to climb just to get 15 feet up a wall, there doesn’t need to be a check at all. And if they have something else in mind altogether, it’s on me to figure out what it is they want to do before I set DCs for it. I don’t want to be in a position where we’re negotiating what happens after a roll. “But I rolled a 20! Surely that means I can spider-man where ever I want to go!”

If all he wants to do is climb, “don’t roll for that. You climbed the wall, now what do you do?”

We’re (I’m) not asking for checks at all unless:
a) I don’t know what will happen as a result of this action and would like a neutral arbiter to decide the outcome
b) this action can succeed
c) this action can fail
d) there is some cost or consequence such that this action can’t be repeated indefinitely until it succeeds.

If an action can’t succeed, I don’t need a check. If an action can’t fail, I don’t need a check. If an action can be repeated over and over until it eventually works, I don’t need a check. Why would you want one in any of these cases?

 

[MechaPilot]

I don't set a DC for that. I make the player roll, and no matter what the roll is I say the same kinds of things I do when the player rolls badly to insight check an actual lie:

1) he doesn't appear to be to be lying.
2) he's speaking fairly confidently and without pause.
3) he maintains consistent eye-contact throughout.
4) his body-language seems relaxed, and he doesn't shift about much.
5) his gesticulating is fairly animated, and he seems emotionally invested in what he's saying.
6) his posture is very meek, and he isn't making much eye-contact; it's hard to tell if he's being dishonest, or if he's just afraid of you.
7) there don't appear to be any cracks in his velvety smooth demeanor; he's pretty hard to read.

That kind of thing.

I feel like it's important to do that so that players don't notice a difference between knowing someone is telling the truth and knowing they're lying.

 

[iserith]

“Bad” suggests a value judgment that I’m not making. So I decline to defend a position I haven’t taken.

My choice is DM option 4. “Hold up with the dice for a second. Why are you making an athletics check? You can just climb without a check, at half your movement rate. Asking to make the check is essentially asking for the opportunity to fail. Would you like to fail here?”

Comes down to this, though: it depends on what this cat is trying to do. If they want to climb further than their movement speed would allow per the rules, that may well be a check. If they want to climb just to get 15 feet up a wall, there doesn’t need to be a check at all. And if they have something else in mind altogether, it’s on me to figure out what it is they want to do before I set DCs for it. I don’t want to be in a position where we’re negotiating what happens after a roll. “But I rolled a 20! Surely that means I can spider-man where ever I want to go!”

If all he wants to do is climb, “don’t roll for that. You climbed the wall, now what do you do?”

We’re (I’m) not asking for checks at all unless:
a) I don’t know what will happen as a result of this action and would like a neutral arbiter to decide the outcome
b) this action can succeed
c) this action can fail
d) there is some cost or consequence such that this action can’t be repeated indefinitely until it succeeds.

If an action can’t succeed, I don’t need a check. If an action can’t fail, I don’t need a check. If an action can be repeated over and over until it eventually works, I don’t need a check. Why would you want one in any of these cases?

I would add that the player is obligated to describe what he or she wants to do, just like the DM is obligated to describe the environment and narrate the result of the adventurers's actions (among other things). Describing what he or she wants to do is the player's role and responsibility in this game. I think it's just fine to encourage players to live up to their responsibilities and say what they want to do (approach) and what they hope to achieve (goal).

Does this mean a flowery description delivered with incredible acting chops? No, but I would say asking to make an ability check is not a description of what the player wants to do. At best it just implies an approach to a goal and leaves the DM to fill in the blanks. In many games, this means the DM says what the character does which is stepping outside the bounds of the DM's role in the game. I'd argue in many cases it creates a further burden on the DM and sets the stage for disputes about what the character does if the player objects to what the DM established. If the player doesn't shirk his or her responsibility, then this can't happen.

Even if an argument for personal responsibility doesn't work, then another argument is that the PC is likely to be more successful by avoiding a fickle d20 wherever possible. I never, ever ask to make a roll in games in which I play. In pickup games outside my own circle, I often encounter groups where players ask to make rolls. My characters are head and shoulders more successful than theirs because I work to remove uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence of failure rather than take a chance on a d20. So if a player is concerned with achieving success more often than failing, then it's a good strategy to avoid that roll whenever possible.

