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

[Oofta]

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], I don't know if you're just being obstinate or not reading what I quoted so I'll repeat part of that quote

[as a player you can] 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.

The player is not changing the parameters of the encounter, nor are they finding a way to bypass it. They're simply describing it in a way that removes uncertainty. That's a player skill, not a PC skill.

Now, I don't know how many people really play that way. I've never said that you DM that way. But some people seem to allow a player to bypass skill checks by simply changing the narrative.

 

[Satyrn]

No one here that I have read allows players to bypass skills. Skills are critical to the definition and success of a character.

*Sheepishly raises his hand*

He might point to my how I've said I don't pay attention to a character's skill or tool proficiencies when adjuticatin success/fail, or seeing DCs, etc.

But then, I'm not one of the people he's discussing this with, and I'm not claiming my method is like the one he's trying to understand, so what I do shouldn't matter in this regard.

 

[Yardiff]

As I think I mentioned upthread, some folks in my group like to play that whoever gets the killing blow narrates it. Otherwise we mostly just roll the dice, perhaps narrating some misses or failed saving throws along the way.

That cool, sounds like the group I play with. Also sounds like the Matt Mercer "How do you want to do this".

 

[Satyrn]

Personally I think skill proficiencies help individualize characters more.

I think its whether you like the game to be zero to hero or not. I believe most level based games are zero to hero.

This is very much the reason why I haven't dumped the skill system. My players might prefer that individualizing, and they certainly like it will enough that there no reason for me to implement a major change just because I would prefer it.

And your right about the zero-to-hero, thing. I like to view it as rookie-to-veteran. In my dungeon crawl, the PCs are like rookies in their first year of the NFL: Fully capable right from the start.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Now, I don't know how many people really play that way. I've never said that you DM that way. But some people seem to allow a player to bypass skill checks by simply changing the narrative.

Gahhhh!!!!

No, it’s not “bypassing a skill check”. That suggests that the skill check is “there” waiting for the character to encounter it. Like a speed bump on the only road for mikes around. As if the players are SUPPOSED to roll dice here.

There’s a locked door in the way, not a skill check. It may be that the method proposed by the players results in a dice roll, but if they charge the door with an elephant they didn’t “bypass the skill check”.

Now, if you take an adventure written with a 3e/4e mindset, that does put skill check speed bumps along the way, it may feel like players are bypassing them, but part of what we have been trying to describe is an approach to writing adventures that does not just sprinkle random skill checks about like pixie dust

 

[Guest 6801328]

That cool, sounds like the group I play with. Also sounds like the Matt Mercer "How do you want to do this".

Oh. Maybe that’s where they got it from.

 

[robus]

But I think there's a difference between that and a player being able to "describe what you want to do in such a way that you remove the uncertainty" to bypass skill checks and having parts of the story you fast forward through because the details are not critical to the story.

Yep I was just trying to think of an environment that would come with a lot of potential integral speed bumps as you call them and how that might play out.

 

[Guest 6801328]

A long time ago...late 80's...I took a course on arms control & nuclear strategy. In it I learned about "Circular Error Probability", which is defined as the radius within which at least one warhead will land if you shoot two. I kept arguing and arguing with the professor that this was bad mathematics, and that you could never be certain that at least one of the two would hit, and he (and eventually the other students) kept getting more and more frustrated with me, repeating "Yes, but it's defined that way".

Eventually I did understand what they were saying, and felt a little embarrassed that I was so slow to get it.

Anyway, I think I know how that professor felt.

 

[SkidAce]

As I think I mentioned upthread, some folks in my group like to play that whoever gets the killing blow narrates it. Otherwise we mostly just roll the dice, perhaps narrating some misses or failed saving throws along the way.

We pretty much narrate all actions.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Gahhhh!!!!

No, it’s not “bypassing a skill check”. That suggests that the skill check is “there” waiting for the character to encounter it. Like a speed bump on the only road for mikes around. As if the players are SUPPOSED to roll dice here.

There’s a locked door in the way, not a skill check. It may be that the method proposed by the players results in a dice roll, but if they charge the door with an elephant they didn’t “bypass the skill check”.

Now, if you take an adventure written with a 3e/4e mindset, that does put skill check speed bumps along the way, it may feel like players are bypassing them, but part of what we have been trying to describe is an approach to writing adventures that does not just sprinkle random skill checks about like pixie dust

Ding. I think this is entirely what [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] misses. He sees a trapped door as something that needs a check to get past. I see it as something my players will interact with. How they interact with it may be uncertain, which will require a check. Sometimes, how they interact with it will not be uncertain, and I won't call for a check. The key is that there isn't a DC left there dangling because it never existed in the first place.

DCs don't exist until I get an approach and goal statement (or an action declaration, if you will), and I decide the outcome is uncertain, and then I pick a DC based on the approach and goal. Only then is a check asked for. It doesn't exist until this process occurs, so talking about "autosuccess" is a function of action declarations, not skill checks. If a check exists, there's no autosuccess, because we've already moved past that point.