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

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
So, just to be clear, y’all would allow a player to roll (and potentially fail) to perform a task that you didn’t initially plan to require a roll to succeed on, simply because they announced that they were making a check? That’s actually how you would all rule in that situation?
 

Sadras

Explorer
So, just to be clear, y’all would allow a player to roll (and potentially fail) to perform a task that you didn’t initially plan to require a roll to succeed on, simply because they announced that they were making a check? That’s actually how you would all rule in that situation?
I'm saying that IF it is fair and custom for the table that a player may pick up the dice and initiate skill checks without even being asked to roll, as has been advocated by some, then the result will matter, be it high or low. Surely?
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
I'm saying that IF it is fair and custom for the table that a player may pick up the dice and initiate skill checks without even being asked to roll, as has been advocated by some, then the result will matter, be it high or low. Surely?
I obviously can’t speak for everyone who allows players to initiate checks, but I know I’ve read from a few of them who have said that if the player makes a roll for something that they would have automatically succeeded on, they just say it succeeds. I know at least 5ekyu has said that.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
I'm saying that IF it is fair and custom for the table that a player may pick up the dice and initiate skill checks without even being asked to roll, as has been advocated by some, then the result will matter, be it high or low. Surely?
It depends.

There are those on this thread and others who have said essentially that EVEN if its an auto-success - if a player calls for a check then they get a fail chance, added, bam, done. Their rationale (some) was that a die roll check mandates there be uncertainty and fail chance. (That said, they were not clear if it plays the same way for impossible tasks - if the player declares "i roll" the GM will now add a 20 succeeds kinda thing. My bet not - but it's not clear if they take this " player caller for uncertainty " both ways.)

Others, myself included, have said if it was an auto-success before, its an auto-success even if you ask for check. If its an auto-fail before, it is after you call for a check.

But the use case was ambiguous and morphic-ready. It was not said that it was auto-success - just that the GM wasnt gonna call for roll? It was described as easy, which is DC 10 in DnD5e terms. So that example has the default built in wiggle room rabbit hole we by now should not find surprising.

For me tho, I also recognize that a failed ski... errr... ability check is a failure which by the basic 5e definition for resolution of ability checks can be some progress ewih setback so, the possibility of not making the other side at ground level, but catching on the other side some x feet down on the ledge is possible too. Add in some damage, a need to climb up or be helped, etc and options other than dead are on the table.

But then, I d9nt know of any player who would have jumped from that description before asking "how far. So, I too assumed it was a rabbit hole pre-wiggled parody of the perception of those who dont embrace the faith of goal and approach myself and prefer the middle path.
 
Last edited:

5ekyu

Adventurer
I'm saying that IF it is fair and custom for the table that a player may pick up the dice and initiate skill checks without even being asked to roll, as has been advocated by some, then the result will matter, be it high or low. Surely?
In such a case, if it was an impossibly long jump, can a player declared "I roll" call turn an auto-fail into a possible succeed or does this "the result will matter. Surely?" only cancel the uncertainty if it goes against the player?
 

Imaculata

Adventurer
In such a case, if it was an impossibly long jump, can a player declared "I roll" call turn an auto-fail into a possible succeed or does this "the result will matter. Surely?" only cancel the uncertainty if it goes against the player?
If a check is an auto-fail or an auto-succeed, I always disregard the die result. If I say no roll is required, then this requirement doesn't suddenly change because a player decided to roll anyway.
 

Hussar

Legend
So, just to be clear, y’all would allow a player to roll (and potentially fail) to perform a task that you didn’t initially plan to require a roll to succeed on, simply because they announced that they were making a check? That’s actually how you would all rule in that situation?
No. I wouldn’t. If there was no chance of failure then the roll is superfluous. Doesn’t matter if he scored a 0 (actually happened for an insight check last session lol ). There’s no chance of failure so there is no chance of failure.

But in the example given, an automatic success suddenly became non-automatic because the player rolled. Considering the number of accusations of misinterpretation and willful ignorance, it’s a bit funny and a lot ironic to see.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
So, just to be clear, y’all would allow a player to roll (and potentially fail) to perform a task that you didn’t initially plan to require a roll to succeed on, simply because they announced that they were making a check? That’s actually how you would all rule in that situation?
If I wasn't going to ask for a roll because it was not necessary, it succeeds. If something can't be achieved it can't be achieved even with a nat 20.