 

[Oofta]

“Bad” suggests a value judgment that I’m not making. So I decline to defend a position I haven’t taken.

My choice is DM option 4. “Hold up with the dice for a second. Why are you making an athletics check? You can just climb without a check, at half your movement rate. Asking to make the check is essentially asking for the opportunity to fail. Would you like to fail here?”

Comes down to this, though: it depends on what this cat is trying to do. If they want to climb further than their movement speed would allow per the rules, that may well be a check. If they want to climb just to get 15 feet up a wall, there doesn’t need to be a check at all. And if they have something else in mind altogether, it’s on me to figure out what it is they want to do before I set DCs for it. I don’t want to be in a position where we’re negotiating what happens after a roll. “But I rolled a 20! Surely that means I can spider-man where ever I want to go!”

If all he wants to do is climb, “don’t roll for that. You climbed the wall, now what do you do?”

We’re (I’m) not asking for checks at all unless:
a) I don’t know what will happen as a result of this action and would like a neutral arbiter to decide the outcome
b) this action can succeed
c) this action can fail
d) there is some cost or consequence such that this action can’t be repeated indefinitely until it succeeds.

If an action can’t succeed, I don’t need a check. If an action can’t fail, I don’t need a check. If an action can be repeated over and over until it eventually works, I don’t need a check. Why would you want one in any of these cases?

I'm not saying anyone is making a judgement call and honestly I don't understand why this is a touchy subject. I've just never really gotten clarification on how people run this, or even why they care.

So for me, if an action can't succeed if they roll the dice it doesn't matter if the result is 30 or more. There is no 5% chance to climb the wall because it's a perfectly smooth or magic wall and they need to find a different alternative. So I don't negotiate either: if I've already determined that there is no chance of success or failure the attempt is still made.

But I don't see any real difference if someone rolls and says "I do an athletics check of 30 to climb the wall" vs "I try to climb the wall". Conversely if they roll an athletics check and get a 0, I may let them know they climb the wall anyway and that no check was necessary. Hopefully I've described the scene well enough that won't happen.

To put it a slightly different way: from the PC's perspective they are trying to climb a wall. The way we express that attempted action via the rules is an athletics check. Whether or not it was even possible to climb the wall may be unknown to the PC at the time they make the attempt (especially when magic/illusion may come into play).

So let's say I've set up the scene where the party has been temporarily split up, and each come to a different section of a wall of an ancient keep. I'd be okay with any of the following.
PC 1: Rolls the dice "I make an athletics check 20 to climb"
PC 2: "Looking around, do I see anything unusual about the wall, or any way up that I may have missed at first glance?"
PC 3: "This keep is well known, can I make a history check to see if I remember anything?"
PC 4: "Hmm, my athletics isn't great, maybe this rock soft enough to make handholds for climbing." picks up dice "Do I get advantage on an investigation check because of my background?"

And so on. Each PC is doing their best to get over the wall using what they know they're good at. How would you run it differently? Why would it matter if the skill check they're trying isn't necessary?

Or throw in an additional twist. The wall looks smooth, but is really pock-marked with holes that's covered by a glamour. Anybody could climb it if they wish but the PCs don't realize that.

Again, I'm curious how other people run this. I don't think one way or another is "right", "wrong" or "bad" but I'm always looking at different ways of doing things to see if it's something I can learn from.

 

[Charlaquin]

So for the people that say that only the DM calls for skill checks (which I don't necessarily agree with, but I'm not going to tell you how to run your game), I have a question. How do you handle it?

Personally, I may ask for clarification and encourage people but ultimately I don't care. So how would you handle the following

Player: "I make an athletics check to climb the wall and get ___."
DM option 1: "Okay, you climb the wall without a problem." Whether or not they really needed the athletics check.
DM option 2:"I'm sorry, that doesn't work, you must state your answer in the form of a question what your character is trying to do."
DM option 3: stare at player blankly.
DM option 4: ?

Generally, when a player asks to make a check or just makes one on their own, my response is, “I’m hearing that your goal is to [blank]. To know how best to resolve your action, I also need to know what your character is doing to try to achieve that goal.” In this specific example, the player did state a goal and approach, kind of - I can glean from their phrasing that their goal is to get to the top of the wall and their approach is to climb it. If the wall has sufficient hand and footholds, I’d probably say something like “I actually wouldn’t have called for a roll there, you can climb at half your speed.” If the wall is not easily scalable, I might say, “you are unable to find purchase on the smooth marble with your hands and feet alone. Next time I’d appreciate it if you just tell me your goal and approach and if you need to make a check I’ll ask you to.”

I really am curious. Because different people play for different reasons, different people are comfortable with different styles. I had one guy who was a lot of fun, but would never do anything but state what check they were rolling and would only rarely speak in character. It just wasn't his thing. Why is that a bad thing?

Whether or not someone is speaking in character really doesn’t matter to me. First person narration is not necessary for my method, all I need is a goal and an approach. In your early example, a goal and approach was actually stated, so I would consider it a perfectly valid action, the only faux pas was anticipating an Athletics check and rolling it before I could adjudicate the action. And it’s not a bad thing to not want to speak in character, or to prefer to state what kind of skill check you want to make.

I have encountered situations like this before, where a player’s preferred style of announcing intent to action and my preferred style of action resolution don’t mesh, and the solution is always to have a talk about it person-to-person. In fact, in my current campaign I had a player push back against my request for an approach when she wanted to check a door for traps. I have my usual response of “I am hearing that you want to determine if there are any traps that might be sprung by opening the door, what does your character do to try to determine that?” and she said “umm... something my character would think of as someone proficient in thieves tools that I wouldn’t?” Sensing some tension, I asked for a Perception check, narrated her character giving the door a thorough visual examination, and told her she didn’t find any evidence of traps (the door wasn’t trapped).

After the game, I talked to her and said that my preference as a DM is for a The players’ choices to be the primary factor in determining success and failure, and for the dice to be a tool to resolve actions with uncertain outcomes. And I said that I consider it part of my job as DM is to give the players the information they need to feel confident make those decisions - I told her the door wasn’t trapped, but if it had been, I would have tried to Telegraph that in a way that would have given her a clue about how best to go about trying to detect it. I also reassured her that I understand she’s not an expert trapsmith, and neither am I, so I will always do my best to take that into account and interpret actions generously - I don’t need a detailed account of every move she makes, I’m not waiting for her to say the “wrong thing” so I can spring a gotcha on her, I just need to know generally, is she just visually examining the door, is she pressing on it, is she sliding something under the cracks, etc. because I don’t want to make assumptions about what her character is doing that might not match up with what she’s envisioning.

She was very understanding, and since then we have had no further issue. In fact, since that conversation, she’s gotten really creative about how she describes searching for traps.

 

[Bawylie]

I'm not saying anyone is making a judgement call and honestly I don't understand why this is a touchy subject. I've just never really gotten clarification on how people run this, or even why they care.

So for me, if an action can't succeed if they roll the dice it doesn't matter if the result is 30 or more. There is no 5% chance to climb the wall because it's a perfectly smooth or magic wall and they need to find a different alternative. So I don't negotiate either: if I've already determined that there is no chance of success or failure the attempt is still made.

But I don't see any real difference if someone rolls and says "I do an athletics check of 30 to climb the wall" vs "I try to climb the wall". Conversely if they roll an athletics check and get a 0, I may let them know they climb the wall anyway and that no check was necessary. Hopefully I've described the scene well enough that won't happen.

To put it a slightly different way: from the PC's perspective they are trying to climb a wall. The way we express that attempted action via the rules is an athletics check. Whether or not it was even possible to climb the wall may be unknown to the PC at the time they make the attempt (especially when magic/illusion may come into play).

So let's say I've set up the scene where the party has been temporarily split up, and each come to a different section of a wall of an ancient keep. I'd be okay with any of the following.
PC 1: Rolls the dice "I make an athletics check 20 to climb"
PC 2: "Looking around, do I see anything unusual about the wall, or any way up that I may have missed at first glance?"
PC 3: "This keep is well known, can I make a history check to see if I remember anything?"
PC 4: "Hmm, my athletics isn't great, maybe this rock soft enough to make handholds for climbing." picks up dice "Do I get advantage on an investigation check because of my background?"