They may have wasted a roll of a die but last time I checked those aren't a limited resource. Although every time someone rolls a 20 when no roll was necessary you would think they were. :hmm:
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
Good morning, gang!

For the record, I wasn't expecting anybody to take that post seriously. I thought I'd get a few "laugh" clicks and we'd move on. I was going for a humorous illustration of how "players initiate skill checks" and "failed rolls have consequences" don't mix well.

(I thought the flaw would be obvious: if success would have been automatic, even a low roll would still be success.)
 

DM Dave1

Adventurer
If I wasn't going to ask for a roll because it was not necessary, it succeeds. If something can't be achieved it can't be achieved even with a nat 20.
I think another point here is that some (many?) people think it rude or at least a breach of etiquette for an experienced player to just go ahead and roll without letting the DM finish their part of the play loop. At the very least, it is potentially disruptive/time wasting for someone to roll when it was not even called for.

They may have wasted a roll of a die but last time I checked those aren't a limited resource. Although every time someone rolls a 20 when no roll was necessary you would think they were. :hmm:
Yeah, it’s funny how superstitious gamers can be. As players only roll at meaningful moments in our games, the only time I’ve seen it lately is when some of them are “warming up” before we get started. I play into it, too: “oops, you just wasted a crit!” 😀
 
I think another point here is that some (many?) people think it rude or at least a breach of etiquette for an experienced player to just go ahead and roll without letting the DM finish their part of the play loop. At the very least, it is potentially disruptive/time wasting for someone to roll when it was not even called for.
This came up in one of the previous threads about 'allowing players to make rolls' or something like that, and I found it somewhat confusing then, as well as now. When I am a player, I'll often say things like...

"I use oral speaking to convince the Troll King to input his dagger of friendship into my player agency slot. If that calls for a check, I got a [rolls dice] result."

Depending on what oral speaking (approach) and input his dagger of friendship into my player agency slot (goal) were, the DM is free to ignore the result to narrate success or failure, as they see fit, or to take result into account to narrate success or failure. How is that rude, and how does it waste time?
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I don't consider it rude or a waste of time if someone rolls a die and tells me the result as long as it is clear what their player is doing. I'm with [MENTION=38016]Michael Silverbane[/MENTION], why would it be rude? We're just saving some time and keeping the game flowing. Worst case I ignore the roll and tell them the check they were trying to do doesn't make sense and clarify the scene to eliminate confusion.

Then again I also encourage people to roll attack and damage ahead of time in combat; it saves time and as long as the person is consistent and honest it doesn't matter to me.
 

Paul Farquhar

Adventurer
So, just to be clear, y’all would allow a player to roll (and potentially fail) to perform a task that you didn’t initially plan to require a roll to succeed on, simply because they announced that they were making a check? That’s actually how you would all rule in that situation?
They can roll. I generally don't tell them the DC, so it could be DC0, in which case I would just tell them they succeed, no matter what the roll is.

It might influence the manner of success though. If they roll badly whist trying to jump across a pit that the rules say they can cross automatically, I would say something like this "You attempt a spectacular long jump over the pit, which you easily clear. However, you stumble on landing and fall on your backside."
 

DM Dave1

Adventurer
This came up in one of the previous threads about 'allowing players to make rolls' or something like that, and I found it somewhat confusing then, as well as now. When I am a player, I'll often say things like...

"I use oral speaking to convince the Troll King to input his dagger of friendship into my player agency slot. If that calls for a check, I got a [rolls dice] result."

Depending on what oral speaking (approach) and input his dagger of friendship into my player agency slot (goal) were, the DM is free to ignore the result to narrate success or failure, as they see fit, or to take result into account to narrate success or failure. How is that rude, and how does it waste time?
If the DM has finished their description of the scene with “What do you do?” then I’d say it isn’t and doesn’t - if you are playing in a manner where players self-assign ability checks. In a goal and approach style of play, if the DM has finished their description of the scene with “What do you do?” then the player has done a nice job of describing their approach and goal, but has now inserted a roll when one may not have been needed, disrupting the play loop. Somewhat rude for an experienced player at that table and a waste of time to boot.

In any play style, if an experienced player (ie. one that KNOWS the play loop) rolls “without letting the DM finish their part of the play loop” (which is exactly what I said above), then it could be considered - by some or many - rude and a waste of time because they’ve cut off the DM from providing a full description and have self-assigned a roll without one being called for.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
This came up in one of the previous threads about 'allowing players to make rolls' or something like that, and I found it somewhat confusing then, as well as now. When I am a player, I'll often say things like...

"I use oral speaking to convince the Troll King to input his dagger of friendship into my player agency slot. If that calls for a check, I got a [rolls dice] result."

Depending on what oral speaking (approach) and input his dagger of friendship into my player agency slot (goal) were, the DM is free to ignore the result to narrate success or failure, as they see fit, or to take result into account to narrate success or failure. How is that rude, and how does it waste time?
In the latest example, it was the actual interruption mid-sentence that might be seen as rude. Nothing to do with loop sequence, just not interrupting.

Although, a lot depends on the table and whether the GM is good st breaking for player input or not.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
If the DM has finished their description of the scene with “What do you do?” then I’d say it isn’t and doesn’t - if you are playing in a manner where players self-assign ability checks. In a goal and approach style of play, if the DM has finished their description of the scene with “What do you do?” then the player has done a nice job of describing their approach and goal, but has now inserted a roll when one may not have been needed, disrupting the play loop. Somewhat rude for an experienced player at that table and a waste of time to boot.

In any play style, if an experienced player (ie. one that KNOWS the play loop) rolls “without letting the DM finish their part of the play loop” (which is exactly what I said above), then it could be considered - by some or many - rude and a waste of time because they’ve cut off the DM from providing a full description and have self-assigned a roll without one being called for.
There is a gray area... even to the interruption snhlr.

There are some GMs who (maybe poor form or maybe by design) dont explicitly mark the end of their stage in the play loop with a formal declaration every scene.

Maybe their description includes water flooding into the room and "begins to rise, it's now above your ankles, continuing to rise" or maybe it's some batch of walking or shambling menace "moves closer" etc

Sometimes it just a more rookie GM thing but sometimes it's more a setting atmosphere and sense of impending threat that *formally acknowledging the beginning and end stage of each segment in the hitherto agreed upon by all parties play loop* fits like letting the air out of a wet bslloon.

Not every group is ss hung up on the formal process steps done in the proper order **in actual play** as folks on forum threads sometimes seem to sanctify.
 

DM Dave1

Adventurer
Then again I also encourage people to roll attack and damage ahead of time in combat; it saves time and as long as the person is consistent and honest it doesn't matter to me.
I think many - perhaps ALL - tables, regardless of play style, will have players roll attack rolls after saying which enemy they are attacking and with what weapon, if those descriptions were not already spelled out last round. Some will even have players roll damage at the same time as the attack to save some time.

But, I digress, we're talking about ability checks here.
 

Paul Farquhar

Adventurer
In such a case, if it was an impossibly long jump, can a player declared "I roll" call turn an auto-fail into a possible succeed or does this "the result will matter. Surely?" only cancel the uncertainty if it goes against the player?
DC 50.

If they roll high they may only be 10 feet short of the other side instead of 20.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
The players and the DM share the game overall goal - that everyone has fun and an exciting, memorable tale is created during play. That is how to "win" at D&D 5e, according to the rules.

Each participant in the game works toward that goal in their individual roles. The DM describes the environment and narrates the results of the adventurers' actions, sometimes calling for rolls to resolve uncertainty when there's a meaningful consequence for failure. The players just describe what they want to do.

When the individuals are all working toward the same goal and are each trying to perform their specific roles to the best of their abilities, then there is a greater chance of achieving those goals. The more clearly the DM lays out the basic scope of options when describing the environment, the better the players are able to make informed decisions and describe what they want to do. The more clearly the players describe what they want to do, the better the DM is able to decide if a roll is needed and what the result of their actions are. And round it round it goes as the play loop turns during the game.

One might say this approach is particularly suited to the goal because that is how the game was designed, everyone working toward a shared goal, each in their own specifically defined roles. It's when we aren't working toward the same goal, when we aren't performing our roles well or are trying to perform someone else's role (DM establishing what characters are doing, players calling for rolls, players narrating the result of their actions, etc.) that we can sometimes arrive at unintended or undesirable results. We see these results reported on the forums all the time and many are resolved by simply focusing on the fundamentals - who gets to say what and when and doing that in the best way the individuals can.

So that's the argument for playing in the manner some of us do - it's the game's design and it works. But if some of you would rather play it some other way and don't mind the odd issue that may arise, then carry on. How we play has no impact on how you play.
 

Advertisement

Top