And so on. Each PC is doing their best to get over the wall using what they know they're good at. How would you run it differently? Why would it matter if the skill check they're trying isn't necessary?

Or throw in an additional twist. The wall looks smooth, but is really pock-marked with holes that's covered by a glamour. Anybody could climb it if they wish but the PCs don't realize that.

Again, I'm curious how other people run this. I don't think one way or another is "right", "wrong" or "bad" but I'm always looking at different ways of doing things to see if it's something I can learn from.

Here’s how it’s different if I’m your DM. Same setup with the glamoured Wall.

PC1: I’m going to climb it.
DM: ok, how? Free climb? Use your climber’s kit? It looks pretty smooth to you.
PC1: ok I’ll use my climber’s kit and sink a piton in first as a base.
DM: great, using your climber’s kit you ascend the wall. As it turns out, it’s not nearly as smooth as it seems to be and you move up rather quickly. Unusually quickly, considering the appearance.

PC1: It’s an easy climb, guys.
PC2: Hang on. Unusually easy, he said. I want to find out more.
DM: ok what do you do to find out more?
PC2: Can I roll arcana?
DM: Well, what are you doing so that arcana applies? Describe how that comes into play.
PC2: Gotcha. Ok I’m looking for signs of spell craft, feeling for traces of magic, that sort of thing.
DM: Sounds good. Go ahead and roll intelligence (arcana) or (investigation) since you’re actually feeling. If you get a 15, you’ll know what’s up exactly. If you get a 10, you’ll have an inkling.
PC2: I’ll use investigation then. (Rolls). I got a 17.
DM: OK, feeling the Wall, your fingers find numerous purchases, like handholds. It seems someone has put some sort of illusion to hide the handholds. Why, you cannot guess.

PC3: someone enchanted this for a reason. I wonder if there are traps.
PC1: I just climbed it fine!
PC3: Yeah, but you’re an expert climber. I’m going to check for traps. Magical and mechanical.
DM: How, exactly?
PC3: you said it’s got an illusion, so I know just looking at it won’t work. I’ll have to poke around with my tools to see if there are any triggers.
DM: Alright make an Intelligence check and you can apply either investigation or your thieves kit bonus. If you get a 20 and it’s trapped, you’ll find the trigger and be able to bypass it. If you get a 15, you’ll find the trigger, only. Less than that and you risk setting off any traps.
PC3: Ok I have double proficiency with the kit, so I roll a 22.
DM: There is indeed a magical trap. Some of the handholds magically close, trapping any climbers.

Or whatever.

But note that anybody who just climbed without stating an approach would’ve been caught by the trap. Since I don’t want to use my players’ ignorance against them, I make sure to always ask how they’re doing something, so that I don’t inadvertently trick them or they don’t unknowing stumble into something. They always have to choose to. We’re not going to backtrack to “I would’ve used my kit!” “But you didn’t say so!” “But I would’ve!” And so on. I’m just going to ask, so we’re all clear.

It’s my job to give your character a fair shake. I want to avoid ambiguities that result in a bum deal. I once had a dm tell me I couldn’t draw my sword because I’d left it in a dungeon 2 weeks ago (when I dropped it to administer healing). Apparently because I didn’t say I picked it up after, my character didn’t notice it was missing for 2 weeks. Now that’s bull crap. That’s not every dm, either. But it sure as hell won’t be me. I’m gonna clarify with you before the roll.

 

[Oofta]

Here’s how it’s different if I’m your DM. Same setup with the glamoured Wall.

PC1: I’m going to climb it.
DM: ok, how? Free climb? Use your climber’s kit? It looks pretty smooth to you.
PC1: ok I’ll use my climber’s kit and sink a piton in first as a base.
DM: great, using your climber’s kit you ascend the wall. As it turns out, it’s not nearly as smooth as it seems to be and you move up rather quickly. Unusually quickly, considering the appearance.

PC1: It’s an easy climb, guys.
PC2: Hang on. Unusually easy, he said. I want to find out more.
DM: ok what do you do to find out more?
PC2: Can I roll arcana?
DM: Well, what are you doing so that arcana applies? Describe how that comes into play.
PC2: Gotcha. Ok I’m looking for signs of spell craft, feeling for traces of magic, that sort of thing.
DM: Sounds good. Go ahead and roll intelligence (arcana) or (investigation) since you’re actually feeling. If you get a 15, you’ll know what’s up exactly. If you get a 10, you’ll have an inkling.
PC2: I’ll use investigation then. (Rolls). I got a 17.
DM: OK, feeling the Wall, your fingers find numerous purchases, like handholds. It seems someone has put some sort of illusion to hide the handholds. Why, you cannot guess.

PC3: someone enchanted this for a reason. I wonder if there are traps.
PC1: I just climbed it fine!
PC3: Yeah, but you’re an expert climber. I’m going to check for traps. Magical and mechanical.
DM: How, exactly?
PC3: you said it’s got an illusion, so I know just looking at it won’t work. I’ll have to poke around with my tools to see if there are any triggers.
DM: Alright make an Intelligence check and you can apply either investigation or your thieves kit bonus. If you get a 20 and it’s trapped, you’ll find the trigger and be able to bypass it. If you get a 15, you’ll find the trigger, only. Less than that and you risk setting off any traps.
PC3: Ok I have double proficiency with the kit, so I roll a 22.
DM: There is indeed a magical trap. Some of the handholds magically close, trapping any climbers.

Or whatever.

But note that anybody who just climbed without stating an approach would’ve been caught by the trap. Since I don’t want to use my players’ ignorance against them, I make sure to always ask how they’re doing something, so that I don’t inadvertently trick them or they don’t unknowing stumble into something. They always have to choose to. We’re not going to backtrack to “I would’ve used my kit!” “But you didn’t say so!” “But I would’ve!” And so on. I’m just going to ask, so we’re all clear.

It’s my job to give your character a fair shake. I want to avoid ambiguities that result in a bum deal. I once had a dm tell me I couldn’t draw my sword because I’d left it in a dungeon 2 weeks ago (when I dropped it to administer healing). Apparently because I didn’t say I picked it up after, my character didn’t notice it was missing for 2 weeks. Now that’s bull crap. That’s not every dm, either. But it sure as hell won’t be me. I’m gonna clarify with you before the roll.

You seem to be conflating "gotcha" DMing with rolling a skill check vs declaring intention. If PC 1 states "I'm going to attempt to climb the wall" vs rolling and athletics check to climb the wall, my response will be the same. If they're alone as I specified in my scenario the PC may be trapped. If they're together I'll tell them that as they start to climb it's significantly easier than expected; it's up to them to let me know if they stop climbing.

For me, rolling and stating what skill you're using is enough to tell me what you are attempting as a PC 90% of the time. That 10% of the time where it's not? I'll ask for clarification. But neither approach has anything to do with adversarial DMing.

I don't see what not having your sword has to do with anything. I would no more tell a player that they didn't have their sword than tell them they die of constipation because they never mentioned using the latrine.

 

[iserith]

Getting back to telling truth from lies, here's how I view this as a DM: A lie in a social interaction challenge is similar to a trap in an exploration challenge. If you're telegraphing traps in an exploration challenge, you should be telegraphing lies in a social interaction challenge. Players engaging with NPCs and always trying to discern their truthfulness is the same as players searching for traps everywhere - they are trying to avoid gotchas. Consistent telegraphing takes that away since a truthful NPC will not be telegraphing lies.

So, if an NPC is lying, telegraph it by having the NPC give information that contradicts information the PCs have previously gathered. Have them change their mannerisms, display body language, or the like. The players may think, based on the DM's description, that this NPC is probably lying. Just like they may think the scorched floor in front of the dragon statue suggests that the statue is probably trapped. Rather than give away the game, all this does is invite further exploration and social interaction - searching for and figuring out the trap or trying to see what the NPC is lying about and why - to verify their assumptions. Which is what we want, right